Tuesday, July 24, 2012

My Britain is fuck all now

Emma West, who appeared in a YouTube video publicly bemoaning the takeover of her English town by immigrants, is both an annoyance and a threat to the politically correct British state.

Emma West. Image source
Dammit, the media can't even call her a racist. They have to call her the tram race rant accused, or the author of an alleged racist rant.

The trouble is, even if a court rules that Emma West's remarks were "racist", they cannot without absurdity, deny that they were true. So a court must declare either that truth trumps political correctness or that political correctness trumps truth. Either way, the admission will do significant damage the credibility of the politically correct state.

To be specific, here's exactly what Emma West said. And no, it's not polite. It's not what I would have had the nerve to say, even if I had been so inclined. And it might very well be deemed liable to cause a breach of the peace. But it's the truth.

For example:
What's this country come to? A load of Black people and a load of fucking Polish, a load of fucking East… Yeh.
So it's not just black people or Asians she's bothered about. She's objecting to the fact that Britain's towns and cities are being overwhelmed by foreigners, including white Polish Europeans. Then there's her response to the black woman who says:
If we don't come here you guys don't work. You guys don't work. We have to do the work for you.
How's that for the settler mentality? Racist too. But in any case, here's Emma West's response:
I work. This is my British country until you lot come over.
And that's her real offense. She's claiming England for the English.

Opposing the genocide of your own people is racism, according to the globalist shills who run all three major political parties in Britain.

Yeah, genocide. The term genocide was coined by the Polish Jew, Raphael Lemkin. To him, notwithstanding the Jewish Holocaust, genocide was not necessarily or even usually a business of bullets and poison gas:
More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.
And it is precisely for stating that genocide is what is happening to the English in Croydon, that the media are itching to call Emma West a Racist. And it is precisely why the state seems determined that Emma West should either plead not guilty by virtue of insanity or admit that she is a racist.

How well the state has learned the lesson spelled out in George Orwell's 1984. Love is hate, peace is war, freedom is slavery, and now thanks to the cunts ruling England since that queer sod Ted Heath kicked Cyril Osborne out of the Tory party caucus for saying England was a white country for white people, opposition to genocide is racism.

See also,

Sean Gabb: More thoughts on Emma West

Peter Hitchens: What’s that noise? They’re Building a Coffin for Liberty

Who Rules?

Andrew Gavin Marshall says it's the bankers who rule, and in particular the dynastic banking families and their network of think tanks that have:
socialised the ruling elites of each nation and the international community as a whole, into a cohesive transnational elite class. The foundations they established helped shape civil society both nationally and internationally, playing a major part in the funding – and thus coordinating and co-opting – of major social-political movements.
This is the New World Order conspiracy founded by Cecil Rhodes, his financier friends, Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, the journalist and long-time Editor of the Times, William Stead, and Alfred Milner, who played a central role in the shaping of British foreign policy in the post-WW1 era.

Carroll Quigley's account of this so-called Rhodes-Milner group, completed in 1949 although not published until 1981, leaves the reader to understand that by the onset of WW2 the project was dead. But we know that the Council on Foreign Relations, one of many public faces of Rhodes' project for global empire, remains very much alive and that the successors to the bankers such as J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller who funded Rhodes' project in its earlier days, remain as committed as ever to global governance.

Aangirfan, in Our Secret Government, offers a different perspective. The West is ruled by a US-NATO controlled secret government that uses terror and assassination to eradicate opponents and to compel public submission to an increasingly totalitarian system of control.

These two views of the world are not necessarily incompatible. A secretive plutocratic elite, employing the media it owns, the financial resources it controls, can dictate the outcome of most elections with money and propaganda. What's more, they can heavily influence the actions of most elected officials through bribes, paid in the traditional way after the candidate leaves offices. Thus, for example, Tony Blair, a key enabler of the Iraq war is the recipient of, among many interesting income streams, an annual director's fee of more than $2 million from JP Morgan.

Thus is plutocratic control concealed by a facade of democracy. But the success of the Western system of control depends entirely on its appearance of spontaneity. Unlike the Soviets who absurdly insisted on elections in which everyone voted for the government's own candidate or went to jail, Western states have elections that can still generate excitement. Many an election looks like a cliff-hanger. Thus is preserved the illusion that the little guy has his say.

But sometimes things go wrong. The Kennedy's, with the help of Richard Daly, the resourceful mayor of Chicago, managed to stuff more ballots than Nixon's team and JFK was elected. Then Kennedy seemed to think that, as President, he could make his own decisions, not just front for someone else's. He failed to back the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Then he wimped out of a head on nuclear show-down with the Ruskies over Soviet missiles in Cuba, preferring instead to make a deal with Kruschev behind the backs of Joint Chiefs.

But Kennedy was soon gone, shot from behind in the front of the head, at near impossible range with a crap WW1 Italian rifle by a patsie befriended by an associate of George H. W. Bush who committed suicide the day, in 1977, he was to be interviewed by an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Soon things were back on track. LBJ, with a wink from a friend, stepped up to the Presidency and set about sending 600,000 US troops to Vietnam.

But if LBJ was complicit in the actions of elements of a secret government, he was no fool. He was a real politician with a program of his own:
The purpose of protecting the life of our nation, and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is a test of our success as a nation. ... The challenge of the next half century is to determine whether we have the wisdom to use [our] wealth to enrich and elevate our national life and to advance the quality of our American civilization. ...The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice...
Not quite the plutocrat's dream. And what's that about the success of the American nation? Mentioned four times in two sentences. That ain't the politically correct empire we're aiming for.

Which suggests that at some point, the agents of plutocracy determined to get control of the process by which individuals are vaulted into leadership at a stage much earlier than the election campaign.

Does that explain the emergence of the PR flack as national leader? The Quisling non-entities, Tony Blair, Dubya, David Cameron: men with no real work experience; men who have risen without trace; men who pursue the war for global empire without hesitation; men who pursue the genocide of their own people through the destruction of their nation as a racial, cultural and religious entity; men so unerringly setting the world on course for an economic disaster that will precipitate massive global depopulation?

And if the whole apparatus of democratic government is now a charade, how has that be accomplished other than by means of a secret apparatus engaging in the most ruthless manipulation of events, including the resort to terrorism?

But how does a secret government, elements of which clearly exist, function in relation to the more or less legal and relatively transparent application of the money power to the drive for global governance?

The answer is that the two are coordinated via the security services of the various states. The security services are created by the state, but they are not necessarily subject to legitimate state authority. Mrs. Gandhi was murdered by her own bodyguard. President Sadat was murdered by his own military despite four layers of security and eight bodyguards. President Kennedy's murder depended on blatant treachery by his Secret Service bodyguard.

But if the state does not control the security services, who does?

In the answer to that question is the truth of who rules. But whoever the puppet-masters may be, of one thing we can be sure, the West is now subject to a tyranny no less evil, no less destructive of the people, and no less brutal than any that has preceded it.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Li(E)bor Banks: Too Big to Jail

The confidence in the system is so fragile still… a disclosure of a fraud… could result in a run, just like Lehman.

Tim Geitner, US Treasury Secretary
 When the banks rush to offer $40 billion in compensation -- more than the estimated penalty to be paid by BP for the Gulf Oil Spill, the alleged greatest environmental disaster in the history of the universe -- we can be sure they are attempting to stave off much more severe punishment.

Like what?

Well how about sixteen times more severe. There were sixteen banks involved in fixing Li(E)bor. They've already agreed to contribute to a group penalty, a clear acknowledgement of guilt. So why not have each of them contribute $40 billion to a compensation fund for those who've been ripped off, this amount not to constitute a limit on their liability.

But this penalty should not come solely at the expense of bank shareholders. In the first place, the payment should be funded by repayment of all directors and traders salaries, bonuses and incentives in excess of $1 million per year for the duration of the Li(E)bor scam.

Now some would say leaving the bastards with even a million bucks a year is too generous. But remember champagne and caviar don't come cheap, and we are not proposing to force them into literal starvation.

But in addition, there must be a reconstruction of the banking industry. The high street banking sector must be separated from the investment banking business and established on a depositor-owned basis, like the credit unions, or in Britain, the Building Societies that were acquired by geniuses such as the, former sir, Fred Goodwin of the bailed out Bank of Scotland.


As for the rest of the banking industry, I recommend exile to the Bahamas or some other cockroach infested place where they could mug one another to their hearts content.

Reducing Americans to Slavery, One terrorist Attack At a Time

Colorado Batman shooting staged? 

See that's what happens when you allow citizens to bear arms. This fella was just a normal decent guy, yet he went and killed a whole lot of innocent people.  You just can't trust decent people with weapons.

Was Batman Shooter on anti-depressants?

There you are. Now that more than a quarter of adult Americans are diagnosed as mentally ill in any year and thus dependent on very expensive, very profitable and highly toxic proprietary anti-depressants and anti-psychotic drugs, you absolutely cannot trust them with guns.

Lone Wolf Domestic Terror Rhetoric Will be Used to Ban Guns

A chilling new video has surfaced on the internet at an opportune time for the establishment to push for total gun confiscation via congress and possibly through a new UN treaty.

The fact that the video is calling for “domestic terror” attacks within the United States borders is uncanny, and almost to unbelievable. ...


Or as Adolph said:
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.

Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper.

Gun Control: The Nazi Paradigm: Steven P. Halbrook, PhD

Commented the New York Times about the interrelated rights which the Nazis destroyed wherever they went:

Military orders now forbid the French to do things which the German people have not been allowed to do since Hitler came to power. To own radio senders or to listen to foreign broadcasts, to organize public meetings and distribute pamphlets, to disseminate anti-German news in any form, to retain possession of firearms--all these things are prohibited for the subjugated people of France . . . .7
While the Nazis made good on the threat to execute persons in possession of firearms, the gun control decree was not entirely successful. Partisans launched armed attacks. But resistance was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Brassed Off: A tribute to the best men in the world

It breaks my heart to see what is happening in our country today - this terrible strike of the best men in the world, who beat the Kaiser's army and beat Hitler's army, and never gave in. Pointless, endless.

Harold MacMillan, former Conservative Prime Minister. Maiden speech, House of Lords, November 14, 1984: speaking of the 250,000 British coal miners who were eventually axed by the Thatcher government.
Tara Fitzgerald as Gloria in Brassed Off
Image source
If you didn't know that a brass band could bring tears to your eyes, try Mark Herman's movie, Brassed off (or here  Part 1 and here Part 2), before YouTube takes it down. 

The soundtrack for the film was provided by the Grimethorpe Colliery Band.

Thanks to Steve Early for the link and an account of the betrayal of the working people of Britain by the likes of Tony Blair and Ed Milliband.

Banks in Li(E)bor probe consider group settlement

Reuters reports that:
A group of banks being investigated in an interest-rate rigging scandal are [sic] looking to pursue a group settlement with regulators rather than face a Barclays-style backlash by going it alone, people familiar with the banks' thinking said.
LOL. Caught in the biggest fraud in history, what the banks are saying is:
Hey you regulator guys, here's $40 billion, now shut the fuck up.
An offer the regulators can surely not refuse, since they've been complicit in the scam from the outset, and because a serious probe of Li(E)bor could expose the conspiracy among the initiates of high finance that allows privately owned corporations to print money ad lib, thereby sequestering for themselves the value of the savings of the middle class.

In which case there could be trouble. Like this.

Which prompts me to draw attention to a revolutionary banking scheme that would see an end to:
The creation of money by private companies run by executives rewarded according to the scale of financial swindling they can get away with.

Money laundering -- as undertaken on a multi-billion-dollar scale by HSBC under CEO Lord Green, now Britain's Minister of State for Trade and Investment in both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Yes that's his official title. No wonder the Brits are in a terminal decline: mind-bending bureaucratic verbiage rules even at the highest political level.).

Virtually all forms of financial fraud, counterfeiting, tax evasion, the vending of illegal drugs,the trading in slaves, the payment of illegal political campaign contributions, payments to out of office pols like Tony Blair for services rendered, and the financing of terrorism. All would all be immediately detectable, and the culprits immediately identifiable.
What's the plan? It is the use of pure cardinal numbers, issued by a government agency. Briefly, here is how it works:
A Numero, pronounced with emphasis on the second syllable, is a unit of currency designated by a unique whole number. If you "own" the Number 1, you have a unit of currency. To own the Number 1, you must have an account with the monetary authority or a bank acting as the agent of the monetary authority, which registers your ownership of the Number 1.

Additional units of currency are created by the use of additional cardinal, or counting, numbers up to a published total based on a country's existing stock of money (or in economist speak, M2), which for the United States is currently around $10 trillion. Thus, the ownership of every single number, i.e., each distinct Numero, would be recorded, the information held in a geographically distributed, nuclear-attack hardened, and highly redundant electronic archive.
I explained in my original account of the Numero, the simple procedures for converting an existing currency to the Numero, and some of the implications of adoption of this form of money.

Comment about the Numero in a discussion on Steve Keen's blogsite, expressed enthusiasm for the ideas. Also, as one might have expected, the idea was grossly misrepresented by a person who is either confused or a dupe or a shill of the banking industry.

Here, therefore, to make a few things unequivocally clear, I will add a couple of comments on my original proposal.

The Numero can be used globally, in which case the unique number designating each unit of currency would have the prefix G, for G(lobal)Numero.

Against the GNumero, is the fact that its issuance would depend on an international body of some kind, which smacks of the project for global governance that many oppose. Moreover, it creates the adjustment problems that result from the use of gold or any other form of money that cannot be debased at the whim of political operators.

The adjustment problem is at the root of the Eurozone financial crisis. The PIIGS have priced themselves out of the common market with Germany, Netherlands, Finland, etc. The only way they can get back into the game is either to revert to their original crap currencies and debase like hell, or cut their Euro-denominated prices and incomes sharply. Instead, they hope to force the Germans to spend their brains out creating the demand that creates the jobs to employ the army of unemployed people in Greece, Spain, etc.  -- obviously a plan that will go nowhere.

In fact, the adjustment problem is not as hard to solve as most people think. As I explained here, all that's needed is a periodic adjustment of wages on a national or regional basis, according to the unemployment rate. By undertaking such wage adjustments on an across-the-board basis, the unfairness argument against taking wage cuts, should such be necessary, loses all force.

But folks hate this idea. It forces one to confront the the fact that, through the World Trade Organization, the West agreed to free trade with the Rest, including about four billion people prepared to work for pennies an hour. Instead of accepting this fact and preparing to make the necessary radical adjustments, most people in the West, it seems, would rather their government keep debasing the currency, borrowing insane amounts that can never be repaid, and as necessary, waging wars for oil.

But for those who want national currencies that can be endlessly debased, then the Numero can be implemented nationally. In that case the unique number designating each unit of currency would have a prefix UK, DE, or whatever, to indicate the nation of issue. In fact, the Numero might be implemented on a regional or even a city basis, which could make a lot of sense. Why, after all, if the Euro is not equally suitable to the Greeks and Germans, is the Pound Sterling equally suitable to Londoners and Hebridean Islanders?

The creation of national or regional Numeros would make necessary the exchange of currencies. But as all Numero transactions would be electronic, currency conversion would be an instantaneous and almost cost-free process, the rates of exchange being determined by markets with or without intervention by central banks, as at present.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Jews “own a whole freaking country” and we're not talking about Palestine

By Kevin MacDonald

Occidental Observer, July 11, 2012: Well, it turns out after all that Jews do control the media—and a whole lot besides. So says Manny Friedman, writing in the Times of Israel (Yes, Jews DO control the media).  Of course, we at TOO have known this for quite a while, but it’s nice to hear it from a Jew, even though it’s in a Jewish publication and intended to be part of a Jews-only dialog.

The thing is, it’s okay for someone like Friedman to say it (or Joel Stein, writing in the LATimes and linked by Friedman). But it’s definitely not okay for someone like me.

In fact, Friedman is typical of Jewish writers who inhabit a completely Jewish universe when they talk about anything relating to Jews. Friedman is well aware that non-Jews who talk about such issues should prepare for a wall-to-wall, no-holds barred, 24/7 campaign against them:
The funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”
Suddenly we’re up in arms. We create huge campaigns to take these people down. We do what we can to put them out of work. We publish articles. We’ve created entire organizations that exist just to tell everyone that the Jews don’t control nothin’. No, we don’t control the media, we don’t have any more sway in DC than anyone else. No, no, no, we swear: We’re just like everybody else!
Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the irony of this?
I don’t see any “funny parts” to this, and I rather doubt that “irony’ is the right word here. How about “ethnic strategizing,” as in “Does anyone else (who’s not a bigot) see the ethnic strategizing of this?”

Anti-Semitic Geography

Jews DO control the media: But only Jews and anti-Semites acknowledge the fact

The Times of Israel, July 1, 2012: We Jews are a funny breed. We love to brag about every Jewish actor. Sometimes we even pretend an actor is Jewish just because we like him enough that we think he deserves to be on our team. We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which  was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do.

But the funny part is when any anti-Semite or anti-Israel person starts to spout stuff like, “The Jews control the media!” and “The Jews control Washington!”

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

The Treason of Nicolas Sarkozy

"Métissage" - It's An Obligation! 

 

GalliaWatch, December 20, 2008: In a recent post I gave a few highlights of the speech delivered by Nicolas Sarkozy on December 17 to the students of the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau.

But I had missed the best part.

The website of Francois Desouche provides a short video from that speech, which can be viewed in its entirety (45 minutes) at several websites including Daily Motion.

The excerpt in question centers on France's obligation to become a mixed country - that troublesome word "métissé" is once again at the heart of his incredibly threatening speech. The verb "métisser" theoretically means to mix blood or to crossbreed, but at times it is used more loosely to mean mix cultures. Sarkozy uses the word, or a form of it, at least 7 times in the first few seconds of the video. Whether he is referring to the mixing of blood or merely destroying French culture by bringing in hostile aliens, it is impossible to avoid the fact that he is telling the French people, in terms that have never been so menacing, that they have to mix, or else.

What madness has the election of Obama wrought in the mind of this unFrench-man?


Here is my rendition of his words. It is far from perfect, because his grammar seems a bit off at times. Except for two places, I have retained the French word "métissage" (crossbreeding), and it's various verbal and adjectival forms, since "crossbreeding", "racial mixing" and other similar terms don't always convey the right meaning. "Crossbreeding" sounds too scientific, as when farmers crossbreed crops. "Miscegenation" is too technical and refers to marriage. "Mongrelization" and "bastardization" are too graphic. It looks as if "métissage" will join "laïcité" and "communautarisme" as French words that are so troublesome, it's better to just leave them.

However, if you have suggestions, feel free...

"(...) the objective is to meet the challenge of "métissage" - the challenge of "métissage" that the 21st century is confronting us with. The challenge of "métissage", France has always been familiar with it, and by meeting the challenge of "métissage" France remains faithful to her history. Moreover, it is consanguinity that has always provoked the end of civilizations and societies.

Note: In the above sentence we see that he IS talking about racially mixing the BLOOD of his compatriots with foreigners (and we know that the foreigners in question are not Swedes or Italians).

In the course of centuries, France has always known "métissage", France has always been "métissée".

Note: This is insanity. France has never been "métissée" in the way he is using the word. He is attempting to equate the mixing of the Franks, Latins and Celts with the mixing of white and black or of European and North African Muslim.

France has crossbred cultures, ideas and histories. France, who was able to crossbreed these cultures and these histories, constructed a universal language, because France herself is universal in the diversity of her origins.

Note: I'm not certain what he's trying to say except that out of the racially diverse mix, comes something universal. That may or may not be true, but it is not the point. Why does he want to destroy the civilization that grew and flourished over the past 2000 years, from the Roman Empire, to the Second World War? What is his complaint about French civilization, other than he doesn't like it very much?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the last thing: If republican will power does not function, it will be necessary for the Republic to resort to even more forcible methods.


Note: It is the above sentence that has Desouche's readers reaching for their guns.

But we don't have a choice. Diversity at the base of the country must be reflected by diversity at the head of the country.

Does this mean he will resign in favor of Dieudonné?

It is not a choice. It is an obligation. It is an imperative. We cannot do otherwise at the risk of finding ourselves faced with considerable problems.

We must change, so we will change.

For a man who only looks to the future, who admittedly cares nothing for the past, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be completely out of step with the needs of his people. They did not elect him to change the DNA of the country, but to improve their lot, to fight crime, to reduce immigration, and to restore a sense of national pride. Of all the betrayals France has endured, this is the unkindest cut of all. 

François Desouche has over 200 comments from readers. They range from "Let's take our families and get out of Europe" to "Send this guy to the gibbet".

I like the second suggestion.

See also:

 Council of Conservatives French president calls for preferential treatment for non-whites. Says the French have a duty to “metissage” (miscegenate).

 Brussels Journal The Engineer of Diversity

Sunday, July 15, 2012

New Labor and the Genocide of the English

By Robert Henderson

England Calling, July 13, 2012: The leader of the Labour Party Ed Milband has cynically climbed onto the bandwagon which  Labour politicians like  John Crudas, Harriett Harman and John Denham  tentatively started rolling before the last election  as they began to fret over losing the votes of the British white working class, the vast majority of whom live in England.  The bandwagon is England, the English and Englishness.  Miliband’s  boarding point was a speech in the Festival Hall on 7th June (http://www.labour.org.uk/ed-miliband-speech-defending-the-union-in-england,2012-06-07).

Miliband decided to break the habit of a generation of Labour politicians  by referring to the English in terms which did not suggest that  they were the brutish enemy of all that is right and good and dangerous to boot , viz:

“I believe we can all be proud of our country, the United Kingdom.
And of the nations that comprise it.
Second, that means England too. [RH: Damned decent of the fellow]
And those on the left have not been clear enough about this in the recent past.
We must be in the future.
We should embrace a positive, outward looking version of English identity.
Finally, we should also proudly talk the language of patriotism. “

How dramatic  a shift of opinion and language  this was can be gleaned from the  things which Labour ministers and backbenchers  were saying about the English only a few years before. Here is  Jack Straw when Home Secretary in the Blair Government:

“The English are potentially very aggressive, very violent. We have used this propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Then we used it in Europe and with our empire, so I think what you have within the UK is three small nations…who’ve been over the centuries under the cosh of the English. Those small nations have inevitably sought expression by a very explicit idea of nationhood. You have this very dominant other nation, England, 10 times bigger than the others, which is self-confident and therefore has not needed to be so explicit about its expression. I think as we move into this new century, people’s sense of Englishness will become more articulated and that’s partly because of the mirror that devolution provides us with and because we are becoming more European at the same” (BBC Radio Four’s Brits  10 January 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/596703.stm )

And here is a Labour backbencher , the German Gisela Stuart. From 2005:

Political Correctness as a Weapon of Class War

By Colin Liddell

Alternative Right, July 14, 2012: The case of footballer John Terry has once again brought the issues of racism and political correctness into the media spotlight. As these pustulent entities sit there baking in the glare, they emit a miasma of side issues and discussion points that the mainstream media dutifully spins in appropriate ways.

This time Terry got off with calling opposing player Anton Ferdinand a "fucking Black cunt." Apparently his lawyers were a lot better than those of Emma West. But he's not out of the woods yet. The Football Association, which got egg on its face when they prematurely removed him from the captaincy of the English national team, is set to reopen its own investigation into the incident, with possible sanctions and stigma beckoning for Terry.

The main reason for Terry's acquittal may have been his actual innocence. It is obvious that the man who has successfully captained the multiracial Chelsea team for several seasons can't be what most people understand to be a "racist." But since when has the thoughtcrime industry been interested in innocence?

Bank Fraud and Asymetrical Power

By Naomi Wolf

The Guardian, July 14, 2012: The media's 'bad apple' thesis no longer works. We're seeing systemic corruption in banking – and systemic collusion.

Last fall, I argued that the violent reaction to Occupy and other protests around the world had to do with the 1%ers' fear of the rank and file exposing massive fraud if they ever managed get their hands on the books. At that time, I had no evidence of this motivation beyond the fact that financial system reform and increased transparency were at the top of many protesters' list of demands.

But this week presents a sick-making trove of new data that abundantly fills in this hypothesis and confirms this picture. The notion that the entire global financial system is riddled with systemic fraud – and that key players in the gatekeeper roles, both in finance and in government, including regulatory bodies, know it and choose to quietly sustain this reality – is one that would have only recently seemed like the frenzied hypothesis of tinhat-wearers, but this week's headlines make such a conclusion, sadly, inevitable.

Friday, July 13, 2012

The global scam that may prove terminal for Barclays, Lloyds and RBS

By Ian Fraser

IanFraser.org, July 1, 2012: Executives and former executives of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, HSBC and Barclays are at risk of criminal action, including possible extradition to the United States, in the wake of evidence of their concerted attempts to rig global interest rates, according to senior legal experts.

RBS, Lloyds and HSBC are also facing even larger fines than Barclays’ £290 million fine because of their involvement in the alleged international cartel.

William K Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, told the Sunday Herald that anyone who is found to have manipulated Libor or condoned such practices at a senior level in a bank should face criminal prosecution. He suggested UK based directors and staff, such as the former RBS chief executive Fred Goodwin, could be liable for extradition to the US.
Black, a world-leading expert on financial crime said:
“The reports of systematic falsification of Libor reports, if accurate, constitute felonies under US antitrust law that should be prosecuted vigorously, as should the systematic cover up.”
The US Justice Department has confirmed its criminal division is investigating banks other than Barclays. It said:
“The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the manipulation of Libor and Euribor by other financial institutions and individuals is on-going.”
Industry sources said executives from Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS are at risk of extradition hearings, since evidence suggests that US dollar Libor was was one of the benchmarks that was manipulated. Seventy percent of the $500 trillion global swaps market is based on US dollar Libor, with American counterparties likely to have been most affected.

Move America’s economic debate out of its time warp

By Jeffrey Sachs

FT Blogs, July 12, 2012: America’s economic debate is stuck in a time warp. On the one side, Mitt Romney’s conservative advisors defend tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the poor as if we hadn’t just lived through 30 years of failed Reaganomics. On the other side, Paul Krugman defends crude Keynesianism as if we’ve learned nothing in recent years about the severe limitations of short-term fiscal stimulus. Both sides merely raise their decibel levels at each announcement of bad news, as with last Friday’s data showing the failure of the US economy to generate sufficient new jobs in June.

The two sides of the debate live in timeless and increasingly irrelevant ideologies. The prescriptions of free market economics peddled by the Republicans – slash taxes and spending, end financial and environmental regulations – are throwbacks to the 1920s, far more naïve than even modern conservatives such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who recognised the need for government intervention for the poor, the environment, health care and more. Today’s free market ideologues are uninfluenced by the lessons of recent history, such as the financial crisis of 2008 or the devastating climate shocks hitting the world with ever-greater frequency and threatening far more than the economy. Their single impulse is the libertarianism of the rich: the liberty to enjoy one’s wealth no matter what the consequences for the economy or society.

The other side is only a little better. In Paul Krugman’s telling, we are in the 1930s.  We are in a depression, even though the collapse of output and rise of unemployment in the Great Depression was incomparably larger and different in character from today’s economic stagnation.  Krugman channels Keynes, yet Keynes lived in a very different era.

In Krugman’s simplified Keynesian worldview, there are no structural challenges, only shortfalls in aggregate demand. There is no public debt problem. There is no global competitiveness challenge, since “competitiveness” is a myth when applied to national economies. Fiscal multipliers are predictable, timeless, persistent, and large. All growth reversals can be solved through larger deficits. Politicians can be trusted to design short-term stimulus spending programmes of hundreds of billions of dollars. Tax cuts are about as good as increases in government spending, and short-term boosts in spending are about as good as long-term public investments.  Not one of these conclusions stands scrutiny.

Why have we come to this vacuous debate between a free-market extremism and a Keynesian superficiality that addresses none of the subtleties, trade-offs, and uncertainties of the real situation? There are probably two main reasons. First, the world is noisy and overloaded with media messaging. Getting heard seems to require a short, sharp and exaggerated idea endlessly repeated: economics as a media brand. Second, the world is facing novel problems at the global level, and novelty is hard to factor into economics, which is a rigid, ideological, theoretically based, and largely backward-looking field.

Here are some of the new problems of macroeconomic significance.
First, the financial markets are global while regulation is at best national (and sometimes almost non-existent or criminal). This is killing the euro, but it is also undermining financial regulation and monetary policy everywhere. The US and UK are far more interested in defending Wall Street and the City than in fixing the global regulatory landscape. Germany has been much more interested in coddling its errant banks than in fixing the eurozone banking system.
Second, the world of work is being fundamentally transformed. Low-skilled work is the work of offshore workers, or immigrants, or machines.  In high-income countries, the only route to middle class jobs is through education, skills and active labour market policies that match jobs and needs. Germany and other countries of northern Europe have generally succeeded in creating these institutions.  The US and southern Europe have generally failed.  Keynesian aggregate demand cannot create long-term employment for the low-skilled workers left to sink or swim in today’s globalised labour market.  Only temporary bubbles (such as the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s or the housing bubble of the 2000s) briefly employ the low-skilled, but soon they unemployed again when the bubbles burst.

Third, tax collections today are little more than a Swiss cheese of tax evasion and tax havens for the rich and corporations. VAT and payroll taxes can still be collected while capital income of all kinds increasingly escapes taxation. These trends greatly exacerbate the market forces pulling to increase inequality of wealth and income.

Read more

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The Zombification of the West

By BRET STEPHENS The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2012: When is an economic crisis more than just an economic crisis? When is it also a political crisis? And when is it something else altogether: social, demographic, institutional, moral, intellectual—in short, civilizational?

The euro zone's troubles shouldn't be difficult to understand: Pair overspending governments with over-regulated economies and sooner or later the Continent was bound to lose the confidence of the markets.

Normally, such a crisis could be resolved by slashing corporate and marginal tax rates and red tape in order to encourage investment, enterprise and risk-taking. Instead, European policy makers have pursued every conceivable fix, from serial bailouts to a banking union, in order to circumvent having to address the core problems. As a result, the crisis continues to worsen: In Spain, for instance, bank-deposit flight has only gathered pace since last month's $125 billion bank bailout. ...

Read More

How Quisling Leaders Surrender National Independence to Global Corporate Control



See also: The Facist New World Order

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Why Mish is wrong about tariffs

Mish reports that,
Mitt Romney has pledged to designate China a "currency manipulator" and impose duties on its imports if the yuan isn't allowed to float freely.
If Romney increases tariffs, says Mish
three things will happen, all of them bad:
  1. Prices will rise
  2. Growth will slow
  3. China will retaliate with tariffs of its own or by buying more goods from Europe instead of  goods from US produces 
In essence everyone will pay higher prices for goods and services in hopes of bring back a few hundred manufacturing jobs (while losing tens-of-thousands of jobs in the ensuing economic slowdown).
On Point 1, Mish is correct. Prices would rise. But is that bad if it means your neighbor returns to work?

On Point 2, Mish is clearly wrong. If Americans resume manufacturing shoes and shirts, computers and car parts for one another, the net effect would be increased consumer spending, not only nominally, due to higher prices, but also in real terms, as millions of the presently unemployed once again receive a pay check.

On Point 3, Mish fails to explain where China will buy oilseed, pulp and paper, copper and other commodities it presently buys from the US, or why it would matter if China did buy elsewhere since all are fungible commodities that the US can sell to those who would otherwise have bought what China buys from sources other than the US.

As for the rest of China's US purchases, they're pretty much a drop in the bucket.

What's more, it's difficult to see China deliberately hurting the US when the terms of China's trade with the US are currently so overwhelmingly in China's favor. But if Chinese tariffs were to hurt US exports significantly, they would tend to drive down the value of the dollar, making the US more competitive internationally, precisely Romney's objective.

Mish's final point, that tariffs would "bring back a few hundred manufacturing jobs," is highly misleading. Tariffs that truly protected American industry would bring back literally millions of jobs, many of them well paid.

So, yes, with tariff protection, Americans would end up paying more to buy from one another instead of buying wherever in the World they can get the lowest price. But which do Americans want:

to trash their neighbor's job to save a few bucks on a shirt, a pair of pants, or to save a thousand or two on the price of a car?

Or is America a nation where people actually give a damn about one another?

Even balanced trade between the West and Rest threatens your job

Earlier I explained how the US/EU's half-trillion-dollar-a-year trade deficit with China has destroyed millions, and probably not less than several tens of millions, of jobs in the West.

But even if trade were balanced, the West suffers job losses as a result of trade with Third World nations where many factory workers still still earn no more than a dollar or two a day.

How so?

Because whereas importing a pair of jeans with a price at the factory gate in China of less than five dollars displaces several hours of a US garment worker's labor, the countervailing export of five dollars worth of Hollywood movies or Canadian oil or gas generates no more than a minute or two of North American employment.

The reason for that lies in the ten- to twenty-fold difference in wages that still exists between the West and the Rest, a circumstance that David Ricardo, author of the principle of comparative advantage, did not envisage when considering trade in wine and cloth between England and Portugal.

True, if David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage were applicable, which it isn't, then US garment workers displaced when China took half the US textile and garment market between 2001 and 2012 might find employment as Hollywood actors, camera operatives or make-up artists.

But of course they won't, anymore than significant numbers of the Detroit machinists who lost their jobs as China and other Third World nations took most of the North American car parts industry will become computer programmers or IT workers. For one thing, most software and IT jobs have already gone to India, China and other countries where brains as good as those available in North America can be hired for less than one tenth the price.

For most of those driven out of the labor market by cheap Chinese textiles, electronics, computers and car parts, that's it: they'll never get a job comparable to the one they lost and many will not get a job at all.

So much for the benefits of global free trade via the miracle of comparative advantage so often touted by liberal economists with Nobel prizes.

How globalization destroys Western prosperity

Liberal economists committed to the cause of globalization reassure those concerned about cheap Third World imports destroying jobs in the West with some vague reference to David Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage, which so they imply, proves that unrestricted international trade is always beneficial to all parties.

Thus Joseph Stiglitz, in his latest pot-boiler, makes a hand-waving reference to "China's comparative advantage," while Jeff Rubin assures his readers that concerning the invariable benefit of free trade, Ricardo "nailed it."

But what the shills for globalization fail to mention is that comparative advantage, as Ricardo defined it, presupposes immobility of capital, a condition that certainly does not apply in a globalized economy, where international corporations readily move capital and technology from high- to low-wage countries, thus robbing the latter of the benefit of the capital and technical expertise accumulated through the sweat and toil of generations.

But in any case, the principle of comparative advantage can only apply where there is two-way trade. But today, in its trade with the Third World, the West imports massively greater quantities of goods than it exports, the resultant deficits being covered by loans.

For example, in 2011, the US imported from China, alone, goods valued at $399 billion while selling to China goods valued at only $104 billion (Source), the difference being largely covered by Bank of China investment in pieces of paper, aka US Treasury bills.

The 27 nations of the EU are also buying their brain out in China, running up a trade deficit of around $200 billion a year (!56 billion Euros in 2010, Source).

No wonder Vladimir Putin has announced the decline of the West.

US GDP per capita is $48,000 per year. Applying that figure to the EU also, the half-trillion-dollar annual US/EU trade deficit with China represents the loss of over six million jobs, assuming that the imported goods could be produced at home for the same price that they are sold for in China.

But firms such as Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Apple, Walmart go to the trouble of outsourcing to China, Brazil, Indonesia and Bangladesh only because it greatly lowers their cost.

How much it lowers their costs overall is hard to estimate. But according to the Wall Street Journal, a pair of American-made jeans that retail for $300 would retail for only $40 if made in China.

So the Western trade deficit with the the Third World displaces a disproportionate amount of local output. And whether the overall displacement ratio is two, three, six or eight, it is certain that cheap imports from the China and the rest of the Third World explain why, despite mass legal and illegal immigration plus natural population increase, the US has seen no gains in employment throughout the entire Obama presidency.

Likewise, the trade deficit with the Third World must explain much of the economic stress in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as the resumption of recession in Britain, a nation once the Workshop of the World, but now able to export little other than financial derivatives, marmalade and biscuits.

Friday, June 29, 2012

The Cause and Cure of the Second Great Depression

Image source
The Second Great Depression, which afflicts the West while the Rest booms, is the direct result of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) now administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Gatt agreement opened the Western economies to free trade with four billion Third Worlders working for pennies an hour.

The immediate impact was slight. It takes a while to mobilized tens and hundreds of millions of the children of peasant farmers to work in the sweatshops, factories and plantations of of BanglaDesh, Indonesia, China and Africa. And as the process got underway, the US tech sector boomed, the stock market zoomed, banking was deregulated, the profits of finance exploded, and Bill Clinton was easily reelected US President in 1996.

But by 2000, the steam was going out of US high-tech. Software developers were learning how to exploit cheap Asian brain-power and Chinese universities were turning out more engineers and programmers than all the universities in the West combined. Tens and then hundreds of thousands of IT jobs moved to India, along with MicroSoft's call center. In the Philippines, University accounting courses taught American accounting rules to students preparing to do off-shored back-office work for US financial and accounting firms.

The result? Al Gore lost the US Presidential election to "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush.

In response to the tech-sector bust, The Greenspan Fed slashed interest rates and set off a real estate boom. Construction is labor intensive, and it stimulates local industries: lumber, cement and steel, so that by 2004 the US economy was good enough to get "humble foreign policy" George W. Bush reelected, notwithstanding that he had launched the US on the NeoCon war for global hegemony. In fact, the war for global hegemony was one reason the US economy was as good as it was in 2004. Spending on weapons and pre-emptive war in Iraq was a key factor preventing the US from falling into recession despite the massive bleeding of manufacturing, design, engineering and research jobs overseas.

Within a year of Bush's reelection, the Greenspan Fed pricked the property bubble with 17 consecutive interest rate increases. The housing crash and the consequent financial crisis ended the Republican hold on the White House.

But nothing much went right for Democrat President Obama. GM and Chrysler went broke. Most of the banks went broke. Dell computer gave up snapping Asian-sourced components together in Texas, instead bringing fully assembled boxes from China. Brutal violence continued in Iraq. The struggle to subdue Afghanistan seemed endless. And today, as the presidential election approaches, US Unemployment remains over 9% according to the headline rate, or 16% according the the U6 definition, and even higher if you take account of those who just gave up looking for work. And an unprecedented number of Americans are on food stamps or some other form of welfare.

Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, has done what he could within the limits of the clearly inadequate advice he received.  With the aid of "we have a technology called the printing press" Ben at the Fed, he's printed trillions of dollars, he's expanded the wars to Libya, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan. But the dark shadow of depression still falls across the land: meaning that Republican Romney's up next.

What will President Romney do? Pursue the wars, surely, and, as a buyout specialist, restructure the US economy. But can a Romney administration revive the US economy where the Obama administration failed? Sure, although whether it will do so is another matter.

What to do?

The terms recession and depression are ill-defined, but it is impossible to end either a persistent recession or a great depression without ending mass unemployment. So to end America's economic malaise, the US must instigate policies that lead to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs within four years. These jobs will be mainly for the low-skilled factory operatives and construction workers who've lost their jobs to off-shoring and outsourcing or to the housing bust.

How to do it according to the pundits?

In the public realm, only two approaches are commonly promoted: those of the Keynesian and of the Austrian Economics school.

The Keynesian solution:
According to the Keynesians, more spending is all that is required. Since the private sector won't spend enough, the government must spend more. This Obama has done. The Obama administration has run a budget deficit of more than $5 trillion over four years, yet US unemployment is higher now than when Obama was elected.

To the Keynesians, the failure of the Obama administration to end the depression has been due to the failure to run large enough deficits. Maybe if the deficit had run at 16% of GDP instead of only 8%, or perhaps 24%, then all would have been well.

But there are two problems with this:

First, the debts created by the deficit have to be repaid.

Second, little if any of the deficit spending does anything to increase national output of useful goods and services that generate income that will ease the eventual repayment of debt. Mostly, the money's gone on such things as the wars, Homeland Security and its blue-gloved goons feeling up airline passengers thus destroying a huge chunk of the US tourism industry, and shoving politically correct propaganda down kids' throats in the name of education.

 The Austrian dream:
The Austrians are too nutty to take very seriously, but their dream is to return to a gold-based currency, end the money-printing Fed, without which they believe, incorrectly, that government deficit spending would be impossible, and let all those who borrowed too much go broke. Then the Austrian school fanatics, with their hoards of "physical gold," will be able to buy up prime down-town real estate, the stock market, whatever, for pennies on the dollar.

Oh, and then the economy will recover -- somehow.

What would actually work

You cannot, as the Keynesians believe, pay wages for unproductive work with printed money indefinitely. Debts increase but real income to support the debt does not, so prosperity is ultimately destroyed. And you cannot, as the Austrians believe, revive the economy by sending much of it into bankruptcy.

Which means finding ways of employing idle resources, both human and physical, in ways that generate a positive net return.

Which means promoting new, productive investment at home, not abroad.

What are the greatest restraints in the West to investment at home? There are three:

First, is the corporation tax, which should be abolished. Corporate income should be taxed only once, and that should be when received in the hands of shareholders as dividend payments.

Second, is the minimum wage, which denies employment to those whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage, i.e., most of America's black youth, half of the youth workers in Spain, etc.

Third, is the freedom to import goods and services produced under conditions, or in ways, that contravene Western standards on environmental protection and workplace health and safety.

Putting the solution into place

Eliminating the corporation tax:
Eliminating the corporation tax is easy. Just do it. The immediate result will be a reduction in government revenue and an increase in the government deficit, but in time there will be a compensating increase in income and sales tax revenue from the resultant increase in investment and the consequent expansion of the economy.

Eliminating the minimum wage:
Eliminating the minimum wage is a little more complicated. The solution, as I have discussed elsewhere is a wage subsidy scheme that, in effect, eliminates the minimum wage so far as employers are concerned, but not for employees, who will therefore receive a living wage.

Such a scheme will make redundant most welfare programs and the bureaucratic empires that administer them, resulting in a massive saving in government spending. Among other savings will be huge reductions in the cost of crime and mental illness to which mass unemployment gives rise.

Most importantly, though, this scheme creates a huge addition to the labor force in the West that is competitive in cost with the labor force of the Third World. This new resource will result in a wave of business start-ups, both large and small. Once again Western firms will be able to make shoes and shirts, computers and car parts in competition with overseas producers. At the same time, those formerly unemployed will gain workplace skills that increase the market value of their labor, and thus their future income. 

Creating a level international playing field:
Eliminating the regulatory disadvantage of home industry will require a blunt instrument. Each nation or trade zone must calculate the cost to its own industry of unfair competition due to overseas workplace and environmental regulation and then impose an across the board tariff to compensate. Such a measure will do a great favor to workers in the Third World, where governments will be forced to adopt Western standards of environmental protection and workers' rights.

With these three measures, Western prosperity will be rapidly restored, and the need for the ultimate Keynesian economic stimulus, World War III, will be eliminated. Unfortunately, the leadership of US/NATO seems unanimous in support for the NeoCon war for global hegemony. So whether the Second Great Depression is ended in one way or another, we'll likely all end either broke, due to endless "stimulative" and totally unproductive war spending,  or dead.

Related:

Rolling Stone Magazine: The Sharp, Sudden Decline of America's Middle Class


Thursday, June 28, 2012

When Pop Sci Turns Toxic

The best of popular science provides the non-specialist with both a sense of delight that comes with discovery, and a feeling of awe at the ability of the human mind to extract, often by means of only a few simple logical steps, some fact totally new and astoninshing about the world in which we live.

Not surprisingly, the most able popularizers of science have often been among the most able scientists. And among the great scientists of the 20th Century, Richard Feynman, whether explaining the space shuttle Challenger disaster, or why it is not the flanges on the wheels that keeps a rail locomotive on the tracks,  was among the most effective popular exponents of science.

But Richard Feynman had little time for social science.
Because of the success of science, there [has emerged] a kind of pseudo-science. 
Social science is an example of a science that is not a science. They follow the forms. [They] gather data, but the don't get any laws. The haven't found any yet. Maybe someday they will.  They are not scientific. They sit at a typewriter and they make up something. Maybe true, maybe not true, but it has not been demonstrated.

I might be quite wrong. Maybe they do know all these things. [But I have] found out how hard it is to really know something: how careful you have to be about checking the experiments; how easy it is to make mistakes. 

I see how they get their information and I can't believe they know it: they haven't done the work necessary; they haven't done the checks necessary; they haven't taken the care necessary.

I have a great suspicion that they are intimidating people.
Yesterday, I wrote about CalTech Prof. Leonard Mlodinow's book Subliminal, How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior where the author presented what I believe to be narrow, and most probably false, interpretations of the results of various studies in psychology.

But were these examples of what Feynman called "intimidation?"

Well, consider Mlodinow's claim that the tendency to exaggerate one's own popularity, looks, intelligence, etc., is due to a kind of delusional thinking that can be "a problem." Perhaps this idea is, itself, "a problem," a kind of intimidation, in fact. After all, the only people who don't over assess their own merits are those classified as mentally ill and suffering from clinical depression.

Perhaps we know our limitations only too well, but put a gloss on things to keep our spirits up and maintain appearances, an interpretation that suggests a whole different idea about the underlying cause of clinical depression.

And here are three other ideas advanced by Mlodinow on the basis of "studies show" etc., that look very much like pseudoscience applied to the task of politically correct intimidation.

Mlodinow describes a test employed to investigate the way people associate words and ideas. It would be both tedious and pointless to describe the exact method, which so far as one can tell, is just a clever word/idea association test.

Among the things these tests reveal is that people tend to associate men with the sciences, women with the arts.That most people associate men with science is hardly surprising. Only six women have won the Nobel Prize for physics versus several hundred men.The association of women with the arts is more surprising. What proportion, after all, of the great artists and sculptors, poets and playwrights were women?

But no matter, to Mlodinow, these associations are evidence of "gender bias," or "gender stereotyping." And in the same way, Mlodinow finds widespread evidence of "pro-white" and "anti-black:" sentiment among Americans, of whom many, Mlodinow tells us "are (consciously) appalled at learning that they hold such attitudes."

But wait a minute, if I associate, say, the word "black" with "crime," where's the evidence that I am "anti-black?" What's the proof that an association of words is "an attitude?"

I will resist the temptation to resort to a bloggish expostulation concerning the mental capacity of Caltech professors, for such is the author of this astounding non sequitur. But his view is, surely, a clear case of what Feynman would today have called sitting at a computer keyboard and making something up, which may be true, may be not true, has not been demonstrated, but seems intended to intimidate.

Consider this: give me the name Garbo and I will give you the name Greta.Does that mean anything? Only that in the media environment in which I have been immersed for last 50 years and more the name Garbo has usually if not invariably been associated with the name Greta. Other than that my association of the names almost certainly means nothing.

Likewise, if you give me the word "black" I might very well, among a number of alternatives, give you the word "crime." Does that mean I think (a) all black people are criminals, or (b) that blacks account for a disproportionate percentage of the US prison population, or (c) that I consider black people are an inherently inferior race to my own race of green people with pink stripes. Obviously, to (a) no, to (b) so I understand, and to (c) I don't think of race in such dimwitted terms.

In other words, I have no need to accept Mlodinow's offensive, and indeed intimidating, imputation that I am guilty of racial bias and stereotyping merely because I associate certain words or concepts in ways that reflect the use of those terms in the cultural atmosphere I breathe.

In a final chapter, which is very much an exercise in sitting at a keyboard and making stuff up, Mlodinow, gives us the psycho. insight into the scientific method. Scientists, he tells us, engage in "motivated reasoning." What that means is they adopt hypotheses and then focus on supporting evidence while dismissing evidence to the contrary. Wow, who'd have thought it?

But then Mlodinow puts his personal toxic spin on the phenomenon. Motivated reasoning, Mlodinow tells us, "helps us believe in our own goodness and competence, to feel in control, and to generally see ourselves in an overly positive light."

Oh yeah! But what's that got to do with science?

What happens in science is that the creative individual, a Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, formulates a hypothesis and then look for evidence in its support. He works like a mine prospector who, having staked a claim, will likely work the claim until it yields gold or leaves him broke. With hindsight, it might have been better to have staked a claim over there rather than here, but having invested so much here, it makes no sense to work some other claim until the potential of this claim has has been fully evaluated.

And if scientists didn't work that way, nothing much new would ever be discovered. Only the consensus view would be considered, and as a consensus view, it would never be seriously tested. It's only because of the cranks out there, who insist on working out the implications of the theory of the constant velocity of light, or the possibility of time reversal, or some other crazy thing, that science advances.

But to Mlodinow, the cranks are just that. People with warped judgment, inadequate people who have to engage in warped thinking to feel good about themselves. They are, so Mlodinow would have one believe, people who cannot see that the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe long ago made fools of the steady staters, people like Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century.

Thus, Mlodinow writes:
... to any disinterested party, the evidence landed squarely in support of the big bang theory, especially after 1964, when the afterglow of the big ban was serendipitously detected ... What did the steady state researchers proclaim? ...Thirty years later another leading steady state theorist, by then old and silver-haired, still believed in a modified version of his theory.

But then this just in:

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

November 23, 2010 by Lisa Zyga weblog
Pre Big Bang CirclesEnlarge


(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before. 

Huh! Before the big bang?

Big bang doesn't allow that. And Sir Roger Penrose of the Oxford Mathematical Institute may be a silver-haired, but he's no fool.

 In fact it is Mlodinow who seems the very perfect example of a scientist engaged in "motivated reasoning." Thus, on climate change he writes of
...a thousand unanimous scientific studies [that] can converge on a single conclusion, and people will still find a reason to disbelieve."
But if those thousand "unanimous papers" are contradicted by a single valid study, they must be called in question by any rational person.

But not by Mlodinow. If you don't believe we're all doomed unless we slash the World's GDP by 90% or whatever it is that the scientific consensus led by non-scientist Al Gore and the UN Panel on Climate change insist, then you're not rational and "studies show it."

The cover of Mlodinow's book is printed with a transparent film overlay with multiple instances of the word "Buy," the purpose being, presumably, to motivate book browsers to buy the book on an irrational subliminal impulse. I suggest anyone interested in not wasting their money, resist the impulse.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Is Pop Psychology Mostly Bunk?

CanSpeccy: June 27, 2012. Most books stores have dozens of books about psychology. But do they tell us anything useful?

Some surely must, but reading Leonard Mlodinow's latest contribution: Subliminal, How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior, I begin to wonder about the pop psych genera.

Mlodinow, for example, discusses our apparent inability to assess ourselves realistically. Ninety-four percent of college professors, Mlodinow reports, say they do "above average work," while 25% of US high school seniors rated themselves among the top 1% in ability to get along with others. "Ironically," he says, "people tend to recognize that inflated self-assessment and overconfidence can be a problem -- but only in others."

But is this so-call "above average effect" due to faulty self-assessment, which is to say self-deception, or to the fact that most of us, reasonably enough, try to do good PR for ourselves?

When devious stock market manipulator Joseph Patrick Kennedy, father of President John F. Kennedy, was about to sail from New York to take up his appointment as US Ambassador to Britain -- or rather to the Court of St. James, to use the correct British terminology -- he was asked by a reporter: "Are you really qualified for the job?" To which Kennedy replied: "If Marlene Dietrich asked you to go to bed with her, would you say you weren't very good at it?"

Which reminds me of the time I published a scholarly journal. When I launched it, one editor, a Fellow of the Royal Society, remarked, "you realize there aren't any good people in this field," which was no great exaggeration. But for 23 years I never spoke a negative word about that journal or its "distinguished" contributors, except possibly in my sleep, and in due course it came to be rated on the basis of citations analysis as the most "prestigious" journal in a field that included almost 100 international titles. So was I self-deceived for 23 years about that journal and its contributors, or simply doing what a publisher has to do, which is to promote his authors?

But what particularly roused my skepticism about pop psychology, and indeed about much of psychology in general, was Mlodinow's account of an experiment by Stanley Schachter and associates in which an attempt was made to solve the riddle of the relationship between emotion and its physiological and behavioral accompaniments. More specifically, do we run from a charging bull because we are afraid or are we afraid because we run away?

This is a question that particularly interests me, having published in a most august journal the claim that both views are incorrect, since as I maintain, emotion and its bodily correlates are related to one another in a feedback loop as both cause and effect (But don't buy the Science Magazine "content": it's only three paragraphs long, and the first paragraph is a joke.)

In outline, what Schachter and co. did was to measure the behavioral response (making a phone call) of test subjects (all males) to a stimulus (attractive young woman) under normal (at ground level) or anxiety provoking (on a high swaying bridge) conditions. What they found was that being on a high swaying bridge at the time of stimulus presentation increased the likelihood of the subject making the call. The conclusion drawn by the authors from the study was that prior emotional and physiological arousal (i.e., due to being on a high swaying bridge) increased the emotional interest of the male subjects in the female object of arousal.

Apart from the rather weak statistical support for this conclusion, there is no indication in Shachter's own account of the experiment that any attempt was made to control for the effect of physiological and emotional arousal of the female "stimulus" from the effect of being on a high, swaying bridge. Yet adding a little color to the cheeks surely adds to a girl's appeal. Moreover, there is no evidence that any effort was made to insure that the experimental result was unaffected by the expectations of the experimenters and their accomplice. Yet it is one of the most well established assumptions in psychology that expectations influence outcomes.

So I reject William James' ingenious notion that we run away not because we are afraid, but that we are afraid because we run away. Rather I maintain that fear evokes the "flight or fight" response, the increase in heart rate, blood sugar, blood flow to the brain, etc., and that that response then damps the emotion, so that we are not petrified with fear, but utterly focused and fully primed emotionally as well as physically for fight of flight. That is why Charles Darwin observed in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, that the arousal of anger can make one feel good:
A physician once remarked to me as a proof of the exciting nature of anger, that a man when excessively jaded will sometimes invent imaginary offences and put himself into a passion, unconsciously for the sake of reinvigorating himself; and since hearing this remark, I have occasionally recognized its full truth.
But the effect, I maintain, is not experienced until the emotion has evoked a physiological response that exerts a feedback effect on the central nervous quelling the initial emotional response, while empowering appropriate action in response to the arousing stimulus. That, pretty clearly, was Dawin's view, also, for he said:
Anger and joy... [lead] to energetic movements, which react on the heart and this again on the brain.
And, talking of Marlene Dietrich, she could act: Shanghai Express 

Continued as: When Pop Sci Turns Toxic

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Havoc in the Eurozone: Was that the whole point?

Greg Pallast, writing in the Guardian says:
The idea that the euro has "failed" is dangerously naive. The euro is doing exactly what its progenitor – and the wealthy 1%-ers who adopted it – predicted and planned for it to do.
Specifically, he says it was the intention of the Canadian Nobel-prize-winning economist, Robert Mundel, who urged the creation of the Eurozone, to hobble European governments by denying them the freedom to print money thereby devaluing their currencies to cover the cost of welfare programs and union-exacted pay raises by means of the inflation tax.

If so, the thing seems to have misfired. Instead of restraining government spending it has led to government spending financed by debts that cannot be repaid, which in turn threaten the stability of the entire financial system.

But a final judgment must depend on the end game. If the Eurozone breaks up, it will have proved a costly and destructive failure. If, instead, those seeking to exploit the crisis as a trigger to force full European integration and the formation of a common tax system and treasury, the result will also be a failure as a means to straight-jacket European governments, since the pan-European government thus formed will have the same freedom to print money as had its predecessor nations.

Thus, the only possibility of success, from what Pallast claims to be Mundel's point of view, is if the Eurozone can be stabilized and the indebted countries forced to cut wages and government services and pay back the gigantic debt load they have accumulated.

So, whichever way you look at it, the Eurozone, appears to have been a bad deal for nearly everyone in Europe, with the exception of Germany and one or two other North European states, which have benefited in trade from the weakness of the Euro resulting from the lack of competitiveness of most of their Eurozone partners.

Monday, June 25, 2012

How the West Is Winning Battles and Losing the War With Islam

As Europe is overrun by migrants from the Third World, it is increasingly clear that the West is an empire in rapid disintegration, and that the racial, cultural and religious identities of its constituent peoples will soon to be almost wholly obliterated.

The point is made nicely in a piece by Colin Liddell on the stupidity of liberals.
the idea that the Muslims are backward and need to catch up with us is clearly wrong. Indeed, it is entirely the other way round. In terms of demographic effectiveness, the Muslims are streets ahead of us, as are Non-Islamic Africans, Hispanics, and Indians. This might be one tiny little point lost in the great big bundle of Western technological, cultural, and consumerist superiority, but come back in a hundred years and see the difference it makes.
In response to which there is the comment:
 Nature endowed us with sex for a purpose: to replicate ourselves. We have an education system, a media and an entertainment industry dedicated to disguising this basic [fact]. Perhaps we should stop listening to the hostile elite that controls those institutions and return to our traditional value system that developed the West, Christianity, and start listening to the Pope and his Protestant counterparts in these matters. They are at the very least promoters of policies that will energize us in the race war being waged against us. 
Precisely. Why is so hard for liberals and leftists like Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens and their vast army of admirers to understand that simple biological reality. Or are they all self-hating racists intent on the genocide of their own people?

On the whole, the latter seems quite possible. Certainly during the interwar years, there was a vogue for genocide among the leftist elite in Europe, as exemplified by the appeal of Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw to the chemists "to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel," for use in the disposal of the unemployed and other useless eaters.

Since then, Hitler's use of gas chambers has given the wholesale liquidation of supposed undesirables a bad name, so genocide has to be conducted by other means. Social manipulation and brainwashing now provide a slow but sure means to destroy the nation states of Europe, and replace them by a mongrelized population of Third Worlders and demoralized remnants of the original ancient peoples.

UK Government proposes law to cover up Iraq war crimes


UK soldiers 'beat innocent Iraqi men in black ops jails but new secret justice law means their torture will be hidden forever.'

The Mail on Sunday can today reveal devastating new claims of abuse by British soldiers carried out at a secret network of illegal prisons in the Iraqi desert.

One innocent civilian victim is said to have died after being assaulted aboard an RAF helicopter, while others were hooded, stripped and beaten at a camp set up at a remote phosphate mine deep in the desert.

The whereabouts of a separate group of 64 Iraqi men who were spirited away on two RAF Chinooks to a ‘black site’ prison, located at an oil pipeline pumping station, remain unknown.

Read more

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, American Satrap

By Aangirfan

USA TAKES OVER EGYPT



Morsi, who worked at NASA on the development of space shuttle engines. Only American citizens can work at NASA. Morsi's children are American citizens. (The US /Egyptian Chronicles!)

The USA has got its candidate into power in Egypt.

Mohamed Morsi, 62, a US-trained engineer, has been declared president of Egypt ...

Read More