The Financial Times: Ethnic Cleansing of the English From Their Own Capital City "Deserves Attention" LOL

The Financial Times of London Reports:

December 26, 2012 2:38 pm
London’s ‘white flight’ deserves attention

By David Goodhart

That the city is no longer majority ‘white British’ is a remarkable development.

A couple of weeks ago it was announced that London no longer contained a majority from the UK’s main ethnic group, known in the demographers’ jargon as the “White British”.

One face of Immigrant Britain.

 Wow. Fancy that. Who'd have thought it. Still it's only the descendants of some dead white European males, the jargonized "white British," who've been ousted. I mean, it's not like some actual, you know, well known European nation that's been ethnically cleansed from its own capital city, one of the greatest cities in the world. 

Except, well, actually, it is what was until very recently perhaps the most illustrious of all European nations, the English, that's being genocided, not only in their capital city but in many of their other large cities. Last year, the English became a minority in the City of Leicester, an ancient industrial town at the geographic heart of England. And in Birmingham, England's second city, English children in elementary school are not even the largest minority.

So yes, let's all remark the remarkable fact of the genocide of the English — the nation of Will Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Sam Johnson, Charles Darwin, and Winston Churchill — but without mentioning the English by name, of course. No need to get anyone upset or make any of the not very English scum running the major British political parties — plus the security services clown running the alleged British National Party — look like, well, the bought traitors that they are.

But you have to realize that this is something totally, unexpectedly new.

London is arguably the first great western capital city to pass this landmark, though that depends on where you draw the boundaries around Washington and on excluding Brussels as a special case because it is an “embassy capital”.

So there you are, the ethnic cleansing of the English in their own capital "deserves attention" only because of its novelty. Because London is arguable the first great western capital city to be genocided, unless you count Washington which is not the homeland of any ethnicity other than of the native Americans who were genocided a long time ago. Oh and Brussels, but that's a "special case," apparently, so just tough cheese for the Belgians, and not something to worry about.

In any event, it is a remarkable development for London and one that was unexpected.

Apparently, the Financial Times, with editorial offices in London, employs writers so incredibly stupid that they do not notice the ethnic make-up of the city where they work, and only became aware of the ethnic cleansing of the native race in London when it was announced in the evening newspaper. And even then, they nearly missed it!

However, the London Evening Standard, the capital’s main evening paper, tucked it away on page 10 on the day of the announcement, and the BBC London television news had it as the seventh item that evening.

But this is all transparent obfuscation of what has been known for years: that the English are being genocided by a combination of policies that employ all means of state-controlled education and propaganda to promote mass murder of unborn children, 189,931 last year,  and every kind of non-reproductive sex, thereby driving the fertility of the native population far below the replacement rate, while mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is promoted.

But in any case, to claim the foreign takeover of London is a matter for surprise is a complete inversion of the truth. For years the UK national newspapers have carried stories reporting the takeover of one London borough after another by an immigrant majority. Moreover, it has been common knowledge for years that the majority of children in London are born to foreign-born mothers. So the contention that the extirpation of the English majority in their own capital city is somehow a surprise is a lie pure, simple and direct.

Two days later I met a senior official from Mr Johnson’s Greater London Authority who, asked about the data, said: “What’s the fuss?”

Ha! There you have it. The genocide of the English in their own homeland is a matter deserving "attention" but not "fuss."

This studied indifference of London’s political and media elite appears to be in sharp contrast to the feelings of many of the white British people who live in less salubrious parts of the city.

Or, who gives a damn about the English, or white British as the genocidalists and their propagandists call them the better to distract attention from the fact that the English are being displaced from England, the only homeland they have.

“Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead.

So we are to understand that most of the "leading academic geographers" in Britain are incompetent fools who misled the folks in government just as much as they deceived the morons at the FT — a claim that is surely another lie and a libel too.

And did you get that "majority  minority city"? The immigrants are to have the benefit of being treated as a minority even when they're the majority, meaning that the English must be considered the majority even when they are a fast declining minority. This is really clever: mind-bending psychological manipulation in the aid of genocide.

Further, we are to understand that the progressive elimination of the English from London, Birmingham, Leicester, and many other great cities has nothing to do with mass immigration. No, that's the lie put about by racist white British. What's actually happened is that the English just buggered off. Went to live in the bucolic copuntryside 50 miles out of town and now commute to the city in their Porche's and Jags. It's only the racist losers like Emma West who are still left in the city where they'd better show some respect for their new neighbors, if they don't wish to be whipped off to jail — for their own protection from all the friendly New Britishers threatening to cut their throats.

But, really, the English are lucky to have all those foreigners come in and take their place, convert their empty Christian churches into mosques, bingo halls, whatever. They even have the good fortune of having the son of a German-Jewish social climber to head the English church — luckily too, they have a Muslim as head of the BBC's religious programming, an Israel-Firster as Prime Minister, and a Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal [sic] Opposition, the son of an illegal immigrant, who thinks the essence of Englishness is to invite in more immigrants.

White flight is an emotive term that suggests discomfort with the changing racial composition of a neighbourhood. Clearly there are many reasons why white British people might want to leave London – house prices, schools, fresh air and so on – but merely by considering where it is happening, there appears to be prima facie evidence that white flight has played a role.

Yep, there you have it. The English flight from Londonistan, as someone many years ago humorously named England's greatest city, is the product of racism, pure and simple.

In Barking and Dagenham, for example, notorious for the brief success of the far-right British National Party in the late 2000s, the white British population fell by 40,000, almost one-third, between 2001 and 2011. Other increasingly diverse outer London boroughs such as Redbridge and Hillingdon have also experienced large falls in their white British population.

Forty thousand in ten years from a borough with 180,000 inhabitants. That sure looks like prima facie evidence, in fact I'd say absolutely definite evidence of ethic cleansing.

Does white flight always have to be the other side of the coin of large-scale immigration? It is a remarkably understudied phenomenon. This is perhaps because it is based on a notion of group identities and affinities that most liberal academics do not feel or understand and tend to stigmatise as “racist,” at least when expressed by white people. But one of the interesting things about white flight is that it has continued, and in the case of London apparently increased, at a time when racist attitudes have been in sharp decline.

You tend to get less overt English opposition to mass immigration when the English have become the minority, often a very small minority in their own neighborhood.Or to put that another way, the English know when they're beat, and they know who's gonna get beaten up if they raise any objection to Asian street gangs or knife-wielding Jamaican thugs.

Some of the blame for this must lie with a modern political mind – of both left and rightwingers – that has failed to understand some quite normal human feelings about rapid change and the unfamiliar. It has failed, too, to think more carefully about how to make it easier for different kinds of people to live alongside each other sharing common spaces in mutual trust.

Wow, maybe the political establishment has something to be held responsible for. I mean it's not as though they just lost a great war, or destroyed the economy. No they just wiped out most of their own people in their own greatest city.

So noisily have London’s political leaders been celebrating the diversity of their multiracial city that they have forgotten to see what is happening under their noses.

"They forgot." Oh dear, they were so busy celebrating diversity and trashing English culture for Black History Month that, in a fit of absence of mind, they genocided their own people.

If you walk around the city centre you see racially mixed pavements, shops, buses, tubes and even workplaces. But there is also a great deal of what the Americans call “sundown segregation”: if you followed people home you would find yourself in some of the most ethnically segregated places in Britain.

So there you are. The English really genocided themselves, taking flight from multi-culti Britain out of pure racism. Fortunately, there are still white iberals in Britain anxious to continue the replacement of the politically incorrect English with nice foreign people with a different mindset: you know, not Christian, with none of that nonsense about the traditional rights and freedoms of the English. A lot of them don't even speak English, or if they do it's not English so as you could understand it.

Thus do the mainstream media discredit themselves: one article at a time.

Note: There are some intelligent comments at the FT web site in response to the remarkably stupid David Goodhart's remarkably stupid article. You can access the article via this Google link.

See Also:
Beware: The New Goths Are Coming

Globalization: The Next Step — Wiping Out the Savings of the Middle Class

The poor don't save, or if they do they don't save much for the obvious reason that they have little to save from. The rich don't save, they invest. Which means that saving cash for the future, for a rainy day, for illness or retirement is a middle-class virtue and in the age of the New World Order, an invitation to theft. Theft by the monied interest, that is, operating through the governments and central banks that they own.

How is such theft possible?

Bank of Canada Governor, Mark Carney, soon to take up his new post as Governor of the Bank of England, has given as clear an understanding of how the swindle will be perpetrated as can be expected from a public source, openly musing about central banks targeting, not inflation, but GDP.

What's it mean?

Central banks traditionally had one instrument with which to influence a national economy; namely, interest rates. When a credit-fueled real estate or consumer spending boom threatened to drive demand in excess of supply thus causing prices to rise, central banks would raise interest rates, thereby slowing bank lending and heading off a major inflation. Conversely, when a contraction in demand threatened a recession, central banks lowered interest rates to stimulate borrowing, and hence demand.

But there's trouble when demand flags or fails to rise when interests rates are already close to zero. If people won't borrow to spend when interest rates are zero, whaddya do? Whereas, the central bank can rein in borrowing by raising interest rates, they cannot force people to take loans however low interest rates fall.

Or, as the bankers like to say, you cannot push on a piece of string. But wait: what if you make interest rates negative? Yeah: borrow a buck and pay back 50 cents in seven years time. Only a fool would refuse the offer. Right?

QE V. 1.0. Image source

But folks won't deposit their cash with a bank that nicks 10% of their money every year. True, but what if the central bank prints a bunch of cash, and give it out to all and sundry — large corporations, hedge funds, Wall Street banksters, and all those folks who'd like to buy a car, a home, take a holiday, but who have no cash. That's the new instrument of central banking. QE, quantitative easing, conjuring money out of thin air and handing it out to all and sundry: the government for stimulus spending, to bankers with "troubled assets," to Government Motors, Chrysler, windmill makers and every other friend of government.

Soon you've got the economy going again: everybody's buying and investing in real things, houses, factories, big box superstores, whatever. And the big debtors know that when it comes time to pay the money back it will be worth much less than when they borrowed it, even after they've added in the ongoing interest expense.

But this is really not for the little people. Once the inflation's ignited, interest rates will be raised. Not enough to compensate for the loss in the value of your savings, of course. But enough to prevent reflating the housing bubbles, and to prevent the plebs from buying more than the bare necessities of life from the big box importers of cheap Chinese stuff. And enough to prevent the average middle-class devotee of thrift from realizing how badly they are being gouged — especially after the measly interest they earn on their devalued savings has been taxed at their marginal rate of 40 to 50%.

So if you've got GIC's or money sloshing around in a credit union account, or maybe a wad of those nice new plastic Canadian fifties or  hundreds stashed under the mattress, get ready to see it all shrink in value.

For the monied interests, the proprietors or the New World Ordure, the universe is unfolding as it should. The consumer society, the vision of which brought down the Soviet Union, the economic miracle of which we in the West proudly assumed to be the mark of Western superiority, will soon be a thing of the past.

And as the billionaires so reasonably assert: it's no good having the plebs louse up the place with their ugly suburban villas, while choking the roads and poisoning the atmosphere with their SUV's.  No, the thing is to export those overpaid Western jobs to the slave plantations of Asia, and bring millions of Third Worlders to the West, where they will be content to work at minimum wage or less, without any silly nonsense about the great Western tradition of respect for human rights and freedoms.

This phase of the unfolding of the New World Order is spelled out in a report for CEO's now in circulation. The economic problem of the day, the report states is excess debt. Much of this debt the report says will never be repaid. Hence the conclusion:

Holders of the debt, be they countries or companies, should be allowed to default, whatever the short-term pain of such a process.

Note, no suggestion of debt relief for the little people overloaded with mortgages and car loans. No, no, certainly not. On the contrary, the report asserts:

 ... retirement ages will have to increase. People will have to work harder, for longer and should be encouraged to do so by changes in benefit[s]

Ha! There goes yer sick pay, you malingering bum, there goes yer food stamps, yer workshy layabout, there goes yer pension you thought you'd paid in for. What's more:

The size of the state should be radically reduced and immigration encouraged. Competition in labour markets through supply-side reforms should be pursued. 

Ha ha! That'll show you, just how much we need you — not at all! We're gonna bring in millions and millions of foreigners who will swamp your working class neighbourhoods, and impose their religions and cultural habits on your community whether you like it or not. It's called genocide and that's the policy of the New World Order, aka the hypercapitalist entity that owns the political leadership of the Western States.

See also:

 What Millions Want For Christmas: A Job
The latest jobs reports shows there are over 12 million people unemployed [in the US], the average duration of unemployment is over 40 weeks, and over 40% of the unemployed have been unemployed for over 27 weeks.

Another 8 million people want full-time jobs but only have a part-time job. And finally, unemployment stats do not capture millions more who are so discouraged they stopped looking for jobs.

Brain Squeezed Elites: From the Maya to the Mymidons of the New World Order

By Colin Liddell

Alternative Right: One of the legacies of the world financial crisis is that it showed how absolutely clueless pundits, politicians, and financial planners can be about the direction we are heading in. This also explains our growing fascination with the mysterious Maya and their reputation for fathoming the distant future by reading the stars and the courses of the planets.

With the great vacuum of ignorance that enshrouds the future, it is not surprising that this long dead civilization with an astronomical bent has been sucked into the role of providing gnostic hints of what is to come. It was either that or Madame Zaza’s tea leaves.

According to a lot of breathless twats on the Discovery Channel, the Mayans saw something very important lined up for 2012, namely the end of their Grand Cycle, scheduled to end on the 21st of December this year. Depending on who you speak to this will precipitate either the end of the universe in a cataclysm of fire, a new age with everyone being very nice to each other, or the election of Ron Paul as President of the United States.

But before we get carried away with the impending sense of momentous cosmic change, shouldn’t we pause to ask the all-important question, “Who the heck were the Maya?” just in case they turn out to be a bunch of jungle bums stoked up on fermented coconut juice rather than credible prognosticators of the end of humanity.

Like any semi-barbaric, non-European people, the Maya are nowadays talked about in the hushed reverential tones dictated by political correctness as one of the great civilizations, even though they lacked metal tools and wheels, and enjoyed a spot of human sacrifice. 

Rather than evidence of their primitiveness, their lack of tools is often cited as proof of their civilizational superiority, as only a truly higher culture could have built pyramids with so little in the way of technology. In such encomiums little is said about the possibility that the threat of human sacrifice probably served as an extremely important motivator for the toolless masses.

The key to understanding the Maya is their astronomy. The basic problem all primitive agricultural societies face is timekeeping. In the case of Britain, this led to the founding of Neolithic sites such as Stonehenge, where the stones were aligned to measure changes in the position of the rising sun and thus the seasons.

Read more

Mohandas Gandhi Versus Barak Obama On the Right to Bear Arms

Image source.

As Barak Obama, in the wake of the Sandy Hook slaughter, professes his devotion to the protection of innocent lives by promising further restrictions on gun ownership in America, American drone strikes that have killed dozens of innocent children in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen continue on a daily basis.
Americans might be wise, therefore, to take heed not of Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, but the true practioner of non-violence, Mohandas Gandhi who wrote:

I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

and

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence ..."

When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.

Good advice to Americans, one would think, at a time when UPI reports that US Homeland Security is purchasing enough hollow-point bullets to blow away every American citizen.

Arguments for denying Americans the right to bear arms as protection from a tyrannical government are based on one statistic; namely, the US gun death rate of around ten per 100,000, which is high compared with happy, successful, places like Ireland, Sweden, New Zealand, France or Finland, where the gun death rate is only 1.03, 1.47 2.66, 3.00 and 3.64 per 100,000, respectively.

However, if you look into the statistics, the differences appear to be of questionable significance. Most US gun deaths are suicides, but the US suicide rate, at 19.2 per 100,000, is lower than that of New Zealand, Sweden, France and Finland, where rates are 20.3, 21.4, 23.5 and 25.7 per 100,000. And in Ireland, the suicide rate is virtually identical to that of the US at 19.2 per 100,000.

It is true that the homicide rate in the US is higher than in Europe and happy New Zealand, at 4.2 (3.7 with a gun) per hundred thousand versus 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 2.2 in New Zealand, Sweden, France, Ireland, and Finland. But if you look at US homicide rates by race, you see that the black rate is ten times the white rate.

So the homicide rate by US whites, who despite the genocidal plans of the globalist elite are still the majority in America, is closely comparable, at 2.8 per hundred thousand, to Finland's 2.2, which makes the case for abandoning the Second Amendment to the US Constitution appear entirely fraudulent. When that case is made by a government bent on intimidation of the people through sexual humiliation by blue-gloved goons at every airport and soon at a train station and shopping mall near you, its credibility is nil.

The Insolence of a Zionist Chickenhawk

By Stephen Walt

Pugnaceious chickenhawk, Bill Kristol

CounterPunch, December 20, 2012: I suppose I could be flattered that William Kristol is trying to use my endorsement to derail Senator Chuck Hagel’s candidacy to be the next secretary of defense. But in fact I’m disgusted, because Kristol’s predictable hatchet job depends on the false charge that my co-author John Mearsheimer and I are “Israel-haters.” It is, to be blunt, a shameful lie. It is also a revealing glimpse into how Kristol thinks and operates.

Here’s Kristol’s problem: Hagel is a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded twice in the service of his country. Instead of helping cause wars from the sidelines like Bill does, Hagel fought with bravery on the battlefield. He’s also a Republican with ample experience in national security and intelligence matters whose judgment President Obama respects. Hagel has been quite supportive of Israel throughout his public career, and his views on many Middle East topics are similar to those of prominent Israeli officials. But he hasn’t been as slavishly devoted to Israel as fanatics like Kristol would like, and he’s skeptical about the merits of a war with Iran (as are many Israeli experts). Hagel also said openly he “was a United States senator, not an Israeli senator,” and that his primary responsibility is to serve the American national interest, not Israel’s. This statement would disqualify him were he in the running to be Israel’s minister of defense, but it is precisely what you’d expect a loyal American to say.

Well, if you’re Bill Kristol and you can’t find any legitimate grounds to oppose Hagel, what do you do? You smear him. You try to convince people that Hagel’s perfectly sensible views are really a manifestation of some sort of hidden anti-Semitism. Since Hagel has never done or said anything to support such a vicious charge, you have to use the well-known McCarthyite tactic of guilt-by-association. How? Point out that yours truly blogged that his nomination would be a “smart move.”

Read more

See Also: Robert Merry in the National Interest: The Assault on Chuck Hagel.

Iranian Assistant Professor of Psychiatric Nursing Terrorizes the Government of Canada

It is reported that the Canadian Journal of Psychiatric Nursing Research has refused to publish an article by an Iranian assistant professor despite earlier acceptance of the article.

The journal has informed the author that, on the command of the Government of Canada, it cannot publish the article as previously agreed, for political and non-academic reasons.

Canada has closed its embassy in Tehran and ordered Iranian diplomats out of Canada for what it called the "civil rights abuse of the citizens of Iran" and "the threat [posed by Iran] to the security of Canadian personnel and Israel."

Canada's Minister of External Affairs, John Baird, has called Iran "the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world," and a country that "routinely threatens the existence of Israel," a somewhat biased point of view, one might think in view of Israel's repeated hysterical demands that the US nuke Iran now, and a view that has no logical connection with psychiatric nursing, obviously.

Which raises some questions. Is John Baird a total moron? Is the Harper government bribed by a certain shitty little warmongering country? Is Canada nothing more than a weak and helpless subordinate in US/Israel's drive for complete imperial dominance of the Middle East? And does refusing to publish a minor academic work in a minor academic journal really going to undermine the Government of Iran?

But whichever is the case, and perhaps there has to be a positive answer to all four questions, Canadian journal publishers might as well wind up their business if they are too gutless to stare down such petty-minded governmental stupidity. The Can. J. of Psych. Nursing Res. is published by the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Foundation, a pretty flaky looking outfit. Let's hope other Canadian journal publishers show greater commitment to the ethic of international cooperation and solidarity among scientists.

Those Dirty Racist French Opposed To Their Own Genocide

By Dimitrios Papageorgiou

Alternative Right: Europa Nostra! "We are all inheritors of Rome, Athens, Sparta and Christianity."

Génération Identitaire, recently gained worldwide attention, with their "Declaration of War" video, and their occupation of a mosque at the historically important location of Poitiers. They are an organization filled with youthful energy in a state that has accepted multiculturalism and embraced its doctrines. I conducted an interview with Arnaud Delrieux, one of the leadership cadre of Generation Identitaire, an interview that serves as an introduction to the very interesting views of young French people fighting for their right to live as a homogenous community in their country.

Identitarianism, nationalism, communitarianism, socialism? How would you describe identitarianism to a non-French person?

There is no “identitarianism.” Génération Identitaire is not a club for ideologues fantasizing about the “Grand Soir” (the general upheaval to come) or “glorious tomorrows.” We are young and pragmatic, both in our methods and worldview. This does not, however, keep us from having an ideal: we want to live in peace on our land according to our identity, like every people has the right to.

The 20th century was the century of ideologies – Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism, all of which failed. The 21st century is the century of identities. Indeed it is the very substance of the European people that is threatened by the steamroller of globalization, invasion-migration and multiculturalism. Sovereignists have missed the boat by a longshot: it’s no longer the power or sovereignty of nation-states that’s in jeopardy; it’s the very identity of our friends, our families and our kinfolk. On the ethnic scale, because of the effects of migrant submersion on demographics, and on the cultural scale, because of the uniformization of different ways of life. In addition to this, European nation-states, prime inheritors of the Jacobinist ideas of the French Revolution, were the first agents in the destruction of popular traditions, deep rooted cultures and spiritual mass movements which fortified and irrigated European societies. No ideological recipe forcibly applied by these nearly extinct fossils can protect us anymore. The people have to take their fate into their own hands: time to wake up!

A nation can rise from the ashes of war or economic crisis, but it cannot survive the disappearance of its own people. There are 10 to 12 million Muslims in France and around 15 million immigrants, African and Muslim for the most part. It is the foremost political problem. Our fight is one for survival. We do not want to disappear, we want to live, and we want to be actors of our history and not simple bystanders. We do not want to become the Native Americans of Europe.

All of our political vision must be rethought in the light of this reality. We must take this reality and draw adapted political solutions from it, not twist it to meet some preconceived dogmas. We do not have any fixed answer to all the problems faced by the French and European people. However, we have adopted basic principles that serve as a compass in the ongoing storm. First we consider that ethno cultural homogeneity of a people is the foremost condition for social peace. Multiculturalism spawns “multiracism”: just look at Lebanon, Brazil, South Africa, etc. Then, we believe that Europe is our chance: if the European people were united, we’d be invincible. I’m not the one saying this, the strategic analysts working for the White House are: they call our continent the “heartland,” that is to say the heart of the World. Finally, we are rabid defendants of direct democracy, federalism and localism. Of course I’m not talking about the so-called European “federalism,” which is in reality nothing more than technocratic centralism in disguise. By “federalism” I mean “unity in diversity.” Localism is the relocalization of economic activities, political power and people. Like the Americans say: “small is beautiful!” But small is also stronger: countries like Switzerland, who frequently engage in direct democracy, show us the way.

Read More

The Myth of American Meritocracy

By Ron Unz

 The American Conservative, November 28, 2012: ^[1]Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally collaborated on their final exam.^{1 [2]} Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as “unprecedented.”

But should we really be so surprised at this behavior among the students at America’s most prestigious academic institution? In the last generation or two, the funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities, together with their professional schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually impossible today, as even America’s most successful college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg often turn out to be extremely well-connected former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur it enjoyed from its exclusive availability first only at Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.


During this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America’s richest 1 percent now possessing nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.^{2 [3]} This situation, sometimes described as a “winner take all society,” leaves families desperate to maximize the chances that their children will reach the winners’ circle, rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely a spot in the rapidly deteriorating middle class. And the best single means of becoming such an economic winner is to gain admission to a top university, which provides an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict their hiring to graduates of the Ivy League or a tiny handful of other top colleges.^{3 [4]} On the other side, finance remains the favored employment choice for Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas are handed out.^{4 [5]}

The Battle for Elite College Admissions
As a direct consequence, the war over college admissions has become astonishingly fierce, with many middle- or upper-middle class families investing quantities of time and money that would have seemed unimaginable a generation or more ago, leading to an all-against-all arms race that immiserates the student and exhausts the parents. The absurd parental efforts of an Amy Chua, as recounted in her 2010 bestseller Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, were simply a much more extreme version of widespread behavior among her peer-group, which is why her story resonated so deeply among our educated elites. Over the last thirty years, America’s test-prep companies have grown from almost nothing into a $5 billion annual industry, allowing the affluent to provide an admissions edge to their less able children. Similarly, the enormous annual tuition of $35,000 charged by elite private schools such as Dalton or Exeter is less for a superior high school education than for the hope of a greatly increased chance to enter the Ivy League.^{5 [6]} Many New York City parents even go to enormous efforts to enroll their children in the best possible pre-Kindergarten program, seeking early placement on the educational conveyer belt which eventually leads to Harvard.^{6 [7]} Others cut corners in a more direct fashion, as revealed in the huge SAT cheating rings recently uncovered in affluent New York suburbs, in which students were paid thousands of dollars to take SAT exams for their wealthier but dimmer classmates.^{7 [8]}

But given such massive social and economic value now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the tiny handful of elite admissions gatekeepers enjoy enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the leadership of our society by allocating their supply of thick envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons, and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions more carefully as their children approach college age. And if such power is used to select our future elites in a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is the selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences for America. Thus, the huge Harvard cheating scandal, and perhaps also the endless series of financial, business, and political scandals which have rocked our country over the last decade or more, even while our national economy has stagnated.

Read more

A very fast sail boat

World record nautical mile, average speed 65 knots, 120 kph.

Wikipedia Wales Denies Porn-Vending Career Earned a Fortune

Here's your correction, Wikipedia founder

Head of online 'encyclopedia' known for damaging reputations demands retraction

by Chelsea Schilling 

Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi's Red Alert and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.More ↓

Follow author Subscribe to author feed

79

Former porn star Sylvia Saint wears Bomis.com T-shirt (Photo by Wikimedia Commons)

(WARNING: This story contains information of a graphic nature that some readers may find offensive.)
The founder of Wikipedia, the online “encyclopedia” that has damaged reputations with reckless, irresponsible and defamatory charges, has demanded of WND a correction to a column which characterized him as making a “fortune” in pornography before starting the company.
In her Jan. 14 column at WND, Judith Reisman came to the defense of heavy-metal drummer Bradlee Dean, who Reisman argues, has been “slammed” by Wikipedia.
Reisman, Ph.D., an author and academic known for debunking myths about pornography and the fraudulent sex research of Alfred Kinsey, wrote:

Wikipedia’s trashing of iconoclastic, ordained preacher Bradlee Dean proves that the heavy-metal drummer and his band have been doing a great job of delivering truth to American youth. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s creator, made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker. Wales’ cult of far-leftist volunteer editor zealots labor minute-by-minute to mislead readers who think Wikipedia’s half-truths – and worse – are a legitimate “encyclopedia.”

Shortly after publication, Reisman’s statement that “Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s creator, made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker” caught the attention of none other than the Wikipedia founder himself.
In an email to WND, Wales wrote:

This is absolutely and categoricallly [sic] false. I have never made any “fortune”, as a pornography trafficker or otherwise, and I have never been a “pornography trafficker” at all.
Additionally, as I have never even heard of Bradlee Dean, your disgusting attempt to smear me is absolutely and completely irrelevant to the argument you sought to make in the first place.
I demand an immediate edit to that story to remove the lie about me.

WND Editor Joseph Farah explained to Wales that Wikipedia’s own page about Bomis – a now-defunct company founded by Wales and his partner in 1996 – states that “Bomis ran a website called Bomis Premium at premium.bomis.com until 2005, offering customers access to premium, X-rated pornographic content.”
Wikipedia also notes that launch of the popular website was supported by Bomis: “[Bomis'] primary business was the sale of advertising on the Bomis.com search portal, and to provide support for the free encyclopedia projects Nupedia and Wikipedia.”

For the lurid details read on

Canada-Syria: White dominions, brown colonies

By Eric Walberg

France and Britain have begun to circle Syria like vultures (my apologies to vultures, who politely wait for their prey to die). They plan to save Syria from chemical bombs — a surreal replay of Suez 1956, where France and Britain cooked up a pretext to invade Egypt with the US posing as the more restrained gang member, not to mention Iraq 2003, when they reversed their roles.

Meanwhile, Canada sings on demand for its US-Israeli sponsors. The Canadian government solemnly announced this week it is ready — if asked by NATO — to deploy the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit, which handles chemical, biological and radioactive attacks. Canada will also send a Disaster Assistance Response Team to provide clean water in Syrians, as well as engineers and staff who can help set up a field hospital. A friendly navy frigate is already offshore.

Once again Prime Minister Stephen Harper plays his supporting role in the NATO-scripted drama unfolding in the Middle East. He takes “the threat of chemical weapons in Syria very seriously”, but demurs on whether Canada will send CF-18 fighter jets over Syria, as it did in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone, or put combat troops on the ground. He has not yet given the current opposition coalition, the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), his blessing, although US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally recognized the opposition at a Friends of Syria summit in Morocco on Wednesday, joining the Euro crowd.

The Canadian government has no foreign policy anymore, doing exactly as it is told by its Israeli advisers, so the reason for Harper’s coyness must be found there. Israel itself is in a quandary about Syria.

Israeli policy during the past three decades has following the divide-and-conquer Yinon Doctrine, playing various forces among its Arab neighbors against each other — Maronite and Orthodox Christian, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Druze, etc — in order to keep the Middle East weak and unstable.

In Syria, that even meant quietly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood during its ill-fated uprising in 1981, not because Israel wanted an Islamist Syria, but to keep the Syrian government off-balance. The secular and nationalist Baathist regime, together with Egypt, fought a war with Israel in 1967. These secular governments were the big threat, and it was only natural to try and cripple the regimes of Egypt and Syria, even if that meant working with Islamists.

Today, the West is eagerly arming the SNC, where Islamists predominate, even as Israel and Canada dawdle. How can this be?

The explanation is simple. As Kissinger said of Iraq and Iran during their war in the 1980s, “A pity they both can’t lose.” Or Truman when the Germans invaded Russia 22 June 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible.” Not only is Egypt now rediscovering its Islamic, very anti-Zionist roots, making Egyptian Islamists the main enemy, but there is no guarantee the SNC will defeat the Syrian army, and unlike far away France, Britain and the US, Israel must live chock-a-block with whoever is in Damascus — and Cairo — when the mustard gas clears.

Ha, ha. Only joking. What about the chemical weapons threat? Syria is one of the few countries that has not signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). (Israel has signed but not ratified it.) But Assad has made it clear he will not approve their use on civilians. Saddam Hussein’s example is proof enough of the madness of that. The real worry over WMDs is that whatever supplies the Syrian government has could soon fall into the hands of the western-backed rebels, in particular, al-Nusrah Front (aka, al-Qaeda in Iraq).

However, who can blame Assad if he drops a few on invading Brits, French, and yes Americans? It would be a perfect way to ‘celebrate’ the centenary of WWI, where holier-than-thou Germany, Britain and France pioneered their use, despite having signed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 banning them. Britain used chlorine against the Germans in 1915 but the wind blew back on the British trenches — a case of ‘friendly gas’. The US took their use to new heights in Vietnam with Agent Orange. Only the one-time US ally Saddam Hussein was ever brought to justice for using them. The US and Russia still have stockpiles (not to mention nuclear and biological weapons), despite their obligation under the CWC to destroy them all.

The Syrians would get special satisfaction from gassing the French, who carved up and invaded Syria in 1920. Syria was promised France by Britain as its reward for the 1.7 million French who died in the WWI bloodbath that killed 16 million (Britain lost ‘less than’ a million). The only ‘positive’ outcome for the Allies was the destruction and occupation of the Ottoman Caliphate and the creation of a Jewish state there.

This was an outrageous betrayal of the Arabs, who had arguably tipped the balance in WWI — at great loss — in Britain’s favor, on the promise of post-war independence. But, as the Spanish say, ‘You don’t dance with the devil; he dances with you.” Britain wanted Iraq for its oil and Palestine for a Jewish state, “the hill citadel of Jerusalem” according to geopolitical theorist Halford Mackinder — the last link in the British empire. With a wink and a nod from Britain, France invaded Syria in 1920 and crushed a heroic uprising in 1925--1927, killing thousands. Greater Syria was divided into southern Turkey, French-occupied Lebanon/ Syria, and British-occupied Jordan/ Palestine.

It was not till 1946 that the French were finally booted out — kicking and screaming. Post-WWII Syrian politics is a litany of coups, egged on by the US, until the army and socialist Baathists finally settled on Hafiz al-Assad in 1971. Trying to pick up the pieces after the brutal French occupation and living next door to permanent nightmare Israel are not conducive to the charade of western-style pluralism, so the subsequent harsh dictatorship of Assad I and the new-improved Assad II are not surprising. The SNC alternative has no prospects for ruling a united Syria. Syria’s future under the SNC is already being played out in Iraq, though Assad is far more popular and sensible than Saddam Hussein, and his demise will take down much of the Syria social order with him.

This is fine from an Israeli point of view as long as the Islamists are kept busy fighting their coalition ‘allies’ within the SNC. But if the Islamists dominate in the SNC, and if the power vacuum allows al-Qaeda to take root (it already has), this could be a problem for Israel. Look what happened to the Islamists in Gaza, where they surged and triumphed in elections in 2006 and remain strong. Israel has only to look south to Egypt to see how a revolutionary coalition can turn into an Islamic government which is not nearly as pliable as the secular dictatorship it replaced. This is what keeps many Israelis rooting for Assad.

When France was colonizing Syria a century ago, Canada was already the great colonial success story as a ‘white dominion’, and was allowed to join the ranks of the imperial rich, unlike Syria et al. (Lawrence ‘of Arabia’ lobbied Churchill to create a united Arab British mandate as the first ‘brown dominion’, with no success.)

As a former colony of both France and Britain, the loyal ‘white dominion’ of yesteryear, Canada may look like the perfect intermediary today: ‘Be nice and you too can graduate from colony to dominion.’ However, the flip side of white dominion status is that, like Israel or South Africa, you have built your society on the bones of the ‘brown’ natives. So it is not surprising that this week, even as Harper was toying with recognizing the SNC (who cares?), he faces ongoing protests over government neglect of Canada’s First Nations.

Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence began a hunger strike in Ottawa charging the government with “marginalizing our political leadership, along with the enforced segregation of our people so that our rich heritage can be wiped out and the great bounty contained in our traditional lands be made available for exploitation by large multi-national companies.” But Canada’s First Nations — what’s left of them — can thank their lucky stars they weren’t born in the ‘brown colonies’ of the Middle East.

Eric Walberg is author of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games http://claritypress.com/Walberg.html You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/ 

Are We Causing Global Warming Yet? A Skeptic Says Yes!

Climate constantly changes and with it the mean temperature, whether estimated at a particular place, over a region or over the entire globe. Human activities — the combustion of fossil fuels, the clearing of land, the building or roads and cities — affect the climate in various ways, some tending to raise the temperature, others tending to lower it.

Image source.

The effect of adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is well known. Less well known is the effect of deforestation. The removal of trees that efficiently absorb sunlight, exposes bare ground that reflects back into space much more of the incident sunlight than the canopy of a forest, and which, as it is heated by the sun, emits much of the absorbed heat to outer space as infra-red radiation.

Trees, in contrast, don't heat up much in the sun: they cool by evaporation of transpired water. In the process, solar energy is converted to the latent heat of vaporization, which warms the atmosphere when the water vapor lost by trees condenses to form clouds. The clouds may reflect sunlight, but they also reflect infra-red radiation emitted from the ground that would otherwise have escaped to outer space. Trees, in other words, may contribute to global warming, though as repositories of carbon they also counteract warming. Overall their effect on global temperature is probably positive. Then they emit hydrocarbon pollutants too — an estimated 30 million tons per year in the US, alone.

Then there are sulfur emissions from coal fired power plants, which give rise to white sulfate particles that cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight; and the production of black carbon particles (soot) during the combustion of diesel and heavy oil, which absorb sunlight and thus warm the atmosphere.

So it's complicated, which is why it takes a supercomputer to model the climate, and why the validity of the results obtained are always open to question.

But despite the unending debate, and the endless muddying of the waters by partisans, politicians and boobs on both sides of the argument, most if not all informed global warming skeptics appear to acknowledge that raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration as we are currently doing will likely raise global temperature by the end of the present century significantly above what it would otherwise have been.

What well-informed skeptics are in most cases skeptical about is not the likelihood of human-caused global warming but the magnitude of the effect as predicted by the so-called warmists, and the necessity of taking drastic or enormously costly actions to prevent the warming that will occur without major efforts at mitigation.

Christopher Monckton, who served as an adviser to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, is a skillful debater and a fair mathematician who has followed the climate change debate, and has participated vigorously in it for years, is undoubtedly a climate warming skeptic. So whatever warming he agrees has occurred and is likely to occur in the future should atmospheric carbon dioxide continue rising on its present course might be considered a lower bound for the warming that virtually all the experts, skeptic or warmist, say we can expect (all other things being equal, which they almost certainly will not be).

It is convenient, therefore, that Christopher Monckton has just published an estimate of the rate of warming over recent and future decades. This estimate is contained in a post on Alan Watts blog from which the following is an excerpt.

I have had the pleasure of being on the planet for 60 years. I arrived when it first became theoretically possible for our CO2 emissions to have a detectable effect on global temperature. From 1952 to the present, the planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 1.2 Celsius degrees per century. ...

Late in 2001 there was a phase-transition from the warming to the cooling phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the most influential of the ocean oscillations. From 1990-2001 is 11 years; from 2001-2012 is 11 years. So 1990-2012 is a period centered on a phase-transition: with minimal natural distortion, it will indicate the recent temperature trend.

Since 1990 the world has warmed at 1.4 Cº, century, or a little under 0.3 Cº in all. Note that 1.4 Cº/century is a little greater than the 1.2 Cº/century observed since 1952. However, the period since 1990 is little more than a third of the period since 1952, and shorter periods are liable to exhibit somewhat steeper trends than longer periods.

So the slightly higher warming rate of the more recent period does not necessarily indicate that the warming rate is rising, and it is certainly not rising dangerously.

For the 21st century as a whole, IPeCaC is predicting not 1.2 or 1.4 Cº warming but close to 3 Cº, more than doubling the observed post-1990 warming rate. Or, if you believe the latest scare paper from our old fiends the University of East Anglia, up to 6 Cº, quadrupling it.

Whether Christopher Monckton's estimate is closer to the truth than that of the University of East Anglia, I will not venture to say. But what Monckton makes clear is that rational people on the skeptic side of the climate warming debate do expect climate warming in the century and a half beginning 60 years ago, of around 2 degrees Celcius, assuming that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration continues rising on its present course.

Two degrees is the difference in temperature between London and Edinburgh, or between London and Paris. Such a change can hardly be called catastrophic, and for some people, the Scotch for example, it will surely be of huge benefit. But for others, there will undoubtedly be a downside, especially where a change in temperature is associated with a reduction in rainfall and soil water. The viability of the Canadian prairies as grain growing region, for example, could be radically affected.

Thus it seems only sensible to consider measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric release of other greenhouse gases. In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, these can be limited easily and efficiently by means of a carbon tax. All governments need revenue. They might as well tax something we don't want, including the causes of climate warming, while easing up on taxes on such things as income, that we do want.

The objection energy intensive industries in countries with a carbon tax are placed at a disadvantage in competition with competitors in countries without a carbon tax, can be disposed of by the imposition of countervailing duties on goods from countries that do not impose a carbon tax. If the US or the EU were to institute a carbon tax on that basis, the rest of the World would be compelled to follow.

Britain's Jewish Government

The cowardice at the heart of Britain's relationship with Israel

While the British Government relentlessly pursues a tri-partisan program of genocide through mass immigration against the English, it remains utterly committed to the nationalist Jewish program of Palestinian settlement.

Close friends and allies: Prime Minister David Cameron shaking hands with Israeli Ambassador to Britain, Daniel Taub  Photo: EPA

By Peter Oborne

The Telegraph: 8:39PM GMT 12 Dec 2012:

It is impossible to understand the modern Conservative Party without a grasp of the scale and profundity of its links to the state of Israel. The connection dates back at least as far the historic meeting between the great Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and the Conservative prime minister A J Balfour in 1905, during which Weizmann convinced Balfour of the case for a Jewish national state.

The warmth forged 107 years ago is today sustained by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Some 80 per cent of all Tory MPs are members, including most Cabinet ministers. No other lobbying organisation – and certainly not one that acts in the interests of a foreign country – carries as much weight at Westminster. Every year, it takes a significant number of parliamentarians to Israel. Meanwhile, its sponsors play an important role in financing both the Tories nationally, and MPs at the local level.

There is no doubt that the CFI has exercised a powerful influence over policy. The Conservative politician and historian Robert Rhodes James, writing in the Jerusalem Post in 1995, called it “the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel”. Its power has not waned since. On Tuesday, it hosted approximately 100 Tory MPs, including six Cabinet ministers, and a further 40 peers, at a lunch in central London. The speaker was David Cameron, who pronounced himself a “passionate friend” of Israel, making clear (as he has done in the past) that nothing could break that friendship.

This speech can be seen as part of a pattern. The CFI can call almost at will upon the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Foreign Secretary. The Palestinians enjoy no such access. They would be lucky to get a single Conservative MP in the audience for their events, and perhaps some moribund peer to make an address. There is no such organisation as the Conservative Friends of Palestinians.

This lack of even-handedness reflects itself in policy. When William Hague denounced Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon as “disproportionate”, the CFI (as I revealed in a film on the pro-Israeli lobby for Channel 4’s Dispatches) complained in person to David Cameron. It obtained a promise that the word would never be used again – one that was kept when Israel bombarded Gaza last month, even though the number of Palestinian deaths vastly exceeded those on the Israeli side.

Read more

Prime Minister David Cameron: “My belief in Israel is unbreakable and
commitment to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” Note: Britain has no formal
treaties with Israel and Israel has made no commitment whatever to the
security of Britain.

But the Labor Party is no less adamant in its commitment to the welfare of the state of Israel.

Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) is a Westminster based pro-Israel lobby group working within the British Labour party which exercises significant influence over British Middle East policy. It is considered one of the most prestigious groupings in the party and is seen as a stepping stone to ministerial ranks by Labour MPs. LFI boasts some of the wealthiest supporters of the party, and some of its most generous donors, such as Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Michael Levy, Sir Trevor Chinn and Sir Emmanuel Kaye [1]. Two of its leading members, Michael Levy, and David Abrahams, have been embroiled in major scandals involving the New Labour government in recent years. [2] Both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have been members of the group. Source: Spinwatch

While Labour originally carried a reputation for having more voices sympathetic to the Palestinians – especially during the Thatcher years – the New Labour government of Tony Blair has reversed this orientation. Although one of Tony Blair’s first acts after becoming an MP in 1983 was joining LFI, the relationship truly developed in the early 90s, when as shadow Home Secretary, Tony Blair met Michael Levy at a private meeting at the latter’s house. Michael Abraham Levy is a former chairman of the Jewish Care Community Foundation, a member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. [7] According to Andrew Porter of The Business, Levy expressed his willingness “to raise large sums of money for the party” which led to a “tacit understanding that Labour would never again, while Blair was leader, be anti-Israel" SourceWatch

Over the last year, Tel Aviv-based think tank The Reut Institute has offered a lot of advice to supporters of Israel in the West on how to respond to “the erosion in Israel’s diplomatic status” (aka ‘delegitimization‘), including a focus “on engaging the hearts and minds of liberal progressive elites”.

A recent report looked specifically at London, saying “liberal and progressive left” voices are the ones “most effective” in shielding Israel. Reut urged Israel’s defenders to “substantively engage liberal and progressive circles” by “responding to their concerns and building personal relationships”.

Now it has been reported that Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) is set to “re-invent itself” in order to “develop the ‘progressive case’ for Israel”. Jews For Justice for Palestinians

Labor Friends of Israel (LFI), a powerful group within the country’s main opposition party, is still behaving like a secret society.

Unlike a similar “friends of Israel” group belonging to the Liberal Democrats – the junior party in the ruling coalition - the LFI does not appear to have supplied any information about the sources of its finances to the UK’s Electoral Commission. This lack of disclosure could be illegal. Legislation applying to “members’ associations” of political parties stipulates that all donations above £7,500 ($11,600) must be notified to the Commission within 30 days.

Today, I asked Ben Garrett, the LFI’s head of policy and research, why his organization seems to be breaking the law. “I am not willing to comment,” he replied. 21st Century British Nationalism

Then there's the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, who are currently concerned about, among other things, bias against Israel in the British House of Lords:

What struck me is how much the House of Lords talks about Israel and the Palestinians, far more than a country the size of Wales, with seven million citizens, would merit. Lord Monroe Palmer, former LDFI chairman

UKIP, according to their web site:

supports the only true democracy in the Middle East which provides a homeland for the Jewish people, to excersise their right to self-determination. Source.http://www.ukipfoi.moonfruit.com/"

UKIP, one might have thought, would be more concerned about Britain providing a homeland for the British, but if so, one would probably have been wrong. 

And anyhow, why this terrific love affair and concern for a country believed to possess several hundred nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to all capitals in Europe, and where a reputable scholar has announced that these weapons will used to take down the world before the state of Israel is conquered:

Our [Israel's] armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under. Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

And why this love affair with a state of which the religious authorities deride the religious tradition of Britain and the rest of Europe and applaud the Islamic takeover of Europe.

And why no such love affair with any other country. For example Britain's wartime allies, France, Russia, the US, or the Commonwealth countries such as Canada and New Zealand?

Certainly the preference for Israel can have nothing to do with the Jewish Holocaust, since the leaders of all three of Britain's leading political parties are staunch advocates of a policy of genocide against their own people, this policy to be effected by a combining the repressed fertility of the indigenous population with a program of mass immigration. As a result, London, once the largest city in the World, with about 8 million English inhabitants, now has barely three and a half million English residents, who live as a minority among four and a half million people of 300 other ethnicities.

The city of Leicester, located at the heart of England, is majority non-English, and in England's second city, Birmingham, English elementary school children are not even the largest minority.

So what's with these friends of Israel, other than being been bought and paid for agents of a foreign power?

Restoring Full Employment in Europe and America

In the discussion of another post, it has been argued that the cause of the Second Great Depression has nothing to do with mass export of jobs to the Third World but can be attributed solely to excessive public sector debt.

This is the kind of meaningless thought that the media and the liberal-left and pseudoconservative blogs seek to impose upon the public so that people fail to grasp how they are being screwed by the plutocratic elite.

"Of course" says our commentator, "I value public services as much as anyone else ..."

Well I sure don't.

I don't want the goddam government picking my pocket and the deciding how much of the cash it has taken from me it is prepared to spend on my healthcare, my kids education whatever.

But increasing public sector debt does not cause a depression. When public sector debt is incurred, it increases aggregate demand, even if that increased demand is due solely to spending by unproductive bureaucrats.

That is why the Keynesian solution to recession or depression is to increase the public sector deficit. And in times past, when national economies were more or less self-contained, that worked. And it worked because increased public spending directly and indirectly increased demand for domestically produced goods and services, which created a demand for increased labor and thus brought down unemployment. Insofar as it increased productive labor, not futile bureaucracy, the cost of the stimulus was recovered through an increase in the output of useful goods and services.

How powerless Americans have been entrapped in forced
labor and poverty. Read more.

But in today's era of globalization, increased deficits in the Western economies increase aggregate demand for cheap goods and services from the Third World, thus having little effect on domestic employment. The net result is an increase in debt service costs which become a drag on the economy when the rate of increase in the debt falls below the debt service costs.

Western governments reacted to the financial crisis by pumping up government deficits. With little to show for their stupidity, governments have now panicked about the unsustainability of mounting debt and so have opted for austerity. But obviously cutting debt cuts aggregate demand and so worsens the depression.

What the damn fools in government need to do is restore full employment and that cannot be done while wages in the West have a legal minimum ten to twenty times Third World sweatshop wages against which the least competent unemployed Western workers must compete.

So there are only two means to restore full employment in the West:

1. Tariffs to exclude cheap labor intensive imports from the Third World,


2. Wage subsidies that enable Western workers and firms to compete with China and the rest of the developing world.

This is a choice that globalist liberals, and other mouthpieces of the plutocratic elite, are incapable of confronting. Hence the flim-flam about excessive public sector debt, etc.

Then there's immigration. When you've millions of excess workers, stop importing more from the Third World. But that's another obvious reality that a liberal globalist will never take on board.

The fact that these three options are never considered suggests that impoverishing the Western working and middle-class is, in fact, part of the globalist strategy and that we will not see a resumption of mass prosperity in the West for decades, and perhaps not ever. For what is the difference between working in competition with sweatshop labor employed for pennies an hour and outright slavery.

I guess one difference is that slaves don't have to worry about paying rent or finding the wherewithal to buy food: the provision of healthful board and lodging being a necessary part of an efficient slave economy.

Free Will versus Determinism and Moral Responsibility

Michio Kaku, the Physicist of the New World Order, who calls those opposed to globalization terrorists, tells us in this video (via Aangirfan's interesting post on free will and consciousness) that quantum theory proves that human action is not predetermined.

But the point he makes is a trivial quibble of absolutely no consequence. Microscopic events may be indeterminate, but anyone expecting a bunch of air molecules by chance to pile up behind their automobile and drive them to the office without the use of gasoline is going to be late for work. The behavior of most macroscopic systems is highly deterministic.

Quantum uncertainty? Image source.

And when a macroscopic system behaves in an unexpected fashion, for example, if your car accelerates when you put your foot on the brake, no sensible person will say it must have been due to quantum randomness. In such an event, the sensible assumption is that there has been a serious mechanical or electronic malfunction, or perhaps someone sabotaged your car.

The human brain, so far as we know, functions as a deterministic system little if at all affected by quantum uncertainty, which means that Kaku's remarks about Einstein versus Heisenberg are irrelevant. But, that does not mean that the workings of the human brain are necessarily predictable. For one thing, complex macroscopic systems, though operating in accordance with classical deterministic laws, can be highly unpredictable. Thus, as Richard Feynman explained:

If water falls over a dam, it splashes. If we stand nearby, every now and then a drop will land on our nose. This appears to be completely random … The tiniest irregularities are magnified in falling, so that we get complete randomness.

Feynman's insight has since been formalized in chaos theory, which reveals that many complex systems, the weather for example, or the economy, operate chaotically, which means for all practical purposes, indeterminately.

Transitions in the evolution of a complex system under the
influence of a strange attractor. Image source.

An interesting feature of chaotic systems is that they may show a relatively constant pattern of behavior for long periods, following what is know as a "strange attractor," but then abruptly switch to a totally different pattern.

Not surprisingly, the brain, the most complex system that we know of in the entire universe, will sometime undergo a sharp transition in mode of operation, shifting abruptly from one more or less constant pattern to a strikingly different pattern. Such epiphanies may occur spontaneously, although they are perhaps more often the result of an external shock.

But even if, for classical or quantum reasons, the operations of the brain — which we assume to underlie the workings of the mind — are indeterminate, this tells us little of interest about the question of free will.

Image source.

If the possession of free will consists solely in the fact that our brains sometimes do random and hence unpredictable things, so what? As far as the question of moral responsibility is concerned, we can no more take credit or blame for what is strictly determined than for what occurs as a matter of pure chance.

Which brings us to the core question: what is free will, anyhow? If Cain willed to kill Abel, how could he have acted otherwise than to go ahead and kill him? Could he, at the same time, have willed not to will to kill Abel? But if so, what if the will to kill Abel were stronger? Could he then have willed to will not to kill Abel more strongly? This leads to an infinite regress.

The conclusion seems to be that we will what we will and that's that for good or ill. And if sometimes our actions are theoretically unpredictable due to classical or quantum indeterminism, our actions are nevertheless driven either by chance or necessity, which is rather different from the idea that most people have of free will.

But this is a dangerous conclusion if naively understood, since it seems to imply that we are not responsible for our actions. But this is an error arising from ambiguity of the term "responsible."

Cain killing Abel. (Rubens)

To many, the notion that Cain could do no other than kill his brother means that he was not morally responsible for his actions and therefore should not have been held accountable or punished. But "moral responsibility" is not synonymous with "legal responsibility." Under the law of sane and civilized society, Cain would be held responsible for killing Abel, for the simple reason that he did indeed kill Abel.

Furthermore, under the law of any sane and civilized society, Cain would be punished for killing Abel, not because of his moral culpability but to deter others who might otherwise emulate his crime. And if a jeering hate-filled mob attended Cain's public hanging, so much the better to deter others who might otherwise follow Cain's criminal example.

Sadly, such simple logic is beyond the comprehension of most brought up under the lib-left ideology propagated by Western cultural institutions. We have been taught by the state propaganda machine — known as the K-to-middle-age education system — to see only the relationships among events that the state wishes us to see, while ignoring most of the picture without an understanding of which a sane and civilized society is impossible.

But what is perhaps an even more subversive and dangerous view of the world than some flaky notion about free will, is the Parmenidesian belief that all change, and therefore, all human action, good or evil, is an illusion.

In Parmenides' day, the best evidence for this idea was provided by the paradoxes of Zeno, which showed that movement was, if not impossible, almost so. The most famous of Zeno's paradoxes concerned the race between Achilles and the tortoise, in which Achilles was continually reaching the point just left by the tortoise, by which time the tortoise had moved ahead just a little bit more, so Archilles was always behind.

Image source

Zeno had another zinger: the Arrow Paradox. At any instant, an arrow in flight must be at a particular place. At that moment it cannot be moving to any other place or it would not be where it is, so at no instant can it move. This would have been more convincing if Zeno had offered to serve as the target at javelin practice. Still many sharp physicists of the modern era are Parmenidisians: Einstein for instance, and Hermann Weyl who wrote:

The objective world simply is, it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the world-line of my body, does a section of the world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time.

On this view, we are like flies in amber, incapable of doing right or wrong. Our entire potential, intellectual, physical and moral, has already been realized and is open to view by any time traveler, in which case, the notion of free will is entirely redundant.

Related:

Medical Express: Our brains reveal our choices before we're even aware of them

War Criminals at Work: Lie of the Week, Syrian Government About to Gas Own People

By Robert Fisk

The Independent, December 8, 2012: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and Assad’s regime repeatedly said that if – if – it had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.

But now Washington is playing the same gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…

Well if he does, Obama and Madame Clinton and Nato will be very, very angry. But over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess – and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003: “unnamed military intelligence sources”. Henceforth to be acronymed as UMIS.

Coup de théâtre

And now, the coup de théâtre. Someone from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation called me up this week to talk about the use of chemical weapons by Hafez al-Assad in Hama during the Sunni Muslim uprising in the city in 1982. Their sources were the same old UMIS. But I happened to have got into Hama in February 1982 – which is why the Canadian was calling me – and while Hafez’s Syrian army was very definitely slaughtering its own people (who were, by the way, slaughtering regime officials and their families), no one ever used chemical weapons.

Not a single soldier I saw in Hama carried a gas mask. No civilians carried gas masks. The dangerously perfumed air which I and my colleagues smelt after chemicals were used by our (then) ally Saddam against Iranian soldiers in the 1980s was not present. And none of the dozens of civilian survivors I have interviewed in the 30 years since 1982 ever mentioned the use of gas.

But now we are to believe that it was used. And so the infantile new fairy tale has begun: Hafez al-Assad used gas against his own people in Hama 30 years ago. So his son Bashar may do the same again. And wasn’t that one of the reasons we invaded Iraq in 2003 – because Saddam had used gas against his own people already and may do so again?

Read more

See also:

Winston Churchill mulls use of mustard gas during WWII.

Winston Churchill on the good moral effect of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.

A Statistical Enigma

An author is someone who would run around in public waving their arms up and down if that were the only way they could attract attention
H.L. Mencken

Most bloggers, I suspect are at least as self-obsessed as any other kind of author and thus probably check their blog stats frequently to see if anyone has actually read a thing they have written. Certainly, I have to confess to viewing my stats at least occasionally, but find it less than satisfying not only because the numbers are distinctly unastronomical, but because it is hard to know what the numbers, such as they are, really mean.

Of yesterday's 571 page views, for example, how many represented people who got here by accident and left as fast as their browser back-button would take them, how many read something, and of those who read something, how many read a piece right through and felt they had, if not learned something, at least found food for thought. In addition, arises the nagging question of how many page views were generated not by people, but by spam delivering robots. Yesterday for example, one intelligent comment was posted together with half a dozen imbecile bits of spam.

Another puzzle is the source of hits. During the last couple of weeks I have had a mass of hits -- well relatively speaking -- from Sweden, second in number only to hits from the US. That's very nice if so many Swedes have visited, and well they might since they are among the smartest people on the planet. Moreover, that the clicks from Sweden are genuine visits is suggested by the fact that they correlate quite closely with downloads of the piece entitled: The Cause and Cure of the Second Great Depression, which despite a minor miscalculation about the result of the recent US Presidential election, is probably the most significant article appearing here recently.

Still, I have a nagging anxiety that I'm being targeted by a scoundrel spambot using an open link on an ill-attended server in Sweden.

Comments from anyone familiar with such matters would be welcome.

In the meantime, we will blog on. Once we have recovered our messianic self-confidence, that is.

Related:
CanSpeccy: Recognition at Last -- Sort of.