Wednesday, October 17, 2012
UKIP's Agenda - The Soundest Of Any Party Ever?
A couple of interesting remarks about UKIP today.
First James Delingpole in an article about Michael Gove compared to Cameron:
"The reason he has been haemorrhaging supporters to UKIP is that UKIP says stuff like this all the time: on Europe, on the renewable energy scam, on immigration, on the economy. I doubt there's been a political party in history which has had quite so universally sound and sensible a manifesto as UKIP does. On policies alone they deserve to be running the country by now and the only reason they're not is because they're too young and too vulnerable to the charge of being a bit weird, a bit eccentric, a bit golf club. But that image will fade, especially after next year's Euro elections when UKIP wipes the floor and becomes our largest party in the EU. The official Conservative party line on this is that this isn't a problem. (As witness the nauseating snobbery and hauteur of the respondents on this issue at Conservative Home)"
Highlighting added. That is a very high target to aim at but Delingpole, right on almost everything as he is, never knowingly understates. The ruling party of Singapore may perhaps have matched us in sense on occasion. Of course it is far easier to point out sensible reforms when the parties in power have been so universally incompetent.
If asked to improve on UKIP's manifesto I would perhaps be somewhat louder for nuclear power, for lower corporation tax rates and for allowing housebuilding, eager to make a specific growth target of at least the world average and less keen on military spending, particularly on the traditional forces. But all this is at the margins and might anyway not be electorally popular, except for the growth target.
Secondly Lord Tebbit:
"In fact, UKIP had a successful gathering too but, led by the Guardian/BBC lobby, most of the media all but ignored that event....
posts about UKIP, including a question of whether it is Left or Right. I would have said that it is smack on that "common ground" where I think that the Conservative Party should be. I know that will cause even more of you to ask why then do I not jump ship and embark with UKIP. I can say only that to be utterly realistic at present the Conservative Party is more likely to form another government before UKIP. My task is to try to get my party to adopt the UKIP agenda"
I think that, for him, that is probably a wise course. If Labour are not to win the next election he will have to succeed and get a joint Tory/UKIP deal based on those policies. If he fails the Conservative party will have no reason to exist, having proven that it cannot, under any circumstances, actually win an election and UKIP will have to sweep up the remnants. The fact that Cameron clearly wishes Tebbit would join UKIP is good reason to think he is right not to.
On one point I think Delingpole is wrong. The primary reason UKIP is not sweeping the country is because the state broadcasters control 80% of broadcast news and as Tebbit points out, sets the agenda for even the nominally free bit.
I do not think it can be honestly denied that the BBC/C4 censor, lie and slant in coverage of British party politics (among other things) to a degree not exceeded by the late Joseph Goebbels. In a free polity where issues were openly debated UKIP's policies would ensure victory.
First James Delingpole in an article about Michael Gove compared to Cameron:
"The reason he has been haemorrhaging supporters to UKIP is that UKIP says stuff like this all the time: on Europe, on the renewable energy scam, on immigration, on the economy. I doubt there's been a political party in history which has had quite so universally sound and sensible a manifesto as UKIP does. On policies alone they deserve to be running the country by now and the only reason they're not is because they're too young and too vulnerable to the charge of being a bit weird, a bit eccentric, a bit golf club. But that image will fade, especially after next year's Euro elections when UKIP wipes the floor and becomes our largest party in the EU. The official Conservative party line on this is that this isn't a problem. (As witness the nauseating snobbery and hauteur of the respondents on this issue at Conservative Home)"
Highlighting added. That is a very high target to aim at but Delingpole, right on almost everything as he is, never knowingly understates. The ruling party of Singapore may perhaps have matched us in sense on occasion. Of course it is far easier to point out sensible reforms when the parties in power have been so universally incompetent.
If asked to improve on UKIP's manifesto I would perhaps be somewhat louder for nuclear power, for lower corporation tax rates and for allowing housebuilding, eager to make a specific growth target of at least the world average and less keen on military spending, particularly on the traditional forces. But all this is at the margins and might anyway not be electorally popular, except for the growth target.
Secondly Lord Tebbit:
"In fact, UKIP had a successful gathering too but, led by the Guardian/BBC lobby, most of the media all but ignored that event....
posts about UKIP, including a question of whether it is Left or Right. I would have said that it is smack on that "common ground" where I think that the Conservative Party should be. I know that will cause even more of you to ask why then do I not jump ship and embark with UKIP. I can say only that to be utterly realistic at present the Conservative Party is more likely to form another government before UKIP. My task is to try to get my party to adopt the UKIP agenda"
I think that, for him, that is probably a wise course. If Labour are not to win the next election he will have to succeed and get a joint Tory/UKIP deal based on those policies. If he fails the Conservative party will have no reason to exist, having proven that it cannot, under any circumstances, actually win an election and UKIP will have to sweep up the remnants. The fact that Cameron clearly wishes Tebbit would join UKIP is good reason to think he is right not to.
On one point I think Delingpole is wrong. The primary reason UKIP is not sweeping the country is because the state broadcasters control 80% of broadcast news and as Tebbit points out, sets the agenda for even the nominally free bit.
I do not think it can be honestly denied that the BBC/C4 censor, lie and slant in coverage of British party politics (among other things) to a degree not exceeded by the late Joseph Goebbels. In a free polity where issues were openly debated UKIP's policies would ensure victory.
Labels: BBC, British politics, quotes, UKIP
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
"Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?"
My favourite wrong movie line.
Because the wars of the era in Italy were not fought by Italians but by foreign mercenaries, the most effective of whom were Swiss. The Italians had the military reputation they still enjoy and the Swiss had peace because nobody, not even Hitler, was stupid enough to take them on. There was even a rumour that during the cold war the Swiss quietly made it known they had at least 1 particularly dirty nuke which they would have used had anybody tried to come through their territory. More
And incidentally the Swiss invented rather more than the cuckoo clock.
This has been a public information and get it off my chest statement following some stuff I have and will be publishing about this admirably boring nation.
Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Harry Lime in the 3rd ManThere may indeed be an argument that warfare stimulates progress (looking at the progress of aircraft between 1914 & 1945 compared with the rather more than 31 years since America beat Russia to the Moon would do) Switzerland and Renaissance Italy isn't it.
Because the wars of the era in Italy were not fought by Italians but by foreign mercenaries, the most effective of whom were Swiss. The Italians had the military reputation they still enjoy and the Swiss had peace because nobody, not even Hitler, was stupid enough to take them on. There was even a rumour that during the cold war the Swiss quietly made it known they had at least 1 particularly dirty nuke which they would have used had anybody tried to come through their territory. More
And incidentally the Swiss invented rather more than the cuckoo clock.
This has been a public information and get it off my chest statement following some stuff I have and will be publishing about this admirably boring nation.
Labels: History, quotes, Social
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual" — find out how he feels about global warming
The original statement was Heinlein's
Many other quotes listed here.
But I am sure he would have applied the same reasoning to alleged catastrophic global warming. In both cases supporters claim it to be a science but in both cases they are unable to point to any clear evidence for the theory. Here is an article claiming astrology has an evidential basis and you will see it relies on the same sort of anecdotal tales, claims without evidence and post hoc redefinition of what is meant that the climate alarmists do.
Both are pseudosciences as defined by Popper. That they produce no predictions that can be falsified (IE tested to find if they are false) or sometimes, as with Hansens's 1988 claim that we were going to see a temperature rise of 0.5 C worldwide, get ignored when the prediction is found false - which doesn't prevent new prediction of the sort the customer wants. In astrology usually a prediction of love, happiness and wealth since the customer is a person and in "climate science" a prediction of disaster requiring more state power to provide protection, because the cuntomer is government.
Other remarks by him which I think support the conclusion that he would have agreed that believers current catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is happening are, by definition, not intellectuals (ditto promoters of the fraud who may not be believers, who may be smarter but have no respect for intellect): Most "scientists" are bottle washers and button sorters.
.Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire - What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
-
One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority
-
Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
-
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual" — find out how he feels about astrology.
Many other quotes listed here.
But I am sure he would have applied the same reasoning to alleged catastrophic global warming. In both cases supporters claim it to be a science but in both cases they are unable to point to any clear evidence for the theory. Here is an article claiming astrology has an evidential basis and you will see it relies on the same sort of anecdotal tales, claims without evidence and post hoc redefinition of what is meant that the climate alarmists do.
Both are pseudosciences as defined by Popper. That they produce no predictions that can be falsified (IE tested to find if they are false) or sometimes, as with Hansens's 1988 claim that we were going to see a temperature rise of 0.5 C worldwide, get ignored when the prediction is found false - which doesn't prevent new prediction of the sort the customer wants. In astrology usually a prediction of love, happiness and wealth since the customer is a person and in "climate science" a prediction of disaster requiring more state power to provide protection, because the cuntomer is government.
Other remarks by him which I think support the conclusion that he would have agreed that believers current catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is happening are, by definition, not intellectuals (ditto promoters of the fraud who may not be believers, who may be smarter but have no respect for intellect): Most "scientists" are bottle washers and button sorters.
.Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire - What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
-
One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority
-
Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men.
-
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
Labels: eco-fascism, global warming, quotes
Sunday, August 14, 2011
1950 Predictions for 2000 by Heinlein
This is a list of predictions Robert A Heinlein made in a speech at a Science Fiction Convention in 1950 for the year 2000. He subsequently reviewed their success, or otherwise in 1965 and 1980. His predictions and answers in full were published in Expanded Universe.
He doesn't score 100% but I think he comes far closer than either the popular or "intellectual" consensii pf the time:
1. Interplanetary travel is waiting at your front door -- C.O.D. It's yours when you pay for it.
True - The Luddite politicians have prevented us having it but we could have got to Saturn by 1970 if wanted.
2. Contraception and control of disease is revising relations between the sexes to an extent that will change our entire social and economic structure.
This was said when a woman still had to prove she was married to be prescribed the pill.
3. The most important military fact of this century is that there is no way to repel an attack from outer space. [Expansion makes it clear that he is not talking "alien invasion" but "who holds the high point" in human affairs.]The Kuwait War was the "first space war" because satellite pictures and communication were massive force multipliers, hence the stunningly low casualties on our side and quick victory.
4. It is utterly impossible that the United States will start a "preventive war." We will fight when attacked, either directly or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend. Unfortunately after the fall of the USSR the US and allies launched a series of purely aggressive wars against Yugoslavia & others since. In no case has there been even the excuse that they were "preventative" - they were and are pure aggression, not even for larceny but simply for the sake of killing people. ""every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious." Sorry Robert you overestimated your country's government.
5. In fifteen years the housing shortage will be solved by a "breakthrough" into new technologies which will make every house now standing as obsolete as privies.Modular housing has certainly been available since before then. In China they are putting up tower blocks in days but western governments prevent it. Another overestimation of our governments.
6. We'll all be getting a little hungry by and by.Fortunately not. Peak food, like peak oil, peak uranium, peak gasetc etc is an ever receding chimera driven back by improving technology.
7. The cult of the phony in art will disappear. So-called "modern art" will be discussed only by psychiatrists.Sorry - government subsidised art remains rubbish. However every form of commercial art, from adverts to comic books is both technically and intellectually vastly better.
8. Freud will be classed as a pre-scientific, intuitive pioneer and psychoanalysis will be replaced by a growing, changing "operational psychology" based on measurement and prediction.Freud is so classified and some genuine progress is being made by people who understand statistics. However we see more from people given government subsidies to produce lies that promote more government spending.
9. Cancer, the common cold, and tooth decay will all be conquered; the revolutionary new problem in medical research will be to accomplish "regeneration," i.e., to enable a man to grow a new leg, rather than fit him with an artificial limb.Medical research is not that advanced. I suspect at least largely because any new treatment, even the simplest new drug, take 10 years and $1 bn before they can be used.
10. By the end of this century mankind will have explored this solar system, and the first ship intended to reach the nearest star will be a-building.Again it certainly could have been don, as Project Orion showed. However government Luddites prevented it.
11. Your personal telephone will be small enough to carry in your handbag. Your house telephone will record messages, answer simple inquiries, and transmit vision. [In 1980 he observes that the likelihood that phones tied into home computers will accomplish the second sentence, and will eventually enable 3-dimensional holovision and stereo speech.]And then some. This technology was not physically immobile and thus it proved almost impossible to prevent it - though government fascists keep trying.
12. Intelligent life will be found on Mars.
No because there clearly isn't intelligent life there. There may well be microbial life but the search hasn't been extensive. If so it will either turn out to be related to Earth's life or not to be. Either discovery, or indeed the lack of life, will change our place in the universe.
13. A thousand miles an hour at a cent a mile will be commonplace; short hauls will be made in evacuated subways at extreme speed. [His note in 1965 indicates his intent to mean the 1950 cent; he did not foresee the continual ongoing inflation of the second half of the 20th century.]
With the dollar now a 9th of its value at the time a flight to the USA at 9 cents a mile would be $225. If you hunt around I think you can do significantly better than that.
There are such researchers. I don't know if it would be called a major objective. Like cold fusion you won't get government grants for that and government funding has been proven to retard research overall.
15. We will not achieve a "World State" in the predictable future. Nevertheless, Communism will vanish from this planet.
This latter was spectacularly optimistic at the time and moreso by 1980. Yet, unless you redefine "communism" as the Chinese have, it is effectively true. We don't have a "world state" but the pressure of international bodies means were are much closer to a de facto government, enforcing big government parasitism than is safe for the human race.
16. Increasing mobility will disenfranchise a majority of the population. About 1990 a constitutional amendment will do away with state lines while retaining the semblance.The constitutional amendment proved unnecessary. Banning alcohol required such an amendment but banning cannabis only requires Judges to "find" powers in the Constitution not written down. In many ways the Constitution has been done away with while maintaining the semblance.
17. All aircraft will be controlled by a giant radar net run on a continent-wide basis by a multiple electronic "brain."Possible for decades but has not been done. The unions and other vested interests don't want such progress.
18. Fish and yeast will become our principal sources of proteins. Beef will be a luxury; lamb and mutton will disappear.This is #6 again and hasn't happened for the same reason - human inventiveness.
19. Mankind will not destroy itself, nor will "Civilization" be destroyed.
Good so far, as the guy said 2 seconds after jumping off the Empire State Building
---------Here are things we won't get soon, if ever:
Travel through time
Travel faster than the speed of light
"Radio" transmission of matter.
Manlike robots with manlike reactions
Laboratory creation of life
Real understanding of what "thought" is and how it is related to matter.
Scientific proof of personal survival after death.
Nor a permanent end to war.
True
In most cases where he was wrong it was not he but reality that got it wrong - they are technically entirely feasible but our parasitic governments prevent it.
Labels: Government parasitism, quotes, Social
Friday, July 29, 2011
Benjamin Franklin Quotes
I have a particular admiration for people who are successful in more than one field of endeavour. Benjamin Franklin started poor yet was a successful leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat. If he didn't write the US Consittution he did influence some clauses and as representative to France he did persuade the French government to enter the war against Britain - something without which it is difficult to see how the US could have won the war of independence.
This level of all round competence has never been demonstraed before or since by any political leader so I think he is qualified to be the smartest politician who ever lived. This may be obscured tom historians because so much of what he wrote was deliberately writen to be undersood by ordinary people and nowadays sounds like "homespun philosophy". Nope - it is very well spun indeed with not a word saying more, or less, than intended.
I think opinions should be judged of by their influences and effects, and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous; which I hope is the case with me.
-
Remember that time is money.
-
For my own Part, when I am employed in serving others, I do not look upon myself as conferring Favours, but as paying Debts. In my Travels, and since my Settlement, I have received much Kindness from Men, to whom I shall never have any Opportunity of making the least direct Return. And numberless Mercies from God, who is infinitely above being benefited by our Services. Those Kindnesses from Men, I can therefore only Return on their Fellow Men
-
Love your Enemies, for they tell you your Faults.
-
[on a book promoting aethiesm) I shall only give you my Opinion that tho’ your Reasonings are subtle, and may prevail with some Readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general Sentiments of Mankind on that Subject, and the Consequence of printing this Piece will be a great deal of Odium drawn upon your self, Mischief to you and no Benefit to others. He that spits against the Wind, spits in his own Face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any Good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous Life without the Assistance afforded by Religion; you having a clear Perception of the Advantages of Virtue and the Disadvantages of Vice, and possessing a Strength of Resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common Temptations. But think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc’d and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue
-
Idleness and Pride Tax with a heavier Hand than Kings and Parliaments; If we can get rid of the former we may easily bear the Latter.
'
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
-
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-
All Wars are Follies, very expensive, and very mischievous ones. When will Mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their Differences by Arbitration? Were they to do it, even by the Cast of a Dye, it would be better than by Fighting and destroying each other.
-
There never was a good war or a bad peace. {Not personally convinced this is always true but it is good rule of thumb]
-
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
-
the honest heretic Dr. Priestly. I do not call him honest by way of distinction; for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude or they would not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them. Do not, however mistake me. It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic.
-
The art of concluding from experience and observation consists in evaluating probabilities, in estimating if they are high or numerous enough to constitute proof. This type of calculation is more complicated and more difficult than one might think. It demands a great sagacity generally above the power of common people. The success of charlatans, sorcerors, and alchemists — and all those who abuse public credulity — is founded on errors in this type of calculation.
-
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.
-
Most People dislike Vanity in others whatever Share they have of it themselves, but I give it fair Quarter wherever I meet with it, being persuaded that it is often productive of Good to the Possessor and to others that are within his Sphere of Action
-
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do.
-
In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride...For even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be proud of my Humility
-
as we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of Others, we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.
-
Human Felicity is produc'd not so much by great Pieces of good Fortune that seldom happen, as by little Advantages that occur every Day.
Human Felicity is produc'd not so much by great Pieces of good Fortune that seldom happen, as by little Advantages that occur every Day.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
FIFA & INTERNATIONAL COURT CORRUPTION - what goes round comes round
BBC News last night led on how dreadful FIFA, which gave the World Cup to Qatar and Russia but not to Britain must thus be deeply corrupt and should put the British in charge of cleaning it up.
Of course this isn't about corruption, FIFA gas always been corrupt, it is about Britain no longer having the money an clout to ensure it is corrupt in our interests.
In 1974 when following the Pinochet coup, when the Chilean national stadium had been turned into a concentration camp the USSR was disqualified, not for refusing to play them bit for refusing to accept a change of venue.
On the other hand when NATO started carving up Yugoslavia was banned from competing at Euro 92. They had finished top of their qualifying group, but were unable to play in the competition due to United Nations Security Council Resolution 757. Their place was taken by Denmark, who went on to win the competition. Yugoslavia had also been drawn as the top seed in Group 5 of the European Zone in the qualifying tournament for the 1994 World Cup. FRY was barred from competing, rendering the group unusually weak. Then during NATO bombing of the country that started on 24 March 1999, and the NATO refused countries to go there Yugoslavia played its home fixture against Malta in Thessaloniki, Greece, winning 4 – 1.
Now clearly the 2 choices cannot be reconciled with integrity. Either the USSR should not have been excluded because they refused to play anywhere but the national stadium or the NATO countries should have been excluded because they refused to even play in the country. FIFA gas always been corrupt but the BC never thought to mention it when they were corrupt in "our" interest.
Lets take another comparison. The ICTY "court" has brought to "trial" almost exclusively Serbs despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing are Serbs. They issued their "indictment" without any evidence, against Milosevic, 2 weeks after the US, which was engaged in a blatantly aggressive, war, primarily targeting civilians for the deliberate purpose of promoting genocide (hence unquestionably a war crime and crime against humanity) had demanded it. They issued a similar openly fraudulent indictment against Vojislav Seselj because he was about to win the Yugoslav election. The NATO funded "court" obviously failed to indict, or even investigate any western leaders. Is this possible without the entire NATO paid "court" being thousands of times more corrupt than FIFA.
We see exactly the same corruption in the western funded ICC where, once again an "indictment" has been issued, without evidence, against Gaddafi as soon as NATO asked for it but none has been issued against any western supported leader, from the US President who started an arguably illegal war against Iraq (certainly illegal in Britain because the nominal reason, WMDs, was a deliberate lie) through to the attempted genocide in South Ossetia by NATO supported Georgians through to the continuing dissection of living people to steal their body organs by NATO police in Kosovo. If anybody were to doubt that the ICC were wholly corrupt see:
Since they are dealing with human lives and indeed world peace they are 1,000s of times more important than FIFA*
So if the BBC is hionest it must kave given 1,000,000 times more coverage to this than to FIFA. And incidentally every UK judge who is not equally corrupt, must have publiclydissociated themselves from the corrupt racist murderers among their colleague who got nioce earners at the ICTY.
In fact they haven't given 1/100th as much.
Therefore it cannot be disputed that the BBC is not one hundred millionth part honest and that, due to their participation in this "joint criminal conspiracy" not a single employee there can be anything other than an obscene, racist, lying, murdering, child rapin, organlegging, cannibalistic, Nazi monster, who, after a fair trial, deserves to hanf from a lampost. Ditto our entire legal profession. No offence to any of them.
The real point of what the FIFA debacle means is that we can no longer afford to buy such institutions and Qatar, Russia and China can. ICC gives a specific right of countries to finance "investigations" and "trials" as NATO did against Yugoslavia. It is inevitable that at some stage they will be the ones who, as the Spanish demanded "contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions".
* I know Bill Shankley said "Some people say soccer's a matter of life or death, but it isn't. It's much more important than that" but I don't think he really meant it.
Of course this isn't about corruption, FIFA gas always been corrupt, it is about Britain no longer having the money an clout to ensure it is corrupt in our interests.
In 1974 when following the Pinochet coup, when the Chilean national stadium had been turned into a concentration camp the USSR was disqualified, not for refusing to play them bit for refusing to accept a change of venue.
Chile qualified for the 1974 World Cup after a controversial play-off with the USSR. Following a drawn first leg in Moscow, the Soviets refused to play the second leg at the Estadio Nacional in Santiago, which had been used as a concentration camp by the military dictatorship of Pinochet. However, FIFA refused to switch the match to a neutral venue, so the Chilean players kicked off on an otherwise empty pitch, and scored into the unguarded USSR net, and because there was no opposition to restart the game, the referee awarded the match to Chile, ensuring they qualified for the 1974 finals.
On the other hand when NATO started carving up Yugoslavia was banned from competing at Euro 92. They had finished top of their qualifying group, but were unable to play in the competition due to United Nations Security Council Resolution 757. Their place was taken by Denmark, who went on to win the competition. Yugoslavia had also been drawn as the top seed in Group 5 of the European Zone in the qualifying tournament for the 1994 World Cup. FRY was barred from competing, rendering the group unusually weak. Then during NATO bombing of the country that started on 24 March 1999, and the NATO refused countries to go there Yugoslavia played its home fixture against Malta in Thessaloniki, Greece, winning 4 – 1.
Now clearly the 2 choices cannot be reconciled with integrity. Either the USSR should not have been excluded because they refused to play anywhere but the national stadium or the NATO countries should have been excluded because they refused to even play in the country. FIFA gas always been corrupt but the BC never thought to mention it when they were corrupt in "our" interest.
Lets take another comparison. The ICTY "court" has brought to "trial" almost exclusively Serbs despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing are Serbs. They issued their "indictment" without any evidence, against Milosevic, 2 weeks after the US, which was engaged in a blatantly aggressive, war, primarily targeting civilians for the deliberate purpose of promoting genocide (hence unquestionably a war crime and crime against humanity) had demanded it. They issued a similar openly fraudulent indictment against Vojislav Seselj because he was about to win the Yugoslav election. The NATO funded "court" obviously failed to indict, or even investigate any western leaders. Is this possible without the entire NATO paid "court" being thousands of times more corrupt than FIFA.
We see exactly the same corruption in the western funded ICC where, once again an "indictment" has been issued, without evidence, against Gaddafi as soon as NATO asked for it but none has been issued against any western supported leader, from the US President who started an arguably illegal war against Iraq (certainly illegal in Britain because the nominal reason, WMDs, was a deliberate lie) through to the attempted genocide in South Ossetia by NATO supported Georgians through to the continuing dissection of living people to steal their body organs by NATO police in Kosovo. If anybody were to doubt that the ICC were wholly corrupt see:
witnessed with my own eyes and ears when attending the 2001 Preparatory Meetings to establish an newly emergent International Criminal Court, the exact caliber of criminal corruption running so very deeply at the Hague, that it was a perfectly viable topic of legitimate conversation in those meetings I attended to debate trading verdicts AND judicial appointments, for monetary funding.So these "courts" are, according to all the evidence, 1,00s of times more corrupt than FIFA.
Jilly wrote:*The rep from Spain became distraught and when her country’s proposal was not taken to well by the chair of the meeting , then Spain argued in a particularly loud and noticably strongly vocal manner, “Spain (my country) strongly believes if we contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions.”
Since they are dealing with human lives and indeed world peace they are 1,000s of times more important than FIFA*
So if the BBC is hionest it must kave given 1,000,000 times more coverage to this than to FIFA. And incidentally every UK judge who is not equally corrupt, must have publiclydissociated themselves from the corrupt racist murderers among their colleague who got nioce earners at the ICTY.
In fact they haven't given 1/100th as much.
Therefore it cannot be disputed that the BBC is not one hundred millionth part honest and that, due to their participation in this "joint criminal conspiracy" not a single employee there can be anything other than an obscene, racist, lying, murdering, child rapin, organlegging, cannibalistic, Nazi monster, who, after a fair trial, deserves to hanf from a lampost. Ditto our entire legal profession. No offence to any of them.
The real point of what the FIFA debacle means is that we can no longer afford to buy such institutions and Qatar, Russia and China can. ICC gives a specific right of countries to finance "investigations" and "trials" as NATO did against Yugoslavia. It is inevitable that at some stage they will be the ones who, as the Spanish demanded "contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions".
* I know Bill Shankley said "Some people say soccer's a matter of life or death, but it isn't. It's much more important than that" but I don't think he really meant it.
Labels: International politics, quotes, Yugoslavia
Saturday, July 18, 2009
SPACE QUOTES
Ripped off from the site of the same name:
"There are three reasons why, quite apart from scientific considerations, mankind needs to travel in space. The first reason is garbage disposal; we need to transfer industrial processes into space so that the earth may remain a green and pleasant place for our grandchildren to live in. The second reason is to escape material impoverishment: the resources of this planet are finite, and we shall not forego forever the abundance of solar energy and minerals and living space that are spread out all around us. The third reason is our spiritual need for an open frontier."
Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, 1979
"As long as there is the safety valve of unexplored frontiers, the aggressive and exploitive urges of human beings can be channeled into long-term possibilities and benefits... I don't happen to think the frontier is closed. It's just opening up in space... The human race is going out and throughout, wherever space will permit us to go. It's only a question of when, and who, and what kind of leadership will take us there."
Governor Jerry Brown, remarks at a symposium, 1977
"The crossing of space ... may do much to turn men's minds outwards and away from their present tribal squabbles. In this sense, the rocket, far from being one of the destroyers of civilisation, may provide the safety-value that is needed to preserve it."
Arthur C. Clarke, The Exploration of Space, 1951
"Men go into space .. to see whether it is the kind of place where other men, and their families and their children, can eventually follow them. A disturbingly high proportion of the intelligent young are discontented because they find the life before them intolerably confining. The moon offers a new frontier. It is as simple and splendid as that."
Editorial on the moon landing, The Economist, 1969
"Perhaps it won't matter, in the end, which country is the sower of the seed of exploration. The importance will be in the growth of the new plant of progress and in the fruits it will bear. These fruits will be a new breed of the human species, a human with new views, new vigor, new resiliency, and a new view of the human purpose. The plant: the tree of human destiny."
Neil Armstrong, "Out of This World,"
Saturday Review, 1974
"Once the threshold is crossed when there is a self-sustaining level of life in space, then life's long-range future will be secure irrespective of any of the risks on Earth... Will this happen before our technological civilization disintegrates"
Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal,
Our Final Hour, 2003
"Until now in world's history, whenever we've had a dark age, it's been temporary and local. And other parts of the world have been doing fine. And eventually, they help you get out of the dark age. We are now facing a possible dark age which is going to be world-wide and permanent! That's not fun. That's a different thing. But once we have established many worlds, we can do whatever we want as long as we do it one world at a time."
Isaac Asimov, speech at Newark College of Engineering,
1974
"When it is realized that man's future, his greatest fulfillment, may lie in the cosmos and not on the surface of the earth at all, then it is strongly suggested that mankind has not reached maturity but only completed gestation."
Hamilton B. Webb, "Speculations on Space and
Human Destiny," 1961
"The earth is the cradle of humankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever."
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, 1895
"Given ships or sails adapted to the breezes of heaven, there will be those who will not shrink from even that vast expanse."
Johannes Kepler, letter to Galileo, 1610
"Don't tell me that man doesn't belong out there. Man belongs wherever he wants to go--and he'll do plenty well when he gets there."
Wernher von Braun, Time magazine, 1958
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, 1920
"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."
Stephen Hawking, interview with Daily Telegraph, 2001
"Space travel leading to skylife is vital to human survival, because the question is not whether we will be hit by an asteroid, but when. A planetary culture that does not develop spacefaring is courting suicide. All our history, all our social progress and growing insight will be for nothing if we perish. No risk of this kind, however small it might be argued to be, is worth taking, and no cost to prevent it is too great. No level of risk is acceptable when it comes to all or nothing survival."
Gregory Benford and George Zebrowski, Skylife, 2000
"Remember this: once the human race is established on more than one planet and especially, in more than one solar system, there is no way now imaginable to kill off the human race."
Robert Heinlein, speech at World Science Fiction
Convention, 1961
"There are three reasons why, quite apart from scientific considerations, mankind needs to travel in space. The first reason is garbage disposal; we need to transfer industrial processes into space so that the earth may remain a green and pleasant place for our grandchildren to live in. The second reason is to escape material impoverishment: the resources of this planet are finite, and we shall not forego forever the abundance of solar energy and minerals and living space that are spread out all around us. The third reason is our spiritual need for an open frontier."
Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe, 1979
"As long as there is the safety valve of unexplored frontiers, the aggressive and exploitive urges of human beings can be channeled into long-term possibilities and benefits... I don't happen to think the frontier is closed. It's just opening up in space... The human race is going out and throughout, wherever space will permit us to go. It's only a question of when, and who, and what kind of leadership will take us there."
Governor Jerry Brown, remarks at a symposium, 1977
"The crossing of space ... may do much to turn men's minds outwards and away from their present tribal squabbles. In this sense, the rocket, far from being one of the destroyers of civilisation, may provide the safety-value that is needed to preserve it."
Arthur C. Clarke, The Exploration of Space, 1951
"Men go into space .. to see whether it is the kind of place where other men, and their families and their children, can eventually follow them. A disturbingly high proportion of the intelligent young are discontented because they find the life before them intolerably confining. The moon offers a new frontier. It is as simple and splendid as that."
Editorial on the moon landing, The Economist, 1969
"Perhaps it won't matter, in the end, which country is the sower of the seed of exploration. The importance will be in the growth of the new plant of progress and in the fruits it will bear. These fruits will be a new breed of the human species, a human with new views, new vigor, new resiliency, and a new view of the human purpose. The plant: the tree of human destiny."
Neil Armstrong, "Out of This World,"
Saturday Review, 1974
"Once the threshold is crossed when there is a self-sustaining level of life in space, then life's long-range future will be secure irrespective of any of the risks on Earth... Will this happen before our technological civilization disintegrates"
Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal,
Our Final Hour, 2003
"Until now in world's history, whenever we've had a dark age, it's been temporary and local. And other parts of the world have been doing fine. And eventually, they help you get out of the dark age. We are now facing a possible dark age which is going to be world-wide and permanent! That's not fun. That's a different thing. But once we have established many worlds, we can do whatever we want as long as we do it one world at a time."
Isaac Asimov, speech at Newark College of Engineering,
1974
"When it is realized that man's future, his greatest fulfillment, may lie in the cosmos and not on the surface of the earth at all, then it is strongly suggested that mankind has not reached maturity but only completed gestation."
Hamilton B. Webb, "Speculations on Space and
Human Destiny," 1961
"The earth is the cradle of humankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever."
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, 1895
"Given ships or sails adapted to the breezes of heaven, there will be those who will not shrink from even that vast expanse."
Johannes Kepler, letter to Galileo, 1610
"Don't tell me that man doesn't belong out there. Man belongs wherever he wants to go--and he'll do plenty well when he gets there."
Wernher von Braun, Time magazine, 1958
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, 1920
"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."
Stephen Hawking, interview with Daily Telegraph, 2001
"Space travel leading to skylife is vital to human survival, because the question is not whether we will be hit by an asteroid, but when. A planetary culture that does not develop spacefaring is courting suicide. All our history, all our social progress and growing insight will be for nothing if we perish. No risk of this kind, however small it might be argued to be, is worth taking, and no cost to prevent it is too great. No level of risk is acceptable when it comes to all or nothing survival."
Gregory Benford and George Zebrowski, Skylife, 2000
"Remember this: once the human race is established on more than one planet and especially, in more than one solar system, there is no way now imaginable to kill off the human race."
Robert Heinlein, speech at World Science Fiction
Convention, 1961
