Saturday, August 31, 2013
The Special Relationship's Role in Bombing Syria
If the special relationship were that we always do what the US wants (and the US always does what the US wants) then it would be over, and good riddance.
But it isn’t. It is primarily a cultural and linguistic relationship. We both have Parliamentary governments derived from George III’s.
In that case the relationship may be strengthened. One of the changes from George III’s government is that they have a Constitution, which is literally and correctly venerated. The right to declare war is reserved to the Congress – one of the differences they introduced from George III. In Britain, up till now it has been the Royal, ie PM’s prerogative.
To Quote Abraham Lincoln on the right to declare war:
“This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings
have always stood.”
Thus Britain deciding that Parliament must approve war making is not a repudiation of our special relationship but a massive endorsement of it as a cultural success. Which is far more important than the issue of the day.
Paradoxically this part of the Constitution has been breached since at least the time of the Kosovo war which Clinton waged without reference to Congress.
The reason for this is that the Imperator/Duce/President/Generalisimo/PM needs to be able to threaten war credibly if he is running an imperial state. For a century and a half after George III we did. Now the US is such and we aren’t.
It is a tension which goes to the heart of whether a country is an Imperium or a Republic.
The best thing Obama could do is the ask Congress’ permission too. If he doesn’t get it he is off the hook. If he does he will have the support nationally, and indeed internationally, he needs.
Despite having the money, ships, aircraft and bombs the US is not a very good imperialist because their heart isn’t really in it. That is their saving grace.
Friday, August 30, 2013
The way they select which "protests" to cover and the way they conceal and lie to promote government funded "astroturf" environmental organisations as real. Apart from greenpeace virtually every "environmental" body is as much as 90% funded by our government and the EU. Without that there would be no ecofascist movement.
Then they put a mass demonstration of 6 people across the airwaves. Yet when 500 people turned up at a recent party conference to protest against windmills it went almost unreported.
The same tactic is used on other cases. We have had considerable coverage of spontaneous demonstrations against Russia (many of the demonstrators being the same government paid greens) on the gay agenda. Watch foreign demos reported by the BBC and you will often see the filming is close up and low angle to conceal the fact that there are only a few people there (this ignores the case where the BBC took an Iranian pro-government demo and simply captioned it as anti-government).
John Redwood on housing:
What this phenomenon shows is confirmation of my claim that at least 3/4 of housing cost is government regulation.
It is far easier to get planning permission to rebuild your own house than to build a new one elsewhere. It is also inherently far more expensive in building terms to demolish your house, maintaining the façade and then rebuild a new one reattached to the façade. Also there are always economies of scale form mass production – if the government allows mass production.
Imagine that if you wanted a new car you had to handbuild the wheels, engine, interior and chassis and then weld on the body of your old Escort. This is the equivalent.
In fact that (knocking down your own house and rebuilding it) is sufficiently cheaper as to attract anybody into putting up with the inconvenience of doing it strongly suggests that my 3/4 parasitism estimate is understated. Even 90% might well be.
Herald - Since there was no ethnic cleansing of Albanians from Kosovo I must have some doubts about the accuracy of this account. There were a substantial number of both Albanians and Serbs who fled the bombing, though obviously the Serbs fled deeper into Serbia.
Since the bombing NATO police (as the KLA formally became) have been authorised to ethnically cleanse 350,000 Serbs, Roma, Jews, Christian Albanians and others. They also kidnapped 10s of thousands of teens to sell to western brothels and dissected 1,800 people while they were still alive to provide organs for western hospitals.
This is justified, on those rare occasions it is not censored, by our politicians, the BBC & newspapers as "revenge".
Perhaps if an ugly example of neo-nationalism is wanted that might suffice? http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/we-should-not-wallow-in-history.21940015
The degree of backwardness and waste in housing cannot be overstated. We have never seen a modern house.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
BBC FoI - TheyDon't Even Attempt To Deny They Werre Deliberatly Lying To Promote FascisM
"(10.22 Radio Scotland Saturday) the BBC has once again had a "debate" on UK in which the various BBC employees have said UKIP contains racists, are "idiots", and should not have a right to speak.
Nobody from the UKIP side of the "debate"
The BBC have, on Thursday, claimed as fact that UKIP are opposed to debate. Thus, unless the BBC are an obscene, wholly corrupt, fascist propaganda organisation with not only no slightest trace of honesty but being committed to telling the exact and complete opposite of the truth it must be true and the BBC must have invited a UKIP spokesperson on to answer or debate the obscene lies the BBC were broadcasting. And UKIP must have specifically refused to produce one. Under the FoI I wish to ask which BBC employee invited this debater and what reason UKIP gave for refusing.
Obviously had no such invitation been made it would be impossible to claim that the BBC or any employee is anything other than a corrupt, obscene, lying, thieving, Nazi whore with less integrity or human decency than the people, rightly, hung for running Auschwitz. So I have to assume you will not admit this to be a proper assessment of BBC employees by refusing to confirm having invited UKIP to your "debate".
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’..."
Which is what I expected. The BBC always rely on the journalism exclusion even, or perhaps particularly, when the question has nothing to do with protecting journalistic sources, they nominal reason they got the exclusion.
However that doesn't matter. What matters is that
(A) the claim that UKIP had refused to debate is clearly a total and deliberate fascist that no organisation not wholly and completely corrupt could have maintained, even if we accept they could have told the lie in the heat of the moment &
(B) the BBC are maintaining this lie as representing the standard of honesty to which they aspire.
Which proves, beyond any possibility of dispute that the standard to which the BBC and its employees aspire is to be wholly and completely corrupt lying totalitarian fascists without aspiring to any trace of honesty6 or decency.
Which brings me to another part of their reply:
" However, I would note that, had the information been covered by the Act, under section 14(1) of the Act public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. The Information Commissioner’s guidance with respect to vexatious requests states that ‘determining whether a request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking into account the context and history of the request. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or irritation’.
The BBC is of the view that the following questions, which the ICO recommends an organisation considers, are of particular relevance to your request:
Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
Does the tone or language of the requester’s correspondence go beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive? Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
This request could fairly be characterised in terms of the Information Commissioner’s guidance on the matter as ‘harassing the authority’, uses language that ‘goes beyond the level of criticism that a public authority or its employees should reasonably expect to receive’ and is ‘designed to cause disruption or annoyance’. Based on these factors, had the information requested been covered by the Act, we are of the view that the BBC would not have been obliged to comply with this request.
Ian Small Head of Public Policy & Corporate Affairs BBC Scotland
Dear Mr Small,
I note your offensive reply. I am due a public apology on 2 grounds.
I said nothing about you beeboids which was not totally factual, as your refusal to dispute having lied deliberately in the totalitarian cause on air proves beyond dispute.
2 - If a correct and truthful description of the BBC and its employees, not even denied to be such, is claimed to be offensive merely because it contains words like "corrupt, obscene, lying, thieving, Nazi whore" then the BBC's continuing claim that everybody who doubts we are experiencing catastrophic global warming is the moral equivalent of a child rapist is unjustified (& indeed would be had the BBC not acknowledged it was wholly false). In which case you obscenities owe most of the population of the country a public apology. I again hereby ask for it.
I would also like to ask, under the FoI if there are any statements made by any BBC employee which can under any circumstances be treated as not the Fascist lies you aspire to and if so what evidence you have to support the contention?
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
CO2 Rise - Do the "Greens" Really Want To End It
His argument is that it would only be if there was a high climate sensitivity to such changes and that since, as the standstill in warming over the last 18 years shows, that sensitivity must be, at most, fairly small.
Fair enough - I agree.
But I previously showed a graph of plant growth to CO2 levels. This Canadian one:
Which suggests that plant growth, which also means crop growth, has improved by about 50% overall since the Industrial Revolution. Now growth in food production has been well beyond that due to the improvements in technology but that 1/3rd of all world food production is down to CO2 increase certainly looks like a very strong counter argument to all the doomsaying on the subject.
Are the "environmentalists" seriously in favour of that sort of collapse in world food production?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Syrian "Nerve Gas Attack"
Jerry Pournelle described them as "utterly unconvincing" primarily because Assad would have no possible reason to do so.
Somewhat to my surprise BBC radio broadcast 1 person saying it was fake (don't worry they noticed and haven't broadcast anything similar since).
His position was (A) that nerve gas produces an unmistakable dilation of the eyes and that the films produced had avoided showing close ups of the eyes which would have proven, or disproven, their claims & (B) hoses had been used to wash the bodies clean and the cameramen able to walk through the water. That water would contain the dissolved nerve gas and be deadly - except that it wasn't. This does not exclude some other chemical poison - but that would be available to the rebels as much as the government and it would be perverse to blame the government who have, it is probably correctly assumed, something more effective.
However the clincher, as pointed out by the Russians and studiously avoided by our media is:
“We’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature. In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.”
Linked here http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/
the three videos posted on Youtube said to be showing the child victims affected by chemical weapons near Damascus. Despite the date of the alleged attack – August 21 – being mentioned in their titles, they were posted on YouTube one the previous day, August 20.
Despite the 7-hour time difference between Syria and the US, where the YouTube server is located, the mismatch of the dates in the videos raised concerns among some experts about the exact time of the upload."
Indeed. If film of it was released before it officially happened either the al Quaeda have their own Tardis, which would be a worrying development to say the least, or they have faked it.
I don't see any 3rd possibility but am open to Mr Hague producing one.
During the Bosnian war the Serbs were accused of using poison gas at Srebrenica but, despite the effective NATO occupation of the country no evidence was ever produced. There are also a number of videos and pictures of alleged Israeli actions which turned out to be faked.
We also have a long series of western politicians and the Doctors Without Frontiers western quango pretending to believe them.
No change there then.