How Tony Blair Earns His Millions
By Staff News & Analysis - September 26, 2011

Tony Blair's six secret visits to Gaddafi … Tony Blair's close relationship to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has come under fresh scrutiny after it emerged he had six private meetings with the dictator in the three years after he left Downing Street … Mr Blair is coming under increasing pressure to make public details of all his meetings and discussions with Gaddafi. It follows the disclosure in The Sunday Telegraph last week that on at least two occasions Mr Blair flew to Tripoli on a private jet paid for by the Libyan regime. Among the new meetings uncovered by this newspaper is a visit to Gaddafi in January 2009, when JP Morgan, the US investment bank which pays Mr Blair £2 million a year as a senior adviser, was trying to negotiate a deal between the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) and a company run by the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a friend of Lord Mandelson. The multi-billion dollar deal, which later fell through, would have seen the LIA provide a loan to Rusal, the world's largest aluminum producer. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: Blair started the Libya war. Gaddafi didn't give him and JP Morgan what they wanted and now he's paid a dreadful price. It's all about the money. Modern wars are always about resources. Besides, we're running out of aluminum. Peak Aluminum is only years away!

Free-Market Analysis: The implication of this article seems to be that the attack that was launched against Libya had to do with the failure of an aluminum loan. It is part of a larger dominant social theme, in our view, that the West's wars are fought over resources and exploitative, capitalist business dealings.

We have regularly tried to contradict this meme, which is a convenient leftist interpretation of war and which we believe has been floated by the powers-that-be to distract people from the real reasons for the West's increasing violence.

Of course money and resources are part of any conquest. But there are plenty of places in the world that have riches, above-ground or below. The Middle East and Africa have been targeted for a reason, and that reason is a great deal more complex than resources and raw materials. The Anglosphere power elite that runs most of the world wants to consolidate its hold as much as possible, so as to move ahead with one-world government. Once the idea that these wars are fought for power and control – not just resources and revenue – reality sharpens and the game becomes clearer.

The Anglosphere elites have a motive in ensuring the war-for-resources meme is spread about the mainstream media, mainly in leftist newspapers. The idea of greedy, grubbing capitalists is a quite convenient one as it confuses what is actually happening. Much better to blame wars on exploitative corporations than intergenerational familial regimes controlling central banks.

When the Afghanistan war was going particularly badly (before it got even worse) the Pentagon announced suddenly that it had discovered up to US$1 trillion in raw resources in Afghanistan. The idea was to convince the public that Afghanistan was worth fighting for because it contained underground riches, including "rare earth" minerals. Resources are always a convenient excuse – and a justification.

In fact, the Afghanistan war was fought to subdue the Pashtuns, a tribal entity that encompasses both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The big banking families have been after the Pashtuns for at least 100 years if not longer.

It's all about control and subjugation. It's not like the City of London needs the money. When you control central banking through the BIS, you can print all the money you want. Trillions and trillions. And they do. And they have.

Tony Blair, who has become a multi-multi-millionaire since leaving office as Britain's longest-serving Prime Minister, is evidently and obviously at the beck-and-call of the Anglosphere elites. They helped him get elected and who have sponsored him ever since. His job is one of misdirection.

He has had to become the visible symbol of what went wrong with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been pilloried and reviled. As part of the process of public vilification, he has had to attend several inquisitions from various investigative committees that have been set up to first investigate and then (probably) dispose of various inconvenient allegations.

Blair, in other words, is being paid to attract heat and light that might otherwise end up striking London's City itself, and the great banking families that have historically made their headquarters there.

Blair is yet only a pimple on a larger, uglier visage, though surely a sizeable blemish. The Anglosphere power elite, in fact, is making a push toward a one world order. In doing so, it is setting up what may be a controllable regional war in the Middle East, or maybe something even larger. It is hard to tell yet.

We note that the Palestinians, for instance, an infinitely controllable group at the very top, have asked the UN for their own state. This is a deliberate provocation in our view, a purposeful ratcheting up of tensions in the Middle East.

But on a larger scale, the Western powers-that-be have been busy with spadework designed to create Islamic republic throughout the Africa and the Middle East. It began, perhaps, with the Ivory Coast, where France backed a Muslim regime over a Christian one. It has continued from there. In each country that has been destabilized of late, Islam is the logical alternative to the secular regimes that have been deposed. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen are all in the throes of nascent Islamic takeovers.

There are other countries, meanwhile, where "youth revolutions" have been firmly put down. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain come to mind. This is another complex overlay. In addition to controllable Islamic regimes, the Western elites are apparently dividing the Middle East into two parts – one part will consist of the so-called GCC countries and the other of Islamic Republics.

The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries will be seen as "moderate" and pro-Western. The Islamic countries will be portrayed as a great danger to the West. In fact, the Islamic regimes will likely be constructed from elements of the now-spreading Muslim Brotherhood, which is controlled at the top by Western intel affiliates.

The entire Middle East and African schematic is one of controlled tension, controlled confrontation, controlled war. It is ever thus. And it has little or nothing to do directly with oil, energy or resources in general.

But that's not what the great families want people to think. No, there is a dominant social theme to cultivate. And in this instance, at this time, Blair is a point man for this particular theme. Here's some more from the article excerpted above:

JP Morgan's involvement in the deal is revealed in an email sent to the LIA by the bank's vice-chairman, Lord Renwick, in December 2008, in which he sought to "finalise the terms of the mandate concerning Rusal before Mr Blair's visit to Tripoli." JP Morgan said Mr Blair had no knowledge of the Rusal proposal. A spokesman added: "JP Morgan declined to participate on such a transaction and thus Mr Blair was never involved, and it was never discussed with him."

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: "Neither Tony Blair nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminum company." He added that the "bulk of the conversations" with Gaddafi had been about Africa and how Libya could develop infrastructure. While Gaddafi raised the issue of Megrahi's release, Mr Blair always repeated that "it was a matter for the Scottish government", the spokesman added …

Robert Palmer, a spokesman, said: "It's hard to see how being Middle East peace envoy squares with doing business with a tyrant. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has not and has never had any commercial, business or advisory relationship with any Libyan company or entity."

We don't believe very much of this – not the allegations nor the denials. Oh, it's good investigative journalism, and the reporters involved are earnest and hard working. But it's just another sideshow, in our view. (Have we grown cynical?)

As usual, the message is one of determined manipulation. The roots run deep and begin with the idea that oil is a scarce commodity and that the Middle East contains most of it. Now it's been vastly complicated by the "war on terror" and renewed Israeli-Palestinian tensions.

But it all begins with resources. Oil is evidently and obviously one of the most plentiful commodities on the planet but the Anglosphere has been promoting oil as a scarce commodity for decades. Even the name implies scarcity: "Fossil fuels." Wonder who came up with that?

Anyway, why the emphasis on scarcity? Just one more way to induce tension in the Middle East and then the larger world. Israel has a role to play, as well. It was the Anglosphere, after all, that created Israel, just as it helped give birth to Saudi Arabia, that titan of oil production.

After Thoughts

It's perfectly possible that Tony Blair and JP Morgan wanted to do a deal with Gaddafi. But what's not likely is that Blair's deal and its unraveling is the proximate cause of the current Libyan war. The roots run much, much deeper. And so does the institutionalized malevolence. Maybe all the way back to Babylon.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap