David Cameron accused of dismissing Leveson report too quickly | Media |


The Levenson Enquiry is the prelude to the end of press democracy. There is no point complaining about it and definitely no point in trying to stop it happening. A new post democratic hierarchy is being introduced in anticipation of the emerging internet press reaching full maturity, When that day comes the fully formed Internet press will have a ready made straitjacket waiting for it.

We say that the press in this country is democratic, but what exactly does this mean? Is this only rhetoric; as in: ‘we have a democratic press here in the west which makes us better than all those foreigners!’?

Contrary to a lot of ‘radical’ hot air, the western press is genuinely democratic, but we have to define accurately what this democracy means.

It is meaningless to describe any entity, from a nation to a football club, as being ‘democratic’ in the abstract. This reduces our understanding of democracy to nothing more than an exercise in brand marketing.

There is no such thing as absolute democracy that can be attained. An entity can only be defined as democratic in terms of something else. i.e. this country is more or less democratic than that country. But this ends up as an exercise in relativism which must inevitably break down into nothing more than rhetoric.

The only way that the relative democracy of any given entity can be defined in a meaningful way is against the resource over which it has control. The members of a democracy are equal precisely to the extent and nature that they are equal in their opportunities to exploit and control that resource.

Greek citizens enjoyed ‘people democracy’ as opposed to the slaves they owned. Their democratic rights were defined precisely by the rights their slaves did not have. Anglo Saxon American ‘Land democracy’ was enjoyed by Anglo Saxons in contrast to the Native Americans. They enjoyed land rights defined in precise opposition to the land rights the Natives did not have.

Now that I have outlined a general argument with regards to what democracy actually is, I will move to the specific example of press democracy.

Up until now every component part of the press in England was equal and it is this sense that they are ‘democratic’. The Redtops and the Broadsheets are generally regarded as having the same rights and obligations in society; they are in this sense, equal. But as I explained above these rights and obligations can only be defined in relation to a resource. In the case of the press, the resource is public opinion. in the same way that the resource of America’s land can be sub-divided into its constituent parts of arable land; forest; water etc. so the resource of Public opinion can be broken down further onto constituent parts.

One of these component parts is public reputation, as defined by Libel Laws in here in England. Libel Law specifically states that the more important you are the more reputation you have and therefore the more you have to lose if that reputation is impugned- Ordinary people have no reputation and therefore no basis for a civil remedy in law!

In practice this is shown in the fact that all libel cases have to be heard in the High Court in London at a prohibitively expensive cost which debars most people from taking part. And of course there has never been any Legal Aid for libel because the good name of the kind of people who rely on legal aid does not matter!!!

But do not let this distract you from the main point:

Even if you are some pleb who becomes rich enough to pursue a private prosecution using the libel laws (say you win the lottery or ‘American Idol’), the damages you receive will be dependent upon your reputation and the damage it received. The less reputation you had at the beginning, the less damage could have been done to it. Rich Plebs receive less of a payout than rich people of high reputation, even if the offence against them is the same.

Here then is one part of the free resource that is the basis for press democracy: the reputation of ‘ordinary’ people which is free to be exploited by all of the press democratically.

 This worked reasonably well for a couple of hundred years. Of course in a modern society, this state of affairs could not be expected to continue. A number of high profile controversies have emerged that have ended the uncontested or free nature of the public reputation of ordinary people.

  1. The Hillsborough Disaster.
  2. The Case of Madeleine McCann
  3. The Milly Dowler Case.

These three cases have much in common.

  1. They concern the reputations of ‘ordinary’ people.
  2. The reputations of these people were impugned by the press.
  3. The ordinary people fought back politically and through the media.
  4. They are all directly cited as contributing to the State of Affairs that led to the Levenson Enquiry.

Since ordinary people are no longer willing to accept that their collective individual reputations are a free resource to be exploited by the press to sell the maximum number of papers they can, the democratic press is being cut off from its free unprotected resource.

In order to forestall the day, the press attempted to voluntarily give up its free for all ethos and replace it with self regulation. This is uncannily like those Roman senators who voluntarily acclaimed Caesar as emperor hoping that it was just a temporary measure which would be overturned by the returning republic. See how that worked out….

And now we see the advent of enforced regulation. What exactly will this mean?

There will be a hierarchy with the Broadsheets at the top, the Redtops below them and at the bottom the internet mob. This state sponsored hierarchy will control access the public reputation of the people. Broadsheets will given licence to attack certain reputations, responsibly and in the public interest of course. But the redtops and the internet mob will be forbidden from doing this for the most part.

The ‘free for all’ attitude to abusing the publics reputation will have gone. It will have been replaced with a self enforcing regulatory system that is backed up by the state. And press democracy, press freedom as it has been constituted for two hundred years will be over.

The interesting question that now arises is:

Should we give a damn?



Why has Israel decided to massively intensify its siege war on Gaza? And why has it decided to do it now?
Zionists claim that Israel can no longer possibly bear the intermittent mortars lobbed every couple of weeks or so from Gaza.
Some anti-Zionists suggest that the purpose is to queer the pitch for the forthcoming Palestinian attempt to get observer status at the UN.
Slightly more complicated (and a good deal more vague), is the suggestion that it is all somehow something to do with Iran and America, possibly involving negotiations over nuclear enrichment.

My own bet is on something I call the Stink Strategy. It works like this:

The Arab spring has forced on/offered the American elite the opportunity to forge a new arrangement in the Middle East. As pro-American dictatorships have come under sustained pressure, the entire Arab wide edifice of secular, nationalistic politics has begun to crumble. It is not possible for America to simply subvert democratic movements and re install replacement strongmen. Because of this a fundamental change is taking place in the power structures of the Middle East and the extent and depth of the influence that America has in the region.

This has profound consequences for Israel. Israel functions as the local outpost for secular democracy in the Middle East. That is the justification for military and civilian aid from America. If the nature of the game is no longer about advancing secular democracy but rather influencing Islamic Sharia regimes then the American need for Israel and the continuation of American handouts for Israel is considerably diminished.

Put bluntly, if America can obtain a satisfactory level of control over the Middle East by influencing Islamic regimes, it will no longer need to rely as much on secular Israel.

Which means that the new Islamic regimes win. It also means that America does not lose all that much. The big loser is Israel.

So, what is Israel to do?

Well, in order for this New World Order to work out the new Islamic leadership has to be able to sell compromise with America to the Arab street. If you want to see what this looks like in practice, check out recent foreign policy moves of Morsi and the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt.

More than anything a new settlement requires compromise on Palestine; the festering canker at the heart of the Middle East- which provides Israel with the opportunity it needs to sabotage the deal.

Israel launches an attack on Gaza. America is forced to choose between Arab Islamism and Zionism. Arab Islamism is not even half cooked yet. America cannot afford to take a chance. It is forced back into line behind Israel. The stink form Israel covers America. The Arab street recoils from the stink and any possible deal. America is the Great Satan again. The Arab leadership is forced to back Palestine. Status Quo.

The exact precise trigger for this was America’s French poodle yip yipping that it was going to recognise the Syrian terrorist leadership. This was a direct gift directed to Arab Islamicism. The trouble is that it came at the wrong time and the wrong place from a terminally confused French ha, ha elite that is trying to leverage the pathetic remains of any influence it has in the middle east. Take my word for it, pretty soon America is going to have to deal with France’s meddling.
Threatening to attack Iran was one way of Israel threatening America against ditching Israel. The attack on Gaza is the latest. Prepare to see a lot more of this in the next couple of years.
To paraphrase Trotsky the Jews have been led into ‘a bloody trap’.

What is coming next will be out of this world.


AMERICA: Land, Slavery and Democracy

Legendary Amerikaner film director Herr Spielberg has just finished a film on the life of President Lincoln. No doubt this will be an opportunity to regurgitate the Hollywood spiel about democracy and the ‘Land of the Free’.

But the American Civil War can be better be used as an illuminating example of the relationship between a ‘free’ resource, the means to exploit it and democracy.

Democracy can most accurately be described as a self constituted gang that comes together for the exploitation of a ‘free’ resource that has no ‘owner’ or protector.

The moment that any resource (land, people, knowledge, free speech or money) incurs a price; which is to say the moment that ‘free’ access to it becomes contested, the particular episode of democracy it gave rise to, ends.

Post-colonial American democracy was constituted for the wholesale theft of the American continent. At the time of unhindered territorial expansion, all Saxon invaders enjoyed a democracy against the interests and wishes of the Native Americans.

This state of affairs continued more or less undisturbed until a limit began to emerge on both the ‘free’ resource of land and of secondary importance, the ‘free’ resource of slaves.

At the time that a Civil War was becoming inevitable in America, land democracy questions had been settled in the North. Land was divided among an Anglo Saxon elite and inferiors and immigrants were forced into rapidly expanding conurbations. The nature of these conurbations and the political, social and physical deprivations forced on their inhabitants meant that anyone, immigrant or other, who wanted a piece of America, was forced to look to the newly opening western territories.

By contrast, the South at this time had established their local branch of Saxon democracy with little or no urban centres, using slave power to run large plantations. These slave plantations were relatively highly efficient compared to the small holdings that prevailed elsewhere.

Slave owing states enjoyed a relatively powerful position within the freely associating American democracy. They wanted to expand and reproduce this relative strength in the newly opened up territories of the west. Slave ownership meant that Southern landowners enjoyed a massive advantage in terms of capital for land purchase and manpower to exploit the land in comparison with relatively small scale individual northern and immigrant farmers. If things were allowed to develop along the political lines established after independence, the ‘Southern Gang’ could gain control of all the new western territories and thus the entirety of the American system.

This directly conflicted with the interests of their Northern partners in crime. The moment that this contest of interests emerged, Western territories could no longer be considered ‘free’. If southern states gained then it was to the detriment of the northern model and visa versa.

The Northern Gang were against slavery because of the potential commercial advantage it offered to the South in the Western territory grab. This is the crucial point: The commercial and industrial superiority that the creation of cities had conferred on the Northern Gang was considered irrelevant by elites in both North and South! They were only concerned with the commercial advantages that slave owning had conferred on the South. This is a precise insight into the American Saxon mind at this historical juncture.

This conflict of interest resulted in the southern secession and the attempt by the South to leave their voluntary association with the North. The North forcibly disagreed and that was the de facto end of a free association of equals constituting Saxon democracy on the American continent. Terms would be dictated by the winner of the forthcoming violent conflict; In effect, a northern dictatorship.

The irony is that it was productive power of the industrialised cities of the North that proved decisive in the first modern industrialised war. This productive power was not initially factored into political or military calculations by the elites of the North or South. The South was considered stronger in agrarian commercial terms and this was all that mattered to North and South.

It was considerations of land acquisition both personally and nationally that decided the collapse of American democracy. Slavery was only ever a secondary contributing factor in the minds of both North and South.

The hijacking and exploitation of humans was fundamental to the development and fall of Greek and Roman democracy. It was only ever of secondary importance to the rising and falling of American democracy. In propaganda terms, the slavery question is used to define the Northern Dictatorship as a benevolent necessity for the advancement of America.

Nevertheless the central fact remains: Democracy came into existence for the exploitation of a free resource. It ended when that resource became contested.

Democracy 2

Democracy 2

One major area of democracy I forgot to include is:
Free Speech

From the 1800’s onwards, a self defined group (journalists/the media). identified a free resource; the collective opinions of society, and conspired together as a democratic group to own and exploit it. The technology that enabled this was, of course, the printing press.

All the protagonists within the media regarded their right to colonise and compete within the sphere of public opinion as equal and democratic. They invented a complete series of ethics and professional rules which codified this collective right to plunder public opinion. So far, so good.

Then the internet happened.

The internet is not as many would have you believe, an extension or a development of an existing free speech system. It is the antithesis of this system.
It is the equivalent of the Romans learning to fight back against the Greeks. It is the equivalent of Spartacus learning how to fight back against Rome. It means that the free resource of public opinion is now contested, no longer free.

It follows from my argument that free speech democracy will be coming to a close.


How to Predict Where and When Democracy Will Turn Up And When It will Dissapear Again

Historically, democracy seems to pop up at certain times and in certain places.
In Europe, democracy appeared in Greece and Rome only to disappear again for over  a millennium.

If democracy is self evidently a superior form of government, you would assume that once the ancients became aware of its existence they would hang on to it from then on but this is clearly not the case.

The truth is that the reason democracy appears and disappears again has got nothing to do with any supposed moral or organisational superiority it has, but rather who it benefits.
If we understand who democracy benefits, we will better understand what it actually is and then it will be relatively simple to predict where and when it will appear and when it will disappear again!

Democracy needs two conditions as a pre-requisite of its appearance:

1. A ‘free’ resource that can be exploited by a self defined group. (A ‘free’ resource is one which has no previous claim on it).
2. The technical means to systematically and continually exploit that resource.

In other words, democracy is the means by which a self organised gang organises to hijack control of something that is a ‘free’ resource.

There have been four major ‘free’ resources that have been hijacked in this way

1. People hijacking
2. Land Hijacking
3. Knowledge Hijacking
4. Money Hijacking

People Hijacking

This began in democratic Greece: A group of mediterranean bandits hijack control of the surrounding people, who had no established previous ‘owner’. The technical advance that allowed this systematic hijacking to take place was the creation of military social structures (including cults and superstitions) that came to be known as ‘classical’ Greek Democracy. Greek democracy ended the moment hijacked peoples (most notably the forerunners of the Roman Empire) learned to how to fight back. The Romans went on to establish Roman democracy which lasted precisely as long as it took for their slaves (under Spartacus), to learn to fight back.


Protestant Land Hi-Jack in North West Europe: A group of Germans developed the social means to  hi- jack control of what came to be known as ‘national’ territories, which required being able to systematically force people off the land and into urban areas. The ‘industrial revolution’ that resulted from this was an afterthought!
This process reached its apotheosis in the Saxon slavery/ land grab which gave birth to American democracy. This is what has been understood as classic capitalist democracy. The moment the newly created urban dwellers began to assert themselves, Protestant democracy began to end. Saxon/Protestant democracy will collapse completely in conflicts between the cities and the Saxon/Protestant democratic power structure.


A group of Germans hijack control of the systematic recording of evidence and derived knowledge. The technical advance of the printing press was central to this. This hijacking has been come to be known as the ‘Enlightenment’. The technical method of control and ownership of knowledge is now called the ‘scientific method’.
Science is the democratic validation of knowledge which gives power to self defined scientists. Democratic knowledge or science will end when non scientists learn how to fight back. The struggle over Iranian nuclear power is an example of this. Sooner or later we will see the development of suitcase dirty nuclear bombs or genetically targeted biological weapons. When this happens a scientific dictatorship will be declared in the interests of public security and knowledge democracy, or science will have ended.


A group of Germans hijack control of the issuance of currency. The technical advance of electronic currency credit is central to this. The organisational structure that results from this will achieve ‘hyper exploitation’ that has never been seen in human society before. Democratisation of Money will end when non Germanic peoples end German domination over the planet and institute a new post German economic and moral system.