Boston: what turns nice guys into nihilists?

Frank Furedi Spiked Tuesday 23 April 2013

In a recent opinion piece on the Boston Bombings Frank Furedi asks:

‘what turned these apparently ordinary brothers into cold-blooded Islamic terrorists?’

Furedi is mystified as:

‘the Tsarnaev brothers appeared to have flourished in their new home of America, where their family had moved after fleeing Chechnya’

That might be how liberals tend to see the Chechen bombers. However, I can assure you the press in the ‘good ol’ US of A!’ sees things a little differently. From the ‘Weekly Standard’:

‘Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter’.

“In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state.”1

And from Ann Coulter:

‘As if it’s a defense, we’re told Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev..were disaffected “losers” — the word used by their own uncle — who couldn’t make it in America. Their father had already returned to Russia. Tamerlan had dropped out of college, been arrested for domestic violence and said he had no American friends. Dzhokhar was failing most of his college courses. All of them were on welfare.’2

So the ‘all American’ success story gone bad narrative does not seem to stand up under scrutiny for very long. An American concensus is emerging that the Tsarnaevs were Slavic Bad Seeds. But for the keen student of Whiteism, what divides Saxon liberals and conservatives in their respective interpretations of the Tsanaev story will never be as interesting as what unites them.

Homegrown Terrorism

The Saxon hullaballoo centers around the concept of ‘homegrown terrorism’ which is carried out by ‘young, first-generation immigrant men’ with identity issues’

that turn into:

‘nihilistic murderers who hate(s) the community in which he (they)resides’.

And ‘homegrown terrosrism’ is not confined to the USA, it can be found across the northern hemisphere; in fact across the Germanic Empire:

‘ Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Canada are other countries in which young people have developed an extreme hatred towards the Western way of life.’

I Thought We Had A Deal!

The liberal trauma or conservative outrage that engulfs all sections of Saxon society centers around the complaint that these young people have renaeged on an implcit deal;

‘ young people, living the lives of typical Western teenagers, suddenly become radicalised and turn into bitter enemies of their country; observers always seem confused and alarmed by this speedy process’

For instance, 7/7 bomber:

Hasib Hussain……liked playing cricket and hockey, then one day he came into school and had undergone a complete transformation almost overnight… He started wearing a top hat from the mosque, grew a beard and wore robes. Before that he was always in jeans.’

So having been allowed to come to the Heimat and enjoy the fruits of Germanic culture, imigrants suddenly and forcibly make the descision to reject it and the denim it comes wrapped in.

Unlike Coulter and the right, liberals like Furedi just cannot conceive of the possiblity that anyone might turn their back on the delights of Germanic culture. He suggests that deep down the perspective of immigrants like these:

‘ is very similar to numerous non-Muslim Westerners who visit nihilistic websites and become fascinated by destructive themes and images’.

Religious conviction is no more than ‘ a fad’ and that deep down they are still in thrall to the:

‘glitz and narcissism of certain aspects of American culture’.

-just hometown Anglo Saxons with black curly wigs on then.

And since Furedi personally finds Islam so unactractive he opines that :

‘these people seem to have been driven by their estrangement from society rather than being pulled by a vibrant and dynamic alternative’.

and that:

‘their actions were prompted …by the unravelling of meaning in twenty-first-century Western society. Today, old political ideals no longer have the capacity to endow experience with meaning’

The truth behind this observation is that it was not just the Soviet Union that ended in the 1990’s, it was a central plank of WHITEISM: the Germanic strategy for global control.

The purpose of Whiteism in the so-called ‘Cold War’ was to offer the world population a choice between two kinds of white civillisation; Germanic or Slavic, ( Capitalist or Communist). It really did not matter which one you chose so long as you chose one of them. To paraphrase the famous Ford slogan: ‘Any colour so long as it is white’.

In the post Second Germanic War period, the entire middle east was divided along these lines. Usualy expressed as either BAATHIST or ‘western/authoritarian ‘ regimes. But the end of the Soviet Union meant that all non-Germans were increasingly free to consider the world outside the perspective provided to them by Whiteism.

They Live!

In that moment awoken people became free to see the ‘US of A’ for what it is; a never-ending hallucinogenic OKTOBERFEST founded on the extermination of American people and the kidnap and exploitation of Africans. Is it any wonder that some resort to desperate actions. The John Carpenter film ‘THEY LIVE’ is a wonderfully humerous and insightful look at just this process and I would recomend it in preference to Furedi’s article any day.

Furedi is right when he implies that it is fruitless to look for the meaning of actions like the Boston bombings in the specifics of Islam. It is the collapse of the Germanic ability to mediate the experience of non-white peoples that is causing the collapse in control mechanisms and leading to acts of rebellion.

This analysis is evidenced by what Furedi finds ‘truly disturbing’ about the the Boston bombers; their ‘depoliticised nature’. If we understand by ‘politics’ the willingness of the world population to play by the rules invented by the Germanic Empire, it indeed must be very disturbing.Furedi goes on to point out:

‘there are formidable cultural forces that denigrate the West’s historical achievements’

Indeed there are, they are everyone but the Germans.

But Saxons need not worry too much because:

‘as long as (their) community believes in itself, the damage they (terrorists) cause will be contained.

Anyone who watched the nighttime crowds of Herrenvolk hooting and chanting ‘USA! USA! while paramilitary cops and soldiers swarmed across the streets of nightime Boston might not be so sanguine about Germanic self-belief being the key to a happy outcome to all this.

Furedi’s understanding of the nature of the Boston bombings is a great deal more sophisticated than most of his mainstream Saxon counterparts. But very real dangers are present in the way he feels about the decline of Saxon influence and what he wants to do about it. The Germanic self belief that he advocates as a response to a perceived external threat has a very unfortunate antecedent indeed.

And as for plaintive soul searching on the part of Germanic liberals:

‘why do they hate us?’ has morphed into questions like ‘what is it about us that they hate?’ and ‘why don’t they want to be like us?’

Here is the real question- Why does it matter so much to you?

The answer to this question is the first step along the path to an understanding of Whiteism.

And when you have answered that question then how about:

Do you think that the Muslims killed and maimed by drone strikes ask the same questions about you?

1The Weekly Standard 6:54 AM, Apr 24, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

2April 24, 2013 Ann Coulter

France approves same-sex marriage | World news | guardian.co.uk

France approves same-sex marriage | World news | guardian.co.uk.


Moi Aussi!

Poor underweight stunted France tags along at the back of the Germanic pack trying to keep up with the Big Pagans making the running. Whether its killing Muslims or Pagan Sexual Practices, France is desperate to show the Big Whites that it should be part of the gang.

All the Gaels along the western coast of Europe and looking increasingly bedraggled  and threadbare as they try to keep up with the NEW WORLD ORDER.

How much sausage meat can Gaels swallow before they throw?

Margaret Thatcher funeral: Galloway attacks ‘canonisation of wicked woman’ | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Margaret Thatcher funeral: Galloway attacks ‘canonisation of wicked woman’ | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

Galloway said: “The comparison of Margaret Thatcher with Mr Churchill is utterly absurd. We’d be conducting this conversation in German if it was not for Mr Churchill

You are conducting the conversation in German, Einstein

CRACKERNOMICS 2.0: The Curse of Crackernomics

CRACKERNOMICS 2.0: The Curse of Crackernomics

Information Clearing houseWinner Takes All: The Super-priority Status of Derivatives:Why Derivatives Threaten Your Bank Account

April 10

Ellen Brown


The Deal

The case against favored treatment of derivatives

May 10, 2011 

Robert Teitelman 


Derivatives Market’s Payment Priorities in Bankruptcy

Thursday May 5, 2011 

Mark Roe, Harvard Law School,

I have avoided focusing on the mechanics of derivatives, bankruptcy and regulation by government. This would lead away from the political argument and understanding derivatives in the broader context of the democratisation of money.

There is a real problem in relating the action at ground zero in derivatives to the broader public debate around the Credit Crunch:

‘The case against favored treatment of derivatives’ Robert Teitelman

‘, there are very few signs … that anyone with any clout is suddenly about to  ….. simplify bankruptcy treatment. Why?…..because, derivatives remain(s) a mysterious black box to most Americans, …’

The way that derivatives relate to insolvency and what this means for the broader economy is:

‘… a situation of technical interest to only a few, most of whom have their own particular self-interest in mind’

This is the ‘Money Aboriginal Problem’.

But the arrival of a more sophisticated and insidious form of Crackernomics (Crackernomics 2.0) makes it necessary to go into the mechanics of democratised money in more detail.

The fundamental reason that Crackernomics prevents a useful and effective understanding of the Credit Crunch is that it obscures the political context in which the collapse took place. This is because adherents of Crackernomics confuse actors with objects, that is, try to explain the Credit Crunch in terms of individuals and institutions instead of functions and instruments.

In ‘Winner Takes All: The Super-priority Status of Derivatives: Why Derivatives Threaten Your Bank Account’ Ellen Brown takes on the privileged position accorded to derivatives counterparties by the Dodd Frank Act. (The Dodd Frank Act if you don’t know was the main USA government response to the Credit Crunch).

Brown explains that as a result of Dodd Frank and the Bankruptcy Act (2005):

‘Derivatives have “super-priority” status in bankruptcy…..In a big derivatives bust, there may be no collateral left for the creditors who are next in line’.

‘Under both the Dodd Frank Act and the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, derivative claims have super-priority over all other claims, secured and unsecured, insured and uninsured.’

What this means in practical terms is that:

‘Rather than banks being put into bankruptcy to salvage the deposits of their customers, the customers will be put into bankruptcy to save the banks.’

 So the next time TSHTF:

 ‘derivative claimants could well grab all the collateral, leaving other claimants, public and private, holding the bag.’

Why has this subject suddenly become so important? Because of the recent high profile confiscation of deposits in Cyprus and the increasing hints that regulatory authorities are going to replicate what the Cyprus government did all over the world. Brown suggests that confiscations like this will become more and more likely because:

‘Derivatives are sold as a kind of insurance for managing profits and risk; but as Satyajit Das points out in Extreme Money, they actually increase risk to the system as a whole.’

Brown points out that

‘The tab for the 2008 bailout was $700 billion in taxpayer funds, and that was just to start. Another $700 billion disaster could easily wipe out all the money in the FDIC insurance fund, which has only about $25 billion in it.’   

 Which is not going to go very far when:

‘the cash calculated to be at risk from derivatives from all sources is at least $12 trillion’

 (The FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is a payout fund set up by the USA government to pay out depositors in the event of bank collapse)

 To make it clear

 Section 716 (of Dodd Frank), does not in any way limit the swaps activities which banks or other financial institutions may engage in. It simply prohibits public support for such activities.’

 The USA government is not going to restrict the production of derivatives but it is not going to underwrite them either. So where will the banks get the money in the next crisis?

 The answer is:

 ‘The bail-in policy for the US and UK….set forth in a document put out jointly by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England (BOE) in December 2012, titled Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.’

 Brown explains that what this means is

 ‘Under the guise of protecting taxpayers, depositors of failing institutions are to be arbitrarily, de-facto subordinated to interbank claims, when in fact they are legally senior to those claims!’


 . . .Derivatives counterparties, . . . unlike most other secured creditors, can seize and immediately liquidate (my emphasis) collateral, readily net out gains and losses in their dealings with the bankrupt, terminate their contracts with the bankrupt, and keep both preferential eve-of-bankruptcy payments and fraudulent conveyances they obtained from the debtor, all in ways that favor(sic) them over the bankrupt’s other creditors.’

Essentially Brown is arguing that the holders of derivatives, financial institutions enjoy a privilege over ordinary depositors when it comes to getting paid out from insolvent banks. Brown spends some indignation pointing out the:

‘..brutal, unjust irony of the entire proposal ‘

But in case anyone should think this position too partisan she casts around for a more widely acceptable argument against derivatives. In an effort to raise the tone a little Brown enlists Harvard Law professor Mark Row:

‘(W]hen we subsidize(sic) derivatives and similar financial activity via bankruptcy benefits unavailable to other creditors, we get more of the activity than we otherwise would. Repeal would induce these burgeoning financial markets to better recognize the risks of counterparty financial failure, which in turn should dampen the possibility of another AIG-, Bear Stearns-, or Lehman Brothers-style financial meltdown, thereby helping to maintain systemic financial stability’.

 and further:

 ‘The derivatives and repo players’ right to jump to the head of the bankruptcy repayment line, in ways that even ordinary secured creditors cannot, weakens their incentives for market discipline in managing their dealings with the debtor because the rules reduce their concern for the risk of counterparty failure and bankruptcy’

 ‘More generally, when we subsidize derivatives and similar financial activity via bankruptcy benefits unavailable to other creditors, we get more of the activity than we otherwise would’

 So the argument is that when government protects derivatives holders from the consequences of their decisions it encourages them to be reckless and it encourages more of them to be reckless than would otherwise be the case, Roe then goes on to make a slightly more sophisticated point.

‘Chapter 11 bars bankrupt debtors from immediately repaying their creditors, so that the bankrupt firm can reorganize without creditors’ cash demands shredding the bankrupt’s business. Not so for the bankrupt’s derivatives counterparties’

This asserts that allowing derivatives counterparties to dip into a bankrupted company straight away prejudices the chances of that company being rescued under Chapter 11 bankruptcy and so causes bank collapses that could otherwise be avoided.

So here are two core arguments for Crackernomics 2.0 plainly designed to garner maximum support among ‘middle of the road’ stakeholders in the Great Credit Crunch debate:

1. The bankruptcy privileges Dodd Frank gives to derivatives holders discourages due diligence.

2. The bankruptcy privileges Dodd Frank gives to derivatives holders confers may actually cause more collapses.

This high economic tone does not last for long and soon Brown is soon drawn to more familiar Crackernomics territory:

“the Lehman myth,” (which) blames the 2008 banking collapse on the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. …. the Lehman bankruptcy was actually orderly, and the derivatives were unwound relatively quickly. Rather than preventing the Lehman collapse, the bankruptcy exemption for derivatives may have helped precipitate it’.   

The ‘Lehman myth’ is rapidly becoming to Crackernomics what 9/11 is to ‘Libertarians’- a definitive divergence in the way that recent history is understood. Depending on what side you are on, Lehman either means that the regulatory authorities tried a standard insolvency but drew back in panic when they looked over the abyss or it was a bankers coup that allowed ‘banksters’ to take over the bail out.

But what both side hold in common is the belief that it is the fate of institutions that determined what happened. The corporates believe the whole financial and governmental system was at stake, the insurgents believe it was the fate of corporate fat cats at the top that was in the balance.

Underpinning Crackernomics is the assumption that banks and financial institutions are preserved or privileged by legislation such as the Dodd Frank Act and more importantly, this is the purpose of the legislation.

Based on this assumption, Crackernomicists are now making arguments against what they see as unfair preference given to the bankers and other derivatives counterparties in insolvency, characterising it as evidence of general preferential treatment.

In fact, post Credit Crunch legislation such as Dodd-Frank is there to preserve derivatives as a class of financial instruments not the organisations that issue them.

Why do governments want to preserve the act of issuing derivatives?

Because they have no choice, or rather they have gone past the point where choice was an option- the point of no return.

What is, or rather was, the point of no return?

The point at which governments in the Germanic empire were willing and able to countenance the derivatives market collapsing. And this is not hyperbole. Derivatives are a zero sum game- it’s all or nothing.

Once derivatives have been issued they are intractable, which is to say they cannot be liquidated in the traditional manner. Derivatives cannot be directly compared to other classes of debt because all derivatives are abstracted and dependent on conditions. Therefore they form a separate class of liability. They cannot be lumped in with other claims whether secured or unsecured, against an insolvent company.

There is no acceptable way to assign derivatives to assets. There is no acceptable way to compare the claims of derivatives to other claims. Effectively, derivatives are worth face value or they are worth nothing. Or to put it another way either derivatives trump other claims or other claims trump derivatives. Derivatives go to the very top of the list for payment or fall off the very bottom.

No matter what happens derivatives and other claims cannot co-exist together in insolvency.

In dealing with derivative counterparty claims Dodd Frank explicitly recognises that derivatives cannot be collectively assigned to assets in the same way other instruments of credit are. There was no legal framework that would have allowed the USA government to do anything other than what it did.


All of which seems to suggest that I am implying that this process has become inevitable. Well, what if it is not? What would happen if derivatives were legally abolished or allowed to collapse as Crackernomics advocates?

Let us go to the mountain and ask the Moses of Crackernomics:

As noted by Paul Craig Roberts, “the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system.”

So most, if not all of these pesky derivatives will simply vanish in a puff of smoke if only we have the courage to close our eyes very tightly and say:


And who is to say? It might even have a chance of working if it were not for the political and economic history of the past century or so.

There is a reason that the Commodities Exchange Act and Glass-Steagall Act came into existence. The enactment of these laws represents a political victory for one group of people and a political defeat for another. There is a reason these laws were repealed fifty years on. Repeal represents a political victory for one group of people and a political defeat for their opponents. These historical events are not just enacted on some kind of political whim or a meaningless experiment; they represent conflict between real social forces over the recent past.

But any serious attempt to examine and understand who these social forces are and what their purpose is, would prove too uncomfortable not only for the ‘fat-cat banksters’ but for the so called ‘progressives’ and libertarians on the other side as well!

Consider the role that Paul Craig Roberts played in creating Reganomics-the political wing of the Monetarist takeover. Do you really think he is prepared to undertake any historical examination of the Credit Crunch that would expose his role in bringing the disaster about?

The idea is laughable and yet Crackernomics simply ignores this glaring contradiction right at its heart.

This is the Curse of Crackernomics; it does not, it cannot, really examine the forces that were in play leading up to the credit crunch and beyond it.

There is no way to wish derivatives and the democratisation of money away. There is no way to persuade Democratisers to abandon their project of NGM (Non Governmental Money), by complaining it is ‘not fair’ or ‘too risky’. They have calculated the risks; risk is what this is all about. They don’t give a damn if you or anyone else does not think it is fair.

Crackernomics and New! Improved! Crackernomics 2.0 wants to fight the Corporates with one hand tied behind your back. It must lose.

 ‘One might think of favored (sic) treatment of derivatives in bankruptcy as a kind of litmus test of our seriousness to wrestle with these issues. As long as we just let this one rest, we’re really not very serious at all. ‘ – Robert Teitelman

Labour must draw the sting from welfare, or lose in 2015 | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Labour must draw the sting from welfare, or lose in 2015 | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian.


Cordoned Economy

A couple of years ago I wrote a number of pieces explaining the re-alignment of political forces that took place in England in the aftermath of Gordon Brown becoming leader and Labours subsequent defeat. One  of these pieces is reproduced below.

I explained these developments from a party political perspective- showing how Conservatives were going to pursue a strategy of pinning Labour to its territorial heartlands through a systematic attack on the Welfare state.

In the subsequent period it has become clear that this strategy is metastasising into something far more pernicious- an all out attack on what might be called National Welfarism.

National Welfarism is comprehensive system of taxes and benefits that operates within a national boundary e.g. it is meant to encompass everyone within that territory to the same extent.

The new structures that are emerging are clearly meant to make the system more regional in character like the states based system of benefits that exists in America. All of this under the aegis of ‘Localism’.

I predicted that as the Conservatives failed to make headway on the economy they would be forced to step up attacks on Labour through the welfare system and this has proved to be so,

The response of the public is something I touched on in passing. This now requires a closer look.

A new theme has emerged in the past year or so: the unwillingness of a large section; possibly the majority of the public, to support welfare payments.

Part of this is simply hidden racism, (note the emphasis on ‘big’ families receiving welfare targeting immigrants and white trash). But underpinning this is a change in the real economy brought about through a change in the function of money. It is this change that is having a profound effect on the way that people see National Welfarism.

I have explained in the past that Democratised Money is in part the process by which people are drawn into a complex privatised web of financial relationships as a consequence of the state resiling from its previous relationship to national currency.

The interaction between income and wealth is permanently altered by this process. Since taxation and redistribution are key to the way that modern capitalist states relate to the economy it is inevitable that Democratised Money will have an effect on these governmental functions.

Welfare payments were modelled on weekly wages, they have been designed to provide a weekly income equivalent. However, the recent moves to pay welfare monthly (to bring them into line with the ‘world of work’) shows Conservatives are intent on ‘modernising’ this traditional approach.

The wage model is becoming obsolete.

As income becomes less linked to a weekly and then a monthly wage so welfare will become more irregular. The working public will not see the justification for weekly payments. They are being portrayed as an unreasonable privilege.

It is this that underpins this present attack on welfare.

As the democratisation of money develops there will be an atomisation of financial experience. A parallel financial evolution has begun that separates out the affairs of different groups in society. At some stage within the next ten years it will no longer possible to sustain the financial arrangements of certain groups with welfare. When this group becomes large enough, or the majority monthly regular welfare payments will end.



 October  2010

Ruthless People : Cameron Applies The Thumbscrews While Milliband Sticks His Fingers In His Ears.


You might remember the 1980’s film ‘Ruthless People’.

A housewife is kidnapped to extract a ransom from her husband. Only the husband won’t pay, no matter what the kidnappers threaten to do to his wife. This comedy is a grimly appropriate metaphor for the past five months of British politics.

Recent cuts in student grants, unemployment provision and housing benefit are part of massive reductions in entitlements for the majority of users of the welfare state.

Students have responded with a bit of a shindig at Tory campaign headquarters in London. Reaction in the rest of the country is muted so far, the unemployed and welfare recipients are less likely to make much of a fuss than students. Yet there is always the possibility of trouble breaking out if things get bad enough.

So you have to ask yourself, why the ConDem coalition, trying to claim the centre ground in politics, would risk the fall out from this right wing posturing?  The answer is that the coalition is trying to force Labour off the political centre ground and is prepared to risk much to do it.

The Coalition is desperate to establish credibility, by which I mean economic credibility. They are desperate to get the economy on some kind of acceptable growth track. If ConDem can do this then the entire Labour ‘alternative’ approach to dealing with the crisis is dead in the water and ConDem is established as the ongoing German style CDU for England.(see previous ‘Left Overs’)

 However, if growth were to falter, the coalition will inevitably be characterised in the media and elsewhere, as a failed political and economic experiment. Labour can simply wait five years to be returned as the sensible mainstream centre of British politics.  Recognising this, the objective of ConDem is to make Labour pay as hefty a ransom as possible for standing on the sidelines, and that is where the students and welfare recipients mentioned at the top of this piece come in. They are the hostages who will be used to extract the ransom from Labour.

The political calculation goes like this: Launch a hard line right wing attack on the payments and services essential to the Labour core vote. If the LP fails to speak out against spending cuts, it is weakened among its core activists, especially in the North, Wales and Scotland. If it does defend the ‘feckless poor’ from the left, it cuts itself off from Blair Tories it lost so resoundingly in the Southern constituencies, which leaves the way clear for a continued ConDem clean up of those votes.

In all classic kidnap thrillers, sooner or later the victim receives a telephone call demanding money for the return of a loved one. In the event that the victim of this extortion will not co-operate, the kidnapper usually applies some form of pain to the victim, whose screams, relayed down the telephone, produce the desired effect.

ConDem is applying painful pressure to the soft tissues of Labours constituency in the expectation that howls of agony brought on by the cuts will force Labour to speak out in defence of its ‘loved ones’ moving to the left and leaving the centre ground clear for the coalition to colonise.

 Only so far, not a peep from Ed Milliband.

The first three or four months unfolding of the coalitions’ evil plan were taken up with Labours leadership challenge; a convenient excuse for hiding from the press. Since then we have seen backbench backbiting over the disgraced Phil Woolas, and Ed Milliband taking two weeks off to be with his new baby. What we do not see is any real attempt to speak out against the cuts.  

Labour, at this stage in the game is determined to hang on to the ‘centre ground’ and the possibility of re-emerging again as the CDU of British politics, despite the astounding incompetence of Gordon Brown in throwing away all the things that Bush’s Bitch achieved in this respect. The Labour Party leadership see their core constituency as nothing more than a stage army led into the line of fire in order for the leadership to achieve its goals.

The truth is that like the Danny DeVito husband character in the film, Milliband and Co. would not be overly upset if the entire remnants of the organised working class in Britain were done in by the coalition and the bodies dumped in a river somewhere. He has made it crystal clear to the press, the country and Labour Party stooges everywhere, he has his own baby to look after. This is where his priorities lie.

In a new low in cynical manipulation, both ‘sides’ of mainstream politics see the poor as a powerless tide of human flotsam they can use for their own ends, in any way they see fit. Despite the possibility of some small-scale inconsequential disorder, no one sees the danger of any real fight back from the poor. After all, they way they see it, the politicians are the main characters; the Saxon Poor are only bit players in this film.

In ‘Ruthless People’, the betrayed housewife Bette Midler decides to wreak a terrible revenge on the treacherous husband who knew she was suffering but chose to do nothing about it. It is a shame that Bette Midler in the film has a lot more fight, zest and vitality than the Saxon poor in real life.

Keiser Shovels on the Trojan Horseshit

Bitcoin has reached over one billion Thaler in total value this week and is expected to continue to rise. It’s all over the mainstream press, soon even the brain dead BBC will have to admit that it exists.

But there was a flash crash in the price of Bitcoin a couple of days ago, caused by a denial of service attack on a Japanese exchange site.

It is widely believed that this was the result of a market manipulation whereby a group of investors sold their Bitcoin at the market high, crashed the exchange which led to panic and a sell off, and then re-bought at the new lower price.

So the next step is screamingly obvious.

‘Bitcoin is a great idea!’ the cry will go up.

‘But how can we guarantee the system against manipulation?’ carefully selected pundits will plaintively ask.

‘Why. the only possible answer is that a major financial institution will issue the digital currency’ comes back the chorus.

‘Introducing New Corporate BitCoin..’ etc blah blah

and the trap is sprung.

Dummy Max Keiser and all the Bitcoin minions will realise that they have simply provided a Trojan Horse for corporations to produce privately issued currency.

Of course they will continue to bullshit for the next couple of years that it is a battle between the plucky individualist capitalists and the mighty corporations but this is simply to cover their embarrassment that they are again outfoxed by their moral intellectual superiors in the capitalist world.

There is more chance of the Trojan horse jumping over a six foot fence than a citizen democratised currency taking off.

You bunch of suckers.