Category Archives: International

Environmental Concerns About the TPP

As the TPP negotiations continue to wind their way through the legal and legislative system, many of the environmental concerns expressed have largely gone ignored or stayed out of the mainstream of the public’s awareness.  This course of action; of not informing the public or politicians giving people tacit assurances, happened with the NAFTA agreement in the 90’s.  The NAFTA agreement allowed companies to avoid environmental regulation by moving their operations to out of country localities in Mexico that bordered their US market.

In the 90’s, Republicans made little effort to hide this fact and often blamed the over regulatory environmentalist lobby for moving companies out of the United States.  People bought this line and thus the NAFTA trade agreement moved through Congress and became law.  But now after many years the environmental damage of NAFTA is now a generally undisputed fact, even though most people are not aware of the extent of pollution that effects every living creature within its wake.

Now we have a public much wiser to consider the ramifications of these open trade agreements. Most people realize that these agreement enable mutli-national corporations to fatten their pockets while doing sometimes irreversible damage to our vital natural resources.  Mexico and South America has suffered with polluted water ways and land, habitat of humans and animals is constantly threatened and even our own planetary breathing apparatus; forests, are being stripped away permanently for the hardwoods they contain (many taking hundreds of years to grow).

The Citarum River, the biggest river in West Java, Indonesia provides drinking, cleaning and ... / Credits: Reuters

Here are some studies on NAFTA’s affect on environmental regulation and the environment as a result:

NAFTA : 20 Years of Costs to the Community and the Environment

Public Citizen: NAFTA’s Broken Promises, 1994-2013

Multinational Monitor – 1993 – NAFTA and the Environment: Free Trade and the Politics of Toxic Waste

New Report Reveals Environmental Costs of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 2014

According to a short summary from the National Geographic, a leaked copy of the draft TPP already shows the extent to which business interests have trumped preserving the health of people and the planet.   Check out their resport, 4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment

The environmental group has a petition up based on the very specific and disconcerting charge that the TPP will put into law the ability of fossil fuel producers to sue town, city and state governments that impose environmentally conscious rules or ordinances aimed and cutting fossil fuel consumption.  This of course is translated in market speak as “if climate action hurts their profits”.  In other words, the profits of global corporations matter more than our planet staying alive.  In addition, fossil fuel companies have managed to negotiate that the government should prevent environmental oversight of fracked gas imports.

Friends of the Earth also points up a couple other troubling areas about the TPP’s possible effects on the environment.

effectively banning the regulation of chemicals used in food production such as pesticides and other compounds and enabling rules and proofs (such as cost-benefit analysis requirements before regulation could be put in place –effectively placing profit before the health of the planet and people) that regulation would not hurt the company’s bottom line.

changes in how regulatory bodies enforce rules in the treaty also effect the ability of any enforcement at all; provide for the ability to corporations to sue municipal bodies for attempts at regulation that slow down their profit stream.  The sweeping of this change is the proposal to install international regulatory bodies that would supersede the authority of United States courts.  This basically would mean that international “tribunals” would come together to install their own regulatory mechanisms and they would only have to follow the lowest-common denominator for the standard to putting in place environmental regulation in the first place.

Public Citizen, a washington watch-dog group also points up the extensive intellectual property protections inserted into the trade agreement. These protections, written by and for global corporations, would mandate the international recognition of genetic patents on living things such as plants and animal life.  This would enable corporations to place ‘ownership’ on living organisms, allow them to create and modify living organisms as they please and allow their marketing worldwide.  This threatens the integrity of our international food supply and most seriously threatens the natural practice of sustainable farming and creates a frightening dependency on corporate commercial power for our food supply.  No group of individuals or corporations should have the ability to control the food supply globally, but this trade agreement will do just.

Already American farmers have suffered the bullying tactics of Monsanto and other seed companies in an obvious strategy to create a captive market for their seed product.  While Monsanto currently uses the court system as a means to force monopoly of their product, the TPP will in fact put into law what they now must fight case by case in court.

Tagged , , ,

France’s refusal to pay Haiti reparations is a symptom of an even wider issue

The fear of discussing reparations at all in America seems shared by other European countries.

Media Diversified

by Halimat Shode

Last Tuesday, President Hollande arrived in Haiti – the first French president to make an official visit since Haiti’s independence – and declared that France had a ‘moral debt’ to the Caribbean country. Yet his declaration avoided any mention of the debt that France has enforced on Haiti since 1825, and which has crippled Haiti economically for almost 200 years.

Haiti became the world’s first black republic in 1804 after a slave revolt and a gruelling twelve-year war with the French. However, they were isolated from the international community for 21 years following their independence. To gain recognition from the international community, they were forced to negotiate an unfair, unbalanced settlement with France in 1825 which involved compensating French plantation owners for their loss of ‘property’, including slaves – in other words, paying France for having enslaved and oppressed them for centuries. Haiti did not finish paying…

View original post 376 more words

Tagged , ,

5 Leading Scholars Speak Out Against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (TTP)

By Judith Resnik, Cruz Reynoso, Honorable H. Lee Sarokin, Joseph E.
Stiglitz and Laurence H. Tribe, Reader Supported News

09 May 15

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, and
Minority Leader Pelosi:

We write out of grave concern about a document we have not been able to
see. Although it has not been made available publicly, we understand that
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement currently being
negotiated includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.
ISDS allows foreign investors—and only foreign investors—to avoid the
courts and instead to argue to a special, private tribunal that they
believe certain government actions diminish the value of their investments.

Courts are central institutions in the rule of law. Americans have much to
be proud of in the evolution of our court system, which has evolved over
the centuries and now provides equal access for all persons. Courts enable
the public to observe the processes of development of law and to watch
impartial and accountable decision-makers render judgments.

We write because of our concern that what we know about ISDS does not match
what courts can provide. Those advocating using this alternative in lieu of
our court system bear the burden of demonstrating why such an exit is
necessary, and how the alternate system will safeguard the ideals enshrined
in our courts. Thus far, the proponents of ISDS have failed to meet that
burden. Therefore, before any ISDS provisions are included in the TPP or
any future agreements, including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP), their content should be disclosed and their purposes
vetted in public so that debate can be had about whether and if such
provisions should be part of proposed treaties. Below, we detail the ways
in which ISDS departs from the justice opportunities that U.S. courts

Our legal system rests on the conviction that every individual, regardless
of wealth or power, has an equal right to bring a case to court. To protect
and uphold the rule of law, our ideals of fairness and justice must apply
in all situations and equally to everyone. ISDS, in contrast, is a system
built on differential access. ISDS provides a separate legal system
available only to certain investors who are authorized to exit the American
legal system. Only foreign investors may bring claims under ISDS
provisions. This option is not offered to nations, domestic investors, or
civil society groups alleging violations of treaty obligations. Under ISDS
regimes, foreign investors alone are granted legal rights unavailable to
others – freed from the rulings and procedures of domestic courts.

ISDS also risks undermining democratic norms because laws and regulations
enacted by democratically-elected officials are put at risk in a process
insulated from democratic input.

Equal application of the law is another critically important hallmark of
our legal system—one that is secured through the orderly development of
law. Court decisions are subject to appeal, ensuring that conflicting lower
court decisions are resolved by a higher authority. Judges also must follow
legal precedent. The goal is uniform application of the law regardless of
which judge or court hears a case. This law development allows people,
entities, and nations alike to order their behavior according to
well-established legal principles.

In contrast, ISDS does not build in the development of the law. An ISDS
arbitral panel’s decision cannot be appealed to a court. The ISDS
provisions of which we are aware provide only limited— private—review
through a process called annulment that does not permit decisions to be set
aside based even on a “manifest error of law.”1 Moreover, ISDS
arbitrators, like other arbitrators, do not make law because their
decisions have no precedential value, and ISDS arbitrators in turn are not
obliged to follow precedent in reaching their own decisions.

None of the hallmarks of our court system would be possible without a fair
and independent judiciary. Federal judges take an oath to uphold the
Constitution and are nominated and confirmed by our democratically elected
representatives. State judges likewise commit themselves to upholding the
constitutional order. In contrast, ISDS arbitrators are not public servants
but private arbitrators. In many cases, there is a revolving door between
serving on ISDS arbitration panels and representing corporations bringing
ISDS claims. Yet, although such a situation would seem to call for
more—not less—oversight and accountability, ISDS arbitrators’ decisions
are functionally unreviewable.

As noted at the outset, we have not been able to read the terms of the
proposed ISDS chapters for the upcoming TPP and TTIP treaties. But what we
know from the past gives us many grounds for concern. During the past few
years, foreign investors have used ISDS to challenge a broad range of
policies aimed at protecting the environment, improving public health and
safety, and regulating industry. These challenges have been around the
world, including under trade agreements to which the United States is a
party. The publicly available information about these challenges raises
serious questions as to whether the United States should be entering into
more ISDS agreements with a broad array of nations.

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly’s pending ISDS proceedings against Canada
provide an example of how corporations have used ISDS to challenge a
nation’s laws outside the courtroom. After a Canadian court invalidated one
of Lilly’s patents, the company initiated ISDS proceedings against Canada
under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).2 In
seeking $500 million (Canadian), Lilly has challenged as violative of NAFTA
the standard the nation uses for granting patents.

Although ISDS tribunals are not empowered to order injunctive relief, the
threat and expense of ISDS proceedings have forced nations to abandon
important public policies. In the third ISDS proceeding brought under
NAFTA, Ethyl Corporation brought an ISDS proceeding against Canada for $251
million for implementing a ban on a toxic gasoline additive. The proceeding
took place not in a court, but before an arbitration panel of the
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
After the arbitration panel rejected Canada’s argument that Ethyl lacked
standing to bring the challenge, Canada settled the suit for $13 million.
Moreover, Canada lifted the ban on the toxic additive as part of the

It is particularly noteworthy that the three NAFTA countries are each in
the top 11 most-challenged countries under the ISDS system. This high rate
of challenge in our view has little to do with a rule of law deficit in the
U.S. and Canada. Instead, it represents investors taking advantage of easy
access to a special legal right available only to them in an alternate
legal system.

ISDS weakens the rule of law by removing the procedural protections of the
legal system and using a system of adjudication with limited accountability
and review. It is antithetical to the fair, public, and effective legal
system that all Americans expect and deserve.

Proponents of ISDS have failed to explain why our legal system is
inadequate to the task. For the reasons cited above, we urge you to uphold
the best ideals of our legal system and ensure ISDS is excluded from
upcoming trade agreements.


Judith Resnik Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School

Cruz Reynoso Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Davis
School of Law Former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court

Honorable H. Lee Sarokin Former United States Circuit Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Joseph E. Stiglitz University Professor, Columbia University

Laurence H. Tribe Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School

cc: Ambassador Froman and Chairs & Ranking Members of Finance & Ways &
Means Committees

Please note: Organizational affiliation for all signatories is included for
identification purposes only; individuals represent only themselves, not
the institutions where they are teaching or other organizations in which
they are active.

h/t Mark Fernald

Tagged ,

New Democrats Expect Growing Support for Fast-Track

New Democrats? Didn’t they die out after George W. rode in on the wave of “New Democrat” fervor that elected Clinton who then shoved the country further right?  Wasn’t “New Democrat” a fad of the 90’s wherein the late Georgia Senator Sam Nunn and others came together figuring that the old liberal Democratic party had to go and make way for a newer, shinier, more conservative version.  A version that wouldn’t let such matters as labor and social policy stand in the way of getting elected? Remember them? NAFTA? Welfare Reform? the Telecommunications Act which while historically did destroy Ma Bell’s monopoly on phone service, opened up a brave new world on technology law that still confounds many.

Yes the New Democrats have apparently risen their ugly heads again and it seems that we can with confidence, this time around call them what they have always been: Republican Lite.  Content to enjoy the traditional support of middle Americans, shameless in their promotion of corporate power and hawkish in their support of imperialist intervention worldwide, the New Democrat comprises a creature that at the very least deserves healthy skepticism and a watchful eye.

Case in point: their coming out in support of the Fast Track process to pass the TPP without debate; in short, without democratic process.  For more look no further than Politico to proudly that some Democrats have pulled that old mothballed sweater out of the closet and are wearing it with pride, despite the holes we can all see clearly from here:

| Getty

The bill would allow Obama to submit trade deals to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments. | Getty
New Democrats expect growing support for fast-track

By Doug Palmer

4/30/15 9:03 PM EDT

A small group of House Democrats who back President Barack Obama’s effort to win “fast-track” trade legislation said Thursday they expect more party members to step forward in favor of the bill, but indicated Republicans would still have to provide the bulk of the votes to win its approval.

“I think members realize it’s coming closer [to the time] to ultimately to make a decision, and that’s what they’re trying to do,” Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind, chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, told reporters after more than a 90-minute meeting with Obama. “I think to the credit of the majority of the New Dems in the coalition, they’ve kept their powder dry to give the administration and the president the chance to make the case.”

Obama invited all 46 members of the moderate, business-friendly group to the White House to urge their support for the bill, which many Democrats have already made up their mind to oppose. About 27 piled into a bus for the trip, including some who have already endorsed the bill and many others who are undecided.

Just 13 House Democrats — most of them from the New Democrat Coalition — are on record in support of the legislation, which would allow Obama to submit trade deals like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership pact to Congress for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments.

Read more:Politico: New Democrats Expect….

Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages

From the Economic Policy Institute an easy to understand analysis of the Fast Track Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and what it could do to American workers and businesses.  Good article with many clickable links to provide more information to topics raised.

A child performing “menial” work in the new unregulated, global economy.

Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages

This week, Senator Hatch will reportedly introduce “fast track” (trade promotion authority) legislation in the Senate, to help President Obama complete the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade and investment deal with eleven other countries in Asia and the Americas. “Fast Track” authority would allow the President to submit trade agreements to Congress without giving members of Congress the opportunity to amend the deal. Experience has shown that these trade and investment deals typically result in job losses and downward pressure on the wages of most American workers. The last thing America needs is renewal of fast track and more trade and investment deals rushed through Congress.

The administration has claimed that the TPP will create jobs, but it will not. There are other policies that have attracted bipartisan support, including ending currency manipulation and rebuilding infrastructure that could each create millions of U.S. jobs. President Obama has limited political capital to expend with the Republican-controlled Congress and he must choose his policies wisely.

Trade and Jobs?

For more than twenty years, both Democratic and Republican administrations have claimed that free trade agreements like the U.S. – Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would lead to growing U.S. exports and stimulate creation of goods jobs in the United States. Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create 200,000 jobs in its first two years and a million jobs in five years. President Obama claimed that KORUS would “support 70,000 American jobs” because the agreement would “increase exports of American goods by $10 billion to $11 billion.

Claims that trade and investment deals would support domestic job creation have proven to be empty promises. Expanding exports alone is not enough to ensure that trade adds jobs to the economy. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in the United States, but increases in imports lead to job loss—by destroying existing jobs and preventing new job creation—as imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by American workers. Thus, it is changes in trade balances—the net of exports and imports—that determine the number of jobs created or displaced by trade and investment deals like NAFTA and KORUS.

More than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1997 and 2014, and most of those job losses were due to growing trade deficits with countries that have negotiated trade and investment deals with the United States.

Between 1993 (before NAFTA took effect) and 2013, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion, displacing more than 850,000 U.S. jobs. Growing trade deficits and job displacement, especially between the United States and Mexico, were the result of a surge in outsourcing of production by U.S. and other foreign investors. The rise in outsourcing was fueled, in turn, by a surge in foreign direct investment (FDI) into Mexico, which increased by more than 150 percent in the post-NAFTA period.

KORUS took effect in March 2012. Between 2011 and 2014, U.S. exports to Korea increased by about $1 billion, but imports have increased by $13 billion, so the trade deficit has increased by nearly $12 billion. This growing trade deficit with Korea has cost more than 75,000 U.S. jobs.

Continue reading:  Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages


Fast-Track: An Undemocratic Path to Unfair “Trade”

As promised we bring you some more opinion and analysis on the Fast-Track push by Obama for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.  From the blog of the group Public Citizen:


Fast Track

An Undemocratic Path to Unfair “Trade”

President Obama is asking Congress to delegate to him extreme Fast Track authority to railroad into place job-killing trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

ALERT! A Fast Track bill has recently been introduced. Click here for the full analysis.

Fast Track was an extreme and rarely-used procedure initially created by President Richard Nixon to get around public debate and congressional oversight. Fast Track is how we got into the job-killing, wage-flattening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Thanks to Fast Track, NAFTA and the WTO included terms that promote the offshoring of U.S. jobs to low-wage countries.

Fast Track also empowered executive branch officials advised by large corporations to skirt Congress and the public and use secretive “trade” agreements to roll back a wide range of non-trade policies on which our families rely for safe food, a clean environment, affordable medicines, financial stability and more.

Fast Track set up a system of more than 500 official corporate U.S. trade advisors who have access to secret trade agreement texts and who have set the “U.S.” trade agenda whether we have Democratic or Republican presidents.

Fast Track is such an extreme power grab that in the past 21 years Congress has only allowed it to go into effect for five years total. Why? Because under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is supposed to write the laws and set trade policy. For 200 years, these key checks and balances helped ensure that no one branch of government had too much power. But, starting with Nixon, presidents have tried to seize those congressional powers using the Fast Track mechanism. hide

Fast Track has only been used 16 times in the history of our nation, often to enact the most controversial of “trade” pacts, such as the NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. Meanwhile, hundreds of less controversial U.S. trade agreements have been implemented without resort to Fast Track, showing that the extraordinary procedure is not needed to approve trade agreements.

Fast Track allowed the executive branch to unilaterally select partner countries for “trade” pacts, decide the agreements’ contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements – all before Congress had a vote on the matter! Normal congressional committee processes were forbidden, meaning that the executive branch was empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments. These executive-authored bills altered wide swaths of U.S. law unrelated to trade – food safety, immigration visas, energy policy, medicine patents and more – to conform our domestic policies to each agreement’s requirements. And, remarkably, Fast Track let the executive branch control Congress’ voting schedule. Unlike any other legislation, both the House and Senate were required to vote on a Fast Tracked trade agreement within 90 days of the White House submitting it. No floor amendments were allowed and debate was limited.

Because Fast Track’s dramatic shift in the balance of powers between branches of the U.S. government occurred via an arcane procedural mechanism, it obtained little scrutiny – until recently. Its use by Democratic and Republican presidents alike to seize Congress’ constitutional prerogatives, “diplomatically legislate” non-trade policy, and preempt state policy, has made it increasingly controversial.

A president cannot obtain Fast Track empowerment without a vote of Congress. President Clinton, renowned for trade expansion, only had Fast Track authority for two of his eight years in office due to congressional opposition. Indeed, in 1998 Clinton’s effort to get Fast Track authority was rejected by 171 House Democrats and 71 House GOP members.

The last time Congress authorized Fast Track was in 2002, with a 3:30 am vote before a congressional recess in which the antiquated mechanism was approved by just three votes. Since 2007, Congress has refused to authorize this extreme procedure, even after its proponents tried to escape Fast Track’s bad reputation by renaming it “Trade Promotion Authority.” The bill currently before Congress would replicate the widely-opposed Fast Track bill from 2002.

As a candidate, President Obama said he would replace this anti-democratic process. But now he is asking Congress to grant him Fast Track’s extraordinary authority – in part to try to overcome growing public and congressional opposition to his controversial TPP and Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) deals. To prevent an expansion of this unfair “trade” model, Congress must not allow the executive branch to once again gain Fast Track’s undemocratic powers.



We will be posting as often as we can perspectives on the Fast Track Trans-Pacific Partnership, a treaty that will unite global corporations and twelve nations in a unified agreement on trade.  In summary, the aggreement, in the process of formation for many years now, will lock-on more favors to global manufacturers by providing mostly an easier ability to exploit labor markets in Indonesia and southern Asia.  There also exist loopholes around and restrictions to action involving labor rights, environmental concerns and even traditional tariffs to protect goods produced in countries such as the United States.  If you thought the trade with China over the last forty years or so has destroyed American manufacturing and business, just imagine that expanded even more.  Needless to say, labor leaders and groups worldwide are coming out against new global affront to the planet and to working people.

Our first analysis on this issue comes from the Socialist

A treaty to outlaw democracy

Australian socialist Michael Kandelaars explains what’s what we’re learning about the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, in an article published at Red Flag.

Thousands protest in Tokyo against the Trans-Pacific PartnershipThousands protest in Tokyo against the Trans-Pacific Partnership

THE TRANS-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is set to be the largest economic treaty ever signed. It currently involves 12 countries, including Australia, that represent more than 40 percent of the world’s GDP.

Yet it is being negotiated in secret to ensure it is free of any public criticism or scrutiny–so secret that the text of the agreement will be released only four years after the deal has been signed.

How do we know what’s in the agreement? We know parts only because sections of the working documents have been leaked and published by whistleblower website Wikileaks. These leaks have exposed how the rich and powerful are conspiring to make tougher the lives of millions of people across the globe.

On 25 March Wikileaks released the Advanced Investment chapter of the TPP. It details a massive expansion of the rights of the rich and their corporations to rampage across the world.

The most controversial part is the establishment of an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arrangement. This will give “investors” the right to sue governments if they pass laws that impede profits.

A case would not be held in the country that is being sued, but in a special international court with no right of appeal. This not only grants exceptional legal rights to corporations but also erodes the basic right of countries to make their own laws.

An example of how this can be used involves the provincial government of Quebec in Canada. It is currently being sued for $250 million by U.S.-based Lone Pine Resources Inc. over the government’s ban of gas fracking. Lone Pine is not suing primarily for loss of income, but for the loss of future profits expected from fracking. This is being conducted through the ISDS clauses in the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

Another important case involves French multinational Veolia, which is suing the Egyptian government under a similar bilateral agreement for increasing the minimum wage. Egypt is also being sued by Indorama Corp. for the nationalization of a textile factory during the 2011 revolution.

To continue reading:  A Treaty to Outlaw Democracy

Tagged ,

Random Catch from Facebook

Tomorrow marks the termination of the Tower of London, a remembrance of British troops who served in World War I.  Ceramic poppies were made and planted in honor of each soldier killed in the conflict. While the establishment makes their own remembrance of war, we prefer those who make the deeper observations about war and human assumptions and social systems that support it.

Writing from Core Luminous

The Irony of the image of a bloody moat around a kings safe house and prison, the power protected by the sea of blood, the blood of men and women .. real living people, their lives utterly thrashed in the name of power.

The fact is that we live within a social system of hierarchical power, which is violent, extremely dangerous and at present causing great harms. It’s a similar dynamic to an abuse relationship that has become Institutionalized *(-if a number of people, who share a psychological issue, build a social structure, it will carry and express their psychology within it.)

and then, over time, as the Institutions garner more power, they never let go of it, and in time the Institutions ‘needs’ – to enhance it’s power and status, to run a bigger budget, deal with competition, etc – takes priority and so the cycle continues, to replace human community needs, and the institutional behavior becomes more embedded.

 Writing from Keeb Questions

This is very strange, almost like a river of blood spewing from one of the windows of the Tower of London, a venue of torture and horror. We rarely question the relationship between dependency and deception; in the space between power is able to rise and take hold. Power exists because we are not sovereign. Tyrants, those that pretend to be your friend (your government) and those that don’t (your dictator), exist because we put them there. Don’t say i am fighting to preserve my way of life, that way of life is corrupt. If you want to end war give up being British. Queen, country, all that rot.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,