July 07, 2007

Conspiracies: Iraq

Simon Reeve investigates the real reasons for the war in Iraq. Starting with oil and the contracts set up between Saddam and non-American/British companies. The latter part of the film looks at the petro-dollar cycle and how OPEC members can threaten US power by using the euro to trade oil - could Iran be next?


Railway jobs to descedants of Tatya Tope

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

By Partho Burman, Headlinesindia

New Delhi: The fourth generation of martyr in the first war of independence -- Tatya Tope's – Pragati Tope (25) and Tripti Tope (21) have received the appointment letters from the Union Minister for Railways, Lalu Prasad Yadav for the post of Commercial Assistant at Kanpur Terminal of Container Corporation of India Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking of Ministry of Railways on Wednesday. The duo are daughters of underprivileged Vinayak Rao Tope, the heir of Tatya Tope.

The descendants of Tatya Tope's live at Lava-Kusha Nagar of Bithoor, about 30 kilometre from Kanpur. Tope’s heirs were rescued by Neena and Shivnath Jha. Tope's heors were camping in the national capital for the past one week. They met Lalu Prasad and Union Minister for Corporate Affairs Prem Chand Gupta on Wednesday and requested the ministers to provide them jobs. Vinayak Rao Tope earns his livelihood from a small kirana shop opened near their house.

Meanwhile, Lalu Prasad declared to connect Bithore with the broad gauge network as its tribute to Martyr Tatya Tope at an estimated cost of Rs 15 crore. The gauge conversion work would be completed very soon and the section would be opened for passenger service during the current financial year. Prem Chand Gupta, Minister for Corporate Affairs has also announced that all possible efforts would be made to build the statue of Martyr Tatya Tope in Kanpur.

Among the two sisters, Pragati is an arts graduate with a diploma in Nursing and Teacher's Training and Tripti has finished her first year in Master's of Arts.

Speaking to Headlinesindia, Tripti said, “I do not know how to thank Laluji and I have never dreamed to get a railway job in my life. I am delighted and my sincere thanks to the Jha couple too.”

BAE: The World's Biggest Loose End

Source: Executive Intelligence Review

Lyndon LaRouche delivered an international webcast on June 21 in Washington, D.C.,

As the BAE scandal mounts, even in the U.S. press now, the time has come, as the Walrus said, "to speak of many things"—not of cabbages, but of kings.

What I'm going to do today, corresponds to the reality of the occasion: that things which I have said in other locations earlier, as in classes and various programs, will be reflected here, but they have not been presented in this way, before an audience of this type, an international audience of this type. So, this is going to strain some of you a bit, because we're dealing with areas in which the problems that confront mankind are mankind's acceptance of certain things as being assumably true, almost self-evident; and confining what they think is possible, to what they consider to be self-evidently true. And suddenly, what they consider to be self-evidently true, is no longer true! And really never was. But its truth has caught up with them.

We have come to the end of a period of history. The BAE crisis expresses that, reflects that—does not embody it, but expresses it symptomatically.

Now, we've come to the point, therefore, that where people have ordinarily operated, especially in the present generations, on the assumption that some things were self-evident, that you would start from agreement to self-evident things that almost everybody, considered educated or influential, believed. And that these things would persist and go on forever, more or less. And therefore, we need not worry about the need to make sudden deep-going changes in current policy, we merely had to adapt to variations in terms of the current trend. It's like the people who believe in the principles of Euclidean geometry. Now, Euclidean geometry was, from the beginning, a farce—in fact, it was a fraud, which many people have believed ever since. It's like modern Cartesian thinking. Most thinking about economics today, among professional economists, involves a more or less insane version of Cartesian thinking. That is, a mechanistic, statistical thinking where you start from certain statistical assumptions and project these out and say, "What date is the crash coming?" or "What date is this going to happen?" or "What date is that going to happen?" And society doesn't function like. But people believe that.
A Financial System Based on Gambling

As a matter of fact, the great danger of a financial crash today, is that most people, in what they call economics, believe actually not in economics: They believe in gambling. It's called a financial system. It's a gambling system. And people understanding that, ever since Galileo came up with this idea about gambling as the basis of discovering how markets would work, everyone has tried to get a better statistical system for gambling. Like breaking the bank at Monte Carlo, making a killing at Las Vegas, probably one's own. And therefore, these guys who are running the financial world today, depend on the assumption that they've got a "better system"—as they used to have at the race tracks, a "better system" for handicapping the horses. And it would really handicap the bettor, in the end, as he found himself on the street without cash—and being pursued by his lenders.

But what you've got today, as was typified in the calamity that occurred in August through October of 1998, was that the bettors now rely upon mathematics. And computers have helped them to do this: They can now bet faster, they can do mathematics faster than ever before, statistics faster than ever before. But they're all trying to find the best system of gambling. And they're all competing to get in on what they believe is the best system of gambling. The result is that, when all the gamblers come close to the same system of gambling against each other, but they're all gambling according to the same formula, what happens? They all go down together, in one big flop!

And that is what we saw a forecast of, in the events of the LTCM collapse in 1998: a general collapse of the system based on confidence, and competition, using the same system, as a world system which doesn't work at all. And they all went bankrupt.

And President Clinton and his Secretary of the Treasury [Robert Rubin] collaborated with others to organize a bailout, to postpone the inevitable collapse of the entire world system, which was implicit in what happened in September-October of 1998. We have never paid the bill for that bailout. We have been bailing things out more and more ever since. And we now have reached the point, that the system is about to collapse.

And the BAE collapse is not the cause of the problem, it is a symptom of the problem: Is that more and more, under a system which was established, a change in the system established with the election of a non-person as a President, George W. Bush, Jr., under his chimpanzee keeper, the Vice President, that the world was being run, more and more by what is behind the BAE. The BAE is actually better known as the British Empire. Some people call it the "Brutish Empire."

Now, not all the people in England are guilty of this. Many of them, even who are Brits or who believe in the imperial system, or the British Empire, or whatever, think that what is being done now by BAE is insane. They think that other things are insane: They know that the idea of global warming is a hoax—they know that. They know it's totally unscientific, and could not be sold to a society in which science was still known as a subject for most people of that generation. And therefore, not because they are anti-British, but because they know that the system which is being run by the Blair government and its associates in the British system, being run by Blair's friend Cheney, and others, that this system is clinically insane. And therefore, they object to it. And they raised objections to it, which are registered in places like the London Guardian, called Guardian Unlimited these days, and the British BBC, and other locations.

There was virtual silence on the subject of this, at least to its substance, inside the United States itself. It was only in the past three days, that there has been any appearance in the major English-speaking American press, of anything—even hinting at what has been the ongoing reality of this Bush Administration, since before the President was sworn in, in 2001. The world has been living under a system, which is the 9/11 system, which already existed, as I warned at the beginning of 2001, before President George W. Bush was inaugurated for the first time in January of 2001. Where I said: The world system has reached the point, that an onrushing collapse of the system is now in process. We can not determine exactly when or how this will occur, but we know the following two things: Number 1, we know that this President and this Presidency can not deal with this crisis. Therefore, we must expect that the entire world will be subjected to the kind of thing we experienced in February of 1933, when Hermann Göring, the man behind the throne, the sort of Dick Cheney of the Hitler Administration, orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag as a terrorist event. And this terrorist event was used on that night, or the following day, to install Hitler with dictatorial powers, which Hitler never lost, until the day he died!

And I said then, the danger is that something like this will occur, under present trends in the United States, and it did occur: And it was called 9/11.

Now, without going into the details of what we know and what we don't know about how 9/11 was orchestrated, we know that the only means by which this kind of thing is orchestrated, is found in one location: in a financial complex which is centered in the identity of the BAE. Now, that's the mystery of 9/11. How it was done, the mechanics—that's irrelevant. We'll find out. And everybody in and around government, who understands these matters, knows that! And that's where the heat is here.

We've come to the point, that an entire system, is collapsing. That system, at this point, because of the complicity of the present U.S. government, and the complicity of the leadership of the Democratic Party, as well as the Republican Party, because of this, we are living under a one-world system, called generically "globalization." It's a preparation for the new Tower of Babel, under which there are no nations, and in which languages begin to become babble.

Under this system, what controls it? It's called "globalization"; it's called the "global warming crisis"; it's called these various kinds of things, referring to these things. It's a one-world system! It is not consolidated, but every obstacle to this one-world system is crumbling. Every government of Europe—and you will see soon in France, that this is also true, there—every government in Central and Western Europe is today ungovernable. They may or may not be called, at the present time, "failed states." But they are at the brink of being failed states, which can no longer govern themselves. They are in the process, in Europe, of surrendering, from the Russian and Belarus border westward, they're surrendering their powers of government, to international agencies and supranational agencies. Germany, since the passing of the Schröder Administration, no longer really governs itself. Italy is struggling to maintain an appearance of government, under conditions in which government is not possible as long as the euro continues to exist. France: We saw the newly elected President of France, Sarkozy, had a meeting with the President of Russia, and came back giggling like a silly girl on a drunk.

You're in this kind of world!
We Live Under a Dictatorship

Now, there are other characteristics of this world. We have entered into a period of generalized warfare. Now, this did not start now. What we're seeing now is the culmination of a process which has been going on, actually since the time that Kennedy was shot. Since the time that Kennedy was shot, there's been a change in world politics, a change in direction in world politics, which was signaled soon by the launching by the U.S. war in Indo-China. And that led into what became 1968, which was the general breakup of the Democratic Party, and you had a new kind of government under parties since then.

The lower 80% of the U.S. population, the adult population, which had had a dominant influence under Roosevelt, and continued to have a strong influence in the United States until that point, began to lose its power. The upper 20% of family-income brackets are the ones who control politics today. And the upper 20% that control politics today, are controlled by an upper 3% that control the greatest concentration of money we've ever seen percentile-wise in world history.

We live under a dictatorship, in which the lower 80%, the conditions of life, in our own country, are that nature. And the Democratic Party reflects that. It no longer responds to its own political base. The Republican Party is, in a sense, breaking up. Because they can not accept the Bush Administration and what it represents. And it's looking for a new destiny, either in one of several directions, and there may be an upheaval. You have candidates, including Presidential candidates in the Democratic Party for whom I have personal respect as individuals, intellectually. But their performance as candidates, so far, is no less than disgusting! Especially given the real conditions.

You have a majority of the Democratic Party base, is calling for the impeachment of Cheney—suddenly. They want a sudden impeachment, not a long process. And that could be arranged for them. You could walk to Cheney with the right message, and you say, "Dear Dick..." And he would go out with a sour face the next morning and say, "I've decided my potato patch is being neglected. I've got resign and get back there and take care of those potatoes!" That's the way a corporate president usually goes out suddenly, you know. He's suddenly got an urge to get back to the potato patch. And they let him do that, and everybody knew he'd been fired. So, a message that he could not refuse would be given to Cheney. He would not be impeached; he wouldn't have to be impeached, he'd resign. And that could be orchestrated, if you wished to do that.

If the Democratic Party had the guts!

But the Democratic Party can't function. Why? Look at all the money that is being spent on the Democratic candidates? Whose money is it? It's your money, they don't have. It's fake money! It's hedge fund money. It's borrowing against banks and other institutions now, to create a mass of credit, which is fake credit—it's a promissory note—to go out in the world, and say, "We're going to buy this, we're going to buy that, and we're going to buy that. We're taking over your corporation!" Why? "We're going to buy your stockholders. And therefore you can't prevent us from taking over your stockholders. We have a mass of money that says, we can buy your stockholders. Therefore, we own your corporation: Turn it over, buddy! Turn it over, buddy!" They don't have real assets there! These are fake, inflated assets—largely artificial. And they move in, as these hedge funds, and they take over.

Well, what's the center of this thing? The center of this is the Cayman Islands, the British monarchy's Cayman Islands and similar locations run by the same organization, the British Empire, in its modern form, which is expressed by BAE. And a few hundred billion dollars, which are associated with BAE-related operations, now become multiplied by these kinds of markets into a gigantic fund, which controls, in financing, many of the operations which are controlled. And look at the contributions to the Democratic Party candidates, and Republican candidates, for President! Look at the composition of the funding for these candidacies! Look at the funding of the Democratic National Committee, the campaign committee: Who's doing it? George Soros? Well, he's one thing. Nazi Felix Rohatyn, that's another thing. He's nominally a Democrat. He's a Pinochet Democrat! He's the guy who headed up a financial institution which was the backing of Pinochet's taking over and setting up a dictatorship in Chile. And Pinochet was an integral part of BAE, and the operation. He was also part of a death squad operation which ran across the Southern Cone of South America, and these kinds of things.

So, we're in this kind of period. Now, this didn't start recently. But we're seeing now, this culmination of a concentration of power under the Bush-Cheney Administration, a concentration of power under the leadership and control of the powers that control the British Empire. That's the situation. This empire, this gambling system, is now in a process of collapsing. It's at the verge of collapse. It is therefore moving, to take total world power. Because if you take total world power, then nobody can say otherwise. And your problems are solved: You decide what money is and what isn't, because you have a world dictatorship.

They don't yet have a world dictatorship. And therefore, we, as citizens of the United States and other nations, have to act and say, "We're not going to let you have that power! We're going to stop you, now!"

And history intervenes at times, to present us with the opportunity to do this, the occasion to do this. That time is now. And that's what my subject is today.

And therefore, because of that, what I shall say to you today, is rather different than what I have said, in terms of quality of subject matter in public occasions of this type, earlier. Because what I said earlier, which I've said to smaller audiences, in print, and so forth, internationally, repeatedly, and I've said it plainly enough, I've not said in this form, in this kind of audience. Because it would not have been appropriate earlier. Why? Because the public was not scared enough, and not shocked enough, to realize that changes had to be made.
The Difference Between Man and Monkey

You know, people are not as smart as they think they are. Human beings have great powers of intelligence that no other living creature has. They create science, they create the mastery of the universe, they create the changes in culture, which raise the conditions of life of mankind. But sometimes, they behave like silly children. And the more adults, and the more adulterated they become... [video clip of chimpanzees] the more "perfect" their childishness becomes!

Now, what form does this take? We have a basement operation out there, nearby, and people have been going through in groups of five, six, or seven, at a crack, in reliving the experience of making the fundamental discoveries, a linked series of fundamental discoveries which embrace the entirety of scientific progress of European civilization, from the time of the ancient Pythagoreans, about the time of the 7th Century B.C., up to the present time; or up to a recent time, when we still practiced science. And so, we have young people going through, step by step, working through, experiencing—not being taught, to pass an examination on this subject or that subject—but going through the process of making discoveries themselves, which are a replication of the experience of earlier scientists, and making the discoveries on which the scientific achievements of European civilization, globally, have depended. From the time of the Pythagoreans, from the time of Solon of Athens, the time of Thales, up to recent times. The achievements of progress of European civilization, with fits and starts all along the way, especially those of modern civilization.

Now, therefore, in dealing with the difference between man and the monkey, as the core of what I'm talking about today: That we have to get beyond the assumption that what we have experienced, and what has become generally accepted opinion, so-called "self-evident rules of behavior," of the recent generation, or the recent one or two generations, the idea that this "self-evident knowledge," which is taken as self-evident, as common sense among most people in society—this is nonsense. But people believe in it. And they believe that there's no possibility of a course of action, which could occur, which would be accepted, would be allowed to occur, outside the framework of so-called "self-evident truths." Which generally broke down to "generally accepted current popular opinion."

So therefore, when you present them with evidence, that the present system itself, the system to which they are accustomed, is in a process of self-destruction and collapse, they say, "Ah! You're silly! You must be some kind of a nut—what's this?" They will say, "Everybody knows you're wrong!"

But it's the system that's wrong! And what everybody knows, is what's stupid!

But! As long as long as people believe that popular opinion, or what passes for popular opinion, among the most recent couple of generations, what they get from the textbooks, what they get from the so-called authorities, what they hear from, you know, "people in the know"—that this is the boundary condition which determines what is "acceptable behavior," by the individual or by the group in society, and therefore, people limit their choices of action to what they believe are acceptable premises of action. They don't question the premises themselves, just the same way that foolish people in school accept Euclidean geometry as being science, or Cartesian mechanistic forecasting as science.

So, until this kind of assumption is called into question, you do not say publicly, in the manner I'm speaking now, that "the system is coming down!" Because now the time has come, you have to accept the fact—if you're sane—that the system is coming down. And one by one, like tenpins in a bowling alley, Senators and others, who two weeks ago would have rejected what I was saying now, will shudder, and say, "I'm afraid he might be right!"

The time has come: The system must change. It is not within the framework of these so-called current traditions, or current public opinion, that mankind has a future. We're on the verge of a global dark age.
The 'Military-Industrial Complex'

Now, the signs of this, have been coming at us for a long time. Look at the area of Southwest Asia, and some other places, and look at what we call "prolonged warfare."

All right: Kennedy was killed. He was killed for a reason. It was not by a lone assassin—it may have been a loan shark, but not a lone assassin. He was killed to get him out of the way. Because, what Eisenhower had identified as the "military-industrial complex," in his outgoing address as President of the United States, is the process, which is the same process which we identify in the press today as the BAE phenomenon. It's a process that actually came into being under Hitler, and Mussolini, which was stopped by the intervention of Roosevelt.

On the day Roosevelt died, or a few days later, when Truman discovered that we had nuclear weapons, and decided to drop these nuclear weapons on the civilian populations of two cities, of a defeated Japan, before allowing the surrender to occur, we had entered a new age, to which Dwight Eisenhower, as outgoing President, referred to as the "military-industrial complex."

The military-industrial complex came out of a division in Anglo-American policy during and after the war. Remember, that Hitler was put into power, like Mussolini, largely from Britain and the United States. For example, Averell Harriman, from Brown Brothers Harriman, together with the head of the Bank of England at that time, was responsible for the sponsorship of making Hitler a dictator of Germany. When Roosevelt became President, over a period of time, Roosevelt induced the British to finally give up this idea of backing a Mussolini and Hitler. The financial establishment of Wall Street in that period, was behind Hitler, as they had been behind Mussolini, and their intentions were exactly in that direction.

Their intentions were the same thing as global warming today: It was called then, "eugenics." Get rid of the excessive people, particularly the ones whose skin color you didn't like. They weren't bleached enough. Eugenics: It was a program of murder. This was the program on which the Nazi party was founded, was eugenics—which is the same thing as global warming, today, exactly the same ideology, rewarmed with a new name, but with the same intention.

So, these guys put Mussolini into power; they put Hitler into power. They intended to establish a world dictatorship, in which the United States would destroy itself as a power—because we were a power, then—and in which they could run the world, as a one-world power. Which has always been the intention, since 1763, since the British Empire actually was created by the Treaty of Paris, in February 1763, by the British East India Company.

And what you're seeing today, with BAE, you're seeing a corporate structure in the heritage of the British East India Company—the Anglo-Dutch Liberal East India Company—which created the British Empire, and for many years, when the monarchy was simply a fixture attached to it, the Anglo-Dutch East India Company, the Liberals, through banking, controlled the entire British Empire. The occupation of India by the British Empire, was done by a private company!—the British East India Company. China was destroyed: By what? By the British East India Company, with the opium trade and similar kinds of things. The world was controlled by this financial octopus, this new Venetian empire. And that has run things.

The United States has emerged as the only significant challenger to this issue of empire, since 1763. That was the division. In 1763, the word came down about the Treaty of Paris. And the ranks of the leading circles in North America were divided: One group, the patriotic group, gathered around Benjamin Franklin, this group created the American Revolution, and the American System, whose roots had already been developed inside the Americas before then. And we had a character, an anti-oligarchical character, which was different than that of Europe.

And the other faction, which is still the so-called Wall Street faction and similar types today, were the people who joined with the British East India Company against Franklin and company. And their goal has always been to re-absorb North America into the British System as a part of the English-speaking system. That's been their purpose. And they've worked from inside the United States to destroy those aspects of our system, which are embedded in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Other parts of the world have had importance, and do have importance. But it's the challenge between two English-speaking societies, that of the United States, as the model republic, and that of the British Empire, as the opposition, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal opposition: That has been the dominant feature of all the major wars on this planet, since that time.

So, we now come to a point, that the British Empire in that form, has consolidated itself to the point, that it will either fall, now, in this form, or in its attempt to impose an empire, or the whole planet will go into a dark age: That's where we stand.

So, now the time for change is obvious.

Now, remember how this thing [the breaking of the BAE scandal] happened: For weeks, there was no whisper of this issue, inside the press of the United States, the leading press; among the politicians, members of the Senate had no idea that such a thing was going on—but it had been going on! It was going on! It was the secret behind the Vietnam War. It was the secret behind the great war in Southwest Asia, between Iraq and Iran, during the 1980s. It was the first U.S. Iraq War. It was the Afghanistan occupation, continuing. It is the new Iraq War. It is the spread of war throughout all Southwest Asia. It's all a struggle for the British Empire! And the struggle to corrupt the United States, and destroy it.

Now, what happened? In the history of the United States, when Abraham Lincoln led a fight to defeat the British Confederacy—and the Confederacy was nothing but a tool of the British East India Company interests—when we won that war, we established in the United States, a scheme which had been defined by John Quincy Adams when he had been Secretary of State: to define the United States as a continental nation, from Atlantic to Pacific, with northern borders, Canada, and southern borders, Mexico. That had been our intention. When Lincoln led the victory over the British and French, in the freeing of the United States, and of Mexico, from this oppression, the United States emerged with a wave of immigration from Europe, with a transcontinental railway system and other developments. We emerged as a power which could no longer be destroyed by invasion of foreign forces.

We also emerged over the period 1865-1877, as a leading influence for reform throughout Eurasia. We had, 1877, Japan: an economic reform, organized from the United States. Russia, same period, organized from the United States, under Mendeleyev's leadership. Germany, under Bismarck, 1877-1879, the Bismarck reforms, under the influence of the United States, directly, and Henry C. Carey in particular. And similar things in other parts of the world. We became a challenge, not as a threat to establish an American empire. We became a challenge, because we were promoting, in Asia and other parts of the world, the development of sovereign nation-state republics, which would use the advantages of our experience, for their own, independent development, and cooperation, and mutual defense.

To defeat this, the British Empire organized two World Wars, starting with the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. And the continuous war of the British Empire through its toady, Japan, between 1895 and 1945, was a continuous part of this process. The destruction of China, which threatened to become a great power, was one of the purposes of this operation.

So there had been a global struggle: We had one world war; we had a Second World War, for this purpose! We went through a so-called Cold War, which involved the same issue.

We now have come to the final stage, of a threatened destruction of the world order, in order to create a new Tower of Babel, called "globalization," or "global warming," under the leadership of these financier interests, which are imperial in origin.
'No Old Men Among You'

Now, this issue, is one that the politicians, the poor foolish politicians who run our country, refuse to understand. They have no long memories! If you read Plato's Republic and his Timaeus, you recall his report of a visit with the Egyptian priesthood, who said to the Greeks, "You Greeks are intelligent, you're fine. But you have no old men among you." By which the Egyptians meant, "you had lost your identity in the processes of history which gave birth to you." We, in the United States represent the outcome of the birth of European civilization, a birth which was accomplished largely through the influence of Egypt, or certain forces in Egypt. This is where our science came from, which was called among the Pythagoreans, Sphaerics, which relates to physical astronomy. This is where our culture began, as typified by the case of Solon of Athens, with the first conception of a true nation-state, a nation-state of the people. And our power has been, largely, that we have been, in the United States, in that conscious tradition.

The founders of the United States, the authors of our Declaration of Independence, the authors of our Federal Constitution, the leaders of the veterans of the Revolutionary War, the Cincinnatus Society, all understood, that the root of our republic, lay in the precedence and lessons of Solon of Athens' reforms. Those are the terms in which they spoke of it. We were an attempt to free mankind as a whole, not by conquering it, but from the inside, from a division of mankind into two classes, of rulers and animals, human animals, human cattle. Most people in most parts of the world, in most societies have lived, not as human beings, but as human cattle. Under the ban from knowledge, as knowledge, as specified by the case of Zeus, Olympian Zeus, of the Prometheus Bound story.

Now, the birth of European civilization, with Athens, was a threat to the imperial forces of Eurasia. And therefore, an operation was run, quite similar to an operation run against the people of the United States, at the end of World War II, which produced the Baby-Boomer generation—a brainwashing operation, mass brainwashing operation, called sophistry; or called, in the case of the post-war generations of Europe and the United States, existentialism. This corruption denied the existence of universal physical principles, which were knowable to the mind of the human individual. And said, "You don't know anything. You only know what is generally accepted, or will be generally accepted. You know the consensus! You don't know whether it's true or not. You know you have to obey it, because it's on top. And if you want to get ahead in this world, you have to submit to the consensus." There is no question of certainty of knowledge, there's no scientific certainty in it.

So therefore, what happened? We had, in our country, at the time that Roosevelt died, we had children who were what came to be called "the white-collar class," from 1946 through about 1958. And these young children, who generally would orient toward the military-industrial complex types of people and that sort of thing, became the "Golden Generation" of the 1960s. They no longer believed in science. They no longer believed in truth. They believed in being accepted. They believed in a consensus:, a white-collar consensus. They didn't like working people. They didn't like farmers. They didn't like science. They liked mathematics, but not science, hmm? They liked to calculate... you know. They didn't like to earn money, they liked to grab it.

So, they became a generation which exploded under the influence, from Europe, of the existentialist conditioning. And they exploded in the middle of the 1960s, following the assassination of Kennedy, which was a blow of demoralization to the American people at that time; and the following of the assassination of Kennedy with the launching of the Indo-China War. This demoralized the American people. You saw the balls of rage rolling in the streets in 1968, in Europe and the Americas, and elsewhere.

So this generation, the white-collar generation, which hated working people; they hated trade unionists, they hated blue-collar people; they hated farmers; they hated science. Now, that doesn't mean all of them were against science, or all of them were against agriculture and industry. But! They understood one thing: They had no principle. They had a principle of "going along to get along," a principle of accepting the consensus of their generation, their particular stratum.

And this became the Golden Generation, which more and more, reshaped the country. For example: 1968. Nineteen sixty-eight, the revolt of the 68ers destroyed the Democratic Party on the white-collar versus blue-collar issue! So, the Democratic Party was smashed, by its own complicity in the Vietnam War. And by this. Therefore, we got a virtual dictatorship, under Nixon. It wasn't Nixon's dictatorship, it was a group of people: It was the military-industrial complex. They took us over.

And bit by bit, they destroyed everything. They destroyed agriculture, they destroyed our monetary system, on which our strength had depended. They destroyed the farmers, they destroyed the industries, they destroyed science. And they got more and more power, and more and more fantasy.

And my generation began to die out. We don't have a generation of scientists and engineers of the type we had, still, back in the 1970s: We don't have that any more! We have a fraction of that! We don't have a scientific-industrial capability any more. We have a little bit of it, surviving in the military sector, of military production, predominantly. We've lost it. We've shipped our industries, our agriculture overseas. We're destroying our farmers! We're growing crops to make fuel!—not to feed people, in a world shortage of food.
The Face of the Enemy Is Exposed

So, we've come to the point, the system doesn't work! And the breakdown is now obvious. And the face of the enemy has exposed itself, in the BAE. And the exposure of the BAE, has come not from the Americans, it has come, largely, from the ranks of the British. The same faction in Britain, which opposed the global warming swindle. It's a complete fraud: There's no scientific basis for global warming. It's all a fraud, a hoax. But Baby-Boomers don't know any better! They keep suckin' on the bottle!

But, a group in England, in Britain, which recognizes that the British Empire is sending itself to Hell, objected to global warming, just as they objected to this operation, this Iraq War, and similar kinds of wars; just as they objected to this kind of financial operation, the BAE swindle.

So, a section in Britain, itself, through the BBC, through the Guardian, and through others, made this issue clear! And gradually, this thing spread here.

We were on top of it, of course, from the beginning, because we knew it; we understood it. But up until about three days ago, you could not find any large constituency for what I'm saying now about BAE, in the Congress of the United States or in any other part of the United States—you couldn't find it. You had a pall of stupidity and ignorance, control the minds of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and more. That doesn't mean they're not intelligent people, but they believe in consensus. They believe in adapting to what they consider popular opinion. They believe in "going along to get along." They believe that so-called "traditions," confine what is allowed and what is not allowed in society: that you have to work within the bounds of those limitations.

And I say today, we're now going to have to proceed; it having been shown that the whole culture we have stinks and is doomed. It's a sinking ship, and don't try to get a better stateroom on the Titanic simply because some people are leaving it.

Therefore, the question is, what is human nature? Why should we believe that mankind, which has allowed this swindle to dominate humanity for so many centuries, that there's something in mankind today, that would enable people who have made the biggest fools of themselves imaginable, would suddenly become brilliant and make the right decision about the future of mankind? I have to tell you: On this question, I'm an optimist. I believe in mankind. Just because he cleverly made himself appear to be so stupid, doesn't mean he's quite that stupid. Time for the stupidity act to end.

All right, now therefore, what I've said so far, is a preface for what I'm about to say. And the question is, human nature: Is man an ape? [video clip of chimps] Now, is that man? It could be Frederick Engels, but not man! George Bush would give you a good imitation of that.

All right. Now, we want to get to this question. The question, is this first question which we put on the board. You had a book which was written a long time ago, it's called the Book of Genesis; it's called the First Chapter of Genesis. Now, in it, there are three sentences, three verses, which I want to call your attention to, and present these, not as some kind of arbitrary religious belief, of some Hebrews off there in the Sinai Desert (where they're not allowed to function, today, or something). Anyway, but, actually, as an observation by knowledgeable people, presumably Moses of Egypt, who, looking at reality, are describing what they see as the reality of the circumstance in which they're living. And they state: There are certain things we can see, and they sum up in these three verses. That mankind, as Vernadsky would agree, from a scientific standpoint, mankind is not an ape, nor is mankind a form of animal life. We have a bodily form of animal life, but we also have powers, as thinking powers and creative powers, which no animal has.

These creative powers endow us with a certain quality of potential immortality. In what sense? That, we are capable, as mankind, of discovering the lawful composition of our universe. We call these "universal physical principles" for example: such as Kepler's discovery of the principle of universal gravitation, which he uniquely discovered.

And therefore, mankind, as having these powers, the power to discover universal physical principles, uses these powers to increase mankind's power to exist in and over the universe, as no species of animal can. Every animal species has a potential relative population density, which is characteristic of that species, which varies with the environment in which the species operates, but can not be willfully changed by a member of the species. Mankind is capable, through the discovery and realization of universal physical principles, of changing the universe. And in these three verses from the closing portion of the chapter of Genesis, you have—just think, not of someone preaching a doctrine, or an arbitrary belief—but someone simply saying, "Here is what the truth is, about ourselves. Man and woman are distinct from all forms of animal life, in that they have these powers and responsibilities, in the universe, the power to change the universe for the better. We have a stewardship in the universe, that of mankind."

And therefore, human life is immortal, in that sense.
The Birth of European Civilization

For example, go back to the history of this issue of creativity. Go back to the history itself: What we have as European civilization was born about 700 B.C. Europe had been in a prolonged dark age for some period of time, and under the initiative of a revival of civilization, in Egypt after a dark age, Egypt reached out to places such as Ionia, where there was a maritime culture [Figure 1]. But this region—you have an area there which is Magna Graecia, Greece as such, including the part into Ionia, which is the Greek culture. It allied itself with the Etruscans, who dominated an area from about the Tiber northward, to about the island of Elba and inward, which was the leading maritime culture of that time. They probably were a branch of the Hittite culture, which had been the only iron-processing culture in the whole Mediterranean region of that period. And then you had, in the north of Africa, you had this one area of Cyrenaica, is the area of Egypt's maritime culture. This is called Cyrenaica to the present day. It's this area, which is a rich area, potentially, and was rich at that time. And it was known for such people as, later Eratosthenes, who was actually of Cyrenaican extraction, and who was a representative of the Platonic Academy at Athens, and was the leading scientist of Egypt. He died just before 200 B.C., which was about the time the Roman Empire was coming up, and civilization was being destroyed.

So, our birth of civilization is located essentially in a struggle centered in this area, from about 700 B.C. to about 200 B.C., from the time of the Pythagoreans and the emergence of Solon and so forth, into those times.

But in this, there was a struggle, and the struggle was typified by the Cult at Delphi, the the Apollo-Dionysos Cult of Delphi. Which was tied to the surrounding region of that area, which was dominated by imperial powers, such as Babylon, such as the Persian Empire, the Achaemenid Empire, and other kinds of empires.

So, at this point, the significance of the birth of European culture, is a revolt typified by the role of Solon in Athens, the image of Solon, on which the idea of the United States was premised: an image of what man could be, an image of a republic, a true republic. Against a system, under which 80% or more of the human population of any area, were essentially treated as human cattle. This is the distinction, the good distinction, of European civilization: Its greatest heritage comes from this emergence, at least in known history, the emergence of this idea, of this conception.

Now, the struggle inside Greece itself, has been the principal font of our understanding of history, that is, European history begins approximately about 700 B.C. That is, a conscious history that we are dealing with a society organized around ideas and a consciousness of these ideas. So, the struggle, the difference between the form of society, in which mankind, all mankind, is treated as being human, as having these powers of creativity, in which there was development of the totality of the society as human.

Now, what is this difference between man and the beast? The difference between man and the beast, is essentially that of the discovery of a universal physical principle, that's the exemplification of this. The work of the Pythagoreans was typical of this. The work of Plato and his circles was typical of this.

But on the other side, the order was, as is presented dramatically in the middle section of the Prometheus Trilogy of Aeschylus, that the god, the evil god, the Zeus of Olympus, decrees that mankind shall not know the secret of the use of fire. Including such things as nuclear fission. And that man must therefore be maintained as human cattle. And the tradition of most cultures has been to condemn most of humanity to the condition of human cattle. In modern society, this takes a special form, it's called empiricism: in which you deny the knowledge of the existence of a principle—I'll come to this—and in place of this idea of principle, in modern society, we have the idea of liberalism, which is what the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system is based upon.

Therefore, the key thing here, to understand, is what do we mean, by the discovery of a universal physical principle? This is the simplest modern example of what we mean by a universal physical principle. [Animated figure of Earth orbiting around the Sun (see wlym.com/@slanimations).] Which some people in this room understand, because they're well educated. They educated themselves.

What we're looking at here is an image, and this is an image based on actual data, an image of the Earth's orbiting of the Sun. Now, this orbit, even though it may appear to be circular, is not really, truly circular. It's actually elliptical. Now, you get the closeup, and let's describe this orbit. Because the discovery of this orbit by Kepler, is actually the foundation of all competent modern, physical science. This is not the complete discovery. Now, as you get to the smaller area, you're in an elliptical area. This planet's moving along an elliptical course: What does that mean? But it's not just an elliptical course. There's a principle involved. The rate of motion is changing. What is governing the change of the rate of motion? Well, Kepler called it "equal areas/equal times": That is, the sector, or the sector defined by the position of the Sun with respect to the planet, sweeps out a sector of the ellipse; and the rate of movement within the ellipse corresponds to the relative area which is being generated: equal area/equal time.

Now, what this means is, is that there is a principle operating here, for which this is only the shadow. The actual movement of the planet, according to equal area/equal time, is only the shadow of something, of a principle. What is that principle? The principle is what we call an "infinitesimal." Now, contrary to idiots, the infinitesimal is not a dot. The infinitesimal is a rate of change in the smallest degree—a rate of change of velocity, of angular velocity. So, it's a rate of change of the velocity, not a rate of change of a size of a dot.

Now, this discovery by Kepler, was attributable to a discovery made earlier by a predecessor whom he much admired, the fount of modern physical science: Nicholas of Cusa. And Nicholas of Cusa, in an exhaustive study of what the Italians had brought back from Greece, from certain libraries in Greece, demonstrated that Archimedes had made a great mistake. Archimedes' notion of the construction of the circle by quadrature was false. You could not, by successive approximation of getting smaller and smaller intervals, smaller and smaller polygons, you could not approach the truth of the existence of the circle. The existence of the circle involves the same principle as the principle of the sphere: It's a rate of change in the dynamic, in the motive of action.
Modern Science Begins with Kepler

So, this discovery is the foundation of all modern physical science. Or the implications of this discovery are the basis for modern science. As Einstein said back in the 1950s, if you take the development of physical science, which begins with the discoveries by Kepler, it extends as a continuing process through the work of Bernhard Riemann, which is the extent of all modern physical science.

Now, this science—Kepler's discoveries are not only the beginning point of all competent modern physical science. They contain, continuously, the foundations of the process of discovery, of all modern physical science. If you don't know Kepler, you don't know physical science. You may know how to report about it, you may know how to describe the experience of seeing it happen. You may know how to make a picture of it. But you don't know what it is.

And you have to go back to Kepler, because no one, ever in the history of successful modern science, ever went a step forward by excluding Kepler. Kepler is embedded in the foundation of science, just as those who preceded Kepler among the ancient Pythagoreans and the followers of Plato, they are embedded in the work of Cusa; they are embedded in the work of Kepler. They remain an integral part of the human knowledge of science. It's not something you left behind, and went on to something else. It's something which is in there at all times, and never departs! It is truly universal. And that's the difference.

So therefore, as Einstein said, you start with Kepler, and there's a continuity of development, unbroken development, from Kepler through the work of Riemann, in terms of physical geometry. And all competent physical geometry, all competent modern science—including modern economic science!—can only be obtained from Riemann, by that method.

So you have Kepler's work, starts it. Kepler poses a problem—now go to Fermat. Now, Fermat—I give the dates here to give you some sense of lapsed time. Fermat made a discovery which was called a principle of least action. And this principle of least action became crucial in shaping the thinking of 17th-Century physical science. In the end of the 17th Century, Leibniz, who was the discoverer of the calculus—Leibniz's calculus is based on Kepler. It's based on Kepler's principle I just indicated to you, the principle of gravitation—the same principle as gravitation. The infinitesimal is the constant rate of change of the action, as you see in the case of the Earth's orbit.

So, the question came up—in Fermat's work: What is the actual pathway of least action, in physical space-time? And therefore, through the work of Fermat, applied to the challenge posed by Leibniz, we had the development of what was called the universal physical principle of least action. Which, again, is an integral part of science, and the Leibniz principle of universal physical least action is an integral part of all competent science, today. It never went away; it's there; it's expanded; it's improved upon: But it remains there, vibrating. Pushing. Always motivating. Every student who comes along, who learns science, has that in their mind; it's in their mind, vibrating, constantly.

Then you get from Fermat, you get this development around Leibniz, and there are many people involved in this. So, again, Leibniz sets this into motion, together with a fellow called Jean Bernouilli, which defines this as a field of science, the modern sciences, based on this conception. And it's based on the catenary. I'll give you an example of this—we didn't put this on the screen, but... Back, shortly before Nicholas of Cusa, who was the founder of modern science, you had a fellow called Brunelleschi, Filippo Brunelleschi, in Italy, in Florence. Now, Florence Cathedral was not completed at that point, it has a hole at the top, where there was supposed to be this dome, called a cupola. And the problem was, that if you were going to build this dome, to complete the cathedral, you wouldn't have enough wood in Italy available to build the supporting structure around which to erect this dome. But then, if you look as I did, some years ago, on this Brunelleschi thing, and you look carefully at the structure of that cupola, and you find the hanging-chain formation in there, the shape is in there: that Brunelleschi used a hanging chain as the guide for constructing the cupola, without using all that wood that wasn't available.

So, this hanging-chain phenomenon is called the catenary. And the significance of the catenary was actually discovered fully, by Leibniz and Bernouilli. And it's the underlying principle of the principle of universal least action, which is embedded in all science. It's sitting there vibrating to the present day! You can't get rid of it. You can't go any further without it.

And this led, then, to the later developments, beyond Bernouilli. Now you get Kästner and Gauss. Now, who's Kästner? Well, Kästner's a very important appearance in American history. Kästner was born in 1719, in Leipzig, which is about three years after the death of Leibniz, who had also been born in Leipzig. And he became a leading teacher of science. He became the leading teacher of mathematics, and the history of mathematics in Germany, and he still is a foundation of a competent education in mathematics to the present day. But Kästner, among his other students, was a prominent influence on a number of important historical people, historical in the sense of the American Revolution. Because in the 1750s and 1760s, there arose a revolt against some disgusting things by two fellows, one, Moses Mendelssohn, and his friend, Gotthold Lessing, who was also a great artist, and so forth. And their intervention against corruption in science in the Berlin Academy, was the foundation for the development of the Classical culture in Germany, and spreading into other countries, in the late 18th Century.

And Kästner was the guy who inspired this. Shakespeare was revived, actually in German, from ruin, by Kästner, who got his young friends to proceed in organizing around this. And we have Shakespeare today because of Kästner.

Kästner was the first proponent in modern science of an explicit anti-Euclidean geometry for example. He died in 1800. And he was the inspirer, one of the key inspirers of Gauss. And you don't understand Gauss's work, unless you understand the work of Kästner, for various reasons that some people working in the basement now are beginning to understand.
Beyond Gauss, to Riemann

Then you have the next case: You go beyond Gauss, the basis for the conception of modern science. And the question that Gauss posed in this issue of dealing with asteroid problem, was, the idiot in science will write a formula and tell you this formula is responsible for this particular trajectory phenomenon in physical science. But that's not true! In no science is that true. In so-called mathematical science, or based on mathematics, it's assumed that the form that you can describe mathematically, is the cause of its existence. Whereas, in point of fact, as in the case of Gauss, who posed the same question which had been posed in a different way earlier by others, the question was: You have a trajectory, a planetary trajectory. What moves it?

Don't assume the description of the pathway it takes when moved is the cause of that motion. What moves it? And the secret for how the trajectory is determined is determined by that which moves it. And this leads to some wonderful things, which I won't go into here, but which we're doing down in the basement. If you ever get lucky, and get promoted into the basement, you will find out about such things. I won't tell you! I don't tell people secrets in the basement—maybe a few, here and there. But they find out for themselves. But it's a magic basement. If you get in that basement, and you work hard, the discovery will overwhelm you.

All right. Now, this leads to, again, the completion of what Einstein described as the first phase of all modern science. This is the 1950s, Einstein. What is it? Riemann.

What Riemann did was to free you from the Democratic Party leadership! In 1854, he wrote his famous Habilitationschriften. This is the paper which was used to qualify him as a professor at Göttingen University. And in this paper, he opens up, and he eliminated all assumptions, axioms, and postulates from geometry. And he says that only physical, experimental evidence can define the way that the physical universe is organized. Which is what I do, is my work in this.

Now, what's the point here? The point is, the same thing as Gauss: Motive!

Don't tell me that a mathematical pattern has determined a mathematical pattern. I don't promote masturbation.

What has motivated that? That particular form of existence, that expression of existence?

Therefore, what it comes down to this: That science, instead of being a conception of a predetermined set of principles, so-called self-evident principles which define the universe as a Cartesian model does, or most economists do, you have to say, "What is the principle that motivates a pattern of action?" What's the principle? And therefore, you define the universe as Einstein does, and as Riemann does implicitly, as composed of principles: universal principles.

What does that mean? That means, for example: It amuses some people to be told, there's nothing outside the universe. Nor does the universe have a boundary which defines its limit. The universe is the expression of the motivations which generate the forms of existence we experience in the universe. And therefore, knowledge of principles, is the derivative.

Now, what does this mean, again, in turn? What does it say about man? Only mankind, among living creatures, can discover a universal physical principle. And by discovering that principle as a motive, governing the way something can act, and using that motive, that principle, you can change the universe in which you're operating. Only man can do that. The monkey, the chimpanzee can not do it. The typical professor at a university can not do it. No matter how much he monkeys around with science—he can't do it.

Therefore, instead of seeing the universe as being a Cartesian manifold, or a Euclidean manifold, stretched out in all directions, you see the universe as bounded by the principles, not by an area, but by the principles which control all that happens within it, all the motives, the principles. Mankind can discover these principles, but by discovering a principle which has been previously unused by mankind, mankind is able to increase man's power to exist in the universe, and is capable of changing the geometry of the universe in which we live. The ability to get beyond the population level of several millions of individuals at any one time, of a monkey, of an ape—a gorilla, or chimpanzee: What's the difference between man and the chimpanzee? The essential difference, is man's ability with the human mind, to discover experimentally, by these kinds of standards, to discover the meaning of principle. And to apply that principle to previously existing practice, in a way to change that practice qualitatively.

This, in science, is called "machine-tool design." What they used to do in the auto industry, when they were allowed to make automobiles in the United States. Machine-tool design. You discover a principle you didn't know before, or you didn't know how to apply before. You apply this principle to something you were already doing. You transform the quality of that operation, by introducing that principle: And you change the universe. You increase man's power to exist. You increase the density of population you can sustain. You increase the life expectancy of mankind. And you build in the individual a sense of an immortal personality, who is participating in the process of increasing the knowledge of mankind, from generation to generation, in a practical way, for the benefit of mankind.

So therefore, you have this problem: A monkey dies. An ape dies. A current President dies. What's left behind? Nothing. It's gone. It's a sad case, a human being who acts like a monkey, lives like a monkey, doesn't make any discoveries. Doesn't even repeat discoveries made by people before him. Just keeps on going, scratching. Like Bush.

This person has no sense of immortality! We all die. We all have human bodies, we die. The human body fails us, it quits on us. The car quits. Breaks down on the highway—you know, like a typical LPAC car. But the immortal occupant of the car, lives on! Hopefully.

No, so the point is, is that humanity is, essentially, potentially immortal: Because, that which is part of us, as human beings, is not merely this physical animal part that we inhabit. It's what we represent through such means as learning to re-experience discoveries of principle, and carrying them on and on to future generations. To building a better world, to building a better universe. To changing the universe, simply in the same way, that the writer of Genesis 1 depicts man's function in the universe. Not simply saying he's got some magical secret here: He's describing the situation of man in the universe! Man and woman in the universe, exist to do what? They have a mission, they have a responsibility. This is our mission! We have to make the universe better: We are the servants of the Creator, in making the universe better.

And how do we do that? By making discoveries which are called principles of discovery, the principles themselves. And by mastering these principles, we increase man's power to solve problems, and we live in those future generations, which take what we contribute. And it's alive in them. The work of Plato, the work of Plato in particular, is alive in Cusa. Cusa is alive in Kepler. Similarly, Leibniz is alive in Cusa, and in Kepler. Riemann is alive, in all of these people.

Those who have done the great works of mankind, who have passed on what their lives have contributed to human knowledge and human knowledge for practice, live on.
The Book of Genesis

In former times, we had an approximation of this: People would just go by the Book of Genesis, for example, or something like that, and say: "What are we living for? We're going to die. Well, we're living for"—like immigrants coming into the United States—"we're living for our children. We're living for our grandchildren. We're making a society for our children, our grandchildren. We're making a better life for our children and grandchildren."

And this goes on, not merely for two or three generations, which is typical in our experience. This goes on for thousands of years! Look at the Great Pyramid at Giza. It was built, when? Somewhere about 2550 B.C. Well, that's a pretty long time ago, isn't it? 4,700 years ago. How many generations is that? What about the discoveries that preceded the possibility of the building of the Pyramid of Giza, in terms of the knowledge expressed? What about the generations before? Aren't they alive? Isn't the effect of their living, alive in us, today?

So therefore, we had a sense of immortality, in the sense that we were making the universe better, for generations to come, and that we express our immortality in living on, in the benefits which we pass on to those who follow. This was our sense of identity, our sense of citizenship.

What happened is, the Baby-Boomer generation has lost that. They don't believe in their children. They don't believe in principles. They believe in what they call common sense, or generally accepted ideas. They believe in "go along to get along." They aren't motivated by a sense of immortality. The idea of a soldier who dies in battle, for the sake of his nation: It's real! As opposed to a stone killer, who just goes out and kills for no purpose whatsoever, but just because he's told to do so.

This sense of immortality, this sense of the individual mind as a creative mind, different than the beast, different than the chimpanzee, the sense of an obligation to do something with your life which is of benefit and realized in future generations; to maintain that which has been accomplished, to keep it alive, and to build upon it: That's what's been missing in our society.

And the contrary is, implicitly the principle of slavery. The enemy of mankind has been a sense of slavery, the sense of slavery which you can read in the Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus. Mankind is forbidden to know how to discover, or use, nuclear fission power: fire. That turns man into a beast! The discovery of universal physical principles which improve man's power in the universe, to solve problems in the universe, medical discoveries, other kinds of discoveries—these are expressions of immortality. These are expressions of citizenship. A citizen is not simply a member of a club! A citizen is a person who participates in society, who's an integral part of the society, who's contributing to that society. And who anticipates benefits for future generations.

People struggled against slavery in this country! What's the meaning of their lives? The meaning of the slave, is the struggle against slavery! And the realization of the success in defeating that oppression. And continuing that process, for a quality of education in life, which that corresponds to: That is citizenship! That's the meaning of the Preamble of the Constitution. That's the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, taking it from Leibniz: the concept of the happiness of humanity, the future generations.

And so, we have lost that motive! We live on a planet—it's not a question of how to make a better society—we live on a planet of over 6.5 billion people. Many of these people are living in absolute misery. This is not acceptable to us. This may not be our country, but it's not acceptable to us that they live in misery. We have to change the planet, we have to change the organization of the planet, so that they no longer live in misery—they're no longer compelled to live in misery.

More important: We don't want to merely help them, like do-gooders. We must empower them to have a sense of their own immortality, their own importance in their own society. Do you know how many people live and die, with no real sense of human worth? Or a sense of human worth denied to them as a form of expression? Does it not bother you, that a human being is not able to be a human being? To sense what it is to be a human being? Can you sleep easily at night, if someone in some other part of Asia or Africa, does not have the right to a sense of a human life? Is that not a mission? Are there not many kinds of missions of that type, which inspire people to adopt these missions as professions?

And that's what we've lost.

We lost it in the United States with the Baby-Boomer generation, because the poor fellows were brainwashed. Brainwashed into this utopian, existentialist kind of culture.

Now, that brings us to some concluding points: The key thing, of course, is, to recognize this is the problem. We've come to the point, we've been a society of fools. We are travelers on a ship of fools, called Convention; called Conventional Belief; called Our Way of Life. A ship of fools. Guys struggling to get a better stateroom on the Titanic, while it's sinking.

And therefore, the key thing we have done, we have allowed our people to become degenerate, as you can see on almost any television. Or you can see it on the Internet, if you want to. We've allowed that to happen. We've lost a sense of life. We've lost a sense of a purpose in life, which is not mortal, but a sense of that which is transcendental. That that good we do, if it's well conceived, lives on after us. And the purpose of life, is to ensure that that happens. And to ensure that others have the right to live that kind of life! And that's what's denied. It's denied by an existentialist form of corruption, which has destroyed the United States from the inside.

Now! Since we are at the point that everything that people thought they had, in this society, is about to be taken away from them, by the circumstances typified by the BAE, you have an existential question: You want to die as a pig? Or live as a man?

And that's what politics must be, today.

BAE Bribery Operations : Senator Kerry Demands Department of Justice Probe

Senator Kerry Demands Department of Justice Probe BAE Bribery Operations

June 28 (EIRNS)—On June 21, 2007, the following letter was sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Sen. John Kerry.

June 21, 2007

The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General Office of the Attorney General United States
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I am writing you concerning recent reports that the British defense company BAE Systems (BAE) may have violated U.S. anti-bribery laws in relation to its international arms deals. As you are undoubtedly aware, BAE is currently seeking approval for the acquisition of Armor Holdings, Inc., the U.S. maker of armor for Humvees. BAE also currently supplies Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the U.S. military.

According to published reports, Britain's Serious Fraud Office was investigating an $80 billion transaction, known as the Al-Yamamah deal, involving a series of illegal payments by BAE through the now defunct Riggs bank in Washington, DC to former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan. That investigation was halted last December by the British Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on the grounds that it was not in the national interest to pursue the inquiry.

It appears that U.S. officials have also been concerned about BAE's business practices for some years. In July 2002, a State Department memorandum noted "persistent allegations that BAE Systems pays bribes to obtain business." The memorandum concluded that "this volume of allegations about one company would have triggered a Department of Justice criminal division investigation long ago." More recently, in October 2006, a high ranking official at the Department of Justice indicated that foreign-owned companies, such as BAE, could be targeted by U.S. investigators: "The Department will not hesitate to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, just as it does against American companies."

Recently published reports indicate that the Department of Justice's Fraud section, in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has begun a preliminary investigation to review allegations that BAE may have illegally paid key officials to win contracts to sell fighter jets and other major weapons systems. However, representatives of both BAE and Saudi Arabia have told media sources that they have not been notified of any investigation by the Department of Justice.

Given BAE's prominent role within the U.S. defense industry, their pending application before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for approval of the Armor Holdings sale, and the serious nature of the allegations against this company, full disclosure of the facts is essential. Accordingly, I would appreciate receiving from you a formal clarification on the following points:
Have there ever been any investigations, preliminary or otherwise, of BAE by the Department of Justice?

Is there an ongoing investigation of BAE by the Department of Justice?

If any investigation of BAE was ever initiated by the Department of Justice and subsequently dropped, what were the specific reasons for this decision?

Was the Attorney General's office, or any other office or official in the Department of Justice, ever contacted by any other officials, agencies or departments of the U.S. government, including the White House, concerning this matter? If so, please list any and all such contacts.

Is the Attorney General's office aware of any past or present investigation of BAE by any other agency or department of the United States government? If so, has the Justice Department requested access to any information relevant to this investigation? Has the Justice Department requested any information related to BAE from Britain's Serious Fraud Office?

What contact, if any, has the Attorney General's office had with the Committee on Foreign Investment regarding the sale of Armor Holdings to BAE?

I look forward to a reply no later than June 30, 2007. I would also encourage you to share any information you may have related to this issue with the Committee on Foreign Investment.


Senator John F. Kerry

Cc: Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

`Bank of the South' Delay Is the Work Of the South American Friends of the Scandal-Ridden BAE

`Bank of the South' Delay Is the Work Of the South American Friends of the Scandal-Ridden BAE

July 5, 2007 (EIRNS)--This release was issued by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).

The intended late June signing of the founding document of the new Bank of the South by the Presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela, has been postponed to an unspecified date later this year. Although the announced reason for the delay are disagreements over issues such as capital contributions and voting rights of the members, and the location of the new bank's headquarters, U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche today pointed to the fundamental issue at stake:

"The Bank of the South is a matter of life and death for the nations of South America, as the international financial and monetary system plunges rapidly into disintegration. As I noted in a June 29 interview on Ecuadorean radio: 'It is my hope that the Bank of the South, would function as a vehicle commonly used by sovereign nation-states of South America, to maintain sovereignty, number one; but as a necessary vehicle of the type I specified back in August of 1982. It is the exchange of long-term credit among nations, for projects in common interest. You need a system of fixed-exchange-rate agreements among nations, in order to do that.'

"The founding of the Bank of the South poses a problem in South America for financial interests typified by the Spanish Santander and BBVA banks, which are extensions of the British Empire's scandal-ridden BAE company," LaRouche said.

As LaRouche and his associates have extensively documented, the BAE is at the center of "The Scandal of the Century," having generated a slush fund in the range of $100 billion through its "Al Yamamah" deal with Dick Cheney's friend, Saudi Prince Bandar, which has been used for black operations, destabilizations and coups around the world. Chilean fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet, for example, was an integral part of the BAE's weapons-and-murder apparatus in South America. The BAE has functioned for decades as an instrument of the British Empire, as such.

Santander Bank is intimately associated with the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the Queen's leading personal financial institutions, and has developed widespread financial and political influence across South America. For example, high-level "former" Santander officials have managed to insinuate themselves into prominent positions, including cabinet posts, within Brazil's Lula government, and are known to be violently hostile to the idea of the Bank of the South, and President Lula's stated commitment to the new financial institution.


Piers Corbyn is a London-based meteorologist who claims that he has a system enabling him to predict the weather with accuracy months in advance. He claims that his "solar weather technique" uses "predictable aspects of solar activity—particle and magnetic effects from the Sun to make weather forecasts MANY MONTHS ahead." [1]

He keeps the details of his methodology for making predictions a secret, and has been criticized for making unfounded claims about the power of his predictions, even after they turned out to be inaccurate.

Source: Executive Intelligence Review

`Don't Bet on Man-Made Origins of Global Warming'

Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist, is the originator of the revolutionary solar weather technique of long-range forecasting and a founder of Weather Action Long Range Forecasters. His first scientific publications were on aspects of meteorology and astronomy. He also carried out astrophysics research at Queen Mary College London and published work on galaxy formation and the mean matter density of the universe.

From his research into the causes of weather change, he totally rejects the carbon dioxide-based theory of global warming and climate change. Corbyn is one of the scientists featured in the wagTV film-produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," shown on Channel 4 in Britain in March.

Corbyn was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on May 2.

EIR: Could you please tell us a little of your background?

Corbyn: I've got a first-class degree in physics from Imperial College, and a high degree in astrophysics at Queen Mary College, which are both part of the University of London. Prior to that, I was always very interested in weather, and I built myself an observing weather station and did experiments in science and the weather.

While studying astrophysics, I knew of various supposed connections between solar activity (that is, sunspots) and the weather, although at the time, I was more interested in sunspots. Subsequently, I thought that the idea of trying to predict sunspots, which is all I wanted to do, was a bit silly, because, who cares? It might be more interesting if one could predict the weather using solar activity, and I set about doing that.

Now, it was too difficult, and I gave up—until the miners' strike came along in 1984. And friends involved in these things in Britain, asked me, "Piers, you were trying to do long-range weather forecasting. Is it going to be a cold Winter?"

And I said, "I haven't a clue. I've given up."

And they said, "Well, have another go, see if you can tell us."

So, I did go back into trying to do this, and I said that the Winter of 1984-85 in the United Kingdom would be very cold. And it was. It wasn't quite cold enough for the miners—you know, they wanted to win—but it was very cold.

After that, I went back into doing [weather prediction]. And to cut a long story short, I found a certain connection, a certain predictability. I tested this by doing gambling with William Hill, the bookmaker here, in the Summer of 1988. Then, for 12 years, I carried on doing gambling every month [on weather prediction], and made a lot of money, until they stopped me from doing it.

This was things like, will April in London be warmer than normal, or will there be thunderstorms in a certain time period....

EIR: I noticed that on your website, that you got banned. Now the going thing is risk management services, one Bob Ward (who wants to stop the DVD of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from being released) is running a weather derivatives operation. So, while you were doing it on a small scale, now they want to make a whole financial services industry out of it.

Corbyn: That's right. They want our financial services industry run on fear. They want to carry on trading carbon and energy and so on, running on fear. The last thing they want, actually, is working long-range weather forecasts.

Now, in 1995, I set up a limited company called Weatheraction Ltd, and we've been through various phases since then, on and off the stock exchange (we're now off).... And we're now making long-range forecasts up to 12 months ahead, more accurate than anything we did before. We sell to farmers and the energy industry. The rail network buys them, for example, to get warning of heavy rainstorm and potential landslides.

EIR: It seems like you're producing your forecasts from actual physical observations, not like NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the United States, which uses more computer modelling, and which tends to have high inaccuracy.

Corbyn: As I said in a presentation I gave in January, at the Science Museum in Imperial College: Computer modelling for weather forecasting, and indeed for climate forecasting, has reached its limits.

No amount of improved computer power will get past the really basic climate inputs. The activity from the Sun, which affects the upper atmosphere—these things are also modulated by lunar effects for example. We do take those into account in our forecasts. We have eight weather periods every month and six or seven out of the eight will be correct, in any one month.

EIR: It seems that the computer models hold the Sun's output as constant. They can't model water vapor. And what other researchers have told me, is that once you start putting up the energy input in the computer model, and the carbon cycle, the model is invalid.

Corbyn: That's right. The model is invalid, and it's "rubbish in equals rubbish out."

On the very fundamental, basic level, I think we can see it's invalid just by looking at the Ice Ages.

It's not the case that carbon dioxide drives temperatures. When you leave Ice Ages, it's the other way around: The temperatures go up first, and then carbon dioxide levels go up. And if you look at the fluctuations during the Ice Ages, you can see that, actually, temperature goes up and down, about twice as fast, and twice as often, as carbon dioxide levels go up and down.

So that means that at least about half the time, they're going to be moving in opposite directions, and half the time, they'll be moving in the same direction. I mean, essentially, that they are unconnected. They probably are connected in some complex way, but there's no evidence anywhere that carbon dioxide systematically drives temperature. Where there is evidence of some sort of driving, it's the other way around.

So, that being the case, that whole theory is fundamentally a failure. Actually, since 1998, world temperatures have been falling.

EIR: Lately, the BBC and the U.S. press have picked up on how this is the warmest April in Great Britain, but yet, they don't talk about the 4- to 5-year running cold snap in the Southern Hemisphere, because it pokes a hole in their line that "the whole Earth is warming up, and Antarctica is going to melt and flood whole islands in the Pacific."

Corbyn: There are fundamental things wrong with that "warm April" view. First of all, of course, America's just had a cold Winter. But the Central England data set occupies 1/5,000th of the global area. So, to say this warm April is evidence of global warming, is insane.

This is a description. It can't be a cause of global warming, in the world or anywhere. It's just complete nonsense.

EIR: The latest now, in the New York Times, is that a new study shows that the ice cap will melt 30 years ahead of time. So they must have found a satellite that looks 30 years into the future.

Corbyn: Well, of course, there's nothing new happening in the world now, that hasn't happened before: In terms of the post-glacial period, the last 700 or so years have been the coldest part of the last 10,000 years, and 4,000 years ago, it was much warmer than now. That was the Bronze Age. It was called the "climate optimum" by historians, and since then, temperatures have actually generally declined, while carbon dioxide levels have gone up.

And until about 1900, or 1910—about 100 years ago, carbon dioxide levels had gone up, for various reasons, at the same time as temperatures. But the general trend in the last 4,000 years is that carbon dioxide and temperature have been moving against each other.

Now, in the world, the fundamental periodicity of temperature changes is the 22-year magnetic cycle of the Sun. And we understand quite a lot about why that is. The peak of the current 22-year cycle was in 2002-2003, and we're now in a declining phase of that. And if you take [as the global warmers did] the world average temperatures, averaged over a two-year moving average, the recent peak was in 1998, because there were cold years before and after that.

But in 2002-2003, the world temperature moving average peaked at the same time as the phase of the natural 22-year cycle. So, what we think is happening is that world temperatures may be not rising on average, but in the last 10 years, up until 2002, we have seen the rising course of a natural cycle [related to the 22-year magnetic cycle of the Sun].

This happened to coincide with CO2 levels going up, but so what? It may be, that really we're in a period overall, where temperature and carbon dioxide are actually moving in opposite directions, in terms of deviations from a norm. But for some reason, there is also a general increase in solar activity. That was definitely the case since 1900 or so, and that is also causing a general slow warming, which may also be coming to an end now.

What carbon dioxide does, appears to be irrelevant.

EIR: What about the recent book of Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars, about the cosmic ray connection to some formation of clouds and cooling? How does the 22-year magnetic cycle of the Sun affect that?

Corbyn: I think their experimental work to show that charged particles cause cloud nucleation and could therefore affect the development of weather fronts is of tremendously important significance, and groundbreaking. And that is their contribution, although I think their work has got a fundamental problem....

EIR: There's another meeting of the IPCC in Bangkok this week to produce another summary for policymakers. To be more honest, it's a summary written by policymakers.... And you wrote a letter requesting that certain graphs that question the IPCC science conclusions be included with their policy summary.

Corbyn: Correct.

EIR: Did you have an answer yet?

Corbyn: No, there are two things: One is, that I've written the letter to the leaders of the British activity on the IPCC, Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor and David Miliband, the minister responsible for environment—who, I would like to add, is the most callous liar in British politics, I've ever come across.

And I also sent a copy to Prof. Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, who, in previous times, I worked with on the question of neutrino energies in cosmology. So, I do know him. He is a very, very good scientist, but I think he's sold his soul for something or other, in the Royal Society. We'll see.

Anyway, there's been no reply to the letter I wrote saying, "Please, by Bangkok, get the graph that you left out put into that summary for policymakers."

What they've done in their summary for policymakers, is put in a graph showing that carbon dioxide levels have been rising, since about 5,000 years ago. So, I wrote them saying: If you're putting this in, please also put the graph, measured from my source, which show what temperatures have been doing. We must have these comparisons; policymakers should have these comparisons.

What also happened is that one Member of Parliament—Martin Jones—has now asked questions to Parliament on the lines I suggested, because he got hold of my letter. Jones is a scientist himself, and he's very distressed about what's going on.

EIR: Is he a member of the Conservative Party?

Corbyn: No, he's Labour....

EIR: There's a very interesting paper that's been published in Energy and Environment by Ernst Beck on the 180 years of measurements of atmospheric CO2 that were carried out by Nobel Prize laureates and other scientists from the 1800s into the 1950s. Contrary to what is shown in ice cores, there have been periods where you had 400 parts per million [ppm], almost up to 500 ppm, for example, and a period in the 1850s, where there is a peak. But, as I remember, there were not many power plants, and other assorted man-made industries at that time to account for this CO2.

Corbyn: Absolutely: There's a lot of modulation of carbon dioxide and temperatures, which has nothing to do with mankind—plant growth being one of them, and volcanoes being another.

Now, it is also very important to notice that ice cores do not measure annual amounts of carbon dioxide, but the values are spread out over centuries, because carbon dioxide is a gas, and it diffuses into the ice. So, although the annual layers of ice will give you measures of temperatures then, or temperatures within a year or so of any place, any date, carbon dioxide levels can not be measured like this.

This comes to another lie of the global warmers: They say, "Well, carbon dioxide levels are rising now faster than they've ever risen before."

Now, there's no evidence of CO2 levels having risen, or not risen, faster than before, because you couldn't see such things in the ice cores. It's like saying a blind man can't see, therefore there's nothing to see. What they put out about that is a total lie.

The papers you refer to, are very interesting and important, but carbon dioxide is not a driver of temperature. And there have been many periods when carbon dioxide levels must have been—or when you can measure them, it's clear they would have been, or were rather—reaching quite interesting peaks or troughs, but which have no bearing on temperatures.

EIR: Yes, I asked this question in an e-mail to Phil Jones [a leading British global warming scientist] at the Climate Research Unit, in which he said, he had not read the paper, but on face value, he could tell me that the paper was "totally wrong," and ice cores were the only way to determine CO2. Period.

Then I asked about the paper on global mean temperature that a Danish professor put out, which, you know, has created a big problem for the global warmers. Phil Jones, again, told me that there was something wrong with the paper, that it would not have been published in a "reasonable" climate journal, and that I had to use "Google Scholar" to see how many citations the paper had. So, in essence, he said, "check on the internet to see what's true!"

Corbyn: Check the internet to see if something's true—well that's interesting, isn't it!

EIR: These guys are having trouble, now.

Corbyn: Eee-yi-yi-yi. Well, I like the lie about sea level rising. Now, there have been actual measurements of the Maldive Islands that show that if you stick to actual data, they show that sea levels have gone down in the Maldives (or the Islands have risen up) in the last 70 years. But the general problem is that the [global warmers'] sea level measurements in the Pacific are insane, because the Pacific is in constant motion. You know, there's a ring of volcanoes in the Pacific, and indeed, it shows that the whole area is moving. So, these islands are going to go up and down, and it has nothing to do with sea level.

The overall point is, that since the last Ice Age, sea level has been constantly rising, because heat energy has been slowly getting into the sea. The sea as a whole used to be much colder, and now it has expanded. And that expansion has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, or what's happening this year, or last year, or the last decade in temperatures. And that is why, when the Romans came to England, the sea level was lower, and there are ports which they built, which are now well under the sea.

EIR: Yes, it seems that the warmers forget about underwater volcano activity, and they also forget about, the underwater volcano activity in the Arctic Sea, too! This is what creates the melt ponds, which they cry about.

Corbyn: Absolutely. Of course, they also don't admit the early Medieval Warm Period, which was much warmer than now. Greenland was much warmer: It was called Greenland when discovered by the Vikings, because it was habitable, and a lot of people emigrated there.

And polar bears did very well in the warmer times. They didn't die out at all; they didn't die out in the last 10,000 years, nor during the previous interglacial, nor the one before that. So, they're just used as a deceitful heartthrob; you know, to pluck your heartstrings because the polar bears might die out.

EIR: Yes, we should find a picture of a polar bear chasing one of these people trying to take its picture, and publish that, instead of all of these cute little pictures of polar bears.

Corbyn: Anyway, my view is that climate changes have happened in the last 80 years, that is, the world has got a little bit warmer, although not as warm as it has been in Medieval times, or the Bronze Age.

That warming is a good thing. It leads to more prosperity. If it goes on, it could lead to the reopening of what's called the Northwest Passages, a sea route to the North Pacific going through parts of Canada and Greenland. And our own ideas—and we do have some planet forecasts based on the ideas about changing solar activity—is that actually, this world warming has probably reached its peak, and it will stay constant, or it will go down a bit, until 2013. Beyond that, we're not sure what will happen, but the warming will probably carry on declining.

EIR: The global warming crowd talks about increased CO2 as some kind of negative thing, but if you think about all the changes in plants, with photosynthesis being produced better, you will have more food output—

Corbyn: Yes, that's right, more food. And it's good for trees, good for grasses; it's great! More CO2 equals good, and global warming equals good—although they're not calling it good. The CO2 causes the plants to grow, but the CO2 is not causing the temperatures. The temperatures encourage the plants to grow, as well. A warmer world, more CO2: That's the best.

EIR: Yes. Just ask anybody who moves from South Dakota in the United States, to Florida. That's what Fred Singer always says, when you ask him about "Is the warmer climate better?" "Well, just ask someone who just moved from South Dakota, where it's frozen a lot of the time, to Miami, where it's nice and warm. Ask them."

The one thing the warmers don't have, is a sense of humor. And the faked data, which are probably more faked than the intelligence we were told about the Iraq War—

Corbyn: Oh, absolutely! The so-called hockey stick [graph] is a lie. They've known it's a lie, yet they carry on repeating it.

EIR: Yes, the IPCC has backed off the hockey stick in its last report, but it's still there. It's just not pointed to as if it's their Holy Grail.

Corbyn: The Al Gore film, as far as I could see, has got the hockey stick in it.... I counted 20 deliberate lies in his film—well, I say "deliberate" because Gore ought to know better. And I wrote them all down. I daresay, you would've gotten a few of them anyway, but I think—

EIR: Yes, there's been a lot of people who've gone through it and found all the misrepresentations. And the global warmers are crying about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" over a small error in one little chart, while Al Gore's film is like Soviet propaganda. That's what some people have told me, that the film was just put together like Soviet propaganda.

Corbyn: He could change his name to Al Gorebbels.

Nigeria: Criminals Behind the Margaret Hill Kidnapping

Source : Stratfor
July 06, 2007 16 28 GMT

Gunmen kidnapped 3-year-old Margaret Hill on July 5 from a car stuck in a traffic jam in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, on the busy Ada George highway. Her father, Mike Hill, is an expatriate from the United Kingdom who has lived and worked in Nigeria for a decade and is reportedly employed by Lone Star Drilling Co., an oil-supply company contracted by Royal Dutch/Shell to operate a number of its offshore rigs. He also runs a bar in Port Harcourt with his Nigerian wife.

Margaret was being driven to school when the kidnappers smashed a car window, stabbed her Nigerian driver in the arm and took her. They later contacted the girl's parents and demanded that Mike exchange himself for Margaret at a remote spot near Yenagoa in neighboring Bayelsa state within three hours or they would kill Margaret. Even though the exchange was never made -- neither the police nor Margaret's parents could locate the spot and the police refused to allow Mike to make the swap anyway -- the kidnappers called back, saying the girl was alive, and withdrew their demand for the exchange.

Kidnappings are common in southern Nigeria, but usually target foreign oil workers rather than children. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) militant group, which often kidnaps foreign oil workers in the region, condemned Margaret's abduction and said it will help find the girl. MEND is not involved with the girl's kidnapping; the group carries out kidnappings to pressure oil companies and, by extension, the government. Though Mike is a subcontractor for Shell, MEND would not abduct his daughter because it would not affect oil operations, and the chances of getting a multimillion dollar payout from an oil company's insurance company would be less than if actual workers were abducted.

This is the third child kidnapping for ransom in Port Harcourt in recent weeks. A state legislator's 3-year-old son was kidnapped June 26 from his nursery school and released three days later, and a local businessman's daughter was abducted before that. In both cases, the children were returned after a ransom was paid. This indicates one or more criminal gangs specializing in the abduction of high-profile parents' children are operating in Port Harcourt. With the latest kidnapping, they appear to have expanded their scope to expatriates' children.

The offer to exchange Margaret for her father is unusual. Initially, the kidnappers could have made the offer because they thought Mike would be insured by Shell because of his work with Lone Star. However, they changed their minds after the swap failed to take place. This indicates the kidnappers do not have a sound plan -- or, if they do, it is falling apart, which could lead them to panic. Kidnappers who are inexperienced or panicking are more dangerous to their victims.

The mixed signals from the kidnappers also could be a reaction to the attention this case is getting. Because her father is British, Margaret is a British subject, and the British Foreign Office and local and international media have taken an interest in her abduction. Despite their often brazen tactics and relative lack of concern about getting caught, Nigerian kidnappers -- like most criminals -- will shy away from too much media attention.

At this point, the kidnappers probably just want to get rid of Margaret and collect some money for their efforts. Catching the kidnappers is not the top priority for her parents, local officials and the British -- they all just want her back safely. Though the criminals who have been kidnapping the children of high-profile parents might continue operating in Port Harcourt for a while, they probably will think twice before abducting the child of an expatriate again

About Stratfor

Stratfor is the world’s leading private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

07/07/2007 20:59 LAGOS, July 7 (AFP)
Kidnapped British girl could be freed soon: Nigerian police

The Nigerian kidnappers of three year-old British girl Margaret Hill may release her within 24 hours, the chief of police in Rivers State said on Saturday.

"We have the rumour that she will be released between now and tomorrow," Commissioner Felix Ogbaudu told AFP by telephone.

Ogbaudu also said that the police "had information" on the whereabouts of the girl, who was seized at gunpoint on Thursday morning in Port Harcourt as she was being dropped off at school.

Earlier on Saturday the girl's mother Oluchi Hill said that the captors had demanded a ransom, a day after threatening to kill the little girl if her father, Michael Hill, did not take her place.

"They have asked for money. Who will help me to pay them?" Oluchi Hill, the child's Nigerian-born mother, told AFP by telephone.

She declined to say how high the ransom demand was and said she would issue the information through the British embassy in Nigeria.

An industry source said the girl's parents had moved from their home to an undisclosed location.

Nigerian police meanwhile intensified efforts to secure the girl's release.

"We are not resting on our oars. We are making efforts to see that the girl is released without harm," Rivers state police spokeswoman Barasua Ireju told AFP.

No group has claimed responsibility for the abduction, the latest to hit the restive Niger Delta in recent months, but the main separatist group in the region, MEND, has condemned the act.

The British Foreign Office has called for Margaret's immediate safe release.

Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua on Friday issued a personal appeal for Margaret to be freed.

Yar'Adua was deeply concerned that in spite of firm commitments to develop the impoverished region, kidnappings had continued, spokesman Olusegun Adeniyi said.

"President Yar'Adua therefore appeals once again for a total cessation of all acts of violence in the region, the release of little Miss Margaret Hill and all other hostages," he said in a statement here.

MEND is just one of many groups that have carried out kidnappings and attacks in the Niger Delta. Some claim to be fighting for a larger share of oil resources for locals, but many are armed gangs only seeking ransom money.

More than 200 foreigners have been seized since the start of 2006 in the Niger Delta, Nigeria's main oil producing region, in unrest that has reduced the country's 2.6 million barrels per day output by around a quarter.

Most have been freed again after a few days or weeks, often with a ransom paid. Nearly all multinational oil companies have moved expatriate families away from the region, and Britain has urged all its citizens to leave.

In May, a foreign child was kidnapped and released four days later.

The kidnapping and associated unrest helped push international oil prices near to record highs on Friday, with Brent North Sea crude climbing past 76 dollars per barrel, not far off its 78 dollar record.