Sectarianism

Sectarianism never works. It is, in my definition a violent pressure group, with specific cultural traits, that pressures an established government to allow those specific traits to prevail and if resisted fights for independence.

The Irish Sectarian movement have become clever and since they lost material support from the likes of Gaddafi they hush.

With the Kurds there is a peculiar problem, they have been used to fight Daesh – with US support – but now get hammered. But if the Kurds were clever, they would offer a truce to Turkey, let Turkey take over their land, occupied in Syria and then negotiate Syria’s Assad together with the Turks. Obviously the Russians wouldn’t support the Kurds because the Russians alrady support Assad. And fighting Syria and Russia v Turkey and the Kurds would attract international support, but as it is, the world just watches as Turkey hammers the Kurds. There have been escapes of Daesh prisoners already and it seems the previous problems are going to flare up again, which is quite unfortunate.

All Secterian movements are completely unflexible to other lifestyles. Of course that can be said about many cultures but what makes a group of people sectarian is, if they do not have the country to go with the lifestyle.

I suppose it is easy to manipulate any sectarian group anywhere in the world to cause trouble for the country or government they reside within. Any foreign power can supply the Resistance with weapons and get them to harrass the hated government.

I think it needs a world solution to this problem. With the ongoing climate change agenda, countries will need to learn to work together on that basis, perhaps they learn to put carbon footprints on the forefront of their thoughts, because wars are environmentally very damaging.

Perhaps we need a new world council, which decelerates wars. You can argue that nations have a right to defend themselves. This needs extraordinary amounts of weapons all around the globe. Weapons can be a deterrent but they also get used and inevitable cause immense destruction.

Here, we are back to sectarian groups who all think they have the right to be better and bigger.

 

Chemical weapons supplied by Saudis in CIA conspiracy?

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

Question is can this story be true. As of today, the day after this post above appeared on Facebook, so far, none of the mayor news publishers, e.g. BBC or Al Jazeera have repeated this.

That just shows that in Freedom of speech everybody can spread any type of stories, may that be true or false. What are we to belief?

Behaving as they think they should

It doesn’t make any sense to me that young and old people should cry their hearts out for a leader, who cared little about them. Being under a constant threat of a despot and a huge army, compared to population size, makes genuine grief if the ruler dies even less likely.

Having read that only a couple of decades ago around a million people died in North Korea from starvation, it is hard to belief that people genuinely care about their leader. They most likely care not to be seen laughing and not crying in times like this.

I think many dictators would be really jealous of how the North Koreans managed to train up their people into this type of submission.

Here in the west we see plenty of young people not showing the littlest type of care for their Queen. Many mock “the old bag”. That would be typically young behaviour of youngster who never either met or plan to meet her Majesty.

North Korea provides little comfort for its people and there is total control, so much that the international community should worry and intervene in any possible way.

It is already not normal not to see any type of opposition or uprisings whatsoever in that nation.

Remarks that our leaders never die and that they are embalmed for public view forever shows the totalitarian approach that is worst than under Saddam Hussein.

But it puts people off fancying totalitarian Communism especially as the life expectancy is so low.

Nazi jokes are not funny

I thoroughly welcome the position of the Conservative Party to not only sack an elected MP from post but also to conduct a thorough investigation. There is a fine line between making a joke and therefore accepting a fact and just taking the mickey. You simply cannot take the mickey out of masses of people being put through the holocaust.

I do not even understand how people can wear the Nazi regalia and think it is funny. Aidan Burley, MP for Cannock Chase was sacked from his post as Parliamentary Private Secretary and apologised by writing to the Jewish Chronicle, he regrets not having left the party earlier.

It is a fact that once in a public position one has to be careful where one mixes privately and even pictures taken with others that behave wrongly create the “We all sit in the same boat effect” or as they say in Germany, “Mitgefangen is mitgehangen”.

The recent case of the Norwegian right-wing terrorist who used libertarian language in his manifesto shows how extremists can take comfort from contacts with established political figures even if they would not openly support such activities. It has to be rooted out that people in responsible positions can mingle with dangerous trends and bad history, not even on a joking note.  There is no freedom in joking with the lives of people.

Andrew Berwick the Manifesto

I just heard that the Norwegian terrorist, that killed almost 100 young people has published a manifesto to explain his Knights Templar manifesto.  There are prospects that he gets a minimum of 21 years in jail with the option of no release if he is seen as danger to the public. There are calls for a media black-out to stop his views from being published or discussed in the media.

Here we have the problem that we had so many times with lesser criminals to not allow them to publish books to make a profit from their crimes. In this case profit from publication doesn’t seem to be the problem but publication of views itself is the problem.

Is that in line with basic human rights to have views? Of course the basic problem with Mr Berwick’s action is that he killed those he wishes to defend from the influence of Islam as it seems to me that he is trying to prevent the manifestation of Islam in Europe and his manifesto, that is linked to here, tries to negotiate those thoughts. I have not read it through, have only just found it online. I read bits like Saudi Arabia has spent 87 billion US Dollars to spread the message for true Islam.

OK I completely appreciate that hardly anybody could match that amount of spending to legally influence the spread of an ideology in the world and that sheer veracity of propaganda will turn people’s heads. That at least explains the spread of very expensive Mosques around the country.

But what I would like to know why, if Mr Berwick, which is the Anglicised version of his name, wants to stop Islam from spreading, why does he shoot Christian people and non Islamic youth?

Is this a case of mixed up mind, is that the same phenomenon we had with Adolf Hitler, whereby he proclaimed he loved the blond blue–eyed people just to send a lot of them to their deaths by starting lots of wars?

I mean it seems logical that if Mr Berwick hates Islam so much that he would go out and kill Islamic youth instead of white, non Islamic youth for a start. So there the whole story we read on the media doesn’t make sense already.

I just wonder how long Mr Berwick manages to stay alive in prison because often enough prisoners have the view that they can take justice into their own hands. With the media wanting to black out the trial so that Mr Berwick’s explanations cannot become public does not help to unravel the mysteries of the logic in this very tragic case either.

It seems clear that had Mr Berwick attacked a camp full of Muslim youth, that this would have led to a large Islamic uprising. But would that not have been the ideal platform to initiate that revolution that he is said to be seeking? Why kill the people he is said to try to protect?

Nothing in this concept that is presented to the public makes any sense to me at all.

Please note I do not wish to stipulate violence against anyone but merely try to show the enormously illogical concept that is put in the public sphere.

Can sovereignty protect terrorists?

That is quite an interesting argument that the Pakistani government brought, that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty when they stormed Bin Laden’s mansion and killed him after he refused to surrender.

That is a general problem I suppose when a terrorist organisation operates from a country, but that terrorist organisation is protected by the laws of the country they operate from because there is a diplomatic protocol.

This quite clearly shows that Pakistan wants to protect Al-Qaeda terrorists within its border.

Interestingly Islamabad gets billions of Dollars of aid from the US but now Pakistan wants to stop UN supply convoys from using Pakistani space to get to Afghanistan. That follows demonstrations and 2 suicide attacks that wounded hundreds and killed many.

Would it not be more wise from the Pakistani government to quench public unrest instead of fuelling it and supporting the anti-American sentiments. We seem to get back to square one here. I thought the whole emphasis of activity in the region was to put and end to Al-Qaeda and their murderous regime.

The fact is that Pakistan provided Bin Laden with a hiding place instead of handing him over to face justice for the crimes  he committed throughout the world. It is only due to that failure of that government that military action was necessary to resolve this “military” conflict. After all Bin Laden was not just some civilian he was the head of an active military force. I think that Pakistn is adding itself to the Rogue state list.

Iran hangs Sunni leader

What interested me on this story is the remark at the end, that allegedly Mr Abdolmalek Rigi, was on a plane to fly to a meeting with American military on an US base and that the US had promised him weapons.

I quote from the BBC website they report “”They said they would co-operate with us and would give me military equipment,” he said in a video statement broadcast on Iranian TV.”

The question of course is how much was the man told to say what he said and how much is this a public relations exercise of the Iranian authorities to show-execute those they want to hold responsible for Sunni uprisings, as a deterrent for others.

Needless to say, you cannot counter terrorism with terrorism and what is really going on in Iran is hard to establish at the best of times but what any Iranian TV channel would broadcast can only be a public relations exercise. The question is whether Mr Rigi and/or his brother ever were in charge of terrorist attacks or whether they were conveniently blamed for those attacks.

Can North Korea undermine world peace?

This is a serious questions because as North Korea boasts 180.000 soldiers to invade the south of Korea, what is the rest of the world going to do about it and which countries will step on to support whom?

Will world peace end on the Korea conflict? Lets hope not. I read about this on Asia News but fail to find easy accessible information of their alliance partners. Obviously just North Korea by itself would be obliterated by a world effort to stem their advances but the question is who would or could step in to help North Korea. One must look at all these questions carefully before assessing the situation.

As we are already aching from the Afghanistan problem another conflict would stretch our resources to an intolerable level. Of course South Korea has every reason to live in fear of an invasion especially as the North Koreans live on military might and their whole nations centres around their army as the most important ‘social’ institution.

the big worry has to be North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and what the environmental cost of such weaponry in use would be. Is North Korea a nation on a suicide mission?

The diss-integration of the British left

Whilst the ‘New’ Labour Party power struggle is going on between 2 brothers, well you could say the Brothers Grimm, no, its actually the brothers Miliband now,  the Socialist dream of New Labour got buried. Having lost grassroots support and understanding a long time ago, Labour now tries to stay in tune with the Internationale of Communist states. Whilst in government it tried to build an economic alliance with China and other up-and-coming world powers to build the partnership of international working classes, just to realise that they are a downward spiral.  The international dream of equal rights of all workers fell apart when the economy just didn’t want to play ball. Cups of tea became too expensive, and the wages of those wanting out of slavery unaffordable.

Here in Britain Margaret Thatcher allowed the hardline Socialists a way out of their misery when even they were coaxed into becoming leaseholder and purchased their council flats. The roots to the working classes were nurtured by local  heroes that spoke the lefties language and provided sanctuary from the stressful capitalist environment and loss of pride. Harriet Harman as always acts as the big godmother and sticking glue of the disintegrating organisation, keeping it all together with motherly care, but not taking the pride of leadership away from younger and aspiring candidates like the Miliband brothers.

Having a personal interest in social behaviour and disintegration of social groups, I notice that the traditional Labour left has taken a great knock back from their affiliation of traditional awkward resilience to capitalist guidelines. Yet the dangling price of homeownership in front of the Labour voting council tenant  made them saddle for a new horse, the settled left-wing Labour movement, the home owners gallery of protesters, and all they want is the living wage to allow them a near middle class existence to go with that pride of the newly created homeowner. A fine mess Maggie gotten us in there, when it was not enough to stop the strikes, they now want more money to stay in the job to pay off the mortgages.

Yet the Labour dream is kept alive by old timers such as Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn and the younger ones like John McDonnell. His book “Another World is possible”, is one of the smallest socialist handbooks, but probably handy like the little red book of the Maoists. Mr McDonnell says however he won’t have enough support to make the grade, showing that the old-fashioned Labour Pride is crumbling in real life politics. There will be no long march anywhere as it’s all about keeping the job to pay the mortgage. British Capitalists always loved their British working class. It’s now no longer being against something but becoming what they were once against but Ed Miliband noticed that the dream of New Labour is over. Labour failed to take over Britain but managed to reduce the power of hereditary peers, which is a small revolutionary step into their dream of becoming the real owners of Britain.

The equality dream is kept alive in a strong workforce at British Airways who battle with the unions in the High Court to prevent further strikes. It has become a matter of national functionality, a make or break dispute that drove BA to merge with the Spanish air service Iberia whilst UK inflation hits highest rate since 1 1/2 years over rising food prices because the UK has lost the ability to sustain themselves with food production.  

It is against this background that Left-wing Labour bloggers enjoy a renaissance of the Socialist dream, people like John Gray, Dave Osler and others, squelch the thirst of genuine revolutionary thinking of those that try to escape the daily rut. After all, that Marxist seminar must be able to fruit in some common good. Left-wing ideology is big business from seminars to book sales and all sorts of paraphernalia. Was it any wonder that Osler wanted to keep the radical leftists happy when he accused me of former Baader-Meinhof connections and found himself accused of libel.

But then when the fire got too hot, he engaged himself a right-wing lawyer to save his bacon. His solicitor was hailed by all his lefty friends and one can see the band of heroes huddling together outside of London’s High Court after the ruling. Some look even halfway dressed whilst other still sport the anarchistic hippy look.  Osler sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his freedom and the saving of his negative equity home in North London. Dougans a right-wing Conservative Party member, part of the Conservative group that wanted to win the Poplar and Limehouse seat from Jim Fitzpatrick gave Labour member Osler free of charge help to dream his left-wing dream that little bit longer. In exchange for Osler agreeing that his case be argued on the basis of the Jameel legal principle, that allows better free speech for all sorts of people that want to drive forward certain ideologies on  British cyber space.

What an ideal marriage, the right-wing Conservative Party member from the Isle of Dogs, in marriage with the left-wing Labour Party party member getting together in order to win some votes for his Conservative aims as well as making a name for himself for a ready group of new customers, what better way than create himself some new ideological allegiance. Yet Osler has not made any comment about this on his left-wing blog on which he advertises anarchist organisations and generally praises anything violent and wanting to undermine the state.

It reminds me a bit of the German History, the struggle of the German left under Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht who fell victim to the Social Democrats, Dave Osler is certainly no Karl Liebknecht and is happy with his adulterated Democratic lifestyle. It is a question in how far the far left of British politics now disintegrates into the Social Democratic trot similar to that, which  established itself after the German revolution in 1918, when the far left wanted more than the middle of the road and socialists could practically promise. Miliband has already conceded that New Labour is dead and the last unionist uprisings should soon be quelled by a little more high court action. Yet in Germany the rule of law got lost when the Nazis took over, the only tendency I can see towards a loss of law here in Britain is a tendency to replace jury trials with one-judge rule.

There is no British left, left to mourn, we certainly won’t see a fascist uprising like the Germans did in the 1920s  because we all are in the habits of cashing our weekly benefits, wages and live a live of the daily routine that gives little rise to an uprising, apart from some people’s fantasies that are still inspired from the occasional radical talk and the dream of an amalgamation of international revolution and the taking over of the world’s riches.  Each socialist today is just happy to own a small part of it, even if it’s with a negative mortgage.

There is now very little distinction in British politics with the Liberals and Conservatives building a government to rule for another 5 years. I wonder whether it is worth it at all to even get interested because our daily lives can be administered by any party really, anybody at all who is middle of the road and wanting to keep the economy going. Having put our monarch on a slow burner, all we really are concerned about are threats of natural catastrophe and disgruntled Muslims that want to destroy our blissful unity of all sorts of political streams into one big happy family.

Comparing Western Civilisation with the Roman Empire shall become my next little project to work on, to see if our aim to rule the world will have a similar fate to the Romans that fell in the end to the Barbarians that beleaguered Rome to finally take it over or better how we can avoid that happening to us.  I wonder whether the loss of internal opposition, like the fall of the British left is a good or a bad sign, lets read some more.

Crunch time

The Lib Dems announced that a deal is due within 24 hours, at least their decision on the negotiations, both with the Conservatives and New Labour.

Unfortunately the media happily agreed to the New Labour trick, which is to make the electorate belief that Labour would be wonderful without Gordon Brown and that, as soon as he is gone, everything is going to be alright. Do they think we are that simplistic?

I do not think one moment that New Labour is going to be any better with or without Gordon Brown, it is thoroughly incapable of governing this nation, make responsible economic decisions and reform the country. So far we have seen too many reforms already, and to reform already bad reforms leads to even more confusion and splintering of the fibre of our society.

Labour has played many psychological tricks on us, first when good-looking  and youthful, energetic Tony Blair became Prime Minister on the basis of his hopeful folly.  Then the “ugly”  Gordon Brown took over and united the country in hate against him, just to culminate now in a solution that says, everything is going to be alright as soon as a new leader is announced.

Politics are not just about the persona of the leader, not in our western democracy. It is about the persona of the leader in countries like Iraq, that admired Saddam Hussein, in some African countries with the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe. New Labour wants to reduce our democracy to a cult following for one particular leader and forgets all about the politics. I have not heard one good quality argument from New Labour during the last 13 years.  We had chopping and changing and the only thing that stood the same was the tactic to stick to the leader.  Unfortunately New Labour has reduced political decision making to a circus and when I saw Gordon Brown put on a show in our local venue the rich Mix accompanied  by talkSport, I knew that this is what Labour’s politics are all about, a show to capture the masses but with little political impact other than minimalising Britain on the international map, using talkSport radio for a political performance is using the methods of George Galloway.

A Labour/Liberal alliance, though favoured by all those left of the political spectrum will dive Britain into economic uncertainty as all the serious investors will stay away and even the RBS has announced further staff cuts, most other business have moved away already, companies like Burberry for example and we’ve had not one serious negotiation that would attract new and major investors to our shores. Further strikes were announced by BA staff.

Since Labour has governed our high streets have changed. The variety of outlets  has been replaced by food shops everywhere, our highstreets have become boring and blant  with the exception of major shopping centres, the average town’s shopping outlets have been reduced to staple merchandise. The reason for this is because Labour has driven the more suave businesses away and not because of the economic crises. If it is the economic crises then it is because many businesses simply do not want to trade in Britain under a Labour government because the conditions of trading are not investor friendly. We have to suffer the consequences if we allow Labour back in the seat of power, avoid that please, David Cameron.

A Labour / Liberal alliance would splinter this country into more confusion and less certainty. I think that if the Liberals want to play the trumpet of New Labour David Cameron should either form a minority government or call for a fresh election, at which more people will focus their vote towards the main parties and the Liberals are the ones who would lose out even more than they already did.

 Britain’s  destiny always rested on a whole country decision making and if the focus is now left to the needs of Scotland or Wales as main priority, we’ll fall apart. Those parts of Britain have been offered more autonomy but lost their businesses due to England’s bad politics under Labour and not because they are part of the United Kingdom. In any case David Cameron has promised more devolution.

As it stands now England is the financial capital of the United Kingdom and with it comes pollution overcrowding and a high cost of living. Do the countryside really want to copy that. As it is due to earth warming business from London will have to be decentralised to other towns and that strategy will have to be developed over the next 50 years anyhow.  London is currently fighting very hard to become more important for financial services  within Europe and that focus will be lost if Labour’s failure to capture businessand nvestments furhter damages our infrastructure.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,624 hits