Dave's Chance

Or How Britain's David Cameron Could Smash the Lib-Con Coalition, Win an Election on the Promise of an EU Referendum, and Restore the Thatcherite Agenda Without Maggie's Streak of Lunacy

Up EURS: Cameron in Churchill pose

Britain has refused to join an EU fiscal union under the tutelage of a banker from Goldman Sachs.

This has enraged the Liberal left who know that exclusion from the fiscal union means ultimate exclusion from the emerging Union of European Soviet Socialist Republics, with its cosy unthinking political conformity, its windmills and other boondoggles, and its abundance of comfy well-paid births in the nomenklatura for those of the politically correct tendency.

This outrage provides Cameron with a chance that can come only once in a premier's lifetime.

It is the chance to split the coalition, to go to the country on the promise of a referendum on EU membership, and to restore the Thatcherite agenda without Maggie's streak of lunacy and without her ambivalence on the EU.

The future that Britain out of the EU would then face would be one either of independence, goodwill to all men, peace and prosperity, or of total subservience and incorporation into the American Empire.

If Cameron wishes to be remembered as a great man he would opt for national independence. More likely though, Britain would undergo incorporation as the unnamed fifty-first American state, complete with TSA gropers at Heathrow and surveillance and assassination drones overhead.

See also:
Mish -- Cameron should tell the EU to take all their rules and shove them

PostScript
When Niall Ferguson happens to agree with me, I am reluctant to admit this as proof that great minds think alike, whatever the exceptional force of my own mind. Still, I have to hand it to Ferguson that he quite independently sketched the scenario that I have outlined above. Writing in the Wall St. Journal he has an essay about Europe in the year 2021, which contains the following paragraphs:

David Cameron—now beginning his fourth term as British prime minister—thanks his lucky stars that, reluctantly yielding to pressure from the Euroskeptics in his own party, he decided to risk a referendum on EU membership. His Liberal Democrat coalition partners committed political suicide by joining Labour's disastrous "Yeah to Europe" campaign.

Egged on by the pugnacious London tabloids, the public voted to leave by a margin of 59% to 41%, and then handed the Tories an absolute majority in the House of Commons. Freed from the red tape of Brussels, England is now the favored destination of Chinese foreign direct investment in Europe. And rich Chinese love their Chelsea apartments, not to mention their splendid Scottish shooting estates.

Ferguson also offers in this essay a concise explanation of how bankrupt Britain managed to weather the European debt crisis so easily:

With a fiscal position little better than most of the Mediterranean countries' and a far larger banking system than in any other European economy, Britain with the euro would have been Ireland to the power of eight. Instead, the Bank of England was able to pursue an aggressively expansionary policy. Zero rates, quantitative easing and devaluation greatly mitigated the pain and allowed the "Iron Chancellor" George Osborne to get ahead of the bond markets with pre-emptive austerity. A better advertisement for the benefits of national autonomy would have been hard to devise.

He also projects what seems eminently sensible, a re-union of the British Isles:

At the beginning of David Cameron's premiership in 2010, there had been fears that the United Kingdom might break up. But the financial crisis put the Scots off independence; small countries had fared abysmally. And in 2013, in a historical twist only a few die-hard Ulster Unionists had dreamt possible, the Republic of Ireland's voters opted to exchange the austerity of the U.S.E. for the prosperity of the U.K. Postsectarian Irishmen celebrated their citizenship in a Reunited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with the slogan: "Better Brits Than Brussels."

His anticipation of a Nordic union also seems both plausible and desirable:

Another thing no one had anticipated in 2011 was developments in Scandinavia. Inspired by the True Finns in Helsinki, the Swedes and Danes—who had never joined the euro—refused to accept the German proposal for a "transfer union" to bail out Southern Europe. When the energy-rich Norwegians suggested a five-country Norse League, bringing in Iceland, too, the proposal struck a chord.

These ideas lead naturally to the conclusion that Europe will be transformed into a German-dominated block. This was essentially the arrangement envisaged by Neville Chamberlain in the 1930's as he worked to set Germany against Russia, the goal being to create a central European German Empire that would be balanced to the East by a truncated Russia and to the West by an Atlantic bloc comprising Britain, France and the US. Ferguson's prediction differs only in the assumption that France will go with Germany not Britain. But who knows. Do the French really wish to submerge their identity in a German-dominated union? We'll see.

Post-postscript
This explanation of Cameron's foreign policy from the BBC sitcom Yes Minister via Mish:

Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.

Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.

Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.

See also:
Peter Hitchens: David Cameron’s Phoney War, or A Curse in Disguise

Patrick Buchanan: David Cameron's Finest Hour

Mish: Sniveling, apologetic Cameron seeks to snatch defeat from jaws of EU victory

The end of education as we know it?

First Nations University, Saskachewan, Canada. Cool building, but is it 

obsolete already?

In a NY Times article entitled Death Knell for the Lecture: Technology as a Passport to Personalized Education, Daphne Koller offers some good ideas on harnessing the power of the Internet in education, but fails to mention the critical reform necessary to the creation of a truly effective educational system freed both of its present role as the prime conduit of state propaganda and of the suffocating burden of bureaucratic administration. That critical reform is to make a complete break between learning and educational accreditation.

Without separation of learning and accreditation, students are compelled to enroll in a high school or college to gain a recognized educational qualification. But if accreditation could be gained by successfully challenging a public exam without the necessity of enrolling in school or college and paying the enormous associated cost, either directly or as a taxpayer, then the power of the digital media, combined with a private sector mentoring and coaching industry, could truly revolutionize education in both cost and effectiveness.

Thereafter, schools and universities would be patronized only insofar as they provided a cost competitive service, which they would certainly be unable to do without radical reform.

At the higher levels, at least, the services of private coaches, working with students either face-to-face or online, would generally be both more effective and much cheaper than those of institutionalized school teachers or professors.

A private sector coaching industry will make use of teaching talent wherever it is to be found, and it will require no ivy-clad halls or multimillion-dollar football coaches to deliver its services.

Instead, private homes, church basements, or commercial office spaces in every village, town and city will become the schools of the future. Students will advance at their own pace, studying sometimes full-time, sometimes part-time and often only intermittently.

All educational transactions would be voluntary. No student would be stuck for a semester, a year or longer still with a teacher with whom they lack rapport or effective communication.

Teachers would achieve status according to the success of their students and could charge accordingly. But their key function and the chief measure of their success would be the degree to which they taught students to love learning and thus how to teach themselves.

Exporting the economy

David Ricardo (1772-1823). Image source

Until recent times, it was understood that the prosperity of a nation depended on three factors: capital invested in industry; the skills and experience of the workforce, and the availability of land for economic activity, i.e., the three factors of production, land, labor and capital.

International trade was acknowledged to be advantageous to all parties insofar as it enabled each country to do more of what it is did best. This was the theory of comparative advantage, enunciated by 19th Century British economist and bond trader, David Ricardo.

Ricardo was explicit, however, in stating that international free trade is beneficial to all parties only if capital is immobile, since exporting capital, one of the factors of production, will inevitably lower the productivity and hence reduce the prosperity of the population.

Consistent with these ideas, enlightened national governments endeavored to restrict capital outflow, promote workforce education and training, and in the Western World, limit mass immigration from the developing World since that diluted the capital stock of the nation on a per capita basis, reduced the per capita availability of land and infrastructure, and lowered average workforce skills and education -- aside from its potential for destroying the nation through population replacement and reproductive competition.

But today, to hear the media, the Nobel-prize-winning economists, the politicians-on-the-make, and the human rights activists tell it, that's all anti-diluvian racist rubbish.

How come?

In one word, globalization.

Or in several words: We're an empire now and the leadership elected nationally, serves the empire not you, the people, who elected them.

But how does that change the principles of economics?

Easily: through the allocation of money, fame and power.

Thus, says J.J. goldberg in a  Jewish Daily Forward article entitled: A Low-Rent America Can't Be a Strong Friend of Israel.

Fans of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman might get a kick out of this. Nearly a decade and a half ago, the acclaimed economist savagely reviewed a new book on the perils of economic globalization, dismissing it as “simplistic,” “foolish,” “thoroughly silly” and more. He said the author, Rolling Stone investigative journalist William Greider, had naively failed to consult “competent economists,” which led him to “trip on his own intellectual shoelaces.” Classic Krugman.

Krugman has since moved from MIT to a tenured chair at Princeton and a Nobel Prize. Greider moved from Rolling Stone to the smaller and less remunerative weekly The Nation. The funny thing is, Greider turned out to be right. Krugman got globalization very wrong.

Then there's the case of Paul Craig Roberts, a better man than Krugman, surely. Former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, senior fellow in political economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, contributor to numerous magazines and newspapers, author or co-author of eight books.

On March 26, 2010, Roberts wrote Truth Has Fallen and Taken Liberty With It

There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.

Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.

Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”

Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.

Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.

Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.

Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.

Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”

In evidence of this charge of treason by America's elite Roberts continued:

I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”

For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.

...The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.

And what Roberts says of the American elite and the American corporate media is true of the elite and the corporate media throughout the West. The interests of the people are to be sacrificed without limit for the "interest groups that empower the government."

Thus, jobs are off-shored and outsourced to take advantage of cheap labor in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Thus, mass migration from the developing world to densely populated Western Europe is promoted to drive down wages, while it destroys local culture, and in an increasing number of urban areas, reduces the indigenous populations to a demoralized minority that is being out-bred by the immigrants, of whom some show an unconcealed contempt for local customs and religion.

Likewise in America, native born citizens are displaced from the labor pool by millions of illegal immigrants who work in the underground economy at below minimum wages and often under appalling and illegal conditions, a process enabled by the Federal Government by the deliberate non-enforcement of Federal immigration law.

Thus, also, Nobel Prizes and newspaper columns for bent economists, power and prestige for "human rights advocates" who promote mass immigration and genocidal policies of political correctness and multi-culturalism, and massive profits for those enabled by a corrupt political establishment to engage in unrestricted global wage arbitrage resulting in mass unemployment in the West, collapsing welfare services, failing schools, underfunded pensions, and racial and cultural demoralization and destruction.

And astonishingly, so callous is the ruling elite that the fate of the unemployed and the underemployed is barely discussed. Indeed, it is enforced by minimum wage laws, bad schools, and welfare legislation that scandalously deny employment and the opportunity to gain work experience to a large part of the workforce that cannot compete with Asian labour that in some industries earns only pennies per hour.

What Milton Friedman said in 1978 about black poverty in the United States, is now applicable to much of the white working class in the U.S., Canada and Europe. Sadly, Milton Friedman is no longer around to state the fact.

Awesome Urban Skiing: Trail, BC

JP Auclair Street Segment (from All.I.Can.)
by Sherpas Cinema
Via Wimp.com

The Mechanics of Empire

By Eric Walberg

Smoke rising after a cross-border NATO air strike on
a Pakistani border post Nov. 26, 2011 (Image source)

NATO helicopters violated the airspace of Pakistan from Afghanistan on Friday and opened unprovoked fire on a check post in Mohmand, northwest Pakistan at midnight. Presumably the pilots got the wrong coordinates from MacDill Air Force Central Command in Florida or took too many army-prescribed uppers. The attack continued even after Pakistani commanders pleaded with coalition forces to stop.

As a show of anger, Pakistan ordered the CIA to vacate drone operations at Shamsi Air Base in southwestern Baluchistan and closed both the Khyber and Baluchistan supply routes into Afghanistan, cutting off 70 per cent of NATO's supplies. It was the worst such incident since 9/11.

Pakistani army post struck by NATO helicopters
resulting in the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers. (Image source)

This is not the first time NATO helicopters attack Pakistani soldiers or that Pakistan closed the Khyber Pass. A US airstrike in 2008 killed 11 soldiers and last year two, prompting Pakistan to shut the Khyber Pass for 10 days in protest against the almost daily, illegal and unsanctioned US air strikes that since 2004 have killed 2,780 people, 83 per cent civilians, among them 72 soldiers.

However, this time the rhetoric is full blast. Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani announced Pakistan would boycott the crucial Bonn II conference on Afghanistan this week, fatally undermining it. Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani call the attack a "blatant and unacceptable act", and Interior Minister Rehman Malik insisted on Sunday that the “NATO supply line had not been suspended but permanently stopped.”

Pakistanis lead by Imran Khan protesting drone attacks. (Image source)

That is highly unlikely, but this could be the trigger for a political earthquake against a despised national government. MP Ahmed Khan Bahadur from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial Awami National Party told CNN, "This is the time to be united as a nation and to punch NATO with a fist. NATO could never dare if we were united." Politically ambitious media star Imran Khan, who heads the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party, said it was time for Pakistan to pull out of the US-led "war on terror". Hundreds of thousands have rallied in Peshawar, Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi to protest government corruption and the alliance with the US.

How we stopped Colonel Gadhaffi killing his own people

By Aangirfan


Majer in Libya
In August 2011, NATO carried out a major massacre in the Libyan town of Majer.

NATO murdered 85 People, including 33 Children and 32 Women.

German broadcaster Deutsche Welle has investigated:

1. 500-pound bombs were dropped on people's homes.

2. NATO's bombing of Majer was meant "to clear the way for rebels to advance on the embattled Gadhafi-controlled city of Zlitan, 10 kilometers to the north."

Qana massacre in Lebanon
According to San Francisco Bay View:

"NATO used the same tactic that Israel used during the two Qana massacres.

"After the first three bombs dropped at around 11 pm, many residents of the area ran to the bombed houses to try to save their loved ones.

"NATO then instantly struck with more bombs slaughtering 85 Libyans."

The QANA massacres were carried out with American weapons in 1996 and 2006.

51 children were murdered.

QanaMajer
http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/08/libya-nato-in-zlitan-massacred-85.html
http://youtu.be/JF9ZYup4Qwc
http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/11/operation-unified-protector-nato-in.html
http://libyasos.blogspot.com/p/photo.html
http://libyasos.blogspot.com/p/tribunal.html

Climategate: That's just how science is done

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

Bertrand Russell, The Will To Doubt

By CanSpeccy

The Hockey Stick Graph (Source)

Climategate is the alleged scientific misconduct revealed through publication, by a person or persons unknown, of thousands of email communications among leading climate scientists.

These revelations are, says Financial Times columnist Christopher Caldwell, a catastrophe for science.

What the emails show, says Caldwell, is "that scientists are no less prone to vanity, rivalries and corner-cutting than people in other walks of life."

This, says Caldwell, has "undermined the scientists’ claim to be speaking as scientists rather than as interested parties."

That's the catastrophe?

LOL.

Anyone who thinks that the debate between climate "warmists" and "denialists" falls short of science's tradition of objectivity and fairness should remind themselves of the long-running dispute between Isaac Newton, the founder of modern science, and Gottfried Leibniz, variously described as "the last universal genius" and "the most comprehensive thinker since Aristotle." Terms employed by the chief protagonists or their associates in that debate included "thief," "toady" and "ape."

In comparison, the dispute between Mike Mann and Steve McIntyre over the hockey-stick graph has been conducted with collegial restraint.

The discovery, for those to whom it is a discovery, that scientists are not lobotomized calculating machines programmed solely for the revelation of truth, but self-serving, self-aggrandizing, largely irrational people like the rest of us, provides, surely, an important lesson.

For how, in a democracy, can science be properly managed if the public is imbued with the delusional belief that scientists are mostly saints not sinners?

Scientists can be, as anyone who has studied the history of science knows, furiously competitive to a degree that can, and often does, influence the objectivity of their work.

Scientists, for example, often fiddle their results, less with the intent to deceive than because of an overwhelming conviction of the correctness of their scientific intuition.

But so what? Everything eventually comes out in the wash. Or should do. Mistakes and fakes cannot be concealed for ever in an empirical science where others can repeat your observations and experiments. Science is a competitive enterprise and if you get something important wrong, someone will be happy to point out your error.

More often, though, if someone else's result does not fit their model of the world, an experienced scientist will just ignore it. People who want to find something out, don't waste their time acting as policemen.

And if your hunch is right and you fake results to prove it, what harm is done?

Galileo claimed to have observed more than it was possible to see with his primitive telescope, but his ideas about the solar system proved consistent with later more precise observations.

Gregor Mendel's revolutionary findings on the segregation of genetic components during reproduction are said by statisticians to have been too good to be true. But they are consistent with verified theory.

Arthur Eddington's measurement on May 29, 1919 of the deflection of starlight by the gravitational pull of the sun, which was generally accepted at the time as proof of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, was highly questionable due to measurement error. Nevertheless, subsequent evidence confirmed the result that Eddington claimed.

Newton and Einstein fiddled their results by introducing what later proved to be unnecessary fudge factors.

Newton corrected his calculation of the speed of sound to make it match what proved to be an inaccurate experimental measurement by incorporating a meaningless adjustment for what he called the "crassity of the particles."

Einstein fiddled his cosmological model by introducing the cosmological constant, a fudge factor to explain why gravity doesn't cause everything in the universe to glom together in a heap.

When Hubble showed that the universe was expanding, Einstein described his cosmological constant as "the greatest blunder of my career."

As it happens, the cosmological constant has come back into vogue to account for the fact that the universe is not only expanding but is expanding at an accelerating rate.

So much for the objectivity and irreproachable integrity of scientists.

Thus, when Caldwell says: "The emails were damaging because they undermined the scientists’ claim to be speaking as scientists rather than as interested parties, the damage, surely, can only be to scientific humbugs.

It is the mistaken belief in the saintly, unprejudiced, objectivity of scientists that constitute the real danger to science.

Ignorance of the frailties of scientists means failure to guard against the ever present danger of science being skewed by outside interference: Al Gore, the Green Party, oil, the tobacco industry, big pharma, the UN, all seeking to control the scientific message and the scientific agenda for financial or political reasons.

Enough of such interference and science is corrupted beyond redemption, as was true of genetics in the Soviet Union during the Lysenko era, and in Germany during the Nazi era.

Indeed, the magnitude of current efforts by both government and industry to influence science for financial or political ends is indicative of the unhealthy intellectual times in which we live.

Solving the Debt Crisis: An Ingenious Proposal

By CanSpeccy

Image source: Allen Roland's Blog

Australian economist Steve Keen proposes that instead of governments printing money and giving it to banks that lent money to folks who can't pay it back, they should print money and give it to the folks that can't pay back the money that banks lent -- on the condition that the recipients use the money to pay off their debts.

On the face of it, what Keen proposes is an alternative without a difference. Either way, the banks get back what they irresponsibly or incompetently lent to sub-prime borrowers who, by definition, were unlikely to pay it back. However, two important features distinguish Keen's idea from current mainstream economics thinking.

First, he says that not only should free money be given to debtors unable to repay their loans, but to everyone else too, which sounds fair, if inflationary.

Second, he says that when the banks get back the money they lent, they should not be allowed to lend it again. This seems a reasonable proposition, since the money lent was conjured by the banks out of thin air, so any right they had to lend it in the first place was by virtue of a government-granted license to print money, which evidently was employed irresponsibly, since much if not most of the money lent can't be paid back.

Then, argues Keen, once the unsustainable debt load has been reduced to a reasonable level, banks can be allowed to resume lending only to the extent required to support productive new investment in R and D, production facilities and other things that expand the real economy. This, says Keen, would bring to an end what he calls the Ponzi economy where people borrow to make speculative investments in assets they expect will rise in price because other people are borrowing to make speculative investments in assets they expect will rise in price.

Such restriction to bank activity would slash profits of the financial sector, from about 40% of all US corporate profits, currently, to perhaps five or six percent, which would seem entirely adequate for an industry that does little other than shuffle paper, or just digits, losing trillions in the process for which they expect the taxpayer to reimburse them.

In the course of such a contraction, Keen believes most banks would go broke and in that case, he indicates, their function should be taken over by the Government. That seems reasonable. Governments often manage to run things like railroads, highways, water works and post offices with tolerable efficiency, or at least not absolutely intolerable inefficiency.

Certainly, creating money out of nothing and lending it to people who might be able to pay it back looks like something governments could do at least as well as Northern Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland or any of the multitude of other banks that stupidly lost all the money they had, and even more that they didn't have, while paying their directors phenomenal salaries and bonuses.

The great merit of Steve Keen's scheme, so he maintains, is that it would end the second great depression now, rather than in a decade or two as will otherwise be the case. This claim, however, is not altogether convincing. The private sector cannot pay people more than their labor is worth. Yet minimum wages in the Western world are well above average salaries in China and other low-wage jurisdictions against which, under the GATT agreement, workers in the West must now compete without protection.

Furthermore, automation tends to reduce the global demand for labor. For example, Apple Corporation, embarrassed by a high suicide rate among workers employed by the Chinese contractor that manufacures the i-Pad, have decided to replace the workers with a million robots.

Thus it seems that more is required than Steve Keen's ingenious scheme to unwind the World's burden of debt if everyone who wishes to work has the opportunity to do so at a living wage. Moreover, in discussing his proposal with the BBC's Sarah Montague, Keen does not deal with the problem of unpayable sovereign debt, which is a major factor in the  current economic difficulties of many Western nations.

Nevertheless, the time is surely ripe for new ideas on how to assist homeowners, small business, and others burdened by intolerable debt to deleverage without intensifying the current recession or depression. Steve Keen is one of the few economists with a new idea worth considering.

And, insofar as it is inflationary, Keen's proposal for distributing government-created money would lower real wages, increase labor demand and so reduce unemployment. What's more, by distributing the cash equally to everyone, it would help redress the balance between the 1% and the 99.

See also:
Exporting the economy
The Economist Who Said "The Emperor Has No Clothes"

Can England Be Once More a Green and Pleasant Land?

The New Jerusalem

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear!O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my charriot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

William Blake (1804)

By CanSpeccy

When Blake wrote The New Jerusalem (1804), the industrial revolution in England was well advanced. Energy use per capita was twice that of mainland Europe. Coal was the chief source of energy and was carried by sea from Newcastle to Blake's native London.

With more than a million inhabitants, London was Europe's largest city and largest port, a place of docks and warehouses, of shipyards, foundries and factories, of tanneries and textile mills.

Back-to-back houses, without a yard. Source

In London and other industrial cities, workers lived in tiny houses, usually built back-to-back without yards, close to the factory or mill where they worked, which meant that the first great industrial cities, though hideous, were compact.

Workers' housing: Liverpool, England

Travel was limited. Blacktop had yet to be invented. The best roads were the ancient, deeply rutted Roman highways. Intercity travel by coach was slow, costly and dangerous. Working people lived close to their place of employment, commuting no more than a mile or two. They rarely traveled except by shanks pony. Many never in their lives traveled more than five or ten miles from their place of birth.

Thus, in Blake's day, despite the great "wen" of London and other teeming industrializing cities, the mines, the "dark satanic mills," much in England  was yet both green and pleasant.

With a total population of 8.6 million according to the census of 1801, the average population density was only 65 per square kilometer, or about 3.5 acres per person. But the rural population density was much less, and, as millions migrated to the industrial cities, the countryside became even more sparsely populated.

But first the railway and then the automobile, combined with rising incomes, changed all that.

The Global Debt Crisis: How Things Got This Screwed Up

Total US debt Image source

The global debt crisis is highly complex, yet in its ultimate causes, extremely simple.

Speaking before the Senate of the United States on October 5, 1994, Sir James Goldsmith said:

I believe that GATT... [i]f it is implemented, ... will impoverish and destabilize the industrialized world while at the same time cruelly ravaging the third world.

That is precisely what has come to pass.

Since 1994, wage arbitrage by multinational corporations, the majority of which are controlled by a few dozen financial entities, has destroyed tens of millions of jobs in Western Europe and North America, while driving up many-fold the value of the most successful exponents of off-shoring and outsourcing: companies such as Apple, IBM and Microsoft.

How have Western nations handled the job losses?

By maintaining consumer spending without regard for the loss of high-skills, high-wage, long-term jobs.

How have they done maintained consumer spending? By keeping real interests rates near zero or less, thereby enabling consumers to replace income with debt. Much of the consumer credit went into housing, which being largely a local industry, concealed the loss of long-term manufacturing, design, engineering and other professional jobs.

How have China and other developing nations handled the job gains?

By keeping wages and hence consumer spending low to achieve annihilating export competitiveness with high-wage Western workers, while enabling a tsunami of cheap credit to flow into job-creating investment in manufacturing and export service industries, with much of this money slopping over into real estate, including investment in China's empty cities.

So why isn't everyone happy?

Jesse Ventura: How Corrupt Republicans and Corrupt Democrats Ruined America

Ventura raises the same question we did concerning the fate of Navy SEAL Team 6: US Navy SEALs: Two Helicopters.

Ron Paul Highlights - CNN National Security Debate

How Canadian police handle a non-violent protest

Link source: Toronto G20 Exposed See from 2 minutes 10 seconds ...

And how the RCMP use agents provocateurs to create some action

Globe and Mail, November 22, 2011: In early 2009, two strangers started mingling with the activist communities of Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph.

The first was a man. Those who crossed paths with him say he ingratiated himself by chauffeuring people to protests in his white van and buying them pitchers of beer at the bar after. The second, a woman, told people she had fled an abusive relationship ...

Read more

The European Freemasonry of Goldman Sachs

Le Monde's London correspondent, Marc Roche, claims that Goldman Sachs has infiltrated senior positions of power across Europe, including those of the Prime Ministers of Greece and Italy and the new head of the European Central Bank. Source: GRTV

If 55kg of explosive were all it took to bring down this 17-story tower block ....

17- Story Glencairn Tower brought down with 55 kg of unnamed explosive

"This was the spectacular moment a 17-storey concrete tower block was blown to pieces - in a thundering controlled explosion," reports the Daily Mail.

"Glencairn Tower block [in Motherwell, Scotland] was reduced to 12,000 tonnes of rubble by 55kg of explosives ..."

Is the Daily Mail trying to tell us something?

If it took only 55 kg of explosive to bring down a 17-story tower block, would it have taken much more than a couple of hundred kilograms to bring down each of the Twin Towers? And if not, how difficult would it have been for saboteurs dressed as elevator maintenance staff to prep the towers for a controlled demo. without prompting suspicion?

As with the Twin Towers, the video shows there were explosions both at the base of the building and near the top, the entire structure coming down in free fall.

England's Ungreen and Unpleasant Land

Factory Chimneys Outnumber Church Spires on the Skyline at
Preston Lancashire. (Image source)

It's difficult to be green when you're packed in at more than 1000 per square mile. Spread out, that's one person every 50 meters. At that density, you're going to be mostly red-brick- and blacktop-colored.

Still, if folks would spread out as much as they can, there would be advantages. They could stop annoying one another with  stupid cell phone calls: "It's me, I'll be home in three minutes." Instead, you could word-of-mouth it: "Heh Ma, don't stay up, I'm going out with the lads tonight. Pass it on." You could even have person-to-person small parcel delivery: "Mrs. Edith Robertson, 23b Hedgerow Drive, Wigan. No, not that way, idiot, to your left, Wigan's up North!"

But just think about it. There's yer fifty by fifty meter patch where you've got yer car, yer share of the public roadways, yer house, yer holiday cottage in Wales, yer share of the local pub, shops, workplaces, government offices, railways, power plants, power lines, schools, hospitals, the lot. There is very little room left over for anything green. Yet they're still packing 'em in: every four years another million, enough to populate Birmingham, England' second city, with some tens of thousands left over.

Years ago my late friend Postman Patel drove me to a spot on the moors outside the City of Oldham where you could see 79 factory (cotton mill) chimneys -- that's when the view was not obscured by smog. Today, the mills mostly burn oil instead of coal and so have no visible emissions -- the few that have not been converted to multi-family residences -- so visibility is better than it used to be. That means that there's now hardly a viewpoint in the English countryside where you cannot see lines of traffic snaking this way and that across the landscape. No doubt if anyone discovers a traffic-free zone they'll have to build roads and parking lots all over it so people can come and see it.

But the lack of green is not just a matter of numbers. It's largely due to the criminal activity of the construction industry and its enablers all the way from the petty corruptionist on your village council to the Minister of Housing or whoever's influence is required when the latest plan to convert another few hundred acres of productive farm land to a plantation of red brick boxes is impeded by some not totally corrupt local planning committee.

Instant urban blight. (Image source)

British cities are, for the most part, so bloody hideously awful that everyone wants a country castle, mansion, villa, cottage, converted piggery, whatever, and if that's beyond their means, then a semi-det brick box on a 150 square meter plot on one of those meaningless crescents, winding avenues, or closes that engulf square miles of once beautiful countryside around once beautiful market towns and cathedral cities.

The flight to the suburbs and beyond generates traffic, traffic deaths, smog, noise, and an ever expanding zone of traffic-jammed motorways, bypasses, overpasses and underpasses that converts once habitable urban space into a vision of hell beyond the imagination of Hieronymous Bosch: which is the truly beautiful thing about urban development -- it's autocatalytic. It creates its own demand. By defiling the place where people want to be, i.e., the city, it forces them to move to ever more remote and tedious greenfield suburbs, which are the last places on earth where any creature could hope for emotional fulfillment.

Coping with the banality of English life. (Image source)

The sheer banality of English life drives much else that rots the moral fibre and mental capacity of the nation. The ugliness of the landscape, the tedium of the daily commute, the daily pollution of one's immortal soul with cheesy Page-three-pics of tits and bums, war propaganda, gossip and triviality from the multiple orifices of the Murdoch press and its rivals and imitators, the infuriatingly condescending mendacity of the BBC, combine to create an irresistible impulse to escape. However hideous the journey, however crowded or degraded the destination, millions upon millions of Britain's sick, her tired, her huddled masses take regular flight to Mediterranean resorts, notwithstanding the often contemptible  the behaviour of their compatriots.

All of which helps explain why three in four Britons would like to leave Britain for good. It is, presumably, the ethnic Brits and their numerous progeny who, having only just arrived, make up the 25% yet to appreciate the desirability of leaving. (What is it, any how, that causes hundreds and hundreds of thousands to abandon the exquisite beauty of a Caribbean Island for life in Wolverhampton, Glasgow or the London borough of Brixton?)

See also:
Can England Be Once More a Green and Pleasant Land?

Why I don't buy Uri Avnery's "Israel will not attack Iran"

Uri Avnery's article almost convinced me that Israel will not attack Iran.

But not quite, for I believe that anything that could happen could happen.

Or as the Many Worlds theorists would argue, everything that could happen will happen although not in every universe in which an instance of yourself reading this text happens to exist at this very moment.

Consider Hitler, for example, on the brink of a historic victory, ordering his army to halt within a day's drive of Moscow, resulting in a the most pitiless, bloody, long-drawn-out retreat and defeat in the history of total war.

Folks really do the most unaccountable things.

But let's look at Avnery's arguments.

First, he quotes a German proverb:

Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place. Same goes for wars.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it. Except that announcing revolutions, wars and war crimes in advance is, in fact, far from unusual.

The Communist Manifesto, published 69 years before the Russian revolution, comes to mind. Then, there's Mein Kampf, which left little to the imagination concerning Hitler's military objectives. Or to take a more recent example, haven't the NeoCons been calling for the overthrow of every government throughout the Middle-East except Israel's since before 9/11 - and with four down and a dozen or so to go, aren't they still on about it?

So no, there's nothing unusual about announcing one's war aims in advance. Rather, that seems more to be expected than not.

Second, says Avnery:

Since the 1956 Suez adventure, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an ultimatum that stopped the action, Israel has never undertaken any significant military operation without obtaining American consent in advance.

Absolutely true. But it ignores Israel's remarkable influence in Washington, where by his own account, the US President has to deal with Israel's Prime Minister Netenyahu every day.

Think about that. The President of the sole superpower, a huge nation that is 97% non-Jewish, has to deal every day with the Prime Minister of a country of six million Jews plus several million of what the leadership apparently regards as untermenschen best exterminated by drowning.

Then Avnery asserts:

When the first Israeli plane enters Iranian airspace, the strait will be closed. The Iranian navy has plenty of missile boats, but they will not be needed. Land-based missiles are enough.

That, he seems to believe, is why Israel would not dare attack Iran. But, if you think about it, isn't that what some people might consider an incredibly brilliant reason for Israel to attack Iran?

I mean, if you have loaded up on oil futures, $200-a-barrel-plus oil looks cool.

And the broader financial consequences are truly fascinating:

Basically, instant global depression, bankruptcy of virtually all banks, governments, corporations and mortgage holders, all waiting to be picked up for pennies on the dollar by the crisis engineers. Talk about Disaster Capitalism. Oh God. Ecstasy. A handful of oligarchs will own the whole World.

But, says Avnery:

ISRAEL would be very much involved in the action, if only on the receiving end.

Well, sorree, but Jews have been treated as expendable before. There are no doubt those who with sufficient incentive would regard Jews as expendable now.

None of this is to say that I believe Israel will attack Iran. But when, as Avnery puts it:

Every day, via all channels, [the government of Israel] shouts that it is going, any minute now, to break the bones of Iran,

I'm not inclined to discount altogether the possibility that the Israel may, indeed, be about to attack Iran.

Israel will not attack Iran

By: Uri Avnery*

EVERYBODY KNOWS the scene from school: a small boy quarrels with a bigger boy. “Hold me back!” he shouts to his comrades, “Before I break his bones!”

Our government seems to be behaving in this way. Every day, via all channels, it shouts that it is going, any minute now, to break the bones of Iran.

Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb. We cannot allow this. So we shall bomb them to smithereens.

Binyamin Netanyahu says so in every one of his countless speeches, including his opening speech at the winter session of the Knesset. Ditto Ehud Barak. Every self-respecting commentator (has anyone ever seen a non-self-respecting one?) writes about it. The media amplify the sound and the fury.

“Haaretz” splashed its front page with pictures of the seven most important ministers (the “security septet”) showing three in favor of the attack, four against.

A GERMAN proverb says: “Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.” Same goes for wars.

Nuclear affairs are subject to very strict military censorship. Very very strict indeed.

Yet the censor seems to be smiling benignly. Let the boys, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense (the censor's ultimate boss) play their games.

Germany cannot outrun the Chinese bear. But doesn't need to

Source: I don't have to outrun the bear -- just you.

Yesterday, I compared those in the West stunned by the current financial and economic crisis to passengers on the sinking Titanic who thought it safer to stay aboard the supposedly unsinkable ship than to be set adrift in a tiny lifeboat upon the dark and icy waters of the North Atlantic.

Failing to comprehend the nature of their peril, most in the West believe it possible to continue enjoying a higher standard of living than the majority of humanity while sticking without reflection to the failing economic policies of the past.

Meantime, the West sinks into stagnation, depression and horrendous debt, while the economies of China and other developing nations expand with astounding rapidity.

Why?

Labor costs and globalization.

Wages in China are a tenth of what they are in Germany and, in manufacturing, only a twentieth (US$134 per month in China versus $2336 in Germany).

We are experiencing now, what Jimmy Goldsmith warned of when the GATT agreement, which opened the way to unrestricted global movement of goods and capital, was signed on to by the Western nations in 1994.

Speaking before the Senate of the United States, Sir James Goldsmith said:

I believe that GATT and the theories on which it is based are flawed. If it is implemented, it will impoverish and destabilize the industrialized world while at the same time cruelly ravaging the third world.

Sir James, then in the prime of life and embarked on a political crusade against globalization, died very shortly thereafter from a remarkable swift-acting form of cancer.

Today, we see the environmental carnage and ruthless exploitation of labor in the developing World that Goldsmith predicted. In China, Apple Corp.'s contract manufacturer, FoxConn, requires that employees sign an agreement not to commit suicide, several dozen having embarrassed the saintly Steve Jobs by leaping from the roof of FoxConn's highrise factory. The agreement, it appears, is being honored in the breach as workers continue exercising their right to die rather than work six or seven days a week, twelve hours a day assembling the wonderful Apple i-Pad.

And in the West, we see verification of Goldsmith's prediction in real unemployment rates of 20% or more in Britain, the US, Greece, Spain, Slovenia and other countries, and unsustainable growth in national budget deficits, as the design capacities of welfare safety nets are vastly exceeded and government revenues contract.

Meantime, the zombiefication of Western economies continues as the disaffected and the unemployed demand governments: "share the wealth" and the US Government crafts an insurance industry rip-off called "healthcare reform" to further burden the 99%.

But, some might say: Look at Germany. The economy is strong; unemployment there is falling nor rising; all that's needed is for the rest of the West to emulate the Germans.

But that is the mistake made by the guy who said "you can't outrun the bear."

Germany doesn't need to outrun the Chinese bear, they need only outrun the rest of the Eurozone nations. For Germans, this is not hard. Germany's manufacturing industries are better than those in the rest of the Eurozone, which means that they capture a disproportionate share of the Eurozone's export trade. The better Germany's trade balance, the higher the exchange rate for the Euro and the tougher it is for the rest of the Eurozone to to compete internationally. The more poorly the rest of the Eurozone does in international trade, the lower the Euro and the better Germany does in international trade.

Germany's success is contingent on the failure of Greece and the rest of the Eurozone.

The Germans are smart, they work hard, they have wonderful discipline.

The result?

They do extremely well in harness with a bunch of losers.

If the Germans revert to the Deutsche mark, they will not have it so easy, although they will still do well relative to most of the rest of the West because they are harder working, more disciplined and better organized.

While they will continue to dominate in mechanical engineering, they will thrive also by designing and snapping together cheap components outsourced to Asia and low-wage Eastern Europe. But this is a negative sum game that, by definition, not everyone can play.

See also
The Independent: [UK] Jobs market faces 'slow, painful contraction'
The Guardian: Fight for the right to work

Rafeef Ziadah 'We teach life, sir' : A poem about Palestinians and the media

Europe: The Perils of Complacency

Source: The modern typewriter

The UK urgently needs to wean itself off international finance and get back to what it did well 150 years ago, making and selling quality things and services. That will mean an attitudinal revolution in the UK ...

That's a quote from a discussion at the Slog, which prompted some reflection.

One thing the above-quoted remark brought to mind was a cartoon, in the style of the 19th Century Punch Magazine, which seemed to exemplify the thinking of many Europeans during the present moment of financial shock. It portrayed a fat man watching a cricket match on the village green and wearing a look of astonishment at the moment of being struck in the stomach by the ball.

Sadly, I was unable to find the image on the Internet, which raises the interesting though irrelevant question of whether I retain in memory more images than Google has stored on its servers. But Google did provide a link to the image of the sinking Titanic and a note by the Modern Typewriter:

On April 14th, 1912, the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg at 11:40 pm. ... the Captain ordered the lifeboats to start leaving the ship. The passengers were frightened. They thought that leaving such a safe ship into a[n] “unsafe” lifeboat wouldn’t be smart. So they refused to enter the boat[s].

The insistence of some in Europe on clinging to the past, and on assuming that what Europeans did better than the rest of the World 150 years ago they can do better than the rest of the World today with little more than an adjustment in attitude, is reminiscent of the belief of those on the Titanic who apparently thought that if they kept a stiff upper lip and refrained from panic they could stay aboard the warm, comfortable sinking ship indefinitely, without need to brave the cold ocean in a tiny lifeboat.

The question these people need to ask is how can Britons get back to making things, quality or otherwise, when competing with those in Asia and elsewhere who are earning a tenth or less of what UK workers earn?

150 years ago, Britain was the workshop of the world because she had the world’s most advanced industrial technology powered by the World's largest coal industry.

Today, energy is available everywhere and the most advanced technology is moved to wherever labor is cheapest -- and that includes not only factory labor, but much white collar labor including design, software engineering, all kinds of R & D and back office work in financial services, publishing, marketing, etc.

There appear to be only three ways Britain (or any Western nation) can revive its manufacturing sector, these being to: (1) construct a massive tariff wall that excludes cheap products from low wage economies, (2) print massive amounts of money, while keeping a tight lid on nominal wages, thereby driving real wages to the Asian level, or (3) subsidize wages to create a work force that can be employed at internationally competitive rates, i.e., by wealth transfers from the 1% to the 99%.

It seems that the inflationary route (plus mass immigration of third world labor to help drive market wages down) is the route that, without public acknowledgment, has been chosen. To be effective, it will take many years, possibly a decade or two, and it will cause much social conflict in a period during which multinational corporations that can take advantage of opportunities for wage arbitrage continue to reap huge profits by off-shoring production and services.

In the meantime, something like one quarter of the Western world's workforce continue to be treated as so much useless baggage to be kept alive in a demoralized and degraded condition on food stamps or other forms of welfare including residential programmes in prisons and mental hospitals.

Prosperity or Suicide: A tale of two climate policies

By James Corbett

climategate.tv November 7, 2011: A controversial carbon tax is set to pass the Australian Senate this week, even as the Irish government has decided it will put its own climate legislation on the back burner and a new British study finds that after two brutally harsh winters in a row, the Brits are more concerned with heating their homes than meeting their legally-binding emission reduction targets.

Are we witnessing the withering denouement of the whole global warming climate disruption fiasco? If so, it couldn’t have come at a better time; the glitterati of the Hollywood “activist” community are preparing to descend on Durban for COP17, the annual UN self-immolation-fest where carbon eugenicists and Hollywood hypocrites congregate each year to do their thing…and by “their thing” I mean flying thousands of miles in their private jets and driving the few miles from their airport in their stretch limousines to lecture the little people about having the audacity to want to take one flight a year to go on vacation (when they can afford it). Did I mention that the COP conference generates as much as 41,000 tons of carbon “equivalent,” roughly equal to the same amount of emissions produced by a city the size of Manchester in the same period?

The UN climate conference has descended into self-parodying farce and country after country is turning away from economically disastrous climate policies in the name of crackpot science claiming that humans can prevent the global thermostat from going up 2°C. Perhaps the nations of the world have finally realized that all of these numbers, the 350 ppm of carbon dioxide and the 2°C warming and the 50% emission cuts are all completely arbitrary. Or perhaps they realized that climate science increasingly relies on computer models instead of actual science. Maybe it’s because recent studies disprove the carbon dioxide/temperature link at the very heart of the scare? Or it could be that the globe has signally failed to warm over the past decade despite the biggest spikes in carbon emissions yet.

Of course, the warmists will tell you that global warming in fact predicts the bitterly cold winters and record snowfalls across the Northern hemisphere in recent years. But then, they also said that global warming predicted less snowfall. They will also tell you (in peer-reviewed literature, no less) that manmade carbon emissions are behind the speeding up of the Gulf Stream and the slowing down of the Gulf Stream, an increase in malaria and a decrease in malaria, more North Atlantic cyclones and less North Atlantic cyclones, the embiggenning of squids and the ensmallening of squids, less rain in the Sahel and more rain in the Sahel (and even less or more rain in the Sahel) and dozens of other cases in which every possible scenario leads to exactly one culprit: human civilization.

Ever since the breaking of climategate, the public at large has increasingly woken up to the agenda, one that was set out in black and white by the Club of Rome in their 1991 book The First Global Revolution:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

And now we have finally arrived at the spot where the politicians are beginning to accept the reality that their long dreamed-of carbon tax power grab is politically viable no more…except in Australia. What Australia hopes to achieve by implementing its own scheme for carbon suicide, a bizarre mish-mash of carbon tax and emissions trading that the majority of Australians are against, is not exactly clear. It has already raised the ire of one chemical company, a methanol producer that would have produced $14 billion in export earnings if it weren’t for the tax, which would cost them $1 billion. Their solution? Move to China, where there is no tax…but emission productions are four times higher.

And so as our brethren down under prepare for the dismantling of their economy in the name of the problem that never was, the otherwise free peoples of the world wish them luck. They’re going to need it. But at least the contrast will be stark and apparent between those countries that have chosen to abandon the climate craziness and those like Australia that continue to pursue this madness right down to their frosty graves.

Recognition at last -- sort of

Only a blogger with the modesty of a saint can refrain from looking, at least occasionally, at his or her usage stats.

Source

A harmless vanity it might be thought, but in reality a dangerously corrupting one. If revelations about the occult practices of the elite out-poll earnest writings about globalization and unemployment in Windsor, Ontario, the natural inclination will be to delve deeper into the mysteries of Skull and Bones or the Kabbalah and to attend a little less to the difficulties of the economically disadvantaged.

 Likewise, if the semi-naked Angelina pulls 'em in, why not follow the lead of Pornographer Poop Murdoch and turn your blog into a really profitable pictorial venture.

But before stooping to that, we rather pathetically indulged our vanity by doing a google search for the first sentence of our piece: The New American World Order: How It Works.

Astonishingly, it came up all over the place, including:

poorrichards blog, with a link back to Canspeccy -- which was very polite -- plus a couple of comments at last count, including one, it must be admitted, by ourself.

sodahead.com, with a link back, not to CanSpeccy, but to poorrichards blog!

Sheesh, when I was a publisher, we worried about copyright violation. Now I'm worrying about identity annihilation. But it was good to see that Sodahead followers had expressed 44 "opinions" as of this AM., including "rats", "locusts" and "scumbags," all views with which I fully concur.

Google Groups, Alt.politics reproduces the piece with the seemingly mandatory link back to PoorRichards blog. But their post induced this remarkable comment:

Yeah but the HIB36 differential would overcapacite the generic intrinsic value of the isomorphic face of the exothermically facilitation palate vastly recharging the meromorphic synthesis!

If we could hypothesize the external equivalent to a non-mestasynthetic principled lower ergonomically biased outstripped metaphysically dominant exterior, the pseunomically result could be achieved!!!

Think about it!!

Wow, thinking about that hurts. But metapseudonomically, it must be true that the generic intrinsic value of the isomorphic face is exothermically facilitated -- It says so in the Star Ship Enterprise operating manual for the dilithium crystal regeneration module.

Liquida also attributes our masterpiece to poorrichards blog.

It's even discussed, sort of, at WhatReallyHappened, with, now as I am compelled to expect, a link back to PoorRichards blog.

Source

But I love this. Here it is. My post translated into Russian!And with comments like, according to Google Translate:

The communism beat Chorus presence? Plen's absurd, Kadafi e beat spike pichovete media presence. In Syria Search string Horatio yes protestirat and nyakak si ce ozovavat zastrelyani, Sigourney goods for Teb pack e absurd pretext, cutting nyakvi there neka B w grmyat. Izobscho otkde nakde integer reaching tazi idea for imerializm?

LOL, or "Plen's absurd," as they say in Russian!

Oops! No it's not Russian, it's Bulgarian. The correct translation should be:

As for flat brains are once more divide the world of capitalists and communists? The facts are clear - the U.S. aggressors and will get his. As happened with the Soviet Union. As happened with Austria-Hungarian Empire. And so it goes back in history ... And to tell you, one of the biggest successes of these where they cut these global plans is that succeeded instilled in people's minds the idea of ​​"equality" in the name of which so much thunder and thunder. I think that from the moment the egg begins to divide, you become different. After all, all people are different in so many things ... Instead of trying to "oednakvim" a reasonable thing is to try to use its unique features to achieve the desired result. But Nooo, "equality for all" blah blah-blah-. Realize, people, the world needs most of all from a totally new, radical ideology, rather than chopleneto an old one, which for the past 100 years has proved to be absurd thousand times ... Enough of these democracies there, memokratsii, communism and tempodobni kretenii, they do not work. History proves it.

Well, nobody's going to disagree with that.

And ephemeral mention seems to have been made in a dozen other places.

Interesting. I'll hold off on the girly pics for now, and concentrate more on dissing the NWO.