Sunday, 19 February 2017

In Defence of Europe

It has been NATO, of course, and not the EU that has played the principle part in maintaining peace in Europe since 1949. Indeed, it is now widely recognised that the actions of the EU in the Balkans, and in Ukraine, have acted to foment conflict rather than peace. This is tacitly recognised even by the EU Empire's fervent German press outlet, Der Spiegel; "NATO always aspired to be something more than a defence alliance. It viewed itself as the protective power of liberal democracy, the West and Western principles. It was a moral framework, the foundations for their existence. But are we certain that the West is still a community of shared values? If it's not, then what is NATO defending?"

And here we have the intellectual crisis of the Neo-Illiberals. They don't like democracy being used by people who don't share their values. They are intolerant of any political system that doesn't work the way they want. They know they are right and will bully, coerce and manipulate in order to make everyone realise this. And they simply don't understand a NATO that defends democracy, universal suffrage and the secret ballot, and the right of self-determination. They want an ideological NATO, as grandiose, idealist and theocratic as the EU Federasts themselves. They want a NATO that will be the EU's armed stormfront. 

This dichotomy therefore defines the positions of Europe's actors, played out yesterday in Munich against the background of US VP Pence's speech.  

Brussels Wants to replace NATO with a militarised EU - A European military alliance as allowed for by but not yet enabled by Article 42 (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Juncker has signalled that he sees this starting as a 'soft' military capability - airlifts, peacekeeping, border security, maritime patrol and SAR - geared at projecting power and showing the flag rather than in maintaining heavy armour pointing East. Undoubtedly this will also involve the strengthening of capacity by the EU Gendarmerie to subdue any outbreaks of democracy within the EU. Argues that up to half of existing (target) 2% defence spends should go to the EU military alliance with the remaining 1% to a reformed NATO. 

The EU's house magazine Der Spiegel echoes this approach; "In the medium-term, Europe must be capable of sufficiently defending itself and providing for its own security. What is most needed in order to make that happen is unity. If Germany and other Europeans now spend more on defence, they will also have to increase their military cooperation as well as massively expand the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy. Europe's alliance should not replace NATO, but it must enable Europeans to stand by each other if the Americans will no longer do it."

And this could define Europe's flashpoint of the future. An EU nation, backed by NATO upholding liberal democracy and the UN upholding the right of self-determination, moves to break out of the EU after a clear referendum. The EU, in seeking to use whatever means possible to prevent such secession, mobilises its own military alliance, including French nukes under Brussels command.  

UK & USA Want a full 2% defence spend to go to NATO to maintain an effective military shield against Russia and also paradoxically to build co-partner forces with Russia to face Islamist threats to our common southern borders. Want no modification of NATO or UN structures and will seek to keep down or veto EU efforts at militarisation.

France Will be asked to give up her UN seat to the EU and her Nuclear potential to EU command. These issues may surface in the forthcoming election, and candidates including Mme Le Pen asked to make their positions clear

Germany Is struggling with her identity like never before. The nation has a huge inbuilt resistance to becoming a militarily strong player, but alone amongst the EU's partners has the financial strength to do so. Pouring money into Juncker's 'soft' military alliance is one option - pouring money into expanding French military capacity another, though this will stick in the craw of German voters. Germany's terrier-like resistance to giving away even a pfennig of her savings may well act in the UK / US interest - for without German gold, the EU's ambitions will come to nought.

Friday, 17 February 2017

Blair struggles to rise from the political grave

The most loathed ex-politician in Britain is scrabbling to rise from his political grave; Blair, whose mummified features can barely raise a plastic smile these days, is sufficiently mentally deluded to think he can lead a successful minority coup against Brexit. With even his most crooked and morally corrupt ex-supporters having deserted him, he is bereft of any effective support and driven only by a zombie-like primal urge to cause trouble. 

He has so far escaped prison for his mendacious Iraq adventures, though the possibility of crowdfunded private legal action against him is growing, and he may yet find himself in the dock in 2017. His Brexit performances may be an attempt to distract from having to face justice.

Blair has also announced plans to set up his own Disinformation Service to drip his own venomous version of reality onto social and mainstream media. Apart from the editorial staff at the Guardian, few will be gulled (or gulled again) by Blairthink.

There has also been no confirmation to date that Blair's efforts at resurrection are inspired by secret cash from George Soros, whose own seditious attempts to subvert democracy both in the UK and in America are bringing him perilously close to arrest. 


Thursday, 16 February 2017

Extraordinary arrogance of deluded Brussels fools

Like a partner in an ugly divorce who just won't realise they have no say in their ex-partner's share of the split, the EU just won't leave go of the UK's assets. Proof if ever proof were needed that the rest of the EU has been doing far better out of Britain's membership than we have. We can't escape the clutches of their Federast courts for years to come, they claim. And we must pay them at least €60bn when we leave, to make up for their reduced income. Now they say they want to keep our fish. 

In a leaked document published by the Guardian, the EU makes the mistake of seeming to claim as a right that which can only be granted by the UK - access to resources within our 200 mile economic territorial waters. We will manage our own fish stocks to our best advantage - that can be anywhere from fishing 100% ourselves to licensing others to fish it. And we may use that power to negotiate licenses directly with the nations involved, including Denmark and Holland, rather than with the EU. 

Of course it will take years to build our fleets up again - not only boats to be built, but men to train, skills to acquire. And the management of fish stocks to assure our future prosperity to be achieved. If there is one red line for the British people, it is regaining total and absolute control of our waters. No conditions. No restrictions. Any foreign boat that fishes in our waters after we leave must do so with our explicit consent or be seized, have its crew imprisoned and its catch forfeit. That's international marine law. 

Really, the sooner those deluded fools from Brussels realise they're dealing with a sovereign independent nation and one with warships to boot (though not nearly enough) and not some cowed Euro-Satrapy, the better.

In fact, Mrs May could send the appropriate signals by ordering now the building of ten new fisheries patrol vessels, suitably armed and equipped to carry Royal Marines boarders, and new fisheries patrol drones. The foreign aid budget is rich in resources - and fisheries patrol can be said to be a form of foreign aid. 


Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Never mind the BBC ... feel the EBC

Well, they've got the flag, the motto, the anthem and they've paved the way for the army, or at least for a Brussels ceremonial guard in Ruritanian uniforms. One just knew somehow that it wouldn't be long before the Federation airline and the Federation broadcaster came along. 

Yes, the European Broadcasting Corporation was let down the slipway this week by Der Spiegel. A 24-language, full colour HD pan-Europe broadcast service via both analogue and DVB-T transmission
  • To be funded by the EU directly and by a 5% levy on turnover imposed on Facebook, Google and Twitter
  • Facebook & Google (You Tube) also to be forced by law to transmit EBC content for 5% of their output
  • None or limited advertising
Finally, we are promised third-rate programmes from sources not good enough to be commissioned commercially - rather like those rather crap feminist stick-man cartoons bought by the Canadian state broadcaster;
"Third, the aim should be much more than just to establish a new media actor that tries to happily co-exist with existing private and public media. Instead, the EBC will also open up new sources of income for private quality media by acting as a platform for private journalistic content."
The hope must surely be that this ponderous, Soviet-style broadcaster can compel itself on captive audiences - on station platforms, in government offices, on giant screens in streets and squares - for in an age of 'pull' media consumption and off-line viewing, it's likely that hardly anyone will watch EBC voluntarily. 

Finally, EU spokesman Margaritis Schinas justified an initial demand of €60bn from the UK by saying it was like buying your round in the pub ..

Monday, 13 February 2017

UK prisons - the Lead effect

The UK finally ended sales of leaded petrol in 2000. From 2018 we should start to see the benefit of this in terms of a substantial reduction in the need for prison places. London's sparrows, sadly, are unlikely to recover.

I suspect readers are divided amongst those who know exactly what the para above is above and those frowning in puzzlement. Well, Lead in petrol and crime rates are very closely correlated, and as nations banned tetraethyl Lead as a petrol additive from the 1970s onwards they began to notice, with a lag of about 19 years, substantial reductions in many crimes as blood lead levels dropped in young people at peak offending age. The science behind this is very robust - each nation's drop in crime follows very closely from the drop in leaded petrol. And not only crime but teenage pregnancies, ADD, and other problems.

There's a good quality paper HERE from Mother Jones with good links to many of the research papers. 

Sparrows? Well, they have disappeared from large cities as air pollution from leaded petrol has decreased. No one knows why. Populations in smaller cities and market towns are fine - places where traffic concentrations and low speeds were not a problem. 

Prisons are having a crisis at the moment due primarily to overcrowding and understaffing. The government, rightly, are holding back from building yet more prisons. In a few years, unless we discover even more widespread Muslim gang child sexual abuse, demand for prison places will fall. The crisis will solve itself. 

I once had an officious safety official demand that I take steps to remove Lead-contaminated dust from a building conversion in London down to a level of 25ppm (25mg/kg). I was happy to refuse and tell him to get lost. The background Lead level in the soil outside, and for miles around, was in excess of 350ppm. Two thousand years of Lead pipes, roofs, windows, industry, crafts, glass, potteries, paint and half a century of leaded petrol have gifted our big cities with Lead levels in the soil that are off-the-scale - but not a major health issue. You really need either to eat Lead or to breathe it in from vehicle exhausts or burning processes to be affected. It's very insoluble and does not penetrate the skin at all easily.  

Funny though that all our proactive scientists who are so good at telling us what's bad for us actually managed to miss Lead completely.

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Civilisation

Kenneth Clark's original 'Civilisation' documented a linear progression from Egyptian Pharaohs to Edwardian London in which the birth and death of Christ, the son of God, enabled advances in linear Civilisation not possible before.  Clark was pretty clear about what constituted civilisation. Worshipping a stick or a bit of rock, wiping your arse with your hand or enslaving the folk from the next village didn't cut it. Everywhere, Clark's civilisation was evidenced by advances, by making and building and discovering, by art, construction, thought, literature, technology and societies and cultures benefitting from the Christian virtues. 

The BBC is going to remake the series, which inevitably means a few hours of spewy, nauseous garbage overloaded with moral relativism that will fail utterly to understand what Civilisation means. Yes, the BBC will say, worshipping a tribal stick, smearing your body in mud and beating out a bass beat with a rock and a log is just as civilised as a Thomas Tallis sung Eucharist in a gothic cathedral; and sawing someone's head off for laughing at your holy rock or throwing them off a cliff for eating shrimps on Wednesday in contravention of the Prophet Glob's teaching just as civilised as reading Goethe by candlelight to the sound of a woodwind quartet. 

Above all, the BBC will try to convince us that Islam means civilisation. They will point to the architectural glories of Moorish Spain and to Arabic advances in medicine, algebra and astrology that all bloomed briefly and were absorbed into Western civilisation before leaving Islamic north Africa and the Middle East as a primitive, backwards and uncivilised shithole. Only they'll stop at the blooming stage and try to ascribe Islam's historic virtues to the nasty, brutish and bestial mess of evil, torture and death that Salafist Islam now projects across the world. 

In other words, before viewing even a second of the BBC's nauseous new trash I know exactly what disinformation, what distortion, what omission and what outright lies it will embody and project. It will be crude propaganda, paid for by public taxes, and it will fail.  

Friday, 10 February 2017

Are these kids tomorrow's coal miners?

Are these kids tomorrow's coal miners?


Not a referenced post, but picking up on Steve's comments, which are worthy of a whole series of posts, on the replacement of substantial numbers of jobs in the economy by robots. But surely it's not all negative? I'd far rather send expendible robots 3,000' underground to mine coal, for instance, than men. Methane, silicone dust, explosives, flooding, rock falls, risk and injury all avoided - and mines that can work 24 hours a day without needing a town full of people built on top of them.

Well, a bit of googling found a mine robot prototyped in 2013. They must be working somewhere by now. 


Not just coal, but tin, copper, rare earths. Robot miners can exploit small seams deeper and more hostile than men can. Even underwater - what about mining the seabed within the 200 mile economic zone? Just another post-Brexit asset we've got. 

It may also be worth compiling a running list of those professions most at risk from robots. At the top of mine are fighter pilots; it makes no sense building fast jets half the tech of which are pilot UI & life support systems. Drones with just weapons and avionics can have greater endurance, greater speed, tighter G and in direst emergency can be flown into a target, all at a tenth the cost of a conventional fast jet with no risk to the highly trained pilot. RAF fighter pilots of the future can also be fat, middle aged console-kings downing Chinese Migs in their underpants, reserving our lean, fit risk lords for vital gardening, cooking and bar-service roles for which robots can never replicate human skills.