A project such as Wikileaks could provide a most effective mechanism for both diverting the alternative media with misleading or fabricated information, and identifying for termination genuine leaks damaging to US/NATO's imperialist agenda and the anti-social or criminal activities of multinational corporations.
That Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a recipient of the Sam Adams Award "for integrity in intelligence," which is given annually by a group of retired CIA officers, appears to confirm the hypothesis that Wikileaks is an intel operation.
That Wikileaks claims to have as its primary interest, oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in no way detracts from the notion that it is an intel or propaganda operation serving the the aims of Western hegemony.
That Wikileaks has collaborated extensively with the mainstream media in the selection and redaction of material to be leaked supports the same conclusion.
In this excellent analysis of Wikileaks and the parties with which it has collaborated, Professor Michel Chossudovksy spells out exactly why Wikileaks has the essential features of a mechanism for the manufacture of controlled dissent.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Human Biodiversity: Liberals Rediscover IQ
By Dennis Mangan
Whenever the subject of intelligence testing comes up, especially in the context of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence, or disparate outcomes in education, liberals can always be counted upon for their skepticism towards the entire subject of IQ testing. They will usually claim that the tests are either biased or don't measure anything real - as in "IQ measures the ability to take an IQ test". This is of course ironic, since individual differences in intelligence as measured by IQ testing is the most established and robust finding of modern psychometrics, and liberals constantly proclaim their devotion to science, only inbred conservatives being opposed to scientific findings.
But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Whenever the subject of intelligence testing comes up, especially in the context of racial and ethnic differences in intelligence, or disparate outcomes in education, liberals can always be counted upon for their skepticism towards the entire subject of IQ testing. They will usually claim that the tests are either biased or don't measure anything real - as in "IQ measures the ability to take an IQ test". This is of course ironic, since individual differences in intelligence as measured by IQ testing is the most established and robust finding of modern psychometrics, and liberals constantly proclaim their devotion to science, only inbred conservatives being opposed to scientific findings.
But liberals become IQ believers when something like this happens: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
Some of the quotes from the article show how a study like this operates. For instance:
Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority."I guess smart liberals believe that a mother working outside the home full-time couldn't possibly have any downside for family life, and that their indoctrination of schoolkids in things like environmentalism, global warming, and the essential evilness of America's past don't constitute teaching children to obey their authority.
The essential point to make here is that the average Democratic Party member is very likely not as intelligent as the average Republican, since the Democratic Party contains more minorities, who on average score lower on IQ tests than whites. But once you point out something like that, liberals go into IQ denial.
Friday, February 10, 2012
How Iran Threatens the United States of Aggression
 |
| Each star marks the location of a US military base. Image Source: Juan Cole |
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nulius in verba: On the word of no one
Or how the Royal Society betrayed its original purpose to become another quasi governmental organization spewing the scientifically correct official line
By Andrew Montford
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.
The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.
The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.
Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
For example, in an exchange in the Financial Times (April 9, 2010), Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone (President of the NAS) defended global warming concern by noting essentially that carbon dioxide (CO2) was increasing and that climate was changing. Of course, climate is always changing, and increasing CO2 must make some contribution, but none of this suggests anything alarming. The alarm results from controversial feedbacks wherein the small impacts of CO2 are, in current computer models, greatly amplified. With respect to these feedbacks, Rees and Cicerone say: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise (referring to global mean temperature anomaly), stemming largely from ‘feedback’ effects on water vapor and clouds are topics of current research.” That is to say, we don’t even know if there is a problem. Yet, Rees and Cicerone conclude: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”
In other words, regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty? My guess is that Rees and Cicerone were only mindlessly repeating a script prepared by the environmental movement. In this report Montford documents some disturbing general trends, which one can only hope that scientists of good standing shall increasingly continue to oppose.
Summary
For 300 years after its foundation, the Royal Society adopted a position of aloofness from political debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day. This position was encapsulated in the Society’s journal, The Philosophical Transactions, which carried a notice that ‘It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Society to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room’.
In the 1960s, the society became increasingly involved at the interface of science and political policymaking.With the elevation of Robert May to the presidency, the Society became highly politicised, involving itself in political advocacy and media campaigns. In 1989 it had issued the first of its highly controversial position papers on climate change, a document that eschewed the sober language of the scientist in favour of denunciations of those who questioned the reality or extent of manmade global warming.
May’s political approach was continued by his successor, Martin Rees, with the Society’s authority being used to try to cut off funding of sceptic groups and with Rees putting forward positions on the economics of climate change. The Society issued a series of highly political statements demanding action from politicians.
Under Rees, another combative statement on the science of global warming was issued. With the Society again adopting a political rather than scientific tone, a substantial group of the fellows was stirred to action, demanding that the Society reconsider the unscientific way in which it was addressing the global warming question, the result being a much improved position paper on global warming that reflected at least some of the critics’ concerns.
Despite this, the Society has yet to distance itself from its former unscientific conduct, and the new president, Paul Nurse, has begun his term of office by staking out some very questionable positions on the role of scepticism in the climate debate.
Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.
Full report
Related:
Canspeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization
By Andrew Montford
Foreword by Professor Richard Lindzen
Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.
The simple chronology speaks for itself, though one cannot read it without thinking, at least, about the motivations. Already in the 19th century, gentleman scientists, like Darwin, noted the potential constraints on scientific inquiry that were associated with functioning within universities. The potential in recent years is obviously magnified by the near monopoly over science support exercised by governments. In the US, our National Academy of Science (NAS) has always had official status as adviser to the government. However, the role was relatively passive until the 1970s.
The 1970s saw a marked expansion of the National Research Council, the branch of the National Academy of Science responsible for responding to government requests. With the presidency of Frank Press (1981-1993), the staff of the NRC increased to over a thousand. Frank often boasted that The Royal Society was envious of the position of the NAS and the existence of its NRC. The global warming issue, it would appear, has offered The Royal Society the opportunity to rectify this situation.
Nevertheless, there are certain peculiarities of The Royal Society’s behavior that are perhaps worth noting. The presidents involved with this issue (May, Rees and Nurse) are all profoundly ignorant of climate science. Their alleged authority stems from their positions in the RS rather than from scientific expertise. This is evident in a variety of ways.
For example, in an exchange in the Financial Times (April 9, 2010), Martin Rees and Ralph Cicerone (President of the NAS) defended global warming concern by noting essentially that carbon dioxide (CO2) was increasing and that climate was changing. Of course, climate is always changing, and increasing CO2 must make some contribution, but none of this suggests anything alarming. The alarm results from controversial feedbacks wherein the small impacts of CO2 are, in current computer models, greatly amplified. With respect to these feedbacks, Rees and Cicerone say: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise (referring to global mean temperature anomaly), stemming largely from ‘feedback’ effects on water vapor and clouds are topics of current research.” That is to say, we don’t even know if there is a problem. Yet, Rees and Cicerone conclude: “Our academies will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”
In other words, regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty? My guess is that Rees and Cicerone were only mindlessly repeating a script prepared by the environmental movement. In this report Montford documents some disturbing general trends, which one can only hope that scientists of good standing shall increasingly continue to oppose.
Summary
For 300 years after its foundation, the Royal Society adopted a position of aloofness from political debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day. This position was encapsulated in the Society’s journal, The Philosophical Transactions, which carried a notice that ‘It is neither necessary nor desirable for the Society to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room’.
In the 1960s, the society became increasingly involved at the interface of science and political policymaking.With the elevation of Robert May to the presidency, the Society became highly politicised, involving itself in political advocacy and media campaigns. In 1989 it had issued the first of its highly controversial position papers on climate change, a document that eschewed the sober language of the scientist in favour of denunciations of those who questioned the reality or extent of manmade global warming.
May’s political approach was continued by his successor, Martin Rees, with the Society’s authority being used to try to cut off funding of sceptic groups and with Rees putting forward positions on the economics of climate change. The Society issued a series of highly political statements demanding action from politicians.
Under Rees, another combative statement on the science of global warming was issued. With the Society again adopting a political rather than scientific tone, a substantial group of the fellows was stirred to action, demanding that the Society reconsider the unscientific way in which it was addressing the global warming question, the result being a much improved position paper on global warming that reflected at least some of the critics’ concerns.
Despite this, the Society has yet to distance itself from its former unscientific conduct, and the new president, Paul Nurse, has begun his term of office by staking out some very questionable positions on the role of scepticism in the climate debate.
Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents. While the fellows’ rebellion has improved matters considerably, the continuing desire of the Society’s leadership to engage in political controversies represents a serious ongoing risk to the Society’s reputation and an abandonment of its principles.
Full report
Related:
Canspeccy: The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization
Monday, February 6, 2012
The US Federal Reserve Really Does Turn Over Profits to the Treasury
It is repeatedly stated by bloggers and others self-published on the Internet that the US Federal Reserve is a scam because it prints money for the US Government and then charges the US Treasury interest on the money thus conjured out of thin air.
In fact, charging interest on money created out of thin air is what commercial banks do. They create credit in amounts many times what has been placed on deposit with them and charge borrowers for the use of the money thus created.
The Fed, however, operates differently. If the Treasury needs money, it prints off some bonds and hands them over to the Fed, which then writes the Treasury a check for money it does not have -- so-called ink money.
The Treasury then spends the money the Fed just created out of thin air, while paying interest at the rate specified by the bonds held in the Fed's portfolio.
However, at the end of the year, the Fed pays the Treasury its profits, i.e., interest earned on the Government paper it holds less operating expenses.
So all that actually happens is that the Government pays itself interest on money created for it by the Fed, less the cost of the Fed's role as an intermediary.
Why, one might ask, involve the Fed at all?
The answer is that by handling the Government's paper, the Fed can control the money supply by selling bonds to the public, or buying them back.
When the Fed sells bonds it takes money out of circulation and reduces the money supply. When the Fed buys bonds either from the Government or the public it increases the money in circulation.
The money that the Fed receives on the sale of bonds to the public goes out of existence as magically as the ink money with which it purchased the bonds was conjured into existence.
The only significant consequence for the Treasury of Fed bond sales is that the interest on the bonds is no longer returned, courtesy of the Fed. It is at this point that the interest on the money created by the Fed becomes a real expense to the Treasury and thus to the American taxpayer.
This is as it should be, since the money with which the bonds have been purchased by private parties is real money, not funny money, which is to say that by purchasing government bonds, investors are giving up use of their money and expect, naturally, to earn interest in return.
Confirming that the Fed does not earn interest beyond its expense of operation on bonds that it purchases from the Treasury, the New York Times states in an article published today:
None of which is intended to suggest that the Fed is an unmitigated blessing on the American people or that it should not be audited. On the contrary, it is impossible to judge the value of the Fed without knowing what it does, and anyone who opposes a thorough review of the Fed's activities is probably a banker whose owes their job and bonuses to the generosity of the Fed to undeserving speculators and fraudsters.
In fact, charging interest on money created out of thin air is what commercial banks do. They create credit in amounts many times what has been placed on deposit with them and charge borrowers for the use of the money thus created.
The Fed, however, operates differently. If the Treasury needs money, it prints off some bonds and hands them over to the Fed, which then writes the Treasury a check for money it does not have -- so-called ink money.
The Treasury then spends the money the Fed just created out of thin air, while paying interest at the rate specified by the bonds held in the Fed's portfolio.
However, at the end of the year, the Fed pays the Treasury its profits, i.e., interest earned on the Government paper it holds less operating expenses.
So all that actually happens is that the Government pays itself interest on money created for it by the Fed, less the cost of the Fed's role as an intermediary.
Why, one might ask, involve the Fed at all?
The answer is that by handling the Government's paper, the Fed can control the money supply by selling bonds to the public, or buying them back.
When the Fed sells bonds it takes money out of circulation and reduces the money supply. When the Fed buys bonds either from the Government or the public it increases the money in circulation.
The money that the Fed receives on the sale of bonds to the public goes out of existence as magically as the ink money with which it purchased the bonds was conjured into existence.
The only significant consequence for the Treasury of Fed bond sales is that the interest on the bonds is no longer returned, courtesy of the Fed. It is at this point that the interest on the money created by the Fed becomes a real expense to the Treasury and thus to the American taxpayer.
This is as it should be, since the money with which the bonds have been purchased by private parties is real money, not funny money, which is to say that by purchasing government bonds, investors are giving up use of their money and expect, naturally, to earn interest in return.
Confirming that the Fed does not earn interest beyond its expense of operation on bonds that it purchases from the Treasury, the New York Times states in an article published today:
The Federal Reserve said on Tuesday that it contributed $76.9 billion in profits to the Treasury Department last year, slightly less than its record 2010 transfer but much more than in any other previous year.So if any cranks or crackpots out there still wish to maintain that the Fed prints money and pockets the interest on it, I say take it up with the New York Times, and don't waste your time arguing the point here.
The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year, a highly lucrative byproduct of the central bank’s continuing campaign to stimulate economic growth.
Almost 97 percent of the Fed’s income was generated by interest payments on its investment portfolio, including $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities, which it has amassed in an effort to decrease borrowing costs for businesses and consumers by reducing long-term interest rates.
None of which is intended to suggest that the Fed is an unmitigated blessing on the American people or that it should not be audited. On the contrary, it is impossible to judge the value of the Fed without knowing what it does, and anyone who opposes a thorough review of the Fed's activities is probably a banker whose owes their job and bonuses to the generosity of the Fed to undeserving speculators and fraudsters.
Iran provides the West good reason to resist multiculturalism
The practices of Muslims are in some respects deeply repulsive to those brought up in the ethical and legal tradition of the West.
The point is vividly illustrated in the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen resident in Canada, who, while in Iran to see his dying father, was arrested, charged, convicted and condemned to death on the basis of a confession made under torture.
The 35-year-old website designer was found guilty of desecrating and insulting Islam by developing software to upload photographs to the Internet, a program that has been used by pornographic websites.
Mr. Malekpour claims not to have known that his software was used by pornographers and even if he had known, his actions do not, by Western standards, justify the death penalty.
If the government of Iran of any other country maintains a legal system that imposes the death penalty on those convicted on evidence from torture of acts that in the West would considered either perfectly harmless or only mildly anti-social, that is no reason for Western military intervention.
One cannot prevent all the evil in the world and to presume that hanging pornographers is worse than Western practices abhorrent to Muslims such as the state-funded slaughter of millions of humans in utero or the current American practice of detention or execution of citizens without due process is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
Thus, the lesson of the Malekpour case for the West is not that we need to undertake regime change in Iran. The lesson that the West should draw from the inhumane standards of Iran's Islamic courts is that the Islamization of the West is something to be fiercely resisted.
That Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a state-appointed leader of England's established church, has argued that adoption in Britain of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable," is truly contemptible. Even more contemptible is his reasoning for this despicable betrayal of the people he is supposed to serve.
The UK has to "face up to the fact," Dr. Williams is reported by the BBC to have said, that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. A statement to which the obvious retort is that such citizens are not suited to life in Britain should return whence they or their recent immigrant ancestors came.
Or to put it more succinctly: bollocks to you Dr. Williams and bollocks to that traitor and warmonger Tony Blair who appointed such a creep as an Archbishop of the Anglican Church.
The point is vividly illustrated in the case of Saeed Malekpour, an Iranian citizen resident in Canada, who, while in Iran to see his dying father, was arrested, charged, convicted and condemned to death on the basis of a confession made under torture.
The 35-year-old website designer was found guilty of desecrating and insulting Islam by developing software to upload photographs to the Internet, a program that has been used by pornographic websites.
Mr. Malekpour claims not to have known that his software was used by pornographers and even if he had known, his actions do not, by Western standards, justify the death penalty.
If the government of Iran of any other country maintains a legal system that imposes the death penalty on those convicted on evidence from torture of acts that in the West would considered either perfectly harmless or only mildly anti-social, that is no reason for Western military intervention.
One cannot prevent all the evil in the world and to presume that hanging pornographers is worse than Western practices abhorrent to Muslims such as the state-funded slaughter of millions of humans in utero or the current American practice of detention or execution of citizens without due process is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.
Thus, the lesson of the Malekpour case for the West is not that we need to undertake regime change in Iran. The lesson that the West should draw from the inhumane standards of Iran's Islamic courts is that the Islamization of the West is something to be fiercely resisted.
That Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, a state-appointed leader of England's established church, has argued that adoption in Britain of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable," is truly contemptible. Even more contemptible is his reasoning for this despicable betrayal of the people he is supposed to serve.
The UK has to "face up to the fact," Dr. Williams is reported by the BBC to have said, that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. A statement to which the obvious retort is that such citizens are not suited to life in Britain should return whence they or their recent immigrant ancestors came.
Or to put it more succinctly: bollocks to you Dr. Williams and bollocks to that traitor and warmonger Tony Blair who appointed such a creep as an Archbishop of the Anglican Church.
Canada's interprovincial equalization payments are unfair
A group at the University of Toronto has discovered what must always have been self-evident to anyone but a liberal fanatic for total government control of everything, that a program to equalize incomes that ignores differences in the cost of living between town and country, and between the rich provinces and the poor is bound to be unfair.
As the star.com reports:
If salaries currently paid to Federal civil servants in Toronto are adequate, as they must be since vacant positions with the Federal Government in Toronto are promptly filled, the Federal Government must have very substantial scope for savings to the taxpayer by adjusting civil service wages downward in areas with a lower cost of living than Toronto.
But better still would be to cut the Federal public service, currently numbering 250,000, and return the resultant savings to the taxpayer. The job cuts, apparently, are coming. Whether we see the tax cuts, remains to be seen. We may not even see a spending cut. If Harper has his way, we will almost certainly see a Canadian role in any new Middle-East war, and keeping a soldier in the field is even more costly than employing a Field Interviewer for Statistical Survey Operations in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
As the star.com reports:
In a 41-page paper to be released Monday by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto, equalization expert Peter Gusen said the status quo is unconstitutional.So far as it goes, the argument seems reasonable, but it could certainly go much further. For example, why are Federal public servants of the same grade paid the same salary wherever they live in Canada, even though costs of living vary greatly. This is surely grossly unfair since it means that either those whose work requires them to live in Toronto or Vancouver are grossly underpaid or that a civil servant in Come By Chance, Newfoundland or Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan is greatly overpaid.
And that [it] costs Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick billions of dollars annually that go instead to Quebec, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island.
“If equalization continues to ignore differences in expenditure need it will not be treating provinces fairly and it will not be fulfilling its constitutional mandate,” writes Gusen.
When dispensing equalization payouts from the taxpayer-funded $15.4 billion pool, Ottawa doesn’t take into account that wages and cost-of-living expenses are higher in Ontario and B.C. than in much of the country.
“Provinces … differ in their ability ‘to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services’ because they have to spend different amounts to offer similar services; in other words, because they have different expenditure needs,” he writes, quoting Section 36.2 of the Constitution Act.
If salaries currently paid to Federal civil servants in Toronto are adequate, as they must be since vacant positions with the Federal Government in Toronto are promptly filled, the Federal Government must have very substantial scope for savings to the taxpayer by adjusting civil service wages downward in areas with a lower cost of living than Toronto.
But better still would be to cut the Federal public service, currently numbering 250,000, and return the resultant savings to the taxpayer. The job cuts, apparently, are coming. Whether we see the tax cuts, remains to be seen. We may not even see a spending cut. If Harper has his way, we will almost certainly see a Canadian role in any new Middle-East war, and keeping a soldier in the field is even more costly than employing a Field Interviewer for Statistical Survey Operations in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Arab league monitors find slaughter in Syria the work of foreign-backed subversives
A report by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) based on a one month inquiry by 160 monitors failed, as Pepe Escobar reports in the Asia Times, to conclude that:
See also:
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here
Pepe Escobar: US will continue to arm anti-government rebels in Syria after veto
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
Wayne Madsen: World War III Has Begun – The First Asymmetric War
West gunning for Putin as Syria face-off unfolds
... the "evil" Bashar al-Assad government is indiscriminately, and unilaterally, killing its own people, and so regime change is in order.
So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English and published in the Arab League's website.
Until it was leaked. Here it is, in full.
The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.
... So the current "Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown" in Syria at the UN is no less than a crude regime change drive. Usual suspects Washington, London and Paris have been forced to fall over themselves to assure the real international community this is not another mandate for NATO bombing - a la Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as "a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria's unity and institutions".
See also:
Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria's 'Benghazi moment'. But not from here
Pepe Escobar: US will continue to arm anti-government rebels in Syria after veto
Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion
Wayne Madsen: World War III Has Begun – The First Asymmetric War
West gunning for Putin as Syria face-off unfolds
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Public Education: The Foundation of the New World Order
By Gary North
LEWROCKWELL.COM: One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.
The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)
Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union."
When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.
In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."
Count on it.
You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.
In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.
Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.
LEWROCKWELL.COM: One of the most alluring temptations that face men is the desire to enter the inner ring. C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay with this title. It should be part of every person's rite of passage into adulthood.
The desire to enter the inner ring is closely related to the desire to maintain a New World Order. There is always an institutional claimant to New World Order status. It is always structured in terms of a series of concentric rings. These rings are always vertical. They are part of a pyramid of power. They are best represented by a stepped pyramid. (See Genesis 11.)
Every empire has been founded in the name of – on behalf of – some version of a New World Order. Empires all have this in common: they are eventually replaced. There is nothing more defunct than a New World Order that has failed. Think "Ottoman Empire." Think "Thousand-Year Reich." Think "British Empire." Think "Soviet Union."
When they are riding high, they seem unbeatable. What could possibly replace them? Most people cannot imagine anything. But there are always a few who can. They get together informally to help arrange the transition. Then they get together formally. They screen access to meetings. They set up a new inner ring.
In our day, the cry is "Next year, in Davos!" The best book on this is an insider's book, David Rothkopf's Superclass. It is not a conspiracy theory-type book. It is a "look how we've made it" book. It's a "top of the world, Ma!" book. He also sees that this superclass is vulnerable to changes outside of its control: in Asia, in the Third World. "We've made it" can become "we've lost it."
Count on it.
You may not have time to read his book. You do have time to watch a couple of his videos. They are posted here.
In summary, here is his thesis. About 6,000 people, 94% male, average age 61, meet from time to time to set the agenda for the rest of us. Here is the central fact: about 30% of them attended one or more of about 20 elite universities.
Here, I want to focus on this final point: elite universities. Another book spoke of this, a book that became an instant pariah in the liberal Establishment: The Bell Curve. It was published in 1994.
US and Israel Divided Only on Timing of Iran Strike
Bloomberg: The U.S. and Israel are publicly disagreeing over timing for a potential attack on Iran’s disputed nuclear facilities, as that nation’s leader said it won’t back down.
The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.
Read more
The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.
Read more
WAPO: Israel to nuke Iran to prevent Iran building a nuke that would deter Israel from nuking Iran
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.
Read more
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.
Read more
Friday, February 3, 2012
Fred on Why the US Government Is a Greater Danger to America Than Nazi Germany Ever Was
Vote? Why? What candidate in the quadiennial resurrection of the Mickey Mouse club wants to do anthing that I want done?
I want to roll back the onrushing police state and return to constitutional government. The plunge into totalitarianism is a far worse danger than World War Two, in which the US was never in danger of being invaded, and in which the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Who do I vote for? No candidate (except Ron Paul: ERP) is against sovietization.
I want to end our stupid wars, now. Yesterday. Who do I vote for? There is no anti'war candidate (ERP). Obama sends the troops anywhere he can think of, and all the Republicans want to attack Iran.
Read More
I want to roll back the onrushing police state and return to constitutional government. The plunge into totalitarianism is a far worse danger than World War Two, in which the US was never in danger of being invaded, and in which the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Who do I vote for? No candidate (except Ron Paul: ERP) is against sovietization.
I want to end our stupid wars, now. Yesterday. Who do I vote for? There is no anti'war candidate (ERP). Obama sends the troops anywhere he can think of, and all the Republicans want to attack Iran.
Read More
The Cost of Britain's kleines Huhn
Britain's Minister for Climate Panic and Punitive Remedial Measures, Chris Huhne, aka kleines Huhn (Chicken Little, in English), has resigned from the Government after being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice by having his former wife take the blame for a speeding offense.
Over at WUWT, Chris Monckton explains the sheer insanity of the former ministers trillion-dollar plan to cut Britain's carbon emissions 80% by 2042:
Under Huhne, the Climate Change Department has been indistinguishable from a lunatic asylum. I first came across him – or, rather, didn’t come across him – when he and I were due to debate the climate at the annual jamboree of a massive hedge-fund in Spain three years ago. Huhne only found out that I was to be his opponent when he reached Heathrow Airport. He turned straight around and went back to London.
When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.
There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.
Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”
Read more
Over at WUWT, Chris Monckton explains the sheer insanity of the former ministers trillion-dollar plan to cut Britain's carbon emissions 80% by 2042:
Under Huhne, the Climate Change Department has been indistinguishable from a lunatic asylum. I first came across him – or, rather, didn’t come across him – when he and I were due to debate the climate at the annual jamboree of a massive hedge-fund in Spain three years ago. Huhne only found out that I was to be his opponent when he reached Heathrow Airport. He turned straight around and went back to London.
When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.
There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch. Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.
Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, “Er, ah, mphm, that is, oof, arghh, we’ve never done any such calculation.” The biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but solely upon blind faith. I said as much. “Well,” said the Professor, “maybe we’ll get around to doing the calculations next October.”
Read more
Clear Water At the North Pole: 1959
 |
| US Submarine Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959 |
1959: So where's the ice?
The NAZIS and FASCISTS who founded the THE EU and their influence today
Link via Aangirfan's: FASCISM, TOP FAMILIES, FALSE FLAG OPS, which includes an informative interview with Annie Machon, an MI5 whistle-blower.
What Is the Point?
This is my first blog post in over a week, which raises hope of an eventual full remission of the compulsive blogging disorder (CBD).
What I find most helpful in suppressing the blogging impulse is recognition that there really is no point in it: wait a day or two and someone is sure to make the case better than I can.
This was well demonstrated yesterday by Alex Kurtagic's demolition of a university-sponsored pseudo-scientific study proving that all right-wingers are dumb racists.
The study reminds one of those reports that students using Macs are dumber than those with IBM PC, or that folks who use Internet Explorer are dumber than those using Firefox.
But perhaps the study is a hoax to prove that liberal academics will believe anything. If so, we look forward to the follow up.
What I find most helpful in suppressing the blogging impulse is recognition that there really is no point in it: wait a day or two and someone is sure to make the case better than I can.
This was well demonstrated yesterday by Alex Kurtagic's demolition of a university-sponsored pseudo-scientific study proving that all right-wingers are dumb racists.
The study reminds one of those reports that students using Macs are dumber than those with IBM PC, or that folks who use Internet Explorer are dumber than those using Firefox.
But perhaps the study is a hoax to prove that liberal academics will believe anything. If so, we look forward to the follow up.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Europe's Iran Oil Embargo: Iran Strikes First
| ZeroHedge: In what is likely a long overdue move, Iran has finally decided to give Europe a harsh lesson in game theory. Instead of letting Euro-area politicians score brownie points at its expense by threatening to halt imports and cut off the Iranian economy, the Iranian government will instead propose a bill calling for an immediate halt to oil deliveries to Europe. Read more |
Has Iran dealt the EU a harsh lesson in game theory, or merely extricated itself from the consequences of its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz should Europe impose an embargo on the import of Iranian oil?
The European embargo was scheduled to go into effect in July. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have elicited the promised American military action to open the Strait. So by making meaningless any European embargo, Iran avoids the need to make good on its threat to blockade the Strait, and thus denies US/Israel the long hoped for pretext for a war that would likely have escalated to the use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
Now US/Israel will need a different justification for nuking Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to deter US/Israel from nuking Iran.
The Unbearable Whiteness... ...of Being Mitt Romney
By Andy Nowicki
In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?
I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.
Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).
The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.
Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.
What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions. ...
Read more
In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?
I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.
Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).
The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.
Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.
What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions. ...
Read more
Racism in Britain: We Obsess Over Black Britons While Chinese are Ignored
By William Dove
January 12, 2012: Now that Britain has become a country with an unhealthy obsession with race and racism, as shown most recently by the ridiculous outrage over some nonsensical tweeting by Diane Abbott, it was nice to see in the Guardian an aspect of this issue which is almost never raised, namely that of racism towards Chinese and East Asians living in Britain.
Actress Elizabeth Chan complained that Chinese Britons such as herself are "virtually invisible in public life", that she had to endure people making strange kung-fu noises at her and that she had been denied roles which were deemed to be for white characters only.
She also noted that while TV in her youth provided a reasonable number of black and South Asian role models not a single Chinese or East Asian was to be found.
These days I suppose young Chinese growing up in Britain do at least have Gok Wan and the girl from Harry Potter to look up to but there is no denying that there does seem to be a lack of East Asians in prominent places in society.
Friends and relatives of an East Asian background have told me of how they have had to endure being called "Chinky" and such like while also getting the feeling that they are not being taken seriously perhaps in part because of their often weaker English skills.
What is also clear is that what some disparagingly call the "Race Relations Industry" seems to be concerned with just a few races in particular rather than in the status of all the races present in the United Kingdom.
For instance despite the fact that we have and have had in this country black and South Asian cabinet ministers and MPs not only are there no East Asian MPs at present but there has, so far as I am aware, never been an MP from an East Asian background.
Yet one never hears anti-racism campaigners call for more East Asian representation or for "all Chinese shortlists". Instead they seem to rather enjoy spending their time trying to segregate black Britons from the rest of the country by talking about something called the "black community", as something seperate from mainstream British society.
Does this "community", which apparently contains everyone from the Archbishop of York to the killers of Ben Kinsella, have a set of shared values? How does one join it or leave it if one wants to? When we hear talk of "problems in the black community" as we did after the riots (in which hordes of white people took part and which not a few black police officers attempted to control) are we talking about the Archbishop or other elements within this so called community? As Bim Adewunmi pointed out, the people chosen to represent the "black community" often seem to be ex-gang members, which must surely be offensive to the many black Britons who have never had anything to do with gangs.
Unlike in America most black people in this country are here because they or their not too distant ancestors came here by choice. This is also true of the large numbers of people of East Asian descent in the country. Despite this there is an overwhelming emphasis on the fortunes of black people with some regard thrown in for South Asians.
Instead of obsessing over one or a few ethnic groups we should have a society in which racial discrimination is outlawed and where people of all races are free to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than being told that they are victims of a racist society or that members of another race are attempting to, for example, "divide and rule" them. While black Britons do no doubt suffer racism in different forms from time to time, the fact that there are plenty of successful black politicians, businessmen, doctors, journalists and so on would suggest that white oppression is not (thank goodness) the force it once was.
We should also have a society in which people are able to withstand the power of words with tolerance.
As an Englishman when I go abroad I'm often told by foreigners things like "You must like the rain because it reminds you of home". This is not quite as bad as being called a "Chinky", but it is still mildly annoying and based on racial stereotypes. I always respond by saying "Oh so it never rains in the rest of the world?".
Jokes about the rain are of course not the worst forms of verbal racial abuse. John Terry recently got into trouble for allegedly calling Anton Ferdinand a "F****** black c***". Now it is a matter of opinion that Mr Ferdinand is a "F****** c***" but it is a matter of fact that he is what is generally regarded as "black". Strangely though it was the word "black" which was considered most offensive, presumably if Mr Terry just called Mr Ferdinand an "F****** c***" that would have been mere banter.
Mr Terry should not have to face charges for inserting the word "black" into a barrage of obscenities. On the other hand the "racist tram lady" Emma West should perhaps face charges for disturbing the peace and maybe for her threatening behaviour.
What was interesting about the West incident was that while she raged against "F****** Polish" and "F****** brown people" she was told by another passenger that she had "F*** all to say" and that "You're f****** waking my baby up". This response was praised by a government minister who apparently felt that liberal use of the F-word in a public place is reasonable behaviour so long as the word is not accompanied by words like "Polish", "brown" or "black".
It may be unpleasant at times, but proper tolerance means having to put up with things we don't like.
Never again do I want to hear of someone being arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" on the grounds that it's offensive to Chinese (when I heard that story my first thought was that at least they were not singing George Formby, whose series of songs on the career choices of a fictional "Mr Wu" might be somewhat un-PC nowadays) and nor do I want to hear of people being denied their full potential because of racial discrimination.
Sadly I fully expect to hear more instances of both kinds of folly.
January 12, 2012: Now that Britain has become a country with an unhealthy obsession with race and racism, as shown most recently by the ridiculous outrage over some nonsensical tweeting by Diane Abbott, it was nice to see in the Guardian an aspect of this issue which is almost never raised, namely that of racism towards Chinese and East Asians living in Britain.
Actress Elizabeth Chan complained that Chinese Britons such as herself are "virtually invisible in public life", that she had to endure people making strange kung-fu noises at her and that she had been denied roles which were deemed to be for white characters only.
She also noted that while TV in her youth provided a reasonable number of black and South Asian role models not a single Chinese or East Asian was to be found.
These days I suppose young Chinese growing up in Britain do at least have Gok Wan and the girl from Harry Potter to look up to but there is no denying that there does seem to be a lack of East Asians in prominent places in society.
Friends and relatives of an East Asian background have told me of how they have had to endure being called "Chinky" and such like while also getting the feeling that they are not being taken seriously perhaps in part because of their often weaker English skills.
What is also clear is that what some disparagingly call the "Race Relations Industry" seems to be concerned with just a few races in particular rather than in the status of all the races present in the United Kingdom.
For instance despite the fact that we have and have had in this country black and South Asian cabinet ministers and MPs not only are there no East Asian MPs at present but there has, so far as I am aware, never been an MP from an East Asian background.
Yet one never hears anti-racism campaigners call for more East Asian representation or for "all Chinese shortlists". Instead they seem to rather enjoy spending their time trying to segregate black Britons from the rest of the country by talking about something called the "black community", as something seperate from mainstream British society.
Does this "community", which apparently contains everyone from the Archbishop of York to the killers of Ben Kinsella, have a set of shared values? How does one join it or leave it if one wants to? When we hear talk of "problems in the black community" as we did after the riots (in which hordes of white people took part and which not a few black police officers attempted to control) are we talking about the Archbishop or other elements within this so called community? As Bim Adewunmi pointed out, the people chosen to represent the "black community" often seem to be ex-gang members, which must surely be offensive to the many black Britons who have never had anything to do with gangs.
Unlike in America most black people in this country are here because they or their not too distant ancestors came here by choice. This is also true of the large numbers of people of East Asian descent in the country. Despite this there is an overwhelming emphasis on the fortunes of black people with some regard thrown in for South Asians.
Instead of obsessing over one or a few ethnic groups we should have a society in which racial discrimination is outlawed and where people of all races are free to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than being told that they are victims of a racist society or that members of another race are attempting to, for example, "divide and rule" them. While black Britons do no doubt suffer racism in different forms from time to time, the fact that there are plenty of successful black politicians, businessmen, doctors, journalists and so on would suggest that white oppression is not (thank goodness) the force it once was.
We should also have a society in which people are able to withstand the power of words with tolerance.
As an Englishman when I go abroad I'm often told by foreigners things like "You must like the rain because it reminds you of home". This is not quite as bad as being called a "Chinky", but it is still mildly annoying and based on racial stereotypes. I always respond by saying "Oh so it never rains in the rest of the world?".
Jokes about the rain are of course not the worst forms of verbal racial abuse. John Terry recently got into trouble for allegedly calling Anton Ferdinand a "F****** black c***". Now it is a matter of opinion that Mr Ferdinand is a "F****** c***" but it is a matter of fact that he is what is generally regarded as "black". Strangely though it was the word "black" which was considered most offensive, presumably if Mr Terry just called Mr Ferdinand an "F****** c***" that would have been mere banter.
Mr Terry should not have to face charges for inserting the word "black" into a barrage of obscenities. On the other hand the "racist tram lady" Emma West should perhaps face charges for disturbing the peace and maybe for her threatening behaviour.
What was interesting about the West incident was that while she raged against "F****** Polish" and "F****** brown people" she was told by another passenger that she had "F*** all to say" and that "You're f****** waking my baby up". This response was praised by a government minister who apparently felt that liberal use of the F-word in a public place is reasonable behaviour so long as the word is not accompanied by words like "Polish", "brown" or "black".
It may be unpleasant at times, but proper tolerance means having to put up with things we don't like.
Never again do I want to hear of someone being arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting" on the grounds that it's offensive to Chinese (when I heard that story my first thought was that at least they were not singing George Formby, whose series of songs on the career choices of a fictional "Mr Wu" might be somewhat un-PC nowadays) and nor do I want to hear of people being denied their full potential because of racial discrimination.
Sadly I fully expect to hear more instances of both kinds of folly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)