Friday, 29 June 2018

UK: Re-lying on others

Question: What do liars do when people no longer believe them, do they:-

1. Stop lying and begin speaking the truth, however inconvenient and/or incriminating
or, do they:-
2. Enlist/cajole/coerce others to lie on their behalf?

By definition, a liar is one who tells lies, so the 2nd answer must always be true, because, if they cease telling lies, they can no longer be accurately called a liar.

This phenomenon can be seen in all manner of people, from serial killers to naughty children; a lie is immeasurably more potent (and believable) when it is supported by a third party, especially one who is otherwise regarded as being truthful.

The methods of manipulation can vary from deception to bribery, strangely though, the moral argument is often employed, 'it's for the greater good', 'that person deserves to be blamed' etc. This moral justification is most odd, because by knowingly joining such a subterfuge, the previously honest party becomes a liar too.

There is an added bonus to the tactic of enlisting others to confirm an untruth.

Responsibility for the lie can then be diverted towards such a collaborator, as if it was they who first initiated the falsehood.

As we approach four months from the Skripal poisoning, Boris Johnson has finally got OPCW to join his scheme of apportioning blame for chemical attacks, rather than simply confirming they took place. His previous attempt at garnering support from Porton Down, for the party narrative did not succeed particularly well, but politicians have a habit of ignoring history.  

Determining who is guilty of using chemical weapons is a fine a laudable notion, but the OPCW track record is poor at even establishing if such events have occurred, much less at who might have carried them out. They appear to accept 'open source' reports i.e unattributable hearsay; as evidence and even regurgitate statements from al-Qaeda's white helmets, as though they were credible witnesses. 

The most ludicrous piece of 'evidence', which shows a roomful of supposed victims piled on top of each other, is laughable in it's naivety. Chlorine is an extreme irritant and the notion that people would lay down and wait to die with eyes and lungs burning, and not run to clean air, is as unbelievable as the assertion that Assad would use gas when the battle was already won.

Chlorine is also a heavy gas, so how did it find a way up into these apartments (unless the chemical was already stored there).

The outrage and ridicule that resulted from the preposterous claims of Western governments was no surprise to many of us, but Boris & co are nothing if not persistent, and as a way of preparing for the next 'chemical attack' and the subsequent strike against Syria, enlisting the collusion of OPCW is a steady preliminary move, but I still prefer option 1. 

Stop telling lies.  

Monday, 2 April 2018

EU: What's the alternative?

Since Britain elected to leave the European Union, one question is rarely asked: Why did 17 million voters turned their back on greater European integration despite the scares and insults hurled at them? Little mention is made of David Cameron's failed attempt to secure the sort of deal that would prevent Brexit and whether it was the EUs refusal to budge that caused today's crisis.

It is also strange that EU proponents are now unashamedly admitting that ever closer union really means an eventual United States of Europe, despite the lack of appetite for such a monolith. Have these people become so emboldened by their control of European media and institutions, that they are now merely demonstrating what has always been their plan, or have they themselves fallen into that abysmal vision-less pit, where the dying can only cry, 'There is no other way'.

The debate over Europe has been stifled and effectively hijacked so that the UK position no longer counts and EU deficiencies are ignored. All the talk of punishment and retribution for leaving this bureaucratic flophouse located in Brussels, has neatly obscured the fact that growing numbers of people in Europe no longer want what the EU has to offer.

Why would anyone want to stay?

The first thing to remember, is the EU has not always been here.

Since it's beginnings, after WWII, treaties have been signed, ratified, amended, re-written and even re-invented, with never more than a decade between significant alterations. So leaving EU is not leaving Europe, but extricating ourselves from a legislative hodgepodge that is bound to fail, and is only preserved by intimidation and false reporting of it's aims and general direction.

Tying economic growth and prosperity, to political and financial union, was what Eurosceptics have always feared, and as we witness today, justifiably so with the bankrupting of Greece and the wider migration issue which now threatens to destroy the very fabric of European culture, and possibly worse.

And the alternative?

The original concept of a Single European Market was what most countries wanted, and to what most would prefer to return. It was not perfect and tried to evolve, though with each stage of development the European Project became more entrenched and pervasive, but hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, and there is no insurmountable reason why we cannot re-energize Europe in the 21st Century.

What should the European Market look like?

The first thing that a fully functioning market needs, is a Common Trading Currency.

Call this the Euro, the NewEuro the EuroTC or whatever else you like, the benefits for nations trading into, out of, and within Europe cannot be understated. Tourists and travelers too need and demand the same, for are they not also consumers of goods and services?

The failing of the Euro, was not in it's desirability, but in it's inception and implementation. There is no need for a single currency in Europe, just one that is universally transferable across our borders. Previous attempts at making this possible faltered when the bureaucrat's fear of markets aligned with certain politician's expansionist motivation.

The ERM was doomed by it's need to impose boundaries and thresholds and all manner of Eurospeak that translates simply to control at all costs.

All that is required of a Trading Currency, is that it be administered by someone who knows money, and be accepted as legal tender in participating countries whose own currencies are free to rise and fall against it, but cross-border traders have a single, relatively stable currency to use and can plan their financial and contract commitments accordingly.

This is already a de facto standard today. 

When making purchases within the Eurozone a UK citizen is presented with the option of paying in Euros or Pounds, so where's the problem?

The problem is in the mind and on the agenda of European bureaucrats who see the need for a common currency as a way of furthering their grand European Project of ever closer integration towards a United States of Europe, with them in control. Open Markets and Price Discovery are alien concepts to most of these career paper-weights.

We need borders.

How those borders work, and where they are, is quite different to demanding that they be removed altogether.

Frau Merkel's manufactured migrant crisis has proved that national boundaries are there for a reason and must be respected. Again, in this electronic age, movement of people can be a quick and efficient part of living in Europe, but that movement must be in the best interests of the safety and prosperity of individual member states, and of Europe as a whole, anything else is treachery.

Those nations with external borders to non-member states, must be supported as Europe's front line in protecting the integrity and security of all its members, and the notion that those in the center can get fat off the efforts of those at the extremities must be exposed as the unfair contrivance that it is.

The devil is in the detail

Negotiating how agriculture, finance, fishing and trade are handled, is what a European Market should do. It is where politicians, economists and bureaucrats earn their living, but the overriding principle of sovereign states working for the mutual benefit of themselves and their neighbours, must be non negotiable.

Thursday, 22 March 2018

EU: It's us or them

So Teresa May is about to sign her wonderful transition deal in Brussels.

It must be some relief for her, after all those threats and accusations against Putin and Russia, to be among friends and those who only seek mutual benefit in the these latest talks, and yes, I am being sarcastic.

With UK fishing as the latest offering, she is hopeful that we can perhaps be allowed to take the upcoming beating, without deriving too much scorn and ridicule. She has the manner of someone on the receiving end of a lashing who cries 'Not the face', so as to minimize the injuries by allowing them to remain hidden.

But time is running out, and if the ill-intentions of our EU counterparts is not yet obvious to her and our team, then we are in for a very rough ride.

One fact is simple: a successful departure from EU will leave that body so weakened that it will likely not recover, so what on earth does she expect from a Brussels bureaucracy that desperately needs to prove itself and intimidate others into acquiescence?

With Poland only one example of internal dissent, EU authority is under constant challenge, and why would it not be, for what does it offer and what tributes does it demand from its provinces?

  • Forced acceptance of unemployable, uncooperative and potentially seditious migrants, who no longer even pretend to be refugees and quickly cluster in ghettos of anti-European zones of occupation. 
  • Fiscal policies that favour only Germany and continual removal of all democratic processes and all notions of independence and National sovereignty.
  • A money grubbing and self-serving administration that seeks only greater authority for itself and does not even try to hide its disdain for those on whom it depends.
  • The destruction of Europe's very essence and historical place in the world, such that our eventual fall to the horrors of islamic conquest, resisted for some 1400 years, looks increasingly likely and even, as they would have us believe, inevitable.

The list goes on, but I'm frankly tired of even thinking about that discredited stain on our once great civilization.

Negotiations are over, and it's time to take sides. So, Ms May, are you with us?

Just over 40 years of membership has left us politically and diplomatically dependent. We no longer seem to have the knowledge or the will to negotiate anything that even resembles an acceptable deal with those arch conspirators in Brussels, so take your gloves off, and start fighting to win.

Ireland was the only realistic party that could make the transition harmonious and possibly beneficial with the requisite amount of give and take, but they are lead by a man obsessively engrossed in the new liberal ideologies and life-choices so popular in European circles, that, rather than seize this chance to become a focal nation in European affairs, they have chosen to remain anonymous, a minor member of EU27, as they now quaintly regard themselves.

After so many years fighting for Statehood, Ireland has again found the challenge too daunting, and, just as in 1800, where they signed away the independence gained in 1782 , they have now thrown away any chance of proving themselves a major diplomatic force in Europe, and instead, taken to settling old scores and wallowing in petty prejudices.

So what's to be done?

Fight. If Freedom is worth fighting for, then fight for it. Tell us all:- What should Europe look like?

Lay out the plans for the sort of European Common Market that we thought we were joining, and describe the sort of Europe we would be proud and happy to live in. Let those other states, the V4, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, France and even Germany, let them know what a real European future can hold, and watch the discredited and false EU crumple.

We need allies, not handouts.

The EU has made it clear that we are to be punished and defeated, nothing more than collateral damage in their shameful attempts to coerce and cajole their members into accepting their own (and our) demise, so we have nothing to lose except our heads, and everything to gain.

The time has come, Ms May, it's us or them.

Monday, 19 March 2018

UK: A walk in the park

For anyone who does not know about Tommy Robinson, I suggest you watch his appearance at the Oxford Union, to find something of what has brought Tommy to the public's attention.

For the rest of us, yesterday's Free Speech event marked something of a turning point in the political awakening for many people who had previously been sleep-walking towards the end of Western culture and freedom.

And that is no exaggeration.

That London even needs a Free Speech movement, should be all the clue we require to assess how dire our situation has become.

The fact that small gangs of 'activists' tried to intimidate those attending and prevent Tommy from speaking, is further proof of our predicament, I personally did not witness the altercations, but there are videos circulating which appear to have been shot before Tommy's arrival, and show at least one gang of Asians (that's their official name, btw) attacking attendees.

Anyway, Tommy arrived to great applause and general excitement and those Asians, and their Antifa accomplices, quickly disappeared among the crowd or off to skulk in the background, such that many people had no clue they had even turned up. But they will be back, and that is all we need to know about them.

Below is some hand-held phone footage which I hope gives an impression of the general good natured enthusiasm in Tommy's reception.

Those who deride the Tommy Robinson phenomena, would do well to remember that Democracy needs Free Speech to exist, for how else can we know who to vote for, or just as importantly, who to vote against.

Friday, 16 March 2018

Russia: Let the investigation begin

So Boris Johnson thinks it likely that Putin personally ordered the chemical attack on a Russian double agent, this after Teresa May said something similar a few days earlier, but, are you convinced?

Well, I'm not convinced, not yet, anyway.

The only vague consensus is that this attack was, in all probability, the work of a State actor rather than an individual with a grudge or financial interest. So lets start from that assumption, and, unlike the aforementioned politicos, I will refrain from putting a name to the chief suspect, but will instead leave you to draw your own conclusion.

Motive - Which State has the greatest incentive to discredit president Putin and turn the West against Russia. Is there any State currently in conflict with Russia or likely to be, if given sufficient support?

Means - The chemical compound used was developed during the Soviet era, so, which State, currently hostile towards Russia, was either in the USSR, or has access to Soviet era technologies and personnel?

Opportunity - The latest intelligence suggests that the nerve agent was planted on the ex-spy's daughter, possibly during a recent visit to Russia, so who among her friends and associates would have links to a State hostile towards Russia? It is fairly safe to assume that the daughter of a Russian defector would have few friends within the Russian establishment, but rather more likely among the activists and dissidents most disaffected with Vladimir Putin & Co. So which State speaks Russian as a first or second language and has easy access to Moscow?

Intractable as this issue seems, the possibility that someone got close enough and was trusted enough by Yulia Skripal, to fool her into accepting such a deadly nerve agent, could be the only reliable path to solving this dreadful crime.

Friday, 9 March 2018

UK: Russia's poisoned Cup

As International intrigue returns to UK with the attempted assassination of ex-spy Sergei Skripal, there appears to be only one suspect, none less than Vladimir Putin and his evil Russians.

This is not the first such news-grabbing incident and the truth may never be properly established, but the unwillingness to consider why or who did it at this time, is new.

When Alexander Litvinenko lay dying from polonium poisoning, speculation was rife and many fingers pointed to the Russian state, but there was some level of analysis; could it have been personal enemies or rogue agents? Whoever was responsible, it was a complicated investigation and one feels a level of confidence that the truth was sought.
So who might have carried out this latest act of skulduggery?

Establishing a motive for such headline grabbing act of aggression is easy because there are so many, and difficult, for exactly the same reason, but Putin's revenge does not figure too highly in my own estimation, can anyone seriously assert that he would sanction such an action, with the 1st round of Presidential elections starting just two weeks later, on 18th March.

With the World Cup just three months away, would Putin or any patriotic Russian, put their nation under so dark a shadow? I think not.

Remembering the winter Olympics of Sochi 2014,  there are some striking similarities to this World Cup, with objections and disparagement's surrounding both that and this.

But there are other, more sinister similarities.

It is almost three months to the start of the World Cup in June, and at about the same time before Sochi, we saw the commencement of Euromaidan, which resulted in the overthrow of Victor Yanukovyc just two days before the closing ceremony in Russia.

Using the cover of a prestigious sporting event to embarrass or distract an enemy is nothing new, but it is that word 'enemy' which bothers me.

We see arms sales increasing to that most unstable and bellicose administration in Ukraine, with their fascist armies recruiting on the streets of London, and now we have a small English city at the center of a dastardly plot to eliminate this previously little-known spy and again bring the world's attention upon the Russian State.

The use of chemical/nerve agents means this is unlikely to be a personal attack, but just who conspired to poison a middle aged man and his daughter will remain a mystery for some time to come, but the list of suspects is far longer than we are led to believe, and stretches from Washington DC all the way to Kiev and beyond to the gates of the Kremlin, but I sincerely doubt, they continue beyond and inside those walls, in any officially, or unofficially, sanctioned position.

Regardless of who carried out this act, my greater concern is that the people of the Donbass may have more to worry about in the coming year, than who will win the World cup.

Thursday, 1 February 2018

UK: Talking about Brexit

As Teresa May continues to tout for business, 'today China, tomorrow the world' (or at least USA, with president Trump's state visit back on the cards) there is arguably greater potential much closer to home.

With the victory of president Zeman in Czech elections, the threat of further defections from EU looms large for the same people we are currently negotiating with for 'favorable' terms, and if such a scenario cannot be exploited, then the UK really is finished as an independent entity.

And it's not just the Visegrad group who are shaking the EUs wobbly foundations, Austria too has found refuge in reason and voted to end the nightmare of Merkel's making.

So why are we not talking to these nations as a priority?

I can understand the reluctance, given the general media bias against anything to the right of Marx or East of Berlin. But negotiating is all about menace, and the merest hint of alternative affiliations in and around Europe (especially those built on self-determination and self-protection, with trade and economic benefits for all participants), would greatly strengthen our position in dealing with Juncker & Co, and possibly even return us to the status of equal partner in the 'divorce' proceedings.

Could it be the Russian connection?

Well Poland is hardly pro-Russia, so that fear is largely unfounded, but anyway, Russia is also a large market and energy supplier, so what's not to like about that?

But this is all speculation, and the whole point about negotiation is to keep options open, and when confronting the EU (as we saw when they disemboweled Greece), there is no gentlemanly old boy's understanding, so if we hope to stay 'friends', we have already lost.

If the UK, V4 and Austria did split into some more reasonable trading group, who knows how many nations would seek to follow, and that is a threat the EU cannot contemplate.

First we need to determine just what a good deal looks like, and that's not just free trade of goods and services, but guarantees about Financial systems, then send our negotiating team to Brussels and the PM to Prague.

I believe that Ryanair have some pretty good offers at the moment.