More on the Geopolitical Situation

Yesterday I posted about Kyrgyzstan's US Air Force base, which will be closed. This was announced by their leadership in Moscow, along with a pledge from the Russians to provide billions in aid. Subtle.

So, this got me thinking. How much has a 'Russian Renaissance' occurred in the last decade? Or is China now the dominant player? How are things looking for America and Europe on the 'Grand Chessboard'?

(Image: Oil, the lifeblood of technological society. It gives us our best source of fuel, and is the basis for making plastics. It's not called 'black gold' for nothing!)

The most important thing in this global power struggle is still resources. Land, people, but especially natural resources in general, and oil/gas in particular. Who controls the resources?

Well, the five 'giant' oil companies are all Western: Shell (Anglo-Dutch), Exxon Mobil (American), BP (British), Chevron Texaco (American), and Total (French).

These are private companies, of course, but many of the biggest oil powers are state-owned, including members of the OPEC trade agreement. One of the biggest powers in oil and gas is Russia, which "has the largest reserves, and is the largest exporter, of natural gas. It has the second largest coal reserves, and is the second largest exporter of oil."

This power was demonstrated during the recent dispute with the Ukraine over gas, during which Russia shut off supplies to much of Eastern Europe. So that's what people mean when they express concern over dependence on foreign energy!

The fact that the frontline of East-West relations is now inside the old Soviet bloc (Ukraine, Georgia) tells you something about American dominance at the end of the 20th Century.

But in this new century, Western power has been challenged by a combination of a stronger Russia and the new Chinese superpower, which is predicted to become the biggest world economy around 2025.

Another interesting case where a country has favoured the East over the West is Kazakhstan, home of Borat and (apparently) quite a lot of oil. This oil has mainly been exported to Western Europe and Russia, but China recently moved into the Kazakh oil export market, buying up 'oil interests' worth $4 billion.

Perhaps the greatest geopolitical risk to America in particular today, however, is not in natural resources but in finance. The dollar is depreciating relative to the euro and most other world currencies - perhaps China could start trading in euros instead of dollars, which would definitely harm the US economy. Though, writes Thomas Palley in The Guardian, China would suffer from any attempt to destabilise the American economy (the Fed and the Bailouts haven't done this already!?!)

Does all this geopolitics affect the ordinary people? Well, not a great deal if you live in a wealthy country. Just, try and tell those in the 'third world' that the geopolitical game between America and Russia (which never really stopped) is harmless. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, countless African states have been ravaged by 'proxy' wars during the 'Cold War' and onwards, the best recent example being the Russia-Georgia conflict.

I am not an enthusiast for looking at the world through the lens of national politics and global trade. It tends to prevent us from identifying that the real rift is not between Europeans and Asians, Africans and Arabs, etc; but between British citizens and the owners of Shell; American citizens and the owners of Exxon, and so on.

That is not a wishy-washy Obama-style 'we are all equal' statement; nor is it a Marxist view of class struggle. It's simply a recognition that this global power game does not involve or relate to the average person, only to Rockefeller et al.

Unless you are in a 'developing' country sitting on natural resources - then of course it WILL involve you, like it or not. (Iraq, Iran, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Angola, Congo, Sudan - on and on.)

P-C

Obama pwned by Rahm Emanuel!

New Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is "the second most powerful person in [America]" according to the Huffington Post.

He had a hand in shaping the careers of at least two prominent Illinois politicians, one of which was Barack Obama. The other was Rod Blagojevic.

(Image: Rahm Emanuel, US Chief of Staff. May contain traces of Mossad.)

Article in the New York Times on Emanuel's influence on Obama

The story may be a week old, but it's worth posting about. Anyway, I don't read eeverything on the Internet daily, especially from mainstream 'left/right' outlets.

"Early this month, Barack Obama was meeting with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other lawmakers when Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, began nervously cracking a knuckle.

Mr. Obama then turned to complain to Mr. Emanuel about his noisy habit.

At which point, Mr. Emanuel held the offending knuckle up to Mr. Obama’s left ear and, like an annoying little brother, snapped off a few special cracks."

He wrote that "the untainted Republican has not yet been invented" (probably never met Ron Paul then).

The article tries to play down Emanuel's behaviour towards Obama as playful or brotherly. I for one do not buy that assertion. He is quite clearly demonstrating, in his own warped way, his 'ownership' of Obama. Nobody does that to el Presidente and gets away with it. But Emanuel is far from a nobody.

Emanuel's father was a Jewish terrorist in Palestine with the 'Lehi' Zionist terror group, which carried out such acts of terrorism as bombing hotels and killing British soldiers. (If the Zionists want to twist the meaning of 'terrorism' to include violence against soldiers, then so will I.)


(Image: Israel proud of their terrorist ancestors.)

Learn about Lehi. Did you know they wanted to intervene in WWII on the side of Nazi Germany, in exchange for assistance with fighting the British in Palestine? That they wanted to create a totalitarian Jewish state, based on the model of Nazi Germany? That Israel praises the actions of these 'people'? Well, now you do.

This guy is someone who, apparently, Obama allows to speak 'first and last', and wields considerable power on behalf of the Zionists, over the President, who is supposedly "the most powerful person in the country".

Gearing up for Iran 'Engagement'

What do you think?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83397&sectionid=351020104

'an attitude towards engagement [with Iran] that might bear fruit'.

Call me crazy, but doesn't that sound like 'an attitude towards military engagement that might bear profit'? Hopefully, I have read a bit too much between the lines, and they are referring to diplomatic engagement.




(Images: Above, a photoshop satire of Fox's reporting of a future nuclear war on Iran - I presume the author is suggseting Fox would mistranslate Ahmadinejad? Below, graffiti putting it all into perspective. "Remember, it is just as scared of you as you are of it".)

Iran is probably not pursuing nuclear weapons at this time. Or at least, the IAEA doesn't acknowledge any proof of such activity (ie non-civilian nuclear development).

But really, what have you got to fear if Iran does develop muclear weapons? 'Oh no, the TERRORISTS are coming!!!'

Give me a break. This mythical Al-Qaeda have ties to, conveniently, just about every regime that will not comply to the Western-globalist agenda. Coincidence? Nope. In fact, if YOU start saying that war for oil is wrong, and Israel commits genocide, soon enough 'clear evidence' will emerge linking you to Al-Qaeda.

Ok, so it isn't that extreme, but 'Al-Qaeda' appears to be everywhere today - Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sharia councils, Local mosques, Under your bed. Everywhere. Be afraid, be very afraid. And be ready to sacrifice liberty, otherwise the terrorists will win...

More to the point, what if Iran does develop nuclear weapons? Will they use them against Israel or the West? -inhales- NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Why? Because nobody would be that stupid. Even Kim-Jong Il, the 'dear leader' of North Korea, has never used his nuclear weapons (you know, if he's still alive).

And to those who may say, "But, Iranians are fanatical extremists!" I would say, "The only fanatics are the ordinary fools who get tricked into being suicide weapons by the politicians, who are much more aware and devious than to destroy their own country and themselves by starting nuclear war".

In fact, the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons in a war was the US. I think it's important to remember that. (But let's be fair, the full effects of nuclear weapons were not at the time known, which lifts some of the moral burden I guess)

Some people have horrendously short memories. All of this baseless fear-mongering is just like the run-up to Iraq. I remember '45 Minutes', and I was 11 at the time ffs!

I would say the best thing for Iran is to develop nukes ASAP before we con ourselves into another mindless elite-manufactured 'regime change'. Then again, if they do (or even if they get close) there might be a nuclear 'false flag' op blamed on them. Aah, the possibilities...

Anyways, time to consider. Is authority the truth? Will we all be a sucker for the next mad rush to war by ruthless elitist powers? Hopefully not, mainly because the American military is at full extent already in the Middle East. But if by some fluke those behind Obama get the draft reinstated over there, who knows?

P-C

I Drank The Kool-Aid

Yes sir indeedy, there comes a time when we have to hold our hands up and admit we were wrong, using a drug-abuse-suggesting Americanism. That time is going to be a few days from now, when President-Elect Barack H. Obama and his new puppy are inaugurated.

The truth is that Obama, whether or not he is a decent guy which he seems to be, is just the next globalist puppet. In fact, more than that, the Powers That Be love the guy. Henry Kissinger (on CNBC) said Obama's task is to create a New World Order, and that his election is 'a great opportunity' for such Change. He's a great guy, Kissinger. Really gives me faith in humanity.

Kissinger sees Obama's election as an opportunity for a New World Order (go to 2:45):



Raw Story report on Kissinger's comments (not in the censored MSM of course):
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Henry_Kissinger_Obama_should_act_to_0106.html

The elites' support for Barack is one reason I now am sure he will Change little, except for the worse (ban guns, bigger government, bring globalism).

Also, his reaction to the Israeli atrocities in Gaza has been pathetic, just showing how AIPAC and/or the elite has a stranglehold on US-Middle East policy. Just another puppet, I am afraid to say. You may tell me I was naive to believe otherwise, and you may be right.

I indeed drank the Kool-Aid on this one, as I believed to some degree in the partisan system, in spite of the obvious overall control from 'above'. In fact, this one US election has really proven beyond all doubt that the two major parties are in fact two sides of one coin. I suspect a similar reality to be in place in Britain too.

Think about the number of people who say things, about mainstream parties, like 'they're all the same'. Well I guess they're right.

P-C

Defining 'Liberal'

Yes, it's the second part of my thoughts on how language is manipulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberal originally was derived from the Latin 'liber', meaning 'free, not slave'. Now, you wouldn't get many partisan tribalists using that definition today, from the left as well as the right. And that's just the thing - the word 'liberal' originally was used to designate what we now call libertarians.

(Image: Is Canada really that 'liberal'? Because it seems more of you voted Conservative in your election, than for any other party, right?)

If you were a 'classical liberal', you were neither from the right nor left. The Nolan chart explains the concept of this 2-D spectrum best.

(Image: THIS IS NOT MINE but this is what results from The World's Smallest Political Quiz look like. My results are very similar though, (done this a few times) usually Personal 80-100, Economic 40-60 depending on how I answer that day.)

The main split between free-market liberalism and social liberalism seems to have occurred around the Great Depression, and the New Deal in America, along with many other intervention policies during the first half of the 20th Century. Some liberals, such as Roosevelt, favoured these policies; others, such as Milton Friedman and the Austrian School of economics (the influence of which is evident in Ron Paul's views) see intervention as the cause of the problem, not the solution.

In the 1940s and 50s, Social Democracy and Socialism became the dominant ideology in Western Europe, in varying degrees from country to country. Parties today are not afraid to call themselves socialist or social democratic, either in their name (SDP in Sweden, or Socialist party in France), or their description (the UK Labour party calls itself social democratic).

However, across the Atlantic, the word 'socialism' or 'socialist' was and is a political taboo, presumably because it sounds like the evil Red enemy. But the same kind of policies being taken up by western Europe, were also being embraced - maybe not as much, but still - by America and Canada. The word taken to mean left-wing, therefore, was 'liberal'.

Thus, a whole new culture of interpretation and misinterpretation was born. Sometimes, I laugh when I hear, in the US, liberals being described as 'anti-American' as I did during the 2008 election campaign. This is not because I am a partisan lefty (I am not), but it is because the Founding Fathers were liberals! (by the old definition I guess.)

(Image: I think the definition of 'liberal' might have changed over time. What do you think, Abraham Lincoln?)

The term 'liberal' is today both ambiguous and essentially meaningless here in Britain; it's definition is inconsistent, between the old 'libertarian' type of meaning, and the Americanism which means 'left-wing'.

I thought I had better explain why I happily refer to myself as a 'liberal' then. It's because my beliefs fall somewhere between the left, and the libertarians. Ergo, whatever definition is used, it works out ok.

P-C

Mounting Evidence

Continuing what seems to have become a theme this week, alternative media and so-called 'conspiracies', here's a recent interview of Richard Gage talking with Alex Jones about more evidence for 9/11 controlled demolition:




I commend Gage and the other ~1000 Architects and Structural Engineers who had the guts to risk their careers exposing the evidence of government complicity and/or participation in the deaths of 3000 people.

Interesting to hear him talk about how, essentially, 'ignorance is bliss' and how it's a lot easier to just accept the government's version of events and not question them.

I remember when I first saw Zeitgeist: the Movie, the first time I had been presented with the evidence about a possible 9/11 inside job. It blew my mind, to be honest. I couldn't think straight for days. I had to find out more, and over the last year I have tried to form my personal view of what might have happened that day.

The best 9/11 expose documentary, in my view, is Loose Change (the final version).
Also check out the Alex Jones films TerrorStorm: A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism and 9/11: Truth Rising.

Believe about 9/11, 7/7, etc what you will. To be honest, any one of hundreds of possiblilities could be the truth about what really happened to cause these atrocities, in my view. And that's the beautiful thing about the 9/11 Truth Movement and J7 - The July 7th Truth Campaign. They don't profess to know what went down on these days. They don't want to indoctrinate anyone with their 'crazy conspiracy theories' They instead demand honest, objective inquiries, and document their evidence that the official stories are flawed.

I'd also like to take a few lines to mention the tactics used to marginalise so-called 'Truthers', 'Troofers' or 'Tin-foil Hat Wearers'. The term 'conspiracy theory' is loaded with connotations of the related idea being crazy or irrational, when in fact a 'conspiracy' is a plan.
The 9/11 Commission Report puts forward a conspiracy theory involving Osama Bin Laden.
The Iraq War was a conspiracy by the Coalition to remove Saddam.
There is a conspiracy theory that police conspire to fight crime.
Get what I'm saying?

The facts are in question regarding 9/11 and 7/7. Unfortunately, the Mainstream Media and others encourage the marginalisation and insult of anyone who DARES question government lines about the official story. How DARE they try to find out for themselves? How DARE they refuse to be indoctrinated by mainstream society?

And of course, the best one is that 9/11 Truth is a 'cult'. Really? Some kind of indoctrinative quasi-religion? For questioning the 'facts' that there was no thermate involved, etc etc? How DARE these people demand the truth.

By all means discuss and debate the possibilities re terrorist attacks, absolutely! Present evidence to support your point of view, absolutely! (it's a fine example of democracy and free society.) But to call a movement that does little more than demand the truth, a 'cult', is misleading and more than that, you're helping out the government in what has been a fairly concerted disinformation campaign via MSM to distort the debate on 9/11 and 7/7.

P-C

A Thank-You to Hideo Kojima

Much is said about the dangers, or problems, caused by TV, videogames, and what can happen when people, especially children, are exposed to them for too long. I would agree that they are overall damaging to critical and independent thought.


But I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the moments when those in the multimedia entertainment field produce something original and intelligent.

(Image: Hideo's Metal Gear franchise ended in 2008 after 20 years of successful releases.)

For those who don't know, Hideo Kojima is a Japanese game developer who is best known for the Metal Gear series. I first played Metal Gear Solid 2 aged about thirteen, and what I remember most is not the game itself, but the admittedly very heavy plot.

(Image: MGS2 cover.)

It all centres around a secret, all-powerful organisation called The Patriots, who have designed and are implementing a digital information censorship program by which unnecessary information will be removed. They have staged false flag 'terror' attacks, including the sinking of a tanker and a staged attempt at environmental terrorism on an offshore cleanup unit.


And in the meantime, all the public see is the mainstream politics 'puppet show'. President James Johnson is nothing more than a figurehead put in place by The Patriots through the illusion of democracy.


I also enjoyed MGS 3 and 4, the latter of which is set in 'the not-too-distant future' in which endless war is perpetuated for the given purpose of 'national security', but actually no threat exists except that which was created by the puppet-masters. In this near-future environment, "War has become to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th. The central pillar of the global economy." The military is entirely operated by private companies, who cause and extend war to profit from being able to provide a solution.




(Image: PMC soldiers in the game MGS4. They think they are defending freedom, but are actually just generating profit for the war economy in wars created for that purpose. Never forget the Henry Kissinger quote: "[Soldiers are] dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Reveals what the establishment thinks of the military - then they have the gall to accuse ordinary people of not supporting the troops.)


People are regulated by complex network systems, and nanomachines (which in reality do already exist in simple forms), in order to make them obey and conform to society. Some people, including soldiers, are also enhanced by nanomachines, which for example reduces combat stress and fear, which (during a memorable part of the story) is all felt and let out at once by the soldiers when the system is turned off, leading to them killing each other and themselves in delusion and madness.


Take a second look at some of the things mentioned above. How many are relevant to today's society? Of course, it's just a fictional story, but it is laced with intent - the intent to encourage people to perceive the world in a different way, to 'dig deeper' under the surface of things as they seem.


This is not indoctrination, far from it in fact - this is de-indoctrination, encouraging peoples' minds to break free of the shallow dumbness of mainstream society that has overtaken the young through state education and popular culture.


Playing MGS2 was the first time I had broken free of the childish myth that our political figureheads are servants of the people, elected through an informed decision by the people, and that those who do reach high office are 'of' the people (and not there because of who they know).


So Thank You Hideo Kojima, for encouraging people to think for themselves in an entertainment medium which is often as lamentably brainless as the young people our education systems churn out. One word people - THINK.

P-C

Who Will I Be Voting For in 2010? - Early Thoughts

Presuming 2010 is when the next General Election will be, of course.

Like everyone in my area, who turned 18 recently, on the day I received a birthday card from the local authority reminding me that I was now eligible to vote.

(Image: Two of the key powers held by a free citizen, combined for ease of reference.)

It didn't mean much to me at the time; Co. Durham is a Labour party heartland, and that isn't about to change. Thatcher is so loathed by the majority of people in this region, as it used to be a coal-mining area (and the perception is that Thatcher killed British coal) that the second most popular party here is the British National Party, not the Tories (at least in local elections in recent years, not in the last General).

(See UK 2005 General Election map; look for 'North East' then 'Bishop Auckland' to see my constituency.)

I did feel a little disillusioned with British party politics; after all, I wanted three principles that seemed as if they could not be acheived:

- Right to Keep and Bear Arms/Right to Self-Defence

(Image: The difference between subjects and citizens.)

- End to spy society, restoration of individual liberty, stop government data storage culture

(Image: Love that graffiti. Did you know, the AVERAGE UK CITIZEN [i.e. subject] is caught on CCTV 300 times per day?)

- Return to non-interventionist foreign policy; in particular, out of the Middle East.

(Image: Support the troops, End the war. Hell yeah! Unfortunately, a lot of these people would also back the Brady campaign, I bet.)

At least on these issues, I did not feel I could make a difference with a vote for anyone. Ironically, the one party which offered, at least, the first and last of these requirements was the BNP, but they are just too scary. I'd rather sleepwalk into a Labour dictatorship than goosestep into a British Reich.

So it seemed as if there was not one party out there fitting my needs. But one fatal flaw existed in my conclusion; I was a lazy arse and had not read up on other minority parties out there. When elections did come around, I was going to vote Labour out of pure selfishness, because I reckoned my potential university costs and welfare situation would be better under them. (Yes I am a member of the 'great unwashed' class.)

By coincidence, yesterday, my random searchings led me to a post on Tom Harris' (a Labour MP) blog. He was writing about how he had been mailed a copy of George Orwell's classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, and how Britain is nowhere near being a 'police state'. (Watch the video in the link, then try to agree with him.)

Just take the time to read a few of the comments attached to that post. And Tom Harris' responses. It's so important our elected officials recognise our concerns for liberty in this country; however, this guy didn't get it, and worse than that he showed utter contempt for his audience of voters. After reading that and his second post, which tried to address the criticisms, I was left feeling angry at the establishment and their patronising attitude towards the people.

Turns out, a copy of the book (inscribed with words to the effect of 'this is a warning') was sent to each of the 646 UK MPs by the UK Libertarian Party. Now, of course, that meant I had instant respect for them. And yes, once looking them up at http://lpuk.org/, I found some of the usual libertarian policy ideas that I respected about Ron Paul in the US.

(Image: Republican Congressman Ron Paul. The guy is a legend. Shame the GOP don't appreciate his affiliation.)

(Image: Love the message, but note the British-standard yellowing teeth there. Why are our national teeth so bad? The fluoride in the water maybe?)

The big difference, according to the way I see the world, is that the free market is good but not perfect, in that it would produce winners and losers. Which is fine, but i don't want to see losers starving or being homeless without choice, or being denied decent medical care. No matter how much someone screws up their life (note: not by harming others), I believe that we should not give up on them.

The Libertarian party has the attitude, however, of creating what they call 'a safety net, not a hammock' of welfare. This will involve shifting 'the overwhelming majority' of welfare contribution to the voluntary sector. As I have said before, I am sceptical as to what the results of this would be, but at least many of the problems of conventional social welfare may be addressed.

Most importantly, I want the right to self defence and the right to bear arms to be returned to the citizenry, and an end to foreign interventionist military policy. All three are satisfied by the Libertarian party manifesto.

The recession has made me sceptical to libertarian economics, but blame could also be placed on the central banks, which I would definitely like to get rid of, simply because they rob all of us on a daily basis. You guessed it, that is on the manifesto too (not surprising, of course, for a libertarian party, but good to read nonetheless).

The reason I had not heard of them is partly due to my ignorance, and partly due to them only being formed a little over a year ago. I am by no means 100% libertarian, but the way things are going in society, my mind is made up.

UK Libertarians: Run in my area, and you'll have my vote!

(Oh, and if they don't run where I am...jeez, UK Independence Party maybe? Greens? I'd be damned angry.)

Getting It Right, re: Canadian Coalition post

A few days ago, I wrote about the possible Canadian governmental coalition which in theory could replace the Conservative minority that currently holds office. I think it's fair to say I wasn't that well informed about this at time of writing; I did presume a few things and, as a result, the article was both inaccurate and vague.

(Photo: The Canadian Parliament building, Ottawa. For licence info see here.)

Specifically, I presumed the figure '62% majority' referred to the proportion of Canadians supporting the coalition. Instead, that figure was obtained from the number of Canadian voters who did not back the Conservatives at the recent election.

In fact, in one poll, 36% said they would support the coalition, compared to 41% who would not. The support would rise to 37% if Harper (the PM) received a no-confidence vote. Support for the Liberal and New Democratic parties has fallen by a few percent since the election.

The other option, which I hadn't considered, is a new election being held (if Harper's govt is thrown out). This was supported, according to one poll, by as much as 56% of the population, if given a choice between that and allowing the coalition to govern.

Lastly, I ended the article with the sentences "Canadians, the world is watching. And the world wants a coalition."

Apart from this being sensationalist and patronising to Canadians given the errors earlier in the article, it is also contradictory to say "the world is watching" when earlier in the post i said that few outside Canada would know much about this situation (of course, myself might not be included in that group).

(Photo: The guy who it's all about, Canadian PM Stephen Harper.)

There is concern over other specific issues such as status of Quebec, which may gain independence under a coalition. Also, an argument against the coalition is that it would undermine Canadian democracy and party politics, which I would also be concerned about if this happened in Britain.

I noticed all these problems and facts just after a quick re-read, and a look at the Wikipedia take on this, which was a little concerning to me.

What have I learnt:

• NEVER type first, read information later.
• Cite more evidence/sources in posts (already done this in more recent posts)
• Always presume you are wrong until proved right, rather than vice versa.
• Show more respect for foreign politics without making broad generalisations.

And for the record, I still support the idea of a coalition, as the impression I get is that even this would be better than another term of Conservative control. Also, and this is not just a Canadian thing, but why are the centre-left parties divided e.g. NDP/Liberals, or Labour/Lib Dems in UK, while the centre-right tends to merge into one party, thus benefiting from the left's divided voter base? Not fair in my opinion, and more than that a block against progressive change.

Whatever happens, Canada, good luck w/ the 4oth Parliament, and I appreciate your standing with Britain and the Americans - among many others - in ISAF, hopefully we'll all be able to bring all the troops home soon.

P-C

First Post, 'Why I Blog'

Just got this blog started. I am new to the wonderful world of blogging and this site will be going through constant change and improvement as I learn the ropes.

I was motivated to try out blogging in no small part by the ravings of US conservative pundits like Bill O'Reilly (Fox News), who demonise the 'MoveOn crowd and the liberal bloggers' as being 'far-left loons' and 'hate mongerers'. What Fix News calls 'far left', sane people call 'mainstream', so that was an attraction. Maybe there'll be a prize for the 1,000,000th blog that O'Reilly labels as 'extremist'. Ooh I hope it's me.

Also, i was inspired by the likes of Keith Olbermann (MSNBC), Michael Moore(filmmaker) and Cenk Uygur (of The Young Turks radio show). If you don't know any of these names, look 'em up. I could go on (George Galloway, Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow), as many more people deserve recognition for - not getting me to blog - but for spreading the truth, and saving sane mainstream politics in the '00s.

What I find most admirable about these people (even though I don't agree with any of them 100%) is that, during the dark eight years of a Bush-ruled USA and therefore a Bush-ruled world, a few, sometimes lonely voices spoke out against the injustices, the lies, the abuse of power.

At the time the Iraq War began, I was 12 and my chief thought was how great it is that the British and the Americans, who fought together in two World Wars, would flex their military muscles in foreign lands in my lifetime too. I could claim to have 'lived through history', and someday a child would ask an old man about the time the heroic Westerners liberated Iraq.

Well, I have grown up with the sad truth about this and all wars slowly being etched into my worldview. The result? I wonder how not everybody subscribed to the neo-con fantasy of '03; how did some hold onto their moral compass in amongst the corporate media's rush to war and refusal to criticise the coalition governments (at the time even the BBC was into it, I recall, I don't think I ever heard significant opposition to the war for a year or two from the initiation - those who were, I got the impression, were 'pacifist hippies').

That is why I hold admiration for the few voices of dissent who swam against the tide, who shone out in the darkness, and a ton of other metaphors. I am thankful to them because they knew, if they kept speaking out, the public would come round in the end.

And look where we are now. Obama elected in the US, withdrawal from Iraq a consensus; Canada even wants out of Afghanistan. Sites like The Huffington Post and The DailyKos are the new print media, MoveOn apparently has over 4 Million members and there is a popular movement to impeach President Bush. Unbelievable.

King George will be overthrown (you think the Americans would have learnt from the first time that happened). The liberal phoenix will rise from the ashes of neoconservativism, and for that reason it seems like I am a little bit late to the game; the 'liberal bloggers' have apparently already won.

Of course, the Obamas, in theory the new de facto Rulers of the World, actually have a hell of a hard time getting a progressive agenda past the metaphorical bullets of big business and a spiteful GOP. Not to mention real bullets (I hope not!)

'We the people', especially Americans: I urge you to support the Dems when they come under fire for their progressive politics, and keep an eye on big business; some of the people in the upper crust wanted Bush to be in power foreverandever. They don't give a damn about you.

Overall though, it seems we are heading for a new dawn in world politics, and I will happily add myself - just one more voice - to the millions who hope for change. What'll happen when King George is overthrown? I can't answer that; but it almost certainly will be an improvement.

The World Can't Wait.