Saturday, July 4, 2015

Stephen Harper's Friends in Kiev Want War

BBC: Ukraine crisis: Rally in Kiev urges war on eastern rebels

Protesters in Kiev calleing on the government to declare war on the rebels in eastern Ukraine. And screw the Minsk Agreement.



That's the spirit lads. Stephen Harper will be proud of you. And that twit Trudeau for whom all Russians look alike, apparently.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

EMBASSY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, OTTAWA: Canada's Anti-Russian Sanctions: Just Vote-Fishing by Harper

Canada has imposed new sanctions on Russia, chiefly it seems, because contrary to Mr. Harper's expressed wish, Mr. Putin (domestic approval rating: 89%) hasn't stepped down as Russia's President.
Click For Larger Image

The sanctions prompted a contemptuous response from the Russian Embassy in Ottawa (see facsimile at left), which described them as of a "purely domestic nature," motivated by "vote-fishing".

 In response to the new Canadian sanctions, Russia will develop further retaliatory economic measures against Canada and may also up the military pressure on Canada's Northern border, where, so the CBC reports, interception of Russian military probes is already imposing "a very severe strain for Canada’s modest fighter fleet of 77 F-18s, which has to cover extraordinary distances to provide full protection when Russians come snooping. It’s an expensive and draining effort."

On the economic front, the Russian response to Canadian sanctions have already cost Canadian farmers, fishermen and manufacturers hundreds of millions in lost exports of pork and other meats, seafood, milk and dairy products, fruit, vegetables and farm machinery, while Bombardier's $3.4 billion joint venture to assemble passenger aircraft in Russia is now on indefinite hold.

But if a few billion in lost sales sways enough Canadians of Ukrainian extraction to vote for the Tories, Stephen Harper will not doubt consider the price worth it. Heck, it's not costing Harper anything.

See Also: 

Russia-Insider:
 Canada sanctions on Russian philosopher. LOL

Canadian Press: Jason Kenney Dismisses Concerns About Canada Training Ukraine's Nazified Azov Battalion. (Yeah, what's a few Nazis among friends.)

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Tim Hunt, the Kind, Unworldly Nobel-Prize-Winner, Brought Down By a Report of Disputed Veracity By a Twittering, Anglophobic, Black-Privileged, Resumé-padding, Lecturer in Journalism and the Lies of Professor Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London, a Man Unable to Acknowledge an Error of Judgment, and Under the Sway of the Odious Morality of a Stuffed Corpse

I think the title says it all, but for those who want details and references, here they are:

1. Tim Hunt, the Kind Unworldly Nobel prize Winner
During a BBC discussion, Prof. Dame Valerie Beral, director of Oxford University's Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford said:
he's a very kind and very eccentric, unworldly sort of man ... One thing you cannot say about Tim Hunt is that he is ``sexist.`` (Full Interview)
2. Brought Down By a Report of Disputed Veracity
The Times: Hunt’s ‘chauvinist’ speech praised as warm and funny
Sir Tim Hunt’s now infamous comments at a meal for women science journalists were not met by uncomfortable silence but were instead praised for being “warm and funny”, according to a leaked European Commission report.

An official who accompanied the Nobel prize-winning scientist on his visit to South Korea said that despite accounts at the time, which led to Sir Tim being forced to resign from several academic posts, his audience was not obviously offended by his comments about the ``trouble with girls`` in science.
3. Twittering
The Twitter posting of Connie St. Louis that set off a firestorm over remarks made by Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, while proposing a before-dinner toast at a conference for science journalists in Korea.
 Embedded image permalink 4.

4. Anglophobic
"Why are the British so embarrassing abroad?"

You meant to stereotype just the white British abroad, eh Connie, not the members of the trendy settler community, surely.
5. Black-Privileged
Breitbart: Is the Media Silent on Tim Hunt Accuser Connie St. Louis's lies because of her "Black Proviledge'?
6. Resumé Padding
Daily Mail: Lecturer who first accused 'sexist' Nobel Prize professor keeps her job despite the Mail revealing her dubious claims about her career (but has been told to 'update' her CV)
7. Lies of  Professor Michael Arthur, Provost of University College London
Professor Arthur argued that he accepted the resignation ‘in good faith on the basis that it was his personal choice as the honourable thing to do’.

Which is a lie if Tim Hunt's wife, Mary Collins, is to be believed. She has stated that Tim Hunt was induced to resign by a bullying phone call to her in which "she was told by a senior UCL figure – understood to be Dean of Life Sciences Geraint Rees – that he ‘should resign or be sacked’."
8. Professor Michael Arthur,  a Man Unable to Acknowledge an Error of Judgment

In an article for the university’s website on ‘women in science’, Professor Arthur said: 
‘equality, diversity... were very important to the university.
The implication being that Tim Hunt is against equality and diversity in the university. This was the assumption that justified bullying Tim Hunt's wife to persuade Tim Hunt to resign his honorary, i.e., unpaid, position at University College London. But where is the evidence? Professor Arthur simply assumes it, and in doing so reiterates, by implication, what appears to be a libel. A libel, or a lie, which by implication, he then repeats:
‘It was for this very reason that Sir Tim’s remarks struck such a discordant note. Our ambition is to create a working environment in which women feel supported and valued at work.’
Then Professor Arthur made this remarkable admission: 
‘Our view is reversing that decision would send entirely the wrong signal’
Exactly. The "wrong signal" being that Professor Arthur's initial judgment in this matter was premature and unsound, and that Professor Arthur has adhered to this premature and unsound judgment in the face of mounting evidence of its injustice.

9. Professor Arthur, A Man Under the Sway of the Odious Morality of a Stuffed Corpse

The stuffed corpse in question being that of Jeremy Bentham, which is kept at University College and is, so it has been claimed, wheeled out from time to time to sit at the head of the table at college council meetings.

The odious morality cited by Professor Arthur as justification for trashing Tim Hunt's reputation is Jeremy Bentham's "happiness principle" often referred to as utilitarianism, or as Professor Arthur describes it:
‘...the greatest good for the greatest number’ [which is] very important to the university.
In practical terms, this is the notion that if conducting cruel and lethal experiment on an innocent child would result in the cure of cancer for millions, then such experiments would be morally justified.

From this principle we can infer that, in Professor Arthur's mind, the crucifixion of Tim Hunt based on the misinterpretation of his remarks — if not their outright falsification — is fully justified if it benefits women in science.

It's the morality of the terrorist: shoot up a bunch of innocents on a Tunisian beach to advance the noble goals of the Islamic State, or blow up the Twin Towers as a pretext for the next war for oil, the plutocracy and the New World Order.

Now is the time for University College to send Bentham's corpse to the incinerator, and to find a new Provost who will speak for traditional European Christian values, not the New World Order narrative on equality and diversity and the trashing of white European males.

10. Then there's the dishonorable role of the Royal Society in the humiliation of Tim Hunt. But, as a snappy headline, my title was already too long. And anyhow I wrote about those bozos here.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: The Ugly Interior of Jeremy Bentham's Head

CanSpeccy: Britain's Peeping State: Bureaucrats At the Washroom Keyhole

Friday, June 26, 2015

Tim Hunt: What the Royal Society Said — Does Anyone Know What the Royal Society Is Talking About? Does the Royal Society Know What's It's Talking About?

Here' what Tim Hunt said while proposing a toast at a conference of science journalists in Korea:
Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously. I'm impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.
In response, here's what the Royal Society posted on the Web on June 9:
The Royal Society has acted to distance itself from reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt FRS about women in science made during an event at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Korea. The Royal Society believes ...
Fancy that, a society with beliefs. But what does it mean: that the members of the Royal Society are unanimous in their belief about a trivial passing event and that the Royal Society somehow knows this without polling its members. Or is it that the Royal Society contends that whatever it decrees as the belief of the Society must then be adopted as a matter of faith by all of its members?

But more importantly, if the Royal Society believed it must publicly distance itself from one of its members, aka fellows, should it not have said why? Well, apparently, the Society thinks not. What's more, the Society evidently felt free to rub salt into the wound, since on June 11 it posted this on the Web:
Sir Tim Hunt’s recent comments relating to women in science have no place in science. The Royal Society believes that too many talented individuals do not fulfill their scientific potential because of issues such as gender discrimination and the Society is committed to helping to put this right. ...

But as with the June 9 statement, no justification is offered for this direct denunciation of Professor Hunt. So we still don't know what the Royal Society is talking about. What we have is mere innuendo. According to the Society's statement, Professor Hunt's comments in Korea entail "issues" such as gender discrimination.

But when people talk about "issues" it is advisable to sniff the air for the scent of bovine excrement. By directly following a reference to Professor Hunt's comments in Korea by the statement of another one of the Societies "beliefs" (these really clever scientific fella's (are they all male?) must be telepathic. That's it. That's how the Society knows when its fellows share a belief unanimously) the Society created the impression that Professor Hunt's remarks militate against "talented individuals" not fulfilling their scientific potential "because of issues such as gender discrimination" blah, blah, blah.

Of course the implied connection has no logical validity whatever, which makes one wonder just how clever these Fellows of the Royal Society really are. And incidentally, doesn't the term "Fellow of the Royal Society" constitute an issue of gender discrimination. I mean shouldn't it be GGRS (Guys and Gals of the Royal Society). Jus' sayin'.

Anyhow, it seems clear that the Royal Society has libeled Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS (or GGRS), Nobel Laureate, both directly and indirectly in its published pronouncements. Perhaps the Royal Society reached its beliefs about Professor Hunt's remarks while under a misapprehension about what he had said or about the context in which his remarks were made. But it is clear now that the Royal Society's statements about Professor Hunt are entirely unwarranted and unjust, and that it is, therefore, time for the Royal Society to make a public apology.

Related:

Daily Mail: A very flawed accuser: Investigation into the academic who hounded a Nobel Prize winning scientist out of his job reveals troubling questions about her testimony

Justice Scalia’s Dissent From the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

Scalia called attention to: “this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Source

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

The Humiliation of Tim Hunt: Why Did He Apologise?

If when the twits began to twitter that he'd made a sexist remark, Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, had issued a vice-presidential "Go fuck yourself," that would have been the end to the witch hunt, i.e., the hunt by feminist witches. Instead he apologized, admitting that he'd gone mad, which to those in pursuit was like blood in the water to a shark.

Meantime, Hunt's confession was all that the bureaucratic enforcers of political correctness needed to instigate immediate punitive action. The Royal Society, headed by Sir Paul Nurse, who shared with Tim Hunt the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, immediately "distanced" itself from the hapless Hunt, while University College London (Vice-Chancellor Professor Michael Arthur) booted Hunt from his unpaid faculty position within hours, as did the European Research Council (President: Professor Jean-Pierre Bourguignon).

That none of these organizations, each headed by a distinguished scientist, found it necessary either to justify its action or to provide Professor Hunt an opportunity to speak for himself is an aspect of the Hunt affair that deserves critical consideration. Here though, our concern is solely with this question: why did Hunt bring disaster upon his own head by making an unwarranted and, indeed, idiotic confession of guilt?

The answer, it seems, can only be that Hunt, is himself a feminist, which is to say a supporter of everything PC who automatically caves to any feminist demand whatever.

Which raises the further question, why would someone of undoubted intelligence adopt such a foolish view? And to that, I suggest, the answer is simply that Hunt accepts the liberal-left PC ideology that is almost universally held in academia. Most likely Hunt assimilated this view back in the 70's and has never given it a moment's serious thought since, first because he has a mind very narrowly focused on scientific work, and second because when 85-90% of your academic colleagues, including the administrative bureaucracy, are liberal leftist feminists, being a liberal-leftist feminist is the most comfortable position to take.

Why most academics are liberal-leftist advocates of feminism, diversity, aka the ethnic cleansing of the European peoples through suppression of reproduction plus mass immigration, etc., etc., is not entirely clear to me, although it is, obviously, highly compatible with the libertinism of many male academics working closely with nubile feminist students, such as was, for example, Mary Collins, Hunt's graduate student who became his second wife.

Perhaps the humiliation of Tim Hunt will prompt a few academics to re-examine their commitment to the liberal-leftist ideology that nurtures the politically correct world view. But don't bet on it. Education is a key component of the modern state's brainwashing apparatus. Academics play a critical role in in this apparatus: they teach the teachers who indoctrinate the children. Defection from the official line will always incur a substantial penalty.

Related: 

RamZPaul: Tim Hunt — that is NOT funny!

Irish Savant: Stand up and fight

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Dumb Ideas From Academia, No. 23: How Computer Technology Will Enable Brain to Brain Communication

Ian Morris, a Stanford-based ex-Brit, has produced another long and tedious work of current history  (see reviews here), consistent with the US imperialist narrative, which is to say that war is good, and we need more of it.

Having been stung by an earlier work by Morris, I naturally refrained from purchasing his latest screed, but I glanced through it at the bookstore, committing the following passage to my capacious memory before returning the volume to the shelf upside down (a convenient method of book review):
But when we turn from soothsaying to what is actually happening in laboratories, we discover — perhaps unsurprisingly — that while no one can predict the detailed results, the broad trend does keep moving toward the computerization of everything. I touched on some of this science in my book Why the West Rules — for Now, so here I can be brief, but I do want to note a couple of remarkable advances in what neuroscientists call brain-to-brain interfacing. (In plain English, telepathy, over the Internet) made since that book appeared in 2010. 
See what I meant about tedious? We don't have merely what is happening in laboratories, we have what is actually happening. The claim that we cannot predict the future of scientific discovery in detail, hardly needs prefacing with the words perhaps unsurprisingly, and the assumption that we must have read the author's previous incredibly long and tedious book seems rash, since anyone susceptible to the pain of extreme boredom who had read the previous book is unlikely to be reading the present one. But at least, here, Morris promises to be brief, which is encouraging, so let us continue, at least briefly:
The first requirement for merging minds through machines is machines that can read the electrical signals inside out skulls ...
Etc. Yeah, well, some people no doubt hope to recreate the Borg empire on Earth, everyone to have a thingy stuck in their head to assure unresisting assimilation. But the mind meld that we are familiar with from Star Trek, with or without the Borg snorkel, is not new. It's as old as the hills. About a hundred thousand years old, anyhow, since that's how long humans have used language with which, not only to talk, but to think. See, that's the essence of the mind meld. Creating the same thought in your head as in mine. So if I say, "shit, this book by Morris is a bore," what you'll hear is "shit, this book by Morris is a bore."

But there's more to verbal communication than that. If you live in town and like to walk, or if you commute by public transport, you must overhear the conversations of other walkers or commuters, and one thing that you will thus be aware of is that not only do people use speech to convey verbal thoughts, but they express emotion in tones of voice and in patterns of verbal emphasis. Moreover, although these characteristics of speech vary from place to place, within any local group they become highly standardized, as is particularly obvious among young people who have been socialized almost entirely by other children, plus TV and Hollywood (which is why one rather despairs of the next generation). We can be confident, therefore, that when certain tones of expression and patterns of emphasis are used, they have essentially the same emotional significance for both speaker and hearer.

So, contrary to this idea that "the broad trend does keep moving toward the computerization of everything," you don't need a computer for brain-to-brain communication unless you are communicating remotely, in which case you do need a computer, but only as an input device activated via a keyboard, microphone or camera. So actually, Professor Morris seems to be about a hundred thousand years behind the times. True there are some forms of thought that are not so easily verbalized, but humanity managed to develop the Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with nothing beside words, including some special math terminology, as a means of communication, so it remains open to question whether there would be any gain in communication effectiveness from wiring people's brains together. The downside, though, is obvious: the NSA would tap your thoughts and then decide, by means of a computer algorithm, probably,  whether to set you up for a drone attack next week.

"Métissage, It's An Obligation" — NON


Related:

CanSpeccy: The Treason of Nicolas Sarkozy: "Métissage" - It's An Obligation!

Monday, June 22, 2015

MIT Meteorology Prof, Science Magazine and the Pope Concur: The Reality of Human Caused Climate Change Is an Article of Religious Faith

First there was an article by MIT meteorology professor emeritus, Richard Lindzen, asserting that  global warming alarmism is a religious cult.

Second, there was a long letter in Science magazine, the chief publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, asserting that the warnings of “science” about the risk of catastrophic global warming should be accepted by the public as a matter of faith.

Third, there was the Pope's encyclical "saying" so the CBC tells us, that "the crisis [of climate change] is man-made and must be fixed".

So there you have it: belief in human caused climate change is an article of faith endorsed by all and sundry, from MIT Prof., Richard Lindzen, to Science Mag. and the Pope.

To be fair, though, not all Catholics (or even all scientists, one hopes), believe that the climate change debate can be resolved other than on the basis of  the evidence. The point is nicely made in this post on the Catholic Answers blog:
Whether the Earth is getting warmer and the degree to which we may be responsible for that are matters of science, not faith. They stand or fall by the scientific evidence, which is why the pope appeals to scientific studies.

If good science supports manmade global warming, that gives Catholics (and everyone else) reason to believe it. If good science opposes manmade global warming, that gives everyone reason to disbelieve it.

Furthermore, since the results of science are always provisional and open to revision—with the “scientific orthodoxy” of one generation frequently replaced in the next generation—people on both sides of the question should hold their views with proper reserve and openness to revising them.

This is thus a subject on which there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics and among people in general.
Pretty weird, though, innit, having to go to a Catholic blog to get a reasonable statement of what constitutes a rational view of the climate science debate.

And there is this pertinent comment by Jack Spring on the above mentioned blog post:
Catholics believe the Pope speaks infallibly when he makes a proclamation ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. There is much within this encyclical which is not, strictly speaking, a matter of faith and morals. Indeed, the Pope takes the position of the UN in accepting as true conclusions about climate science which are still very much in dispute.
Which is to say, the Pope, on climate change, ain't infallible, he's just catapulting the propaganda. Likewise, Science magazine.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Putin, Putin, Everyone Put the Boot In

The effectiveness of US propaganda depends on the fact that it is wall to wall. On the fringes are Wacko bloggers like former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, a self-hating Englishman who claims that the Russian economy will soon be smaller than that of Spain, or was it Portugal, or perhaps Estonia.

The Canadian take: And the evidence is?
Then there are the news mags. Der Spiegel, for example, with its front cover damning Putin for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (with the words "Stoppt Putin jetzt!" over images of the victims of the crash) without, as it turns out, any evidence whatever. And there's the Economist, edited by the loony Russophobe, Edward Lucas, who in a recent public forum tried to convince an astounded audience that Russia is less of a geopolitical player than Estonia (pop. 1 million) (at 42 minutes in). Plus Canada's dental waiting room fixture, Macleans, which simply calls Putin a mass murderer. If you're gonna abuse someone, no point in beating about the bush, obviously.

And by no means of least importance, the daily coverage by the MSM reassuring the booboisie on a daily basis that Russia is basically finished: is not a threat at all, really, however much she is insulted, threatened, or taunted, notwithstanding the seven thousand nukes and a new ICBM in production. Indeed we can look forward to seeing Russia again open to looting by the Western multinationals as in the good old Yeltsin days. The only obstacle is that little runt Putin, the New Hitler, to be disposed of like, you know, how we disposed of those other New Hitlers, Saddam and Gaddhafi.

Yesterday's (Toronto) Globe and Mail, the self-proclaimed Canadian National Newspaper, provides a nice example of this low key propaganda under the Business Page headline: "Putin's oil worries are far from over". Russia, the article states, desperately needs high oil prices to lift its energy-fuelled economy out of recession, blah, blah, blah. Funny thing, though, the article says nothing about Harper's oil worries being "far from over", yet Canada exports more oil per capita than Russia and like Russia has seen a sharp devaluation of its currency since last year's slump in the price of oil. Moreover, whereas Russia is a low-cost oil producer, Canada's tar sands oil is the costliest to produce of any oil on the planet, with the result that, with the recent slump in price, the oil majors have slashed tens of billions from planned tar sands development, and have fired tens of thousands of Canadian workers.

Meantime Russia's oil industry continues to expand, with Rosneft and BP reaching agreement just the other day to proceed with development of the one-billion barrel Taas-Yuriakh field in Eastern Siberia. And why not. The Russians managed to pump almost ten million barrels a day in 2001 when oil was at $20, so they're not likely feeling unbearable pain with a sharply devalued ruble and oil at $60.

But however stupid the propaganda, it works. Most Canadians think Harper is right to insult Putin whenever the chance arises, to send Canadian fighter jets to pose a menace to Russia's Western border, and to send military aid and military personnel to train Kiev's Russophobic Nazis, under the direction of US gauleiters such as Tony Blair and  Mikhail Saakashvili.

Related: 

RT: Bloomberg's Coverage of St. Petersburg Econ Forum Was Embarrassing. Here Are the Highlights

Friday, June 19, 2015

The Trashing of Tim Hunt, a Breach of the Social Contract, the Death of a Civilization

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry. Professor, Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate 

What was sexist about the recent comments by Tim Hunt concerning his experience of women in the laboratory?

Nothing.

He was not advocating discrimination. He was not advocating rape. What he said about men and women working in the laboratory was a statement of a sociological fact. It was also a statement of an autobiographical fact; namely, that Hunt divorced his first wife to marry his graduate student.

As for what he said about women crying when they are criticized, that was an unduly broad generalization, but based upon fact. Some women do cry when criticized, a reality that militates against effective discipline in an environment where strict discipline is essential to the success of a challenging enterprise.

So no, contrary to the "sympathetic" public commentary, the feminists did not go too far. They went where they had no business whatever. They mugged an innocent person too politically naive to defend himself.

And the punishment was not too severe, because it was totally unwarranted.

The wonderful elaborations and complexities of Western society were built on the efforts of a few otherworldly geniuses: artists, priests, scientists, inventors, soldiers, sailors and others rare individuals.

Such people are different from you and I: they devote their lives to a vocation. Such people tend to be of childlike simplicity in matters unrelated to their work. They are not savvy in the ways of politics or the games of political correctness.

A society that fails to honor the implicit social contract with such people; a contract that promises honor and protection to those who devote their lives to a calling, can expect to have no great men or women. Moreover it cannot expect to endure as an independent society, since lacking great men it will lack the scientific and technological resources necessary for its own defense, whether against external enemies or internal corruption.

The Hunt affair confirms what much else suggests, that European civilization is in the final stages of disintegration. As yet, not a single important person, for example, the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, the Vice Chancellor of University College London, Professor Michael Arthur, or the President of the European Research Council, Professor Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, has offered an apology to Professor Hunt for the insult he has received at the hands of the institution with which they are associated.

Not one great public figure has yet to speak in Professor Hunt's honor. From the British government, we have this from Minister Nick Morgan:  "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all."
Good God, that's a direct quote from the 1950's Disney cartoon, Bambi. It's Thumper, the rabbit: "If you can't say sumffink nice,  don't say nuffink at all."

And the Minister was directing her rebuke, not at the idiots who have torn down an icon of the scientific establishment, but at the victim himself.

Every summer Brits flock to the Royal Albert Hall to attend the eight-week series of Promenade Concerts, which end with a rendering of Edward Elgar's famous Rule Brittania, with the audience wildly singing that anthem to British greatness, an anthem that ends with the words:

And Briton's never, never, never shall be slaves.

Sadly, the Brits are now unwitting, and therefore absolute, slaves to a Quisling government that speaks in the voice of Micky Mouse; a government that is intent on the genocide of the British people through the Kalergi program of mass immigration, multiculturalism and the suppression of dissent by K-to-middle-age brainwashing in the guise of education; brainwashing that turns out morons who thrill to the spectacle of a distinguished old white European male being tormented by sadistic exponents of political correctness, while the society from which these dupes are sprung undergoes rapid annihilation as a racial and cultural entity.

Related:

ITV: Net long-term migration to UK hits 318,000

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Would Conchita Wurst Sound As Sweet By Any Other Name?

A conch is the shell of a mollusc or shell fish. The Bivalvia, known in previous centuries as the Lamellibranchiata and Pelecypoda," comprise, so Wikipedia informs,  "a class of marine and freshwater molluscs that have laterally compressed bodies enclosed by a shell consisting of two hinged parts. They have no head."

Well never mind about the head or lack thereof, just think about the shell, the two hinged parts spread wide and viewed from the outside. What do you see? Well, to some, what they see is reminiscent of the vulva, the external female genital organs of a mammal, in particular the labia majora located on either side of the vagina. No surprise, therefore, to learn from the Urban Dictionary that in Spanish, "conch" is slang for "cunt" and "conchita" means "little cunt."

Which naturally draws attention to the last name of the European song contest winner of our title, namely, "Wurst." As most readers will know, a wurst is a German or Austrian sausage, so few will be surprised to learn from the Urban Dictionary that "wurst" is also a slang term for penis. Hence my question: would the judges of the European song contest have been so enthused by the performance of the man with tits, or is a it a woman with a beard and penis, had he/she been introduced not as the pleasant sounding — to the English speaker's ear — Conchita Wurst, but as the rather less charming, Little Cunt Penis, or some variant of the same? Just asking.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

It's Not Professor Sir Tim Hunt, FRS, Nobel Laureate, Who's Sexist, But the PC Idiots Who Say He Is

On 9 June 2015, Tim Hunt gave a speech at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, Korea, entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"

His remarks included the following:
Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.
The next day, according to Wikipedia, "numerous media outlets reported the story and criticized Hunt's remarks as sexist." 

So what's sexism? Here's Wikipedia's description of Hunt's alleged crime: 
Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism affects both men and women, but primarily women. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles, and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another. Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.
So where's the discrimination in Professor Hunt's remarks? Where's the incitement to rape?

Obviously, you have to be a total idiot or a contemptible liar to say that Professor Hunt's 37 words were sexist.

Hunt merely stated something about the sociology of a research lab. If you do a regular thirty-five-hour-a-week job, taking your yearly vacation allowance, a few sick days, maybe some flex days, etc., it is nevertheless likely that at some time in your career you will have taken a more than purely professional interest in one or other of the more attractive people of the opposite sex with whom you worked.

Well such a work environment as you are probably familiar with is nothing like that of a high-powered research lab. There you're likely to find people work twelve-hour days and seven-day weeks, and who will pull an all-nighter if that's what the experiment demands. There you will find people who have taken no holiday in years. And these are people trying to solve a real puzzle: they will likely be engaged in an unending conversation with co-workers, students, and technicians: how to tackle the problem experimentally, the innumerable technical snags and glitches whatever the approach, the evaluation of the data, the public presentation of the findings, the rebuttal of criticism, etc.

Now decide whether what Professor Hunt said makes sense, whether in fact, he was merely stating the obvious. Where men and women engage together in such intense effort as productive research requires, sexual tensions are inevitable and and can be powerfully disruptive. There's nothing discriminatory in saying that.

But what about the last bit: "and when you criticize them, they cry."

First, is it true or not? Here's what my wife, with over forty years of administrative experience, from running a high-powered research lab to editing journals to university administration told me: when a woman asks me for an evaluation of her performance "I ask whether they really want a candid appraisal or if that will make them cry."

So what's discriminatory about noting that female psychology, or is it physiology, can militate against effective discipline? Nothing, obviously.

So how is one to characterize the response of the Royal Society, which "acted to distance itself from the reported comments by Sir Tim Hunt."

Here's what they said:
The Royal Society believes that in order to achieve everything that it can, science needs to make the best use of the research capabilities of the entire population. Too many talented individuals do not fulfil their scientific potential because of issues such as gender and the Society is committed to helping to put this right. Sir Tim Hunt was speaking as an individual and his reported comments in no way reflect the views of the Royal Society.
Does that have anything to do with what Professor Hunt said, or what? Well actually nothing at all. But they're distancing themselves from Professor Hunt, anyhow.

Professor Hunt expressed no objection whatever to the employment of women in science, which is hardly suprising since his wife is a distinguished scientist whose graduate studies he supervised.

But the irrelevantly offensive stupidity of the Royal Society's "distancing" of itself from one of its most distinguished members was nothing compared to the actions of University College London, where Hunt held an honorary, that is to say unpaid, position. They got him to resign by bullying his wife, Professor Mary Collins who, speaking with the Guardian, said:
I was told by a senior that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked – though I was told it would be treated as a low-key affair. Tim duly emailed his resignation when he got home. The university promptly announced his resignation on its website and started tweeting that they had got rid of him. Essentially, they had hung both of us out to dry. They certainly did not treat it as a low-key affair. I got no warning about the announcement and no offer of help, even though I have worked there for nearly 20 years. It has done me lasting damage. 
How is one to characterize people who act so despicably? Morons? Arse holes? Nazis? Well, actually, I think "Sexists" is the right term. What we are seeing in the triumph of political correctness over sanity and decency is the rise of something like the mentality of ancient Rome, where people were thrown to the lions for the amusement of the masses.

Here we have a case of a distinguished, old, white guy being publicly humiliated for no better reason than that he is a distinguished, old, white guy, i.e., exactly the sort of successful, racially unmixed, hard-working, responsible person most hated by the mis-educated, multi-culturalized, self-hating British moronocracy. And the elite at the Royal Society, the University of London, and the folks at the European Research Council, who also fired Hunt, are right behind the mob: a mob of sexist, racist, anti-intellectualist British yahoos.

But then where are the Brits? To judge by some press reports, the Brits seem to have been entirely ethnically cleansed:

A greeting for Michelle Obama during a visit to a London school. Source Daily Mail. Nice-looking kids. But they're NOT ENGLISH.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Petro Poroshenko to Share Nobel Peace Prize

As long expected, this year`s Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Petro Poroshenko, the US-appointed Ukrainian war leader who has courageously pursued the genocide of the Russian people of Eastern Ukraine despite the near universal desertion of all but the most incompetent/drunken members of the Ukraine Armed Forces.

The award was shared with John, Bomb-Iran, McCain and, perhaps surprisingly to some, ISIS, the cannibalistic, head chopping, prisoner-burning agent of US influence in the Middle East.

Probably the only real disappointment felt as the result of today's announcement will be among those who had hoped that the prize would be awarded to ex-Middle-East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair, or posthumously, to Jack the Ripper.

Related:

CanSpeccy: Stevie Harper Invites Ukie Oligarch to Address Canadian Parliament in Show of Support for Nazi Genocide

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Scotch Nats at Westminster: A Party Without Power or Purpose

The Scottish National Party is a separatist, or as our friends in Kiev would say, terrorist, movement: its objective to tear Scotland, a lightly populated rocky outcrop at the northernmost tip of the British Isles, from the democratic, historically linked, linguistically unified, ethnically related, physically united natural geopolitical unit of the United Kingdom with the objective of inserting it into the undemocratic, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, civil war prone, European Union where the interests of the Scottish people as a national entity would be regarded as of no consequence whatever.

In pursuit of the Will-'o-the-wisp of Scottish national fulfillment within the continental European Union the Scotch Nats have taken their campaign to the Parliament in Westminster, achieving a near sweep of Scotland in the 2015 general election, and sending 56 MP's to London. But in terms of practical politics this doesn't mean a thing. In Westminster the Nats can vote whichever way they want but without the slightest influence on the course of the majority Conservative government.

Moreover there is nothing that the Nats at Westminster can tell the government in Westminster that the Nats ruling in Edinburgh cannot tell the government in Westminster directly. All that the SNP members can do in Westminster is fester. And, of course, collect their pay cheques and submit their claims for expenses when making shopping trips to London.

No doubt Nats will try to divert attention to themselves in various ways, all of which will amount to nothing more than Scotch whinging. In time, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon will become known as the female equivalent of the Scotsman with a grievance, who as P.G. Wodehouse noted, is not difficult to distinguish from a ray of sunshine.

Related:

Daily Mail: Vicious Scotch Nats Drive Successful Entrepreneur Into English Exile

Daily Mail: Goonish, drunken antics of Westminster's new SNP Members
Without either power or purpose in Westminster, the SNP were bound to lose credibility. But that they would discredit themselves the day the arrived  was more than anyone could have hoped. The Scottish people will surely soon regret, if they do not regret already, choosing such clowns to represent them. 
Stuart Littlewood: UK General Election: the Dust Hasn’t Settled Yet

CanSpeccy: UK 2015: Weird Election Math

CanSpeccy: Why the UK Election Changes Nothing

CanSpeccy: The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders’ Debate

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Why the UK Election Changes Nothing

Man is a predator that preys on his own kind: hence the social hierarchy — the working class works and the ruling class rules.

In Britain, during the 19th century, workers increasingly concentrated in large numbers in mines, shipyards, and factories posed a threat to the authority of the ruling class. The resulting class struggle culminated in the passage of the Trade Union Act of 1871, which gave British workers the legal right to organize for the purpose of bargaining with employers over wages and working conditions.

Funded by compulsory dues imposed on all workers within organized industries, labour unions became a major political force able to finance election campaigns and sponsor parliamentary candidates, mainly drawn from their own ranks.

The result was an anomaly in the arrangement of society. While workers continued to work, the rulers, which is to say the owners of capital, found themselves, under the influence of labour's representation in Parliament, heavily burdened by taxes to support social programs of all kinds intended to benefit the workers.

But within a hundred years of the passage of the Trade Union Act, the social tide again turned due to the forces of globalization to which the British were ruthlessly submitted by Prime Ministers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. As a result, British workers were forced into competition with cheap labor both abroad, as the result of the off-shoring of jobs, and at home, as the result of mass immigration; the pace of which now constitutes a genocidal flood that has made the English a minority in their own capital city of London, and in many other towns and cities, including Leicester, Luton, Slough and, soon, England's second city of Birmingham.

Inevitably, the export of jobs combined with a glut of cheap labor at home destroyed the power of the labour unions. As a result, the Labour Party is now a party of slick lawyers and agents of foreign interests, the present leader (at the time of writing) being a staunch Zionist who asserts that welcoming foreigners is the essence of British Nationalism. Yeah, right: tell that to the million unemployed unskilled youths of Britain and the millions of low-paid workers competing for jobs not only with African, Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants, but with some of the best and the brightest ex-Soviet citizens of Eastern Europe, tens of millions of whom have the unimpeded right of immigration to Britain.

Thus, today, there is no party in Britain that could or would alter the economic course of events in any significant way. The Tories, if they remain in power, will continue to lie about their intention to curb immigration as they have during the past four years. Cheap labour, after all, is the basis of the money power that now owns not only the Tories but all the major British political parties and politicians.

The liberals will continue to applaud mass immigration as a process of value in and of itself, eliminating the British from the face of the Earth as they are outbred by a mass of philoprogenitive Third worlders.  and the Labour Party, which initiated the current immigrant deluge, will lie like the Tories as serves the need of the money power that pays for their election campaigns and rewards the leadership with payoffs after they leave office.

Meantime, UKIP, supposedly the champion of lower immigration, blathers continually about the benefits of immigration and, for God's sake, the need for more Indians: not that anyone in Britain dislikes Indians, far from it. But when more than half the population of my father's home town of Leicester is of Indian extraction, most Brits think it would be best to love Indians in India, not England, so who the Hell's gonna vote UKIP?

Likewise, the Scotch separatists, or SNP, have no more idea of serving the interests of the people of Scotland than anyone else. Their greatest desire, apparently, is to be admitted to the EU, there, along with the many other trivialities such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Luxembourg, etc., etc.,  to accept unquestioningly the dictates if the Brussels mandarins. But whether inside the UK or out, as members of the EU the Scots will have no choice but to compete for work with any number of Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians Albanians, Romanians, etc.,who chose to come and take what job they can from a native Scot.

In addition there are several other nonsense parties headed, like the Scotch Nats by women, who as I argued before, would best be tied in sacks and dumped in the Bosphorus. Certainly, if spared from drowning, these parties will accomplish nothing for the workers as they strive to create more jobs for members of the political class that serves the globalist plutocratic elite.

Related: 

CanSpeccy: UK 2015: Weird Election Math

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

I'm Sorry Russia?

Over at Rock Solid Politics, Canadian political scientist and former soldier, Brad Cabana, apologizes to Russia for the Harper Government's insolent refusal to send an official representative to this Saturday's Moscow Victory Day Parade that honors the colossal sacrifices of the Russian people in their epic struggle to defeat Nazi Germany during World War 2.

 It should be remembered, though, that it was the Soviets, by their agreement to the August 23, 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for the gang-rape of Poland, that precipitated the war. It just happened that Hitler, Stalin's partner in crime, turned against him (or possibly Hitler acted to preempt a Soviet plan to attack Germany), which suited the West since it resulted in the trashing of Germany, then the main threat to US and British power. For this reason it was, for many years, deemed appropriate in the West to praise the Russian war effort.

But today, Russia's revival as a world power threatens to block the Eastward expansion of US/NATO in its drive to establish a corporate-controlled global empire, hence the Western military pressure being brought to bear on Russia, and the Western cultivation of Russophobia.

For the people of the West, therefore, the question today (insofar as the people in the West have any relevance to government action, which is doubtful) is whether they favor the corporate-owned global empire in which the nation states as racial and cultural entities are to be destroyed by mass migrations and enforced multiculturalism, or would prefer to remain part of a multipolar world of racially and culturally homogeneous, democratic, sovereign nation states as championed by the Putin and the other BRICs nations. If the latter, they should join with Brad Cabana in apologizing to Russia for the Harper Government's shameful display of contempt for the dreadful sacrifices of the Russian people during World War 2.

Friday, May 1, 2015

Bob Kerrey, 9/11 Commisioner: 9/11 Was the Result of a 30-Year Conspiracy



Now that pretty well everyone who's given the matter serious thought understands that 9/11 was a phony  terrorist attack engineered by the U.S. of A. to justify wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, calling it a 30-year conspiracy takes some of the heat off Clinton, Bush and Cheney who were directly culpable.

Next, probably, we'll be hearing that the London Tube train bombings were the result of a 30-year conspiracy, thus taking the heat of Phony Blair.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

No Political Opinions Please, We’re Canadian

The Toronto Symphony has barred Ukrainian-born artist Valentina Lisitsa for commenting on the mainstream media's biased coverage of the Nazi-backed coup d'état in Ukraine and Kiev's genocidal war on ethnic Russians of South Eastern Ukraine.

As the Toronto Star reports:

Read more at CanSpeccy.WordPress.com

Sunday, April 5, 2015

MH17, Dutch Gold, Kolomoisky, Botched Putin Assassination Attempt

Deep Resource notes the remarkable difference between the inquiry into the Germanwings airliner crash and the crash of Malaysia Airlines MH17 blown out of the sky in the Ukrainian war zone:
Two weeks after the Germanwings crash we know everything: what was on the audio tapes, the cause of the crash, the motivations of the co-pilot. There are no more open questions.
How different with MH17. After 8 months they can’t even decide if it was a A2A or S2A missile that brought down MH17. We still don’t know what was on the tapes. Unlike the GermanWings plane, the US government immediately had an idea about who had done MH17: Russia. Just like the US government proclaimed to know within hours that bin Laden was behind 9/11.
Why the difference? Deep Resource offers two reasons:

Friday, April 3, 2015

The 2015 UK Pre-election Leaders' Debate

At the insistence of Prime Minister David Cameron, leaders not only of the significant national parties, but also of the Greens and the nationalists, both Scotch and Welsh, were included in this so-called debate, thus preventing any real one-on-one that could have seriously damaged the Tory leader.

The marginals, all female, filled much of the air time with the usual liberal-left drivel designed to extend the culture of entitlement not only to all citizens but to anyone who manages to set foot on British soil, including healthcare tourists, criminals and radical Muslims with a settler mentality. Obviously the best  thing to do with the three of them would have been to tie them in sacks and dump them in the Bosphorus.

As for the males, Cameron`s performance was exemplary: a suave delivery of the lying bullshit to be expected from a war criminal, Libya bombing, treasonous Conservative Friends of Israel, bankster-enabling, son-of-a-bitch, Eton-Oxford product with a nasal whine and the look about him of an ill-tempered raccoon.

Clegg delivered the Liberal bullshit with charismatic elan: Wage compression for low-skilled Brits due to mass immigration? No prob., just raise the minimum wage. Yeah, Cleggy, and let 'em eat cake.

Milliband the ugly Jew with a reconstructed schnozz ...

Read more at CanSpeccy on Wordpress

Friday, March 27, 2015

The War of Lies Against Russia

R-I: Daniele Ganser Interview : America’s Objective in Ukraine to Set Germany Against Russia

HuffPo: Rick Mercer Rant: Either Jason Kenney Or NATO Is Lying About Russian Fighter Jets

TruthDig: Canadian, Former US State Department Advisor, James Carden: Vladimir Putin Not Responsible for Ukrainian Civil War

Harper-backed Kievite Russophobes with Wolfsangel armbands.

James Carden: "We have never sought to apply any pressure on Kiev."

LOL.

The Government of Canada has done just about everything it could get away with short of adopting the Wolfsangel in place of the maple leaf as the national emblem to inflame and intensify the Russophobia of Ukraine's Kiev junta, which is engaged in a genocidal struggle with the people of East Ukraine.

But, then a US State Department adviser has to pull a some punches.

Related:

CanSpeccy: Reaping the Ukrainian Whirlwind: Tyranny in Kiev, Russian Nukes 90 Miles off America's Southern Shore

CanSpeccy: Stephen Harper in Europe to Relaunch the Cold War

CanSpeccy: Globalization, the Ukraine Coup, the Vilification of Russia and the Endless Printing of Money

CanSpeccy: Ukraine: Catapulting the Propaganda, the National Putz and Stephen Harper, the Mighty Mouse of the North

CanSpeccy: Why Stephen Harper Has Sent Canadian Armed Forces to Back a Nazi Government in Ukraine

CanSpeccy: Stephen Harper's Belligerent Russophobia

CanSpeccy: Ukraine: Nazi NATO Setting the Stage for a Proxy War on Russia

CanSpeccy: Harper Government backs Ukraine's Nazi Junta in Crushing Separtists: Quebec Separatists Take Note

CanSpeccy: Steve Harper's Friends in Kyiv Killing Their Own People in Eastern Ukraine

CanSpeccy: In Canada We're All Nazi-lovers Now

CanSpeccy: How Canada's Government Came to Love Ethnic Cleansers Wearing Swastikas

CanSpeccy: Canada Prepares for War in Europe: Sends Military Police to Kiev

CanSpeccy: Ukrainian Civil War — It's About Killing Ukrainians, Not Russians

R-I: Ukraine Signs Deal with Canadian Export Agency for $160 Million Loan

Fort Russ: Ex-Chancellor Schroeder attacks Merkel's Russia policy

Crackpot American Architects and Engineers: Why New York's World Trade Center Towers Collapsed

The resolution accepted for debate at the May 2015 annual convention of the American Institute of Architects (see text below) raises many questions including the following:

Did New York's Twin Towers plus World Trade Center Building 7 (a 49-story building not hit by an aircraft) collapse on 9/11 because they were designed by crackpot architects and engineers, thus becoming the first and only steel-frame high-rise buildings anywhere in the World to collapse because of fire (as claimed by the US Government-sponsored NIST report)?

Or are the architects and engineers who reject the conclusions of the NIST report on the collapse of Building 7 not crackpots at all?

And, if the Twin Towers and Building 7 collapsed on 9/11 due, not to office fires, but to explosives-driven demolition, then does that not transform the US Government's "War Against Terror" into the "Terror War Against Americans and the World"?

Collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7: Resolution for Debate at the 2015 Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects


WHEREAS, under the AIA Public Policies and Position Statements, it is the responsibility of architects to design a resilient environment that can more successfully adapt to natural conditions and that can more readily absorb and recover from adverse events; and

WHEREAS, architects and others involved in the design and construction of buildings depend upon the information obtained from investigations into building failures to inform the development of model building codes; and

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise building, suffered a complete collapse; and

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and

WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and

WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AIA Board of Directors shall adopt a Position Statement, to be published in the AIA Directory of Public Policies and Position Statements, stating:
The AIA’s belief that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes;

The AIA’s recognition that many members of the architecture profession believe the NIST investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed;

The AIA’s belief that this perspective merits further study; and

The AIA’s support for a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is advised that this Position Statement be incorporated as Position Statement #3 under the Construction Industry Regulation Public Policy. The recommended language of this Position Statement is as follows:
World Trade Center 7

The AIA believes that incidents involving the catastrophic failure of buildings and other structures must be investigated using the highest standards of science-based investigation and analysis in order to provide accurate and meaningful information in the development of model building codes. In adherence to the scientific method, investigations should:
Consider all available data;
Consider hypotheses that most readily explain the available data;
Test those hypotheses and analyze the results without bias; and
Provide for external review and replication by making all data available.
The AIA recognizes that many members of the architecture profession believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, did not adhere to these principles and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed. The AIA believes this perspective merits further study and supports a new investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Jewish Power in America

In an interview with the Saker, former US Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, said:
All the evidence is that Israel controls the US, but only its MidEast policy.
This I believe is incorrect. In particular I believe that the qualification "only its MidEast Policy", is incorrect.

The United States is a plutocracy with the trappings of democracy. The money power finances election campaigns and owns the media. Mostly, the outcome of an election is determined before the vote is counted or the campaign begun through the selection of candidates committed to the interests of the money power. Insofar as elections matter at all, they amount only to faction fights among plutocrats, the outcome dependent on campaign funding and manipulation of opinion through control of the media.

First, then, what is the power of Jews within plutocratic America?

According to Forbes Magazine, more than one quarter of America's richest citizens are Jews, although Jews are said to account for less than 2% of America's population. Potentially, therefore, Jews have great power in America. That power can only be enhanced by the evident readiness of many rich Jews to contribute generously to political causes. Moreover, Jews have a tremendous sense of group identity, continually reinforced by the Holocaust Industry, which insures that their political influence tends to be concentrated on achieving quite specific and, among Jews, generally agreed objectives. It is reasonable to suppose therefore that Jews are the most powerful ethnic group in the USA.

Second, then, what are the political objectives of rich Jews in America.

Seemingly, most Jewish-American plutocrats are Zionists, which is to say they are committed to the interests of the state of Israel. But the state of Israel does not encompass all or even the majority of the Jewish nation, the greatest proportion of which resides in America. It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the primary objective of plutocratic Jews in America is to promote the interest of American Jews — in politics, academia, the bureaucracy and business.

To tribally-oriented Jews, it must be seen that this objective can be furthered by destroying the dominance in America of ethnic Europeans, an objective now approaching fulfillment through mass multiracial immigration, multiculturalism, and the suppression of white pride, the Christian faith and Western culture, the latter objectives being accomplished through brainwashing, aka education, and political correctness enforced by police and administrative action.

Not all Jews are committed to such a program, obviously, and some publicly oppose it. Among ordinary American Jews many, perhaps most, may be as clueless about what is really happening in their country as are the majority of Euro-Americans now well on their way to minority status, not only in what were formerly great American cities such as Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, etc., but state by state and, within a generation, nationally.

Thus American government is powerfully influenced by a plutocratic Jewish minority, not only in the interests of Israel but in the interests of the Jewish nation in America and world-wide. This is not to say that others in America are without power. It is the case, however, that non-Jews in America are not only disinclined to think in racial terms but have for the most part been indoctrinated to believe that to serve first the interests of one's own people constitutes an intolerable evil. So long as that view prevails — which is to say, as long as that view continues to be effectively imposed — the European people, both in Europe and America will continue on the path to early extinction: inundated by aliens, out-reproduced, stripped of their culture and religious tradition, while their jobs and future prospects are off-shored and out-sourced by the money power, both Jewish and otherwise.

Related: 

Occidental Review: A Review of Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle


Justin Raimondo: Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column

Sputnik: Weinstein Urges Jews to Get Organized 'As Mafia' to Take On Anti-Semites

Irish Savant: What's the deal with Jews and gun control?

Spiked: The Brit Media Hounding an Opponent of Political Correctness

HuffPo: The New American Order

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Genocide: It's the Jewish Way — They Win Some, They Lose Some

The Times of Israel, March 11, 2015:

Op-ed calls on Israel to nuke Germany, Iran


"20-30 nuclear bombs will assure the job gets done," opinion piece on right-wing Israel National News site says ...


Thursday, March 19, 2015

The Neoconservative Threat to International Order

By Paul Craig Roberts

Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war.

Foreign Policy Journal, February 27, 2015: This week I was invited to address an important conference of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev succeeded in establishing. All of Russia is distressed that Washington alone has destroyed the trust between the two major nuclear powers that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era, trust that had removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Russians at every level are astonished at the virulent propaganda and lies constantly issuing from Washington and the Western media. Washington’s gratuitous demonization of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has rallied the Russian people behind him. Putin has the highest approval rating ever achieved by any leader in my lifetime.

Washington’s reckless and irresponsible destruction of the trust achieved by Reagan and Gorbachev has resurrected the possibility of nuclear war from the grave in which Reagan and Gorbachev buried it. Again, as during the Cold War, the specter of nuclear armageddon stalks the earth.

Why did Washington revive the threat of world annihilation? Why is this threat to all of humanity supported by the majority of the US Congress, by the entirety of the presstitute media, and by academics and think-tank inhabitants in the US, such as Motyl and Weiss, about whom I wrote recently?

The Threat Posed to International Relations By The Neoconservative Ideology of American Hegemony

Address to the 70th Anniversary of the Yalta Conference, Hosted by Institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow, February 25, 2015, Hon. Paul Craig Roberts

Colleagues,

What I propose to you is that the current difficulties in the international order are unrelated to Yalta and its consequences, but have their origin in the rise of the neoconservative ideology in the post-Soviet era and its influence on Washington’s foreign policy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad. At that time China’s rise was estimated to require a half century. Suddenly the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the “world’s only superpower.” Neoconservatives proclaimed “the end of history.”

By the “end of history” neoconservatives mean that the competition between socio-economic-political systems is at an end. History has chosen “American Democratic-Capitalism.” It is Washington’s responsibility to exercise the hegemony over the world given to Washington by History and to bring the world in line with History’s choice of American democratic-capitalism.

In other words, Marx has been proven wrong. The future does not belong to the proletariat but to Washington.

The neoconservative ideology raises the United States to the unique status of being “the exceptional country,” and the American people acquire exalted status as “the indispensable people.”

If a country is “the exceptional country,” it means that all other countries are unexceptional. If a people are “indispensable,” it means other peoples are dispensable. We have seen this attitude at work in Washington’s 14 years of wars of aggression in the Middle East. These wars have left countries destroyed and millions of people dead, maimed, and displaced. Yet Washington continues to speak of its commitment to protect smaller countries from the aggression of larger countries. The explanation for this hypocrisy is that Washington does not regard Washington’s aggression as aggression, but as History’s purpose.

We have also seen this attitude at work in Washington’s disdain for Russia’s national interests and in Washington’s propagandistic response to Russian diplomacy.

Read more

Related:

Sputnik: Nobel Piss Prize Committee kicks out leader who gave award to O'Bomber

Von Marco Maier: NATO Baiting Russia But the Bear Won't Bite

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Impending Threat to Canadian Democracy: Harper Government’s “Anti-Terrorism Act” isn’t about Terrorism, it’s a Torture Act

Professor Michael Keefer

The Harper government’s Bill C-51, or Anti-Terrorism Act, has been in the public domain for over a month. Long enough for us to know that it subverts basic principles of constitutional law, assaults rights of free speech and free assembly, and is viciously anti-democratic.

Global Research, March 11, 2015: An unprecedented torrent of criticism has been directed against this bill as the government rushes it through Parliament. This has included stern or at least sceptical editorials in all the major newspapers; an open letter, signed by four former Prime Ministers and five former Supreme Court judges, denouncing the bill for exposing Canadians to major violations of their rights; and another letter, signed by a hundred Canadian law professors, explaining the dangers it poses to justice and legality.

As its critics have shown, the bill isn’t really about terrorism: it’s about smearing other activities by association—and then suppressing them in ways that would formerly have been flagrantly illegal. The bill targets, among others, people who defend the treaty rights of First Nations, people who oppose tar sands, fracking, and bitumen-carrying pipelines as threats to health and the environment, and people who urge that international law be peacefully applied to ending Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. (Members of this latter group include significant numbers of Canadian Jews.)

But the Anti-Terrorism Act is more mortally dangerous to Canadian democracy than even these indications would suggest. A central section of the act empowers CSIS agents to obtain judicial warrants—on mere suspicion, with no requirement for supporting evidence—that will allow them to supplement other disruptive actions against purported enemies of Harperland with acts that directly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian laws.