Reality Check for Britain's African Slave Trade. Prof. Tony Martin.

"Reality Check for David Cameron's India Quest,"  21/2/13.

http://undiplomatictimes.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/reality-check-for-david-camerons-india.html

This is a very good article - except for one small inaccurate sentence raising a point which I cannot let pass:-

QUOTE FROM ABOVE ARTICLE, "Britain was by far the leading slave trader out of Africa.."

Was it though?  Was Britain really the leading slave trader out of Africa?

Who were then, if not the British as is commonly believed and which is what the conventional text books teach us all in school and college?  Are these books false, are they spreading lies? 

This is also what popular literature presents to us, as well as Hollywood films, and tv programs. 

What is the truth about the black slave trade?  

Who were the real culprits who benefited the most from it?

Prof. Tony Martin Dis-Invited to UK by London Mayor Ken Livingstone! Mayor's Uncle Tom - Lee Jasper Does The Dirty Work - - UK Blacks Protest!

When London Mayor Ken Livingstone was informed of Dr. Martin's uncompromising analysis of the Black/Jewish relationship (see  Martin's landmark book, The Jewish Onslaught) , Lee Jasper was ordered to "dis-invite" Martin—an order which Uncle Tom Jasper promptly and dutifully  carried out…

Read on... http://www.ligali.org/pdf/prof_tony_martin_london_disinvite_by_ken_livingstone_and_lee_jasper.pdf

Ethnic brainwashing!

The Civil Service is responsible for formulating central government policy, and for implementing it by providing services direct to the public. It is made up of around 430,000 people working in a large number of government departments and agencies.

The Fast Stream Summer Diversity Internship Programme.

The Civil Service Summer Diversity Internship Programme for ethnic minority and,

now, those from under-represented socio-economic backgrounds was established

over ten years ago with the aim of providing high calibre undergraduates/

graduates with a 6-9 weeks’ training work placement within government departments.

http://faststream.civilservice.gov.uk/Global/Docs/Summer-Diversity-Internship-Programme.pdf

Ethnic brainwashing! 
CSCLeaders is delivered by a partnership between HRH The Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study Conferences (UK Fund) and Common Purpose, the international leadership organisation operating in 18 countries which has been giving people the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders both at work and in society since 1989. http://www.cscleaders.org/students/is-it-for-me/

WTF?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23614068/Benefits-for-Immigrants-Booklet

FARMING UK, THE ORIGINAL EU MODEL.

BRITISH FARMING AND THE ORIGINAL MODEL FOR THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY by Edward Spalton Since 1 January 1973 Britain has not had an agricultural policy of its own. British farming and food production have been entirely controlled by the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with the institutions of the UK as its agent. This is a very short note to sketch in outline what our own policy used to be like, what we got into in 1973, where that policy originated and what it is like today. The 1947 Agriculture Act Britain had come close to starving twice through submarine blockade in both wars and was also very short of foreign exchange. It was therefore decided to have a policy which would encourage the production of a considerable proportion of our own food whilst allowing all the world to send its food here without customs duty. Farmers received subsidy from the taxpayer to ensure a price at which an efficient farm could be profitable. This was negotiated each year in a price review between the farming organisations and the Ministry of Agriculture, subject to parliamentary approval. So, if the world price of (say) wheat was £25 per ton and and efficient British farmer needed £30 per ton to be profitable, a "deficiency payment" of £5 per ton would be paid. Without this British farms could not compete with overseas areas enjoying more favourable climatic and other conditions. Thus the taxpayer paid once for a degree of food security but the market was otherwise allowed to operate freely. There was bureaucracy but very little by present day standards. Low food prices assisted the less well off and reduced pressure on wages. It was a simple, logical system for a largely urban population . Commonwealth and other countries could ship their produce here freely and our industrial exports flowed in the opposite direction. The Approach to the changeover The British government tried from the early Sixties to become a member of the European Economic Community, which was called "the common market". By the early Seventies, they were telling people that the Commonwealth countries no longer wanted anything to do with us and that our future lay in Europe. As soon as we were inside the Common External Tariff of the EEC, our exports to Europe would boom. I recently (2013) heard a recording of Roy Jenkins saying this and well remember a young John Selwyn Gummer, now Lord Deben, telling our 1972 corn trade association conference the same thing. As well as sacrificing our own fishery, the government was ready to ditch our traditional food suppliers in the Commonwealth who would be largely excluded from Britain by a high EEC tariff barrier. The British "family of nations" would be deliberately weakened. We would have to switch to buying European for most foods and at prices far above the world prices we had previously paid. People would have to pay much more for their food. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) The original six countries of the EEC hammered out their policy in strenuous negotiations during 1962. These went on so long that four of the delgates had to be carried out, suffering from exhaustion! Like all EEC policies it became binding in its entirety on existing and future members. Put very simply, the policy kept out most temperate foreign foods by high import duties. It guaranteed prices to farmers by providing a buyer of last resort. So the consumer paid more for his food and then had to pay taxes so that the EEC agencies could buy up surplus produce at prices which were thought adequate to provide a reasonable living to keep the small peasant farmers of Europe from revolt and communism. This was the origin of the grain, beef and butter mountains and the wine lakes. Agricultural productivity was rising very quickly. With an open-ended guaranteed price for all that was produced, these surpluses became grotesque. Much was exported to countries outside the EEC at prices far below the cost of production, thus destroying agriculture in developing countries. Even that was not enough and much of the surplus was "denatured" by making it unfit for human consumption, often in animal feed - to produce further livestock surpluses! The French took full advantage of this. After joining the EEC an Irish politician described the CAP as "Ireland's oil"! They now shipped food to Britain at high guaranteed prices. Formerly they and the French had to compete for our trade in the world market. Where did the CAP come from? Obviously, from the negotiations between the original members but it was such a strange policy, so very detailed and ornate that there had to be an ideology, a coherent plan behind it. The official, guaranteed price of wheat, for instance, was calculated from the place in Europe which was reckoned to have the greatest shortage of wheat, Duisburg in Germany. As you travelled further away from Duisburg, the price got a fraction lower each 100 kilometres. It was all very strange and required massive officialdom. Where did it come from? The answer will not be entirely surprising to those who have read books like Rodney Atkinson's "Europe's Full Circle" (see in particular pages 54 to 65) and "Fascist Europe Rising" but the precise fit between what was proposed in Berlin in 1942 and what was agreed in Brussels in 1962 is remarkable. The original papers were the record of a conference, entitled European Economic Community (1942) Excerpts from the introduction by Professor-Doktor Heinrich Hunke, Economic Adviser to the Gauleiter of Greater Berlin (Dr. Josef Goebbels), President of the Berlin Association of Merhchants and Industrialists. "Politically the three power pact has restored to honour the age old concepts of life, people and living space and secured a natural order and neighbourly coexistence as the ideal of the New Order for the peoples of Europe. Militarily the basis of English economic policy...is shattered" "State economic leadership ...forms the core of the new theory and practice. It replaces the autonomic egotism and automatic, self-acting laws of the Anglo Saxon theory" "It contains secondly the obligation that from considerations of European freedom, continental Europe must receive first loyalty in all economic transactions". "The old industrialising tendencies which owed their rise to the falling prices of agricultural and raw material producing countries must now belong to the past" "With an assured demand for agricultural products and raw materials at reasonable prices, a great increase in prosperity has arisen...." Excerpts from the paper "The Economic Face of the New Europe" by Walther Funk, Reichsminister for the Economy, President of the Reichsbank and Minister for Post War Planning. (talking of the time before the establishment of the Nazi's EEC) "Buyers were lacking who were ready to take significant quantities at stable prices"; "self sufficiency in food supplies was lost"; "...securing basic supplies of food and raw materials … a true economic freedom". " This space* can however feed and clothe them and amply supply them with all necessary goods" (* Space = Raum, the European Lebensraum or living space) "Also the basis of food production, taking into account the possibility of infrastructure improvement, is completely sufficient". "Nevertheless as trade within the great economic area, it will enjoy all the advantages of a state-controlled market. The farmer in Norway, the market gardener in Holland and the Danish poultry breeder will need have no concern that they can dispose of their produce or have it left on their hands. They also need not worry that the price will fairly reward their efforts. They will know that their production and sales prospects are secured by inter-state treaties and that there is no more room for speculators and crises". The Same but Different Of course, the economists, ideologues and planners of the Forties could not foresee the huge increases in agricultural productivity which would create the food mountains. The brisk managers of the Third Reich would quickly have adjusted the system. But in the post war Europe it was not so easy to alter treaties, once they were agreed. The French and the Irish would exploit the system for all it was worth, claiming European idealism as they pocketed the wealth of the British housewife and taxpayer. When Britain made reasonable requests for reform, it was often treated with contempt as anti European. In one debate an impassioned French lady proclaimed "We are building Europe and you are arguing about the price of cabbages!" Eventually reform of a sort did come but for a run of forty years, the EU's biggest policy and budget item was ruled by the principles and precepts laid down in Berlin in 1942. The similarities of policy are far too great to be merely coincidental. The detestation of genuine free trade and intense dislike of "the Anglo Saxons" (see the list of comments and policies in the fascist 1930s and 1940s with direct equivalents in the 1980s and 1990s in Rodney Atkinson's book Fascist Europe Rising) remain as fixed attitudes in European economic and ideological circles to this day. The economist, Roger Bootle discovered this on a visit to Germany in September 2012. He wrote. "There is a chasm between us in our understanding of the way the world works"* The EU system has now "decoupled" farm subsidy from food production. Farmers receive a Single Farm Payment and for what? Well, essentially for being farmers! It is based loosely on what each farm used to produce years ago. Increasingly it is linked to ever more precise evironmental regulation. Through various Directives the EU now has the power to control the intensity with which Britain is farmed. There are incentives for environmental improvements and MEPs recently voted a measure which would permit farmers to claim subsidy twice for the same activity - once for "stewardship" and secondly for the contribution to the "green" agenda! So the lunacy and opportunities for corruption of a single agricultural policy from Sicily to the North of Finland continue - still hugely bureaucratic, a massive budget item to be funded by contributions from British taxpayers. To use an Irish-ism, it is certain that we will get on better together with our European neighbours when we are apart and not unequally yoked in the alien polity of the EU. A commentary and full translation of the 1942 papers are available on www.freenations.freeuk.com under the title "The EU's Evil Pedigree". *Daily Telegraph 30 Sept 2012 "Sensible for Germany to leave euro, but they're not ready yet" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9577209/Sensible-for-Germany-to-leave-euro-but-theyre-not-ready.html or Google "Roger Bootle Anglo Saxons"

NHS everything for SALE; full privatisation revealed

Psychopaths in business, politics and sport, by Paddy Upton

Paddy Upton, "It’s not about the truth"

Psychopaths in business, politics and sport, by Paddy Upton (They sound like Jimmy Saville!)

‘Corporate psychopaths’ are possibly the biggest threat facing modern-day business, politics and sport; where they currently flourish and are highly rewarded.

During three previous professional assignments, I found myself being highly frustrated as I tried, woefully unsuccessfully, to manage a uniquely destructive individual. Each was highly successful, well respected in their field and admired by many (except the few who worked closely with them). They were also uniquely manipulative and destructive. Eventually the environment around them became untenable, soul destroying and often impossible for others to survive in.

On each occasion I spent an inordinate amount of my time thinking about how to help the individual to lead in a more constructive manner. Nothing seemed to work. I found myself doubting my professional ability and wondering what the hell I was missing.

More than 10 years later the penny dropped. Sometime, whilst working with the third such individual, I remembered a strange thing that Professor Tim Noakes once said years back about Hansie Cronje – that he suspected Cronje was a psychopath*.  It never resonated with me at the time because I thought I knew Hansie well and had a high regard for him. Although his involvement in match-fixing never quite made sense?

Psychopaths, for me, were callous murderers who tortured animals as young children. Not Hansie. And then I learnt that psychopaths could show up either as criminals or as highly intelligent and successful ‘corporate psychopaths’. 

I wish I had known about this cunningly destructive animal earlier. It may have saved me much wasted time and energy, and unnecessary frustration, confusion and illness. As I began researching the corporate psychopath, I was surprised to learn that several colleagues, friends and acquaintances also had endured harrowing experiences with a charmingly tyrannical boss. I was far from alone. The most worrisome discovery I made was how abundant they are in society; one in 100 people is a psychopath, amongst business leaders they are one in 25 and they are even more common in certain industries. Although there doesn’t seem to be any research on psychopaths in sport, it is highly likely they also exist in this field.

Despite their common occurrence, psychopaths operate quite successfully and largely unnoticed.  Harvard Medical School psychologist Martha Stout says that, “People see psychopathy in their personal lives, and they don’t have a clue that it has a label or that others have encountered it.” Corporate psychopath researcher Clive Boddy suggests that “they present as very likable people and lead us to believe that they are our friends. Then one day, we wake up too late finding ourselves a victim of their conniving ways”.

Who are they?

To the casual observer they are intelligent, charming, charismatic, have alluring personalities and appear very friendly. They are brilliant at creative or strategic thinking. They have outstanding communication skills and are highly persuasive, making it easy for them to inspire and manipulate others. They have an uncanny ability to spot and exploit a weakness in a person or a loophole in a system. They have massive self-belief, operate well amidst chaos, are calm and unemotional under high pressure and make difficult decisions with remarkable ease. They do whatever it takes to win.

Most of these attributes are sought-after leadership skills, and thus undetected by most people, the psychopath cleverly navigates their way to high-ranking positions in business or political structures, or to the top of their sport. They make all the right moves, charm their superiors into rewarding and promoting them and accumulate all the right contacts. Up until this point their strengths work for them, and even for others. And then the shit starts.

The further a psychopath rises up the corporate ladder or hierarchical structures, the more they are able to accumulate power, status and money. They have a grandiose sense of self-worth, and are entirely self-serving. They will do as they please and take what they want by lying, cheating, deceiving and breaking rules and laws. They will callously use, abuse and manipulate others, particularly subordinates, as pawns in their own game. They operate without guilt, shame or remorse. Regardless of the chaos, damage or hurt they cause to people and organisations, they do not take any responsibility for their actions.

The following are the eight main characteristics of a ‘corporate psychopath’, according to Professor Robert Hare, a psychologist and the world’s leading authority on psychopaths**.

•        Glibness/superficial charm

•        Grandiose sense of self-worth

•         Pathological lying

•        Cunning/manipulative

•        Lack of remorse or guilt

•        Emotionally shallow

•        Callous/lack of empathy

•        Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Psychopaths in business and politics

Corporate psychopaths seek positions that give them access to power over others and the chance to get things for themselves. Financial institutions, stock exchanges and IT companies are amongst the most fertile environments for them to flourish. As long as they deliver profits and raise stock prices, most corporations are willing to overlook their manipulative, deceitful, callous, verbally and psychologically abusive and exploitative ways. An ex-CEO of one of the biggest investment banks in the world admitted that they used psychometric testing to recruit corporate psychopaths because their characteristics were perfect for senior corporate finance roles! They make great salesmen and can sell ice to Eskimos with their smooth talking, manipulative, guilt-free and not entirely honest ways.

Clive Boddy attests that the 2008 global credit crunch that continues to unsettle the world today, was caused by corporate psychopaths. He showed how a handful of rogue executives in influential positions traded ruthlessly and recklessly with other people’s money and livelihoods to feed their own power and greed, inf licting untold pain, suffering and destruction. Most of the perpetrators still believe they did nothing wrong and refuse to take any responsibility. Some even managed to convince governments to bail their companies out.

 University of Surrey research on 39 high-level British executives showed that they were more likely to be superficially charming, egocentric, insincere, and manipulative, and just as likely to be grandiose, exploitative, and lacking in empathy as criminals and psychiatric patients. The criminals only scored higher on being impulsive and physically aggressive.

Politics is another fertile ground for psychopaths. Their position gives them power over others and access to money. They rise fast thanks to their excellent communication skills, strategic thinking abilities and charm which is accompanied by clever yet pathologica l lying, manipulation and deception. Once in power they are able to make themselves largely untouchable, while serving their own interests. Their lie-to-your-face whilst deceiving-behind-your-back behaviour spans building their personal empires and off-shore bank accounts to leading genocides and major atrocities against fellow humans. Callously and without any remorse, they bring countries and economies to their knees. Researchers point to Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Mao as examples as well as to some current heads of state.

Much of modern day politics is psychopathic in its very nature. Truth is pathologically twisted, being glib and manipulative is commonplace, words and smiles are false and superficial, yet behind closed doors malice, back-stabbing, corruption, being self-serving and abuse of power is equally commonplace and in some cases even acceptable. Corrupt politicians are left licking their lips.

Psychopaths in sport

There is little if any research into the existence of psychopaths in sport. It was unsettling to venture into this terrain as nobody wants to find dragons in their favorite playground. The unavoidable truth is that psychopaths exist in sport, as players and as administrators.

They not only exist, but also thrive. With massive self-belief, they will not stop at anything in order to win, are excellent strategic thinkers and can spot and exploit weaknesses in opponents. They play and win mind games. They get the best out of their teammates through positive manipulation, knowing which buttons to push and what to say to them to motivate and encourage. They know who to charm and how to impress. Being emotionally shallow, they are fearless and remain relaxed and calm under the highest pressure. All these positive attributes support them to become highly successful, gain a huge fan base and be very popular with sponsors and admiring businessmen.

As their power increases, their negative attributes become more visible, often after it’s too late to do anything about it. While their adoring fans have no idea of their condition, their teammates would tell a story you would not believe, nor want to believe. They might share frustrations of an increasingly arrogant and manipulative individual who became less and less of a team player as he moved to serve his own selfish needs, often at the expense of others. They may speak of someone they struggled to connect with, of someone greedy for power and of a two-faced liar who they couldn’t trust. They may also tell of a seeming absence of guilt and remorse.

Their behaviour can create so much negativity in a team that the majority of the other people’s energy goes towards limiting the damage rather than driving success. In one assignment I estimate that over 90% of my input went towards repairing damage and trying to lift colleagues who had become frustrated, angry, demotivated or resigned. Team morale went down, enjoyment went out the window, communication decreased and the team became divided. Performance declined accordingly. In this type of environment the only person left thriving is the psychopath, believing that all around him are incapable and deluding himself that he alone is keeping the boat afloat. This environment is exhausting and soul destroying and eventually can lead to a ‘normal’ person becoming mentally, emotionally and/or physically ill.

The reality, however, is that their teammate would never tell this story. No one other than their immediate teammates would believe them as the psychopath is a superstar in the eyes of the outside world. Often the whistle-blower is at risk of being labelled as the sick, bitter or twisted one. I remember the backlash at the time Professor Noakes suggested Hansie Cronje was a psychopath. When exposed, psychopaths are experts at publicly discrediting and intimidating the whistle-blower and turning the world against them. Professor Hare contends that they are experts in making other people look bad, crazy or deluded.

The one way that they may be found out though, is through their lying and cheating ways. They break rules and thus will readily involve themselves in match-fixing, taking performance enhancing drugs or other means of corruption, regardless of how successful or how rich they might already be. They do not believe they are doing wrong. Unfortunately their web of deceit is weaved so wide, they often end up taking their team and even their sport down with them. When caught, they will deny, lie, manipulate, launch attacks, serve legal notices and blame others whilst not taking any responsibility for their actions. When Hansie Cronje was caught red-handed for match-fixing, he first denied his involvement and then blamed the devil. At no point did he show any remorse towards the vulnerable teammates who he manipulated into his web of deceit, which ended up ruining some of their careers and lives.

At this point, my guess would be that almost everyone who has read this far and who has followed the case against him, would have thought of the name Lance Armstrong. 

He was the ultimate hero, a role model for everyone, the greatest cyclist and maybe even the greatest sportsman that ever lived. He was the cancer survivor and cancer champion who put both cycling and the fight against cancer on the world map. He was also the ringleader of the most sophisticated international doping programme sport has ever seen.

He cheated, lied and bullied his way to winning seven Tour de France titles, and when threatened with being exposed, he covered his tracks, intimidated witnesses and lied to hearing panels and to the world. 

Armstrong claims that evidence of his doping and intimidation scheme, provided by 26 people, including 11 of his former teammates, is fabricated. He maintains that he never lied and he vehemently denies having ever doped.

The prosecution suggests that some of the most shocking evidence was Armstrong’s vindictive, mendacious, vicious character. One report suggested, “He comes across less like a cyclist, more like a psychopath”. Those who dealt closely with him suggested Lance’s strong-arm tactics could be likened to the Mafia.

He forced teammates to follow drug programmes so they could help him win, threatening to fire them from the team if they didn’t. He paid Michele Ferrari, one of the world’s leading doping doctors nearly 1 Million dollars over his career. He flew in private jets, but cut people from his team ‘to save money’. Armstrong ruthlessly threatened anyone who moved to expose him or his collaborators, bullying teammates, journalists and fellow professional cyclists. When team masseur Emma O’Reilly, who helped his drug taking testified against him, he called her an alcoholic and prostitute in court and set out to make her life a living hell. In 2011 he threatened ex-teammate Tyler Hamilton telling him, “when you’re on the witness stand, we’re going to f___ tear you apart. You are going to look like a f_____ idiot.” Hamilton sums him up, “Lance used his power to flout the rules, lie to the world, make millions and walk away scott free.”

Armstrong is still in denial. He remains, like all corporate psychopaths, completely unapologetic and wholly unconcerned about the impact of his actions on the people around him or on his sport. He continues to lie, feel no shame, admit any wrongdoing nor ask any forgiveness. 

Armstrong’s first public statements since his banning will be aired on Oprah on 17 January 2013, via a pre-recorded interview with her. Whatever the world hears, it will be very clever, very strategic and very much on Armstrong’s terms.

What Lance Armstrong is to cycling, megalomaniac businessmen are to economies and lying politicians are to countries. Empires have already fallen, and will continue to do so if changes aren’t made to the way we choose our leaders. 

Ignore, tolerate or promote psychopaths at everyone’s peril.

What to do about them?

1 Get rid of them: This option may be very difficult, but keeping them on is downright dangerous.

2. If you can’t get rid of them, then get yourself out: This may also be difficult, but the cost on your mental, emotional and physical health will be too high if you do not. One researcher suggests that the only way to deal with a powerful corporate psychopath is to move to another country.

3. Screen for them: A more preventative measure is to screen when appointing people into influential positions in business, politics, religion and sport where the risk of psychopathy is greatest. This said the risk amongst business leaders is already one in 25! Some countries already screen policemen and teachers for psychopathy.

 ———————————————————————————————

* I cannot say that Hansie or any of the three individuals I referred to were/are psychopaths, but their behaviour did lead me to this research.

** It takes a trained professional to diagnose the condition. Psychologists caution against a non-professional or over-simplistic labelling of someone as a psychopath