Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for December 4th, 2012

Proof that Governments are Essentially Commerce, with Guns

leave a comment »

This is subject matter I’m currently working through, which is why it’s being posted in two of my blogs


When something grips one’s soul like this, answers (logical ones) are demanded. Also, in writing about how callous and cold the pure, economic, rationale is (in operation), I find the opposite part of my own self being stirred to empathize and seek to understand the situation, and what meaning does it attach now (personally).

Because there are many similarities of experience — though not quality.  I am coming to the conclusion that the reason WHY it “feels” similar is that the same forces of colonization originating from England, Germany, and the Netherlands specifically (referring to three major forces in the gold and diamond industry have been focusing on) — are running governments in more than one continent.

In the green-background (extended) quote below here, a person involved in the Parliament of Namibia during its first years of independence (1990s) writes a chronology. He is a “Dr. Klaus Dierks.”  He asks these questions (Year:  2003) in preface to a long, and detailed narrative, I think he has tried to make it an honest and thorough one (from what I can tell).  This whole chronology appears to be available on-line also in both German and English (ISBNs and mailing address on the link):


Chronology of Namibian History
From Pre-Historical Times To Independent Namibia

Klaus Dierks

. . .  (from the PREFACE):

African society is little understood and under evaluated. Who are the Africans, where are they coming from? Which are the moving forces of Namibian history?

I would like to argue that the moving forces are not ethnic or racial in nature but social and economic. As implied above, one major shortcoming of Namibia’s historical records has to be borne in mind: the indigenes were considered to be nothing but objects of European intervention. They do not turn up as makers of history, and the impression is created that they lived “outside” the country’s history. The chronology before you makes an honest attempt to rectify this bias, but it has to be understood that this effort is merely an additional stepping stone in the cumulative effort to write up the very complex history of this young nation state.

Another major shortcoming of the records is that references to the role of Namibian women in the making of their country’s history, and in bringing about its liberation, are all too rare, and this topic is deserving of much additional research in the future. Women’s oppressed status in Namibian history is clearly manifested in the fact that they are not mentioned in most of the historical sources. Their work is not valued according to its scope, importance, or degree of skill.


Dierks_Nujoma_18-08-03.jpg (205615 bytes)

Handing over of the two Books to H.E., Dr. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma, the President of the Republic Namibia, at State House, Windhoek, on 18.08.2003″ (It says he passed away on 3/5/2005)

See also Dierks’ page on “Reflections on Donor Aid” — very informative!  Read his account of the liberation of Ecuador,(hover cursor, or click!)  and how Great Britain was calling in the debt (it takes money to wage a war; that money for freedom from Spain was fronted by British bankers (and Great Britain) — early 1800s.  Not resolved til 1937….   (Similar deal, in the US…. by the way …!!!!!)




{{in a piece of the chronology, I noted that part of this comes from missionary law early on.}}

While I cannot communicate, perhaps, in words only — or by assembling others’ writings — I am still trusting that, over time it will start to communicate that, if we want freedom (badly enough) and not to be witnesses AND participants (whether of technology, or of resources, i.e., dollars and labor, brains, and time) to the next round of outrageous genocides — which seems to be habit-forming — then we have to compile a good understanding of how to view things.

And, of WHO we are dealing with.

(See last post….)

This also one is a mouthful and an eyeful.  However, I believe unless we get an in-depth view of where our own (meaning, the United States of America, and individual states’) origins were — ideological AND practical/tactical — we’re headed on the wrong side of the railroad tracks, so to speak (after building them).





Educational Institutions

Some off-the-beaten-track books and information I’ve picked up over the years (some of us are truly hunter-gatherers upstairs, not farmers) are coming to fruit now, and making more sense.  Perhaps this is just age, perhaps it’s the times.

I also am personally having to re-work where I stand on Christianity in general, even given what I do know about the matters of what we now call ca.  200 or 300 AD when the Monotheism & State was pretty well sealed into a catechism.

Among things that came up (in the last few posts over yonder) were Africans writing about the history of apartheid, diamond or gold mines, Rhodes, De Beers, Oppenheimers, German (genocides) and colonialism — was my own reminder about the great library of Alexandria, Egypt — which had a series of fires and destructions, and may (or may not) have been mostly lost to history.

In fact I am beginning to think about things Alexander the Great had in common with this Cecil Rhodes:  leaving no heirs, conquering fast and furious, and empire split up between his four generals at the time of his (premature) death.   (Alexandria and the Hellenistic world, library, etc.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How current is all this now, how relevant?  Oh, I don’t know — YOU judge!  Here’s some more data:

Year 2000 (I also have this on “Long and Winding Rhodes#4”)

  1. Diamond Con – Edward Jay Epstein


    WALL STREET JOURNAL August 3, 2000 by Edward Jay Epstein But the diamond cartel, while modifying its tactics, has not changed its basic strategy.  and human-rights communities, it has convinced theU.N. Security Council to impose 


The righthand column is the entire article.  (As he has it posted, I’m assuming he wants the information out, with credits!) which sheds lights on the left-hand column, and I take it from there up to 2012…


American policy

On January 18, 2001, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13194 which prohibited the importation of rough diamonds from Sierra Leone into the United States in accordance with the UN resolutions.[36]

Commentary from “a noncustodial mother”  affected by the first Executive Orders of GWBush, less than two weeks later, on taking office — the office of “The President of the United States.”

George W. Bush won (or stole, anyhow, was eventually named) the Presidential Term starting 2001.  His FIRST TWO executive orders were to set in place the office of faith-based initiatives, dated January 29, 2001.

Therefore, in the chronology, it looks like before leaving office then-President Clinton got his last set of favors in for some of his career sponsors, who were running the diamond industry and a whole lot of international politics — by issuing that Executive Order.   This wasn’t going to stop conflict diamonds, from what I’ve been reading — it was going to further help a certain cartel better control the trade, only using more UN help, in addition to its already considerable private enforcement measures, including guns (as from the beginning of the business).

On May 22, 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13213 which banned rough diamond importation from Liberia into the United States. Liberia had been recognized by the United Nations as acting as a pipeline for conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone.[37]

United States enacted the Clean Diamond Trade Act (CDTA) on April 25, 2003,[38] and implemented on July 29, 2003 by Executive Order 13312.[39][40]

The CDTA installed the legislation to implement the KPCS in law in the United States. The implementation of this legislation was key to the success of the KPCS, as the United States is the largest consumer of diamonds. The CDTA states: ‘As the consumer of a majority of the world’s supply of diamonds, the United States has an obligation to help sever the link between diamonds and conflict and press for implementation of an effective solution.[38]

{{The US is the major consumer of the world’s supply of diamonds because of a superb ad campaign by De Beers // Oppenheimer.  Right now they’ve been already implementing the same policy in Asia (Japan).  Diamonds are Forever…}}

Canadian policy

During the 1990s diamond-rich areas were discovered in Northern Canada. Canada is one of the key players in the diamond industry. Partnership Africa Canada was created in 1986 to help with the crisis in Africa. This organization is also part of the Diamond Development Initiative. The Diamond Development Initiative helps improve and regulate the legal diamond industry.

The Kimberley Process was initiated in May 2000 by South Africa  (etc…..).

The New Diamond Con


August 3, 2000

by Edward Jay Epstein

De Beers announced with great fanfare in July (2000) that it was abandoning its policy of buying diamonds in African conflict zones, occasioning both applause and predictions of De Beers’ demise. But the diamond cartel, while modifying its tactics, has not changed its basic strategy.

Almost since its inception at the end of the 19th century, the diamond cartel has had a singular strategy: stifling, by any means necessary, the flow of gem diamonds from sources not under its ownership or control.***

The problem with diamonds isn’t their scarcity, but their abundance. They are found not only in geological formations like volcanic pipes that can be fenced off and mined, but also in vast alluvial areas like river beds or beaches, places that can’t be restricted. When Europe ruled Africa, the cartel had little problem making arrangements with colonial administrators to police or close down freelance diamond gathering. After African colonies got their independence, the cartel came to terms with dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko, whose police kept out — and occasionally massacred — suspected smugglers.

Where governments were less cooperative or capable, the cartel commissioned mercenaries to suppress, often by maiming or killing, prospective diamond hunters.

At one point in the 1960s, the cartel gave bounties to remnants of the Katanga gendarmerie to hunt down “smugglers” in Angola. It also paid a Lebanese mercenary named Fred Kamil in Sierra Leone to arrange ambushes that would persuade Mandago tribesman to quit the diamond trade. Since these measures didn’t fully eliminate the “leakage” to diamond-cutting centers in Belgium, Israel and India, it also acted as a buyer of last resort to keep prices from falling.

But that is history. The cartel now has found an ingenious new mechanism for achieving its ends: the United Nations. After spending months laying the conceptual groundwork in the media, as well as working through the Clinton administration and human-rights communities, it has convinced the U.N. Security Council to impose a global ban on “undocumented” gem diamonds from “conflict zones.” Undocumented diamonds are, of course, just those diamonds picked out of river beds that De Beers wants eliminated. The “conflict zones,” Angola and Sierra Leone, are the alluvial areas in which De Beers previously depended on paid guns.

Instead of using colonial administrations, dictators or mercenary gangs to stop Africans from gathering and selling stones, the U.N. will use its resources (backed, no doubt, by the cartel’s own contingent of lawyers and detectives) to accomplish that task.

The cartel managed this favorable outcome by playing on the guilt of the West. The idea that “blood diamonds” were responsible for ferocious civil wars in Africa was too much for altruists and activists in developed nations.

Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, saw diamonds as an opportunity to enhance his own standing among these groups.

On July 21, he called for “an international conference to consider practical approaches to breaking the link between the illicit trade in diamonds and armed conflict . . .” Mr. Clinton’s press release made no secret of the liaison with the diamond cartel, noting that at a May conference in South Africa, the U.S., Britain and Belgium, among others, had agreed with De Beers upon the importance of establishing a global certification scheme for diamonds.

Like all persuasive ideas, the concept of blood diamonds is not without a basis in reality. Diamonds, like any resource, can be converted to money. Money can be used to buy arms and ammunition. What the concept neglects, however, is that governments are the principal means by which warriors get funded and armed. Countries such as the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi and Liberia have managed to sustain ferocious civil wars for years without having or selling diamonds. Even countries rich in diamonds have found alternative ways to finance their warfare: In Angola, Unita rebels were armed by the Central Intelligence Agency, South Africa’s intelligence service and Zaire. In the Congo, at least seven African governments are presently intervening in the civil war with arms and troops.

A regime backed by the U.N. and U.S. that inhibits the sale of uncertified diamonds, diamonds that in practice come from fields the cartel doesn’t control, probably won’t stop civil wars, then. It will, however, make it far less costly for De Beers to control the diamond market. Another brilliant coup for the cartel.

***Mr. Epstein is an American investigative journalist, and his book on the Diamond industry is as far back as 1982, and well-documented.  Beyond that, there is prior documentation — a lot of it — on the history of these various groups. It’s just extremely hard truth to accept, and kind of shows a lot of press, politics (and governance) for what it basically is — greed, colonialism, and pre-meditated monopolies.  Two sets of laws:  Some for Us, Another for Them.  This affects almost ALL business done in the United States.

Without tracing some of the ‘genealogy’ of ideas — and of the basic players — one just can’t grasp the reality.  And while working (or unemployed) Americans are constantly being fed guilt about almost everything (including things we are actually guilty of), the fact is, we still at some level identify with our own government as “the good guys.”

Big mistake, I say.

The “good guy” is somewhere inside each of us, waiting to wake up, perhaps — or already in action.  But of all the causes I can think which would be a PRIMARY cause — it would be to do something about the extreme centralization of wealth, power, and control of not just individual countries’ — but international — institutions designed to deceive, control, and extort the view (to varying degrees of cruelty depending on the various sector’s usefulness to the overall purpose, for now anyhow, basically, “the world.”

There is a paradigm for this in one of the books of the Bible, incidentally, and it is talking specifically about this same topic:  merchandising, blood, human trafficking, etc.  Of course, being the Bible, the culprit is called “Babylon, the great whore.”  ( Babylon being one of the first world dominators familiar to these prophets?).  No matter what gender (including both genders) are involved, the bad guy is often a woman, a “whore.”  However, look:

  Revelation 18: 1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

It mentions Nations, Kings of the Earth, and Merchants.   After much vivid and gory detail, it concludes (that chapter, at least), and listing what type of goods and merchandise was sold in this Great City…

Notice it mentions gold, precious stones, and pearls — in addition the merchants wailing that the source of their merchandise (or where it was being sold) was destroyed, suddenly and violently (it’s in the form of a prophetic curse, basically)

 15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, [[WHo PAYS FOR THEM?]] shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

There are many references to shipmasters and trade routes.  A lot of the colonialism of South Africa and Southwest Africa was basically to open and protect TRADE ROUTES (and migrate, settle, and sell more stuff), right?    Dutch East India, British South Africa, German Southwest Africa, and various international ones also — then, and now.

While looking up the corporation “DKG” (D for “Deutsche,” i.e., German) — that was the Protectorate (supposedly) of the property this Bremen tobacco merchant and failed farmer (Luderitz) sold his stuff to, I ran across a very detailed narrative — a chronicle, really — of Namibia (German Southwest Africa then, Namibia now, complete with the “Forbidden Zone” now become a national park, etc.) which shows clearly, again and again, how things go:

NAMIBIA obtained independence in 1990.  The person who wrote this chronology (well-indexed) was also a member of parliament and an engineer.  I found it in looking up the DKG.  You can see that before the actual sale and colonization began, missionaries and traders were involved, and began weakening and interfering with existing trading structures.

Then the bargaining begins (see last post, “Luderitz” inset), and you can see how the process works.  It BEGINS with getting a treaty of some sort (public or private) and usually mining rights (the year 1885; year is in European style — day, month; not month,day).  These were pastoral (and/or hunting and raiding) tribes, and here come the missionaries with guns (and some epidemics), and others trying to buy their land and mining rights. One tribe was supported against another, etc.

These histories parallel United States and World histories, both in and out of Wars, and in that there is significant evidence (in my opinion, observation) that the US is also being treated like a British colony.  So if we want to see “how that goes,” this is a great example.

Also the centralization, regionalization following World War I still perpetuated colonial rule.  The Germans got control at first, however, with WWI, and after, then control was (though under a mandate) more with the British.  None of it was good for the original residents.…  All this time, diamonds and gold were being mined, cut, sold, promoted, and the (diamond, etc.) cartel in existence pretty well running things.

The indexed format was helpful for me.  Below this segment, we fast-forward to the year about 2000, but keep in mind — Namibia didn’t become “Namibia” until 1990.   And I DNR when “NAMDEB” (Namibia + De Beers) came into being, whether 1994, or another time.  By any other name, it’s the similar types of activities.

I will mark this segment with horizontal lines and different background color (rather than the “box” format some of my quotes have).

I am very thankful someone has taken time to put this together (although I live on another continent!) as I myself try to assemble a consistent and coherent understanding of my own country (and the world I have to continue navigating in, though now much more as a nomad than a farmer, being female, being a mother, having raised children, and experienced extreme alienation and sense of “displacement,” I have no extended family.  Many women in my position are experiencing this in our own “homeland” (so to speak) — and to the extent we are (as women are so often alleged to be) “relational” and “social” beings, not to mention, we have instinct, emotion, empathy and compassion — for our own and for others —

How can I put this?   — the clear sense (to me) is that this place has been violently ravaged, or raped, somehow.  Maybe it always was, however, UNTIL I married, I never experienced this country, or life, as  a place where I would be functioning as, literally — not figuratively only  — half-fugitive, to this day.    

It is more than personal — it’s social, and it’s a collective experience of misappropriation.  I believe it’s possibly the continuation of what HEGEL called the “world-spirit.” It is violent, too.

I have never (ever) gone through anything like what the Herero or Namaqua did, or any of these populations.   But I know there is something seriously wrong with my “tribe” – that’s in the nearby and in the wider sense (in case it’s not obvious, I’m Caucasian).   Trying to connect one’s awareness (spiritually also) absent people I have a human community with (most are so wrapped up in this system that funds the destructions) — well, it’s just tough.   Pretty much what we might call “abuse” — the listing of characteristics — is epitomized in “Colonizing.”

It’s really an attitude, and the attitude leads to practice, and the practices enable institutions.  Please listen to this account not of ALL of the southern part of Africa, just Namibia (See map!)  This is the country where a German Commissioner practiced and refined “concentration camp” and genocide, afterwards coverup of the material, and much more…

This was written in January 2003 by a Dr. Klaus Dierks (acknowledgements at the bottom of this page)

“The early history of Namibia cannot be distinguished from the period of the early European explorers, adventurers, traders and missionaries who opened this country up to the outside world in the 19th and early 20th centuries and who, in doing so, created the basis for Namibia’s colonial status which lasted all the way up to 1990.

An evaluation of the manifold records of the German colonial period from the 1890s to 1915, as well as some secondary literature, was carried out with a view to documenting the colonial character of Namibia’s history, whose grim consequences for Namibian indigenes were their being dispossessed of land and assets and deprived of human rights.

The mandatory rule of the Union of South Africa and later the Republic of South Africa in many respects perpetuated the objectives of the German colonial power. “


An updated and well-researched chronology of Namibian history is long overdue.

In particular, a chronological and properly indexed delineation of the pre-colonial and mandate periods following World War I, and of the period leading up to Namibia’s independence, has long been lacking. This chronology depicts “Namibia’s Road to Freedom“; the country’s striving for freedom and independence is the red thread woven through the rich tapestry of its history since long before the onset of formal colonialism in 1884.

The advent of colonialism in the last quarter of the 19th century serves as the starting point for this research, and the seemingly endless yarn of facts and figures that flowed from the colonial presence is followed to its logical conclusion – the birth of the Republic of Namibia on 21 March 1990.

Community awareness of ancient historical roots, associated with oral traditions about the origins and migrations of many Namibian communities play an important role in the revival of their cultures in post-independent Namibia and is reflected in this chronology.

The author, being an engineer by profession as well as a historian, has applied an “engineering approach” to this chronicle, which serves to advance its accuracy.

. . .This formal colonial period is divided into four sub-periods:

  • the initial period of occupation from 1884 to 1889,
  • the period from 1890 to 1903 which saw the initiation of active resistance against the German administration (nineteen uprisings by various Namibian communities against the Germans during this period, all in all there have been thirty uprisings against the German/South African colonial authorities between 1890 and 1959),

My point being, someone got a foothold in earlier; specifically Luderitz and Germany (DKG).   they were resisting from quite near the beginning, but were overcome.  Let’s understand why, because resistance is still required, to the same trends, only in different form perhaps…. and I don’t want to be part of a genocide, particularly… or enabling one, either!

  • the period from 1904 to 1906 when the resistance culminated in central and southern Namibia, and
  • finally the period from 1906 to World War I when the Germans consolidated their power.

The next section chronicles the period of South African rule in Namibia, and this period is divided into five sub-periods:  

  • the period of South African military rule from 1915 to 1918,
  • the period from 1918 to 1945 when Namibia became a Mandate of the League of Nations,
  • the period from 1946 to 1956 when the United Nations endeavoured to make Namibia a UN Trusteeship Area,
  • the period from 1956 to 1974 when the struggle against South Africa commenced, and finally
  • the period from 1975 to 1987 which saw a succession of South African interim administrations and the start of the attenuated process leading to independence.

The next section covers the period immediately preceding independence in 1990.

The Chronology is continued for the first ten years after independence until the year 2000. Due to the fact that the author as an elected Member of Parliament and Minister of the Government was directly involved in the founding years of the new emerging state, his projects use up a relatively wide room. They have not only to be regarded as part of Namibian history but also his personal memoirs.

The early history of Namibia cannot be distinguished from the period of the early European explorers, adventurers, traders and missionaries who opened this country up to the outside world in the 19th and early 20th centuries and who, in doing so, created the basis for Namibia’s colonial status which lasted all the way up to 1990.An evaluation of the manifold records of the German colonial period from the 1890s to 1915, as well as some secondary literature, was carried out with a view to documenting the colonial character of Namibia’s history, whose grim consequences for Namibian indigenes were their being dispossessed of land and assets and deprived of human rights.The mandatory rule of the Union of South Africa and later the Republic of South Africa in many respects perpetuated the objectives of the German colonial power

7.1 THE FIRST TEN YEARS 1990-2000

CLINTON’s Diamond Industry connections are CLEAR, (not that I’m a Bush fan, either) — see next box:

Here’s, unbelievably, a 2003 “CRS” (Congressional Research Service) report from the US Congress on this matter of “Conflict Diamonds.”  (It seems to me that ALL such diamonds, at least from the discovery of diamonds in South Africa, and Southwest Africa, are “conflict” diamonds and signIficant bloodshed was involved.  Not just “some” diamonds….)

OrderCode RL30751


Updated July 16, 2003

Nicolas Cook

Analyst in African Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade


Diamonds and Conflict: Background and Policy Responses

In several diamond-rich countries affected by armed conflict, notably in Africa, belligerents have funded their military activities by mining and selling diamonds, and competition over the use and control of diamond wealth has contributed significantly to the depth and extended duration of these conflicts. Diamonds used in this fashion, labeled “conflict diamonds,” were estimated to have comprised an estimated 3.7 % to 15% of the value of the global diamond trade in 2000. The present volume of such trade appears is difficult to estimate. Several diamond-related conflicts have ended, but others have burgeoned. Policy makers’ attention has also increasingly focused on the possible role that diamonds may play in the financing of terrorist operations.

In response to public pressure to halt trade in conflict diamonds, and due to the persistence of several diamond-related conflicts, governments and multilateral organizations have pursued efforts to end such trade. Several international policy forums, national legislatures, and diverse private parties have proposed various reforms and legislation to achieve such goals. Effective regulation of the diamond trade is difficult. Diamonds are a highly fungible, concentrated form of wealth, and the global diamond industry is historically insular and self-regulating. The illicit diamond trade exploits these factors. Proposals to end illicit trading generally center on legally identifying the origin of diamonds and requiring the registration, identification, and monitoring of cross-border trade in diamond, as is common for trade in other goods. Methods for achieving such ends include the cataloging of unique physical diamond features; the “tagging” of diamonds with minute markings; and the creation of certification-of-origin laws to document the origin of diamonds.

The Clinton Administration worked to create a certificates of origin-based international diamond trade regime, but sought to ensure that such efforts would not negatively affect the legitimate industry. It also backed marketing reforms and regulatory capacity building in diamond-rich African countries, consulted with the diamond industry, pushed for U.N. sanctions to end the conflict diamond trade, and created an inter-agency group on conflict diamonds. The Bush Administration has pursued policies that broadly mirror those of its predecessor.

Pause for a few moments of incredulity.  We are too credulous!

What’s “legitimate” about the diamond industry — whatsoever? ANY of it!!! Look at its history!!!

However we do have to mention that Clinton was highly influenced by at least a few Rhodes Scholars in his youth, Senator Fullbright of Arkansas (the first Rhodes Scholar to become a US Senator); one at Georgetown (I believe Professor Carroll Quigley was one, and credited by Clinton in his 1992 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, as its candidate for President; in signing “welfare reform,” he was influenced by (yet another) Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas (Dick Morris) as consultant (which I documented in a few prior posts, here and on “The Family Court Franchise System“, he was himself a Rhodes Scholar, and “Hegel” (see my first post above, which quotes (it seems) an Indian source on how central a Eurocentric viewpoint was to Hegel’s (who lived through part of Napoleonic wars/early 1800s) philosophy, particularly regarding Africa and Asia)– 

Rhodes = De Beers /Kimberly / BSAC / South Africa — shortly afterwards, taken over by the Oppenheimers; if nothing else this one person literally “personifies” British Imperialism, the Great Scramble, and complete lack of scruples, except pursuit of his amoral goal — to “Make War Impossible” (and ensure British interests were at the top of the heap).

OK, that’s enough for now:

The United States participates in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, a global diamond trade regulation framework. The Administration began implementing the Scheme in the United States with voluntary interim compliance measures, prior to the passage of H.R. 1584 (see below). Several congressional hearings have addressed trade in conflict diamonds. Potential links between terrorism financing and trade in diamonds have garnered increasing congressional attention. The 106th and 107th Congresses considered several diamond-related bills. The 108th Congress passed H.J.Res. 2 in February 2003; it contained several conflict diamond-related provisions. Other conflict diamond bills introduced in the 108th Congress include H.Con.Res. 239 (Watson); S. 760 (Grassley), H.R. 1415 (Houghton), and H.R. 1584 (Houghton). The latter three bills shared many goals in common with H.R. 1584, an amended version of which was passed by both chambers and signed into law by President Bush, becoming P.L. 108-19.


Industry Policy Initiatives

Diamond High Council. The Diamond High Council (HRD) is a formal trade organization representing the Belgian diamond industry. Antwerp, Belgium, where the HRD is headquartered, is one of the leading international diamond cutting centers, and is a major destination for exports of rough diamonds from Africa. The HRD has close working ties with the Belgian government.

Beginning in late 1999, it assisted the Angolan government in designing a forgery-proof certificate of origin documentation system, and later entered into a joint export control regime and technical assistance agreement with the Angolan government. It later pursued similar efforts with the Sierra Leonean government , and has provided several other African governments with similar certificate of origin-related advice.

In addition to the Angola and Sierra Leone arrangements, the Belgian Ministry of Economic Affairs has since February 2, 2000, according to the HRD, required that diamond imports from Liberia, Ivory Coast, Uganda, Central African Republic, Ghana, Guinea, Namibia, Congo (Brazzaville), Mali, and Zambia be licenced under the name of individual diamond dealers. Government certificate of origin systems of varying sophistication exists in several of these countries, according to the HRD and other sources.45

The HRD has stated that if probable cause exists indicating that diamonds imported to Belgium do not originate in the country of export, Belgian government officials will attempt to determine the source of such stones.

World Diamond Council. In July 2000, during the World Diamond Congress in Antwerp, Belgium, the two largest international diamond trade organizations, the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) and the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA), jointly issued a resolution calling for:

! A uniform, global export certification system, underpinned by national legislation in participating countries, establishing a range of export control mechanisms aimed at ensuring the legitimate origin of internationally traded diamonds. Such legislation would require a system of seals and registration for the export of diamond parcels, controlled and maintained by national, internationally accredited export agencies; criminal penalties for illicit diamond trading; and a system for monitoring compliance with the system.

! The mandatory establishment by diamond trade organizations of ethical codes of business practice aimed at ensuring transparency and adherence to legal requirements in diamond commerce; and cooperation in monitoring compliance with such codes and germane trade law.

Acting under the Antwerp Resolution, which called for the creation of the World Diamond Council (WDC), the WFDB and IDMA chartered this organization.

In September 2000 in Tel Aviv, Israel, the WDC held an inaugural policy planning meeting. According to testimony by Matthew A. Runci, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Jewelers of America, Inc., speaking on behalf of World Diamond Council before the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade hearing on Trade in African Diamonds, September 13, 2000,46 outlined a plan based on government regulation of diamond trading, an international rough diamond import/export certification system, and industry-wide ethical codes of conduct and trade standards that prohibit the trade in conflict diamonds.

The WDC called upon governments of diamond exporting and importing countries to enact legislation that would support the WDC’s goals. Many elements contained in WDC policy proposals are reflected in the recently negotiated Kimberley Process system. The WDC also attempted to influence the course of proposed legislation in Congress.

In November 2000, the WDC reportedly hired a law and lobbying firm, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, to draft model legislation on behalf of the WDC.47 The WDC has since continued to be active in seeking to influence proposed congressional legislation in Congress.

De Beers. As of March 27, 2000, under the trademark initials DTC (for the Diamond Trading Company Limited, the gem-quality diamond sales arm of the De Beers group of companies), De Beers guarantees that it does not purchase or sell conflict diamonds (see above).48 DTC also introduced formal rules for its 125 “sight” holders, the trade term for its wholesale rough diamond buyers, replacing a reported system of informal, unwritten criteria with which sight holders were previously required to comply.

The system reportedly includes provisions requiring that sight holders who are discovered to be purchasing diamonds not guaranteed as being “conflict-free” lose their right to purchase from De Beers, which reportedly controls a large proportion of the world rough diamond market. In 2000, a De Beers representative reportedly stated that its efforts and those of the industry at large had caused an approximate 30% price drop for conflict stones.49

Conflict Diamonds and the U.N. General Assembly

On December 12, 2000, the 55th Session of the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution titled “The role of diamonds in fueling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts.”50 It was sponsored by 50 countries, including the United States. It called for measures to end the conflict diamond trade. The resolution recommended that a simple and workable international certification scheme for rough diamonds be created.


One thing I learned from the history is that commerce, really, has no religion, no national borders, and always has an agenda.  Those in charge are generally many steps ahead of any civil protest or unrest and equally able (see institutional controls), usually, to deflect, or even posture on one side or another of a war — or of a human rights violation.

June 2012, “The Bloody Truth About Conflict-Free Diamonds

(guest post/Courtney E. Miller, summarizes with links).

 In 2007, global diamond jewelry sales reached more than US $70 billion. But this symbol of eternal love has been tainted by the existence of bloody conflicts in African countries fueled by the global diamond trade. In 2002, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) was established to reduce such conflicts, and to ensure that globally traded diamonds come strictly from “conflict-free” areas. Recently, significant criticisms of the KPCS have brought its effectiveness into question.

Diamonds were first mined in India about 3,000 years ago, which was thought to be the world’s only source until the 18th century. Due to their rarity, only royalty and elites were permitted to wear them. Over time, the Indian mines were depleted, and diamonds became increasingly rare and inaccessible, even to elites. It wasn’t until the late 19thcentury, with the discovery of several large diamonds on the De Beers property in South Africa, that a massive supply of diamonds was uncovered. English-born South African businessman Cecil Rhodes soon formed the company De Beers Consolidated Mines, and by 1887, the company owned all diamond mining operations in South Africa.


And as the records (and several of my posts, including the one up top here, also show) — by 1889 he had a charter from Queen Victoria in England to form the BSAC — British South Africa Company — and was quickly on his way to mowing down the natives with machine-guns (the world’s first), courtesy an American-born inventor, Hiram Maxim.  And when the word “mowing down” is used, the term is appropriate — the Africans (see Matabele, King Lobengula, etc.) resisted, and were well-trained, well-organized, and courageous.  They just didn’t have this technology.  Not to mention, there had been prior incursions, concessions, trickery and dismantling of their own social organizations, by missionaries and traders.

Continuing, from same post…..

The discovery of this massive supply significantly increased the availability and affordability of diamonds to the public. By the late 1930’s, however, De Beers board member Harry Oppenheimer was concerned with the drop in demand for diamond jewelry that followed theGreat Depression.

How concerned was he about the Great Depression itself??

According to investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein, Oppenheimer endeavored to make diamond jewelry an inseparable part of romance and marriage to increase demand for diamonds and keep prices high. To do this, De Beers launched an advertising and publicity campaign in 1939 that prominently featured images and discussion of diamond jewelry in movies, magazines, newspapers, and radio talk shows. By 1941, diamond sales in the US had risen by 55 percent.

Question:  Where’d De Beers get the money to control that much publicity FROM?

In 1948, a copywriter came up with De Beers’ trademark slogan: “A diamond is forever.” Today, De Beers remains the world’s largest diamond company, producing and marketing about 35 percent of the world’s rough diamond supply. Over 50 percent of global diamond sales take place in the US, and about 65 percent of the supply comes from African nations. Other major producers include Russia, Canada, and Australia.

(from the same post):

Member nations of the KPCS agree not to import or export any diamonds unless they are certified as conflict-free by the organization. The United Nations defines “conflict diamonds” as those “that originate from areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments, and are used to fund military action in opposition to those governments, or in contravention of the decisions of the Security Council.”

Thus, the objective of the KPCS is to prevent militant groups from receiving diamond revenues. According to the UN, because revenues from rough diamond caches are often used by such groups to finance arms purchases and other illegal activities, cutting off these funds should shorten wars and prevent them from recurring. In 2006, the release of the feature filmBlood Diamond brought significant public attention to the issue of conflict diamonds. Publicity from the movie along with a WDC advertising campaign seemed to be effective; by 2007, the WDC announced that nearly 100 percent of rough diamonds in the market were certified conflict-free.

But, external sources indicated the problem was far from solved. The international NGO Human Rights Watch revealed in a report that serious human rights abuses were occurring in the Marange diamond fields of Zimbabwe.

Documented abuses included forced labor, torture, sexual assault, and murder of villagers. Yet because the Zimbabwean governments were deemed “legitimate” by the KPCS, and because the abuses were committed by state sanctioned armed forces, the Kimberley Process monitoring body did not address the matter.


{{the lesson in here — government/private alliances}}

In light of these revelations, Martin Rapaport, a key figure in the development of the KPCS,resigned from the World Diamond Council in February 2010, calling the KPCS and the WDC a “sham.” Subsequently, on December 5, 2011, Global Witness announced it would no longer support the Kimberley Process.

{[well, why did they support it to start with?  none of this information was available?? none of this understanding?}}

In a press statement,Founding Director of the organizationCharmian Gooch stated that member governments in diamond exporting countries were not holding themselves accountable in preventing conflict diamonds from entering the market. Gooch wrote, “The fact is that most consumers still cannot be sure where their diamonds come from, or whether they are financing armed violence or abusive regimes.”

But despite the blood diamond controversy, diamond sales in the US have continued to rise. Kimberley Process-certified diamonds are still marketed as conflict-free, and many consumers are likely to be unaware of the recent criticisms of the KPCS, and mistakenly believe that diamonds labeled “conflict-free” were extracted under peaceful, just circumstances.

Regarding that last paragraph:

Many people simply do not know.  Their lives are not focused on, or involved in politically correct, or humanist causes.  They are struggling to survive, some under serious odds against survival.  Moreover, we have been subjected to psychological barrage by the media to the point of information overload and sometimes confusion — not having real tools to sort through trash from truth.    MOST OF US have been raised in the MIDDLE or LOW-income Educational System, in which the Middle are supposed to work in government (or professions) and follow policy set by the TOP (elites) to control themselves, and the larger, lower mass; write up policy matters for think-tanks, etc.   The Middle are simultaneously taught to feel guilty for not being the low-income, while also responsible to help them (not knowing, for example, that reading CAFRs will show just how much w have been lied to, and having geared entire lives around pursuing conditional goals set for them by — the elite.  Including buy diamonds for engagement rings and accept higher taxes and lower services.  Believe that Republican vs. Democrat is a significant and THE major choices we have to make, and in general — stay distracted, and confused.

You’ve probably heard of “Silent Weapons for Silent Wars” and labeling it as some sort of paranoid conspiracy theory. I think we have to just continue paying attention to the evidence and see what patterns it fits into.  For example, why wouldn’t indignant Americans “rise up en masse and boycott the purchasing of ALL diamond rings after they learn that they are blood diamonds?”  Except that we’re being kind of herded and manipulated….

I’m bringing up the “SILENT WEAPONS FOR SILENT WARS” theme just now, because it seems they are still in operation, and I have just been reading about operations from pre-World War I, before the world’s first machine gun, genocide (know of, anyhow), concentration camps, income tax and Social Security Act in the US A (1935, right? Between the wars?), computers to measure people and transactions, and things like hydrogen bombs  . . . .  the same types of people were thinking several sociopathic steps ahead on how to pull these things off.

War is merely the act of destroying the creditor, and the politicians are the publicly hired hit men that justify the act to keep the responsibility and blood off the public conscience.
The silent weapon is a type of biological warfare. It attacks the vitality, options and mobility of the individuals of a society.

Apparently someone had something to say about the document source of this, only he was sitting in a federal prison around 2003 (see above CRS on the Kimberly Process, etc.)…  Kinda reminds me of Ezra Pound around the time of another war….

In the spring of 2003 (issue 33), Paranoia excerpted a pamphlet entitled Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, asking readers for any information they might have on the author of the work, which claimed to have been originally found in a surplus copy machine purchased in 1986 at McChord Air Force Base by a Boeing employee.

The following December, Paranoia received a letter, mailed from a federal prison, from one Hartford Van Dyke, claiming to be the author of the work.

Being confident that he is the true author of Silent Weapons (SWFQW), we wish to share letters from Hartford Van Dyke wherein he exposes the circumstances surrounding his authorship of this infamous pamphlet. Click HERE

Hartford Van Dyke, author of

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

(picture taken in federal prison in 2004)

Click photo to read report

the person (Hartford Van Dyke, above) goes on (I’m skipping references to “paranoia” magazine, which I have no interest in, and Wm. Cooper’s 1991 book claiming to have found the “SWFQW” material (he also wrote, I believe “Pale Horse, Pale Rider” in re: some of this stuff)…  Let’s talk economics  So this person writes from federal prison in 2004, anyhow):

SWFQW is not a “paranoid manifesto;” it is politically biased technical instruction manual on how to justify, and how to selectively survive, human animal husbandry before the need for animal husbandry becomes unstably critical.

(Note: Historical Introduction – SWFQW, page five, states that a “system was necessary which could race ahead of society and predict when society would arrive for capitulation.”

…if there’s anything to be learned from Colonization (The Scramble for Africa) is that certain people’s minds were racing ahead to figure out how to extort the next population, after getting agreements of some sort with them to start with, or finding out who the local rivals/enemies were, and supporting the enemy.  After that was used to weaken the target population (or, tribe) then the collaborators could or would be exterminated also.

“Also #74-1120 is an anagram of the date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 41-12-07. {{It is — move the 7 from “41-12-07 to the front of the string and it reads 74-1120.  I don’t have the book in front of me so don’t know where “74-1120” showed up, though}}

The forerunner of SWFQW, complete with sources, equations, my signature, and my address, was published on or about 74-12-07. My book on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was published at the end of August 1973.

Your analysis of Cooper’s capacity to understand economics and present economic arguments is an interesting piece of detective work. It is important to note that the references to the “patriot movement,” to “patriot leanings,” or to the “Illuminati” blueprint have absolutely no significance in reference to SWFQW as a scientific textbook of mathematical and economic warfare. Every past method of human conquest by mere physical warfare has been made obsolete by the Silent Weapons technology, except for the mechanics of implementing the use of the Silent Weapons technology.

So, guns and bloodshed are important to look at, obviously, but he’s saying look at the psychological, economic (“Silent”) warfare for how it saps energy and will to resist.

Once it becomes recognized that every problem, especially every mathematical problem, contains its own sufficient solution, it also becomes clear that “an error uncovered is two-thirds destroyed,” and the remaining one-third is destroyed by division of the house from within. Therefore, SWFQW states the problem and the solution, which gives it an “ambiguous” character. It is not a “hoax” any more than any other presentation of a scientific process could be deemed a hoax merely because it was not presented with the endorsement of its original discoverer. SWFQWhas many authors.War is “sociopathic” from the viewpoint of the prey. If the predator is victorious, then the war “is” and “beneficial” and “self-nobling” as the predator chooses to politically justify it

If certain people would get it through their heads about this regarding the family court system, it’d be a whole different history — with a lot better activists.  They don’t understand who has been paid (federally) to defuse their attention, AND activism.  This is part of “silent wars,” with real effects….  psychological manipulation by people posing as “helpers” “practitioners” and “Advocates.”

Classic colonialism….He continues writing, and is quoting the (sociopathic) viewpoint of people assembling the policy, the SWFQW manual:


“…a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such a people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.”

The last paragraph of the book is an echo of this premise under the heading FACTOR VI – CATTLE  (page 56 SWFQW)

“Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jellyfish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.”

“Useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.”  That’s the three-level (tripartite) educational system:  Professional/clerks, etc. class (skilled useful trades, including SOCIOLOGIST, PSYCHOLOGIST, EDUCATORS, get it????) “trainers of the same.”

Training is for dogs and circus animals.  Learning is for people, except by consent, for example, when someone is seeking training to acquire a desired skill — gymnast, athlete, dancer, musician, etc.

FORCIble training is indoctrination and treating people like animals.  Our society is basically run on this model, from the top down. It’s also where a lot of federal money is put, in setting up systems.  “Technical assistance and training” centers are often, in certain fields, simply indoctrination centers.

It has been said that the fundamental principle of hypnosis is “in the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins.” Imagination is often closely connected with emotion.

SWFQW starts out as a very logical sociopathic work and ends as an emotional sociopathic work. But being about war, and especially an ongoing war, the subject matter never ceases to be sociopathic, and neither does our nation’s current system of foreign or domestic political behavior.

Important to remember, and I agree.

The book SWFQW is like a gold mining operation. With the gold at one end of the process, and the tailings (refuse or dross) at the other end of the process.

SWFQW is a collage, an overlay and paste-up of the works and words of many authors. I was the author only in the sense that I compiled and linked the gems of other writers. The book is not a hoaxWassily W. Leontief proved the content of SWFQW by his article in the September 1980 issue of Scientific American, entitled “the world Economy in the Year 2000.” Leontief was the father of the Silent Weapons System, and was awarded the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics long after his creation (1948) became recognized by the elite to be a weapon (1965).

Years passing do not change the invariant truths of science, not even of economic science.The elite were never fully named in SWFQWIt was not necessary to name them specifically. They are always among us, and they always will be among us.

SWFQW was a study in human nature; of motivation, psychological impulse and momentum, and force of habit; of control of social energy by influence, suggestion, and hypnosis; of the use of sociopathic processes to induce paranoid behavior; and so on. That is enough description of the theme and conceptual content of SWFQW. We now move on to a presentation of information sources.

Notice:  “Sociopathic processes.”  Can you think of any?  (Don’t need to look far, do you!)

END OF QUOTE FROM THIS LETTER — BACK TO THE MATTER OF De BEERS and DIAMONDS,  and protests, i.e., attempting to make this a “Jewish” issue when, I’ve got to point out — who drove the Jews, as a people, into the diamond and money-trading trades back when?  (Chapter Eight of the E.J. Epstein book details; the Inquisition was involved.   Other trades were closed to them also in medieval times; talking, about 16th century if I recall).

Here are some Londoners protesting the display of a certain diamond at the tower of London, given an Israeli human rights violation in 2009, the bombing of an extended Samouni family.

Londoners Reject De Beers Forevermark Israeli Blood Diamond.”  (Check out site for vivid photographs, including of the De Beers storefront in London).

Boycott Israel News: Massacre Survivors Cry Out for Justice” (Tower of London Protests, site by “Inminds.com”)  (see photos):  “The Samouni Family are asking the Queen and the People of UK on their behalf to reject the Steinmetz Blood Diamond.”

During Operation Cast Lead in 2009, the Israeli Army’s Givati Brigade rounded up 100 members of the Samouni family, and ordered them into the house of Wa’el Samouni.  The house was then bombed, and the ruined area cordoned off four four days during which time rescue services were prevented from coming, with ambulances being shot at.   When rescue workers were finally allowed in, they found 29 bodies with traumatised children under the rubble with dead family members.  They also found daubed on the walls in Hebrew racist graffiti, “the only good Arab is a dead Arab.”

Closure of the Investigation of Palestinian Family Killed by the Israeli Military (May, 2012 article; the bombing was in 2009)

Amid dust and death, the Samouni family’s story speaks for the terror of war: (graphic detail from survivors of this “Zeitoun incident,” dated January, 2009.  48 members of their family were killed in one day when Israel’s battle with Hamas suddenly centered on their home)

Why aren’t the same Londoners boycotting the colonization of the world from the center of their own City? Yes, this is horrific bombing and coverup — but is it unusual in the history of the same people?

Does lack of concern about violence going the other direction have anything to do with who is funding some of the Said Business School at Oxford these days?

Why not boycott the practice of training up American legislators and Presidents at Oxford?  They do not exactly have the cleanest slate on the planet.  Or quit trying to vaccinate and educate the planet from a small plot of land in the center of London, while extorting an entire continent from the Capitol of the United States of America, and then taking on more direction from another very small plot in the center of the City of Rome?

It sounds like a horrible thing to say– but I didn’t choose my country of birth either, however it wasn’t in one with at monarch and a state religion, or at least I think not.  

Who was creating the first corporations of the world, which then raised capital and went forth to conquer other countries for use as a human resource — labor, building railways, digging in mines, etc.

And consuming things they didn’t even need.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 4, 2012 at 7:40 pm

%d bloggers like this: