Friday, February 22, 2008
Neil Craig, that is possibly the vilest and most disgusting comment and link I have ever had to delete.My reply is
Please do not do it again.
Kerron.I do not expect this comment to go uncensored either which is why I am putting it here.
It was indeed vile & disgusting.
It was a link to your friends. Indeed one of them has been identified as a "policeman" appointed by your party's government.
If you, as a loyal Labour politician feel it necessary to censor the genocide you have assisted in then perhaps you should not engage in it in the first place.
At the very least it is hypocritical to support your party in genocide & not to be willing to stomach the sight of what you have done.
Please do not claim that either you or your party are in any way whatsoever enemies to Nazism & racial genocide, or indeed censorship, again.
UPDATE To be fair to Kerron he has not censored my 2nd comment. Instead he wrote
I will not have stuff like that which you posted on this site.
I will also not have you comparing individuals or Governments with the Nazis and so forth.
As a regular readers know, it is incredibly rare that I censor any of the comments on this site, but I am afraid I will not stand for comments that are grossly offensive or potentially liabellous - your comment was both.
PS Is this why the Lib Dems are at pains to point out you are not an official spokesperson for them?
"I will also not have you comparing individuals or Governments with the Nazis and so forth."
Well that is very noble of you except for
where YOU dubiously compared the SNP to Nazis identiying the father of a particular individual.
Certainly the link between Labour & these Nazis is much closer, bloodier & more current than your allegation.
It seems unnecesary to mention hypocrisy again.
Two quick points, because I am not going to waste any more time on you:to which
1) If you read that post I actually said people should NOT compare other MPs or parties to the Nazis. And that the SNP were NOT like the Nazis. But thank you for implying otherwise.
2) As far as I am aware I did not post a link to someone holding a severed head.
That is all. Thanks.
But having defended the SNP form not being entirely Nazi you then did indeed attack with 2 specific accusations of Nazism. Something which we have your word you will not allow people to do.
I have provided the link & anybody can see that I telling the truth.
Agreed you didn't display the severed head. It is merely that you are part of a party that helped sever it, among many others, which I consider to be infinitely worse.
I telling the truth". Indeed.
You've had your say now, Neil, any further outbursts will be censored - just so you know.
PS Just to make it clear to anyone else out there, I will not tolerate people posting pictures of severed heads or anything else that is grossly offensive - or potentially libellous.
The fact that I have to say this, let alone repeat this, is rather sad. But you cannot say you have not been given fair warning now.
When all you can do is criticise grammer (however justified) you know you are wrong on the issue.&
Now tell me that when choosing a photo to go with that other article you didn't choose the most offensive one of Alex you could find?
The fact remains & it is a very important one, that your party did knowingly & deliberatley launch an illegal war on a lie - you were not helping the victims you were bombing the victims & under the occupation, handing out police unifroms to the Nazis to help them commit more genocide
I know I said I wouldn't reply, but I can't resist just two brief points:
1) No, I did not pick the worst picture I could find of Alex Salmond to accompany the article, I used the only picture of Alex Salmond that was available on Wikimedia Commons - which is where I now source almost all of the photos that I do not take myself. This is because it is a free image service and does not infringe copyright - this is something I have done for many many months now. So you would have to find some better free images of Alex to put on Wikimedia Commons for that to be true.
2) I personally opposed the war in Iraq in 2003 - which I presume is one of the "two wars" you claim were launched on "lies". I am actually broadly a pacifist by nature.
Perhaps you should do a bit of research before making your wild claims in future?
1) Let what you say on that stand - & the picture too.
2) So you didn't oppose the bombing of Yugoslavia even though it was primarily aimed at civilians & even though Labour's Foreign Secretary had said that it was your KLA allies not the Serbs who had been doing the genocide.
You & your party have engaged in war crimes, genocide, thnic cleansing & helped the KLA kidnap schoolgirls & sell them across Europe. Being a "broad pacifist" (a false flag - you either are or aren't) is no more an excuse than being a vegitarian was for Hitler.
I am unimpressed with Labour members who were "always opposed" to the Iraq war. They seem to be about as common as German Generals who were always really against that war.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
JAXA, the Japanese space agency, is about to get really far out with its latest project: a space-based solar array that beams power back to Earth. The agency is set to begin testing on the microwave power transmission system on February 20th, with an attempt to beam enough power over the 2.4GHz band to power a household heater at 50 meters (164 feet). That's certainly not the sort of large-scale sci-fi power system we were hoping for, but fret not -- if the tests are successful, JAXA's plan is to eventually launch a constellation of solar satellites, each beaming power to a 1.8-mile wide receiving station that'll produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and power 500,000 homes
Things are happening. Maybe not in the anglosphere but in the world, and beyond.
Hat tip to CCNet
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
My position has been that bankruptcy is a well tried method. What happens is that the shareholders lose their investment & the administrater runs the company until he can sell it off, possibly bit by bit & meanwhile it keeps trading if it is, as we have been repeatedly asurred it is, trading profitably. Bankruptcy may be the most important part of the capitalist system. It gives a limit to exactly how badly things can go. In governemnt if a project doesn't succeed it is more likely than not to get a biger budget to try again. Businesses can't do that. Thus to decide that NR will be protected by an essentially unlimited government purse takes away the system's ultimate strength. We could & should have put in a receiver.
Beyond that does anybody think the government is going to run it better than Branson?
I put this on John Redwood's blog:
Assuming that they do not run it as successfully as Branson would have this could be the “Spanish ulcer” that has already destroyed Brown’s reputation for prudence & goes on to bringing Labour crashing in the election. It should also be remembered that this is the policy of the LibDems.
Since you are, correctly, crowing about having been right continuously when the government have been wrong at every turn here, may I also remind that I suggested that the government should have called in the receivers. Even if the receiver had been unable to sell it off, in whole or part, the worst possible result of bankruptcy would have been better than this because the taxpayer would not have been out (£400 million?, £800M?) to the shareholders & politics would not become part of the day to day management of the thing. I have just heard Darling on a BBC radio interview in which the interviewer asked all sorts of stupid questions such as “would the government be happy foreclosing on NR mortgagees”. Much more of this to come.
Having established that the government will do anything to protect NR they are essentially stuck with the same implicit guarantee to all banks - some of which are much larger. Knowing they have a safety net will make banks a bit more reckless than they should be.
What effect will this have in Scotland. My Yellow pages shows 3 offices in all of central Scotland - 2 in Glasgow, 1 in Edinburgh yet this will be funded out of central government money & even worse - so is the £110 billion (up from £100 a couple of weeks ago) liability. Our budget, under the Barnet Formula will be cut for a rescue which barely touches us. Scotland's liability is pro-rata about £9 billion.
From my point of view the worst thing will be the efect it has on housebuilding. I have long said that the way to stop the housing crisis is to let people build houses. This would lead to a fall in house prices. We normally regard price cuts as a good thing but on housing have got stuck into the view that houses are investments, which go up faster than other investments, & only secondarily for living in. Well they aren't. Rising house prices are a function of scarcity which is caused by government regulation. I don't believe that banks have not been perfectly well aware that people needed to go in hock to them for these sums purely because of government creating scarcity & that housing could be far cheaper if allowed. Thus I have no sympathy if falling prices mean the properties on which they have advanced money was worth far less. Tough. They went into it knowing this far better than the purchasers did.
However we may now see government desperate to prevent a house price fall because they now appear committed to take on the liabilities of any failing bank. This could mean that the one big new idea Gordon Brown has endorsed - that housing shortage can be solved by building houses (a brilliant flash of inspiration, at least by UK political standards) may be dumped because keeping house prices up becomes the government's priority.
If the Tories want to do some good here rather than just enjoying Labour's discomfort (& that of the LibDems who have been actively enthusiastic about nationalsiation) they should press for some statement that the governemnt will not repeat this rescue with other banks. This is unfair but it follows the old advice for somebody in a hole - stop digging.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Yeaterday he put up an entry on the "independence" of Kosovo welcoming it on the quite subtle grounds that the balkanisation of the world would be a good thing because the competition of a multiplicity of small countries would tend to keep the competition honest. I have considerable sympathy for this view & also share his, arguably hypocritical, view that it shouldn't happen here. Nonetheless Kosovo is not becoming "indpendent" as a contribution to a liberal free market world.
I posted a very strong reply which is listed as "awaiting moderation" which I assume means not going to be permitted so I am putting it here. It is a condensed criticism of our entire policy & while, on the one hand it is wrong to censor debate on the other I can understand why he considers it a bit to tough:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Kosovo is not the result of “local loyalties” it is the result of NATO deliberately organising & arming Albanian drug lords, pimps, former secret police torturers & former members of one of the nastiest units of the SS to attack the country. They came mostly from Albania or the criminal communities of New York & Germany rather than Kosovo & engaged in racial genocide. There is no question that the NATO leaders knew this was what they were doing & I remind you of Foreign Secretary Cook’s statement to Parliament 2 months before we started bombing that the majority of killings were of Serb civilians murdered by our KLA hirelings (he ignored the fact that the KLA were also murdering Albanian civilians in similar numbers).
Under NATO rule the “Kosovo community” was deliberately “cleansed” of its traditional population leaving people who are mostly first or 2nd generation immigrants - I wonder if you would have the integrity to support an EU sponsored “independent” London when immigrant communities pass the 50% mark? That is certainly the legal precedent we have established.
NATO action in Yugoslavia compares only slightly favourably with that of Adolf Hitler when the Yugoslavs supported us during that war. Apart from the ingratitude of us destroying a former ally because the Germans insisted on it I do not believe it is in our interests to show potential friends our disloyalty.
I believe that the open censorship & lying by our media over the extent of the genocide we have allowed in Kosovo suggests they are a threat to our own freedom too. For example censoring any mention of the Dragodan Massacre, the largest mass grave in Kosovo & in the UK zone, where the KLA, supplied with our “police” uniforms were assisted in the deliberate genocide of 210 unarmed civilians. This was genocide less than My Lai or Lidice but, since it was conducted after the war had ended, morally much worse. Our behaviour in these wars has been disgusting & should shame any decent Briton & I believe would shame us if had not been censored.
I have little objection to allowing peoples who genuinely wish to, to separate on ethnic lines but that is not what we have done - NATO divided the country on openly non-ethnic lines. John have you gone on record saying that the people of Republica Srpska & indeed the Moslems of Bihac (or those parts of Kosovo with a majority non-Albanian population prior to our “cleansing”) should be allowed independence too or is this merely using rhetoric to support the NATO aggression? Are you also on record as saying we should bomb Washington to ensure that San Diego may join Mexico?
In any case not only have we breached most of the rules of international law & the UN Charter but also our solemn promise under the Helsinki Treaty to “take no action against the territorial integrity & unity” of signatories & the occupation agreement whereby we guaranteed Yugoslav sovereignty. Nor does anybody think that Kosovo, whose economy largely consists of drug lordism, kidnaping schoolgirls to sell to western brothels & working for western governments, all monopolised by our KLA friends, can have a genuine “independence”.
Over Yugoslavia we have destroyed any idea that we have any respect whatsoever for international law, human rights or even principled opposition to the policies of Adolf Hitler. In doing so we have made the world a much more dangerous place, for ourselves & others.
Interestingly all the other comments are against this "independence" too & John states that when he was in cabinet he argued against the Yugoslav "interventions".
Sunday, February 17, 2008
KOSOVO LETTER - LETS SEE IF IT GETS PUBLISHED
During news reporting on Kosovo this morning Mark Mardell of the BBC claimed that "The Yugoslavs killed 13,000 people in Kosovo and that NATO bombing & occupation stopped the killing". The late Joseph Goebbels, author of the "big lie" school of reporting & information minister to Adolf Hitler would have been lost in admiration at the ability to squeeze so much untruth into 1 sentence.
The majority of racist killings in Kosovo were actually by the KLA, on whose behalf we were bombing. This was confirmed by Foreign Secretary Cook speaking to Parliament 2 months before starting bombing. Nonetheless the total number killed was, according to the Spanish forensic team hired by NATO, only 2,100, including those killed by NATO bombs & KLA terrorism. Remarkably low considering this was a war zone with, we were assured, 26,000 KLA "soldiers" in action.
Worse than the lie about numbers is the claim that NATO occupation stopped the killing. It merely stopped the western media reporting of the killing. The BBC decided, I assume they say accidentally, to censor any reporting of things like the Dragodan Massacre, in the British Zone, where the KLA, now enrolled as "police" were allowed to deliberately murder 210 unarmed civilians. In total the various acts of genocide under NATO protection probably exceed 6,000. Also many thousands of schoolgirls were kidnapped off the streets & sold to western brothels, run by KLA supporters. In the same way they had previously censored any reports that the flight of refugees was caused by NATO bombing rather than anything the Yugoslavs did. This meant ignoring a number of instances of refugees saying just that (though the translators usually didn't translate) or that a larger proportion of the Serb than of the Albanian population fled.
Our behaviour in these wars has been disgusting & should shame any decent person. I believe it would have shamed us if it had been properly reported.
This has gone out to a large number of UK newspapers. My general experience is that about half of my letters get published, though it is much lower for papers outside Scotland - they not unreasonably want people in their catchment area. On a statistical basis I should expect this published by about 3 but my experience is that, while papers may value a good controversy on letters pages, this subject is verbotten.