Wednesday, 5 March 2014
The Washington Post
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Oh, by the way: this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90+ years ago!
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Postal traffic in the Danish West Indies (since 1917 US Virgin Islands) between Charlotte Amalie (capital of St. Thomas), Cruz Bay (St. Jan) and St Croix was organised using a number of small ships and schooners. The most famous was “Vigilant”. This was originally a pirate ship, built in the 18th C. It was renamed and adapted for passenger and mail transport by the Danes and ploughed the waves from 1802 till 1928 (126 years) before disappearing in a local scrap yard.
St. Thomas was one of the busiest harbours in the West Indies with scores of forwarders.
It was therefore logical for the Danish administration to try adding transport capacity to the various routes. Clara Rothe was one such additional ship, and as can be seen on the stamps, she was both steam and sail driven. The earliest record for the ship is dated 1865.
Many forwarders and trading companies had their own stamps (e.g. Jezurun, Royal Mail Steam Company and Hapag), so there was nothing new in the thought of producing stamps for Clara Rothe, assuming she would create a profitable route for G. Nunez & Co’s mail service between St Thomas & Puerto Rico. The stamps were printed as essays, engraved and printed by M.Stern in Paris, 1869. However, they don’t seem to have been put to use for some reason, and if so, only for a very short time. I have found no record of genuinely cancelled stamps.
Most people therefore talk about the Clara Rothe “fakes”.
This is definitely a misconception.
The plan was genuine enough, conditions simply changed. Contrary to the habit of the Danish Post Company of destroying obsolete stamps, this never seemed to happen with the Clara Rothe essays. That’s one of the reasons they appear so controversial today.
The second reason was, as usual at the time, created by the brothers Spiro in Hamburg, who took advantage of the Nunez-enterprise and produced a range of Clara Rothe fakes.
They are quite easy to recognise:
1. The crown is pushed upwards so the ball is hidden by the St Thomas / Porto Rico banner
2. The ‘M’ in ‘Thomas’ is almost equally thick in both legs (the genuine stamp has a left leg almost like a thread)
3. The Danish flag is unclear
4. The ‘o’ in ‘Thomas’ is narrow, while the genuine ‘o’ is more pointed, thin and open
5. The vertical background stripes are uneven
6. The ship’s background is very ‘coarse’.
7. The smoke-stack is shorter
8. The drawing is of a generally bad quality
9. A genuine stamp is unlikely to be cancelled. Spiro always used incomplete and very inventive cancels, dots, an ‘o’, various stripes as in the GB colonial stamps or just a faint arc.
You can practise your Sherlock Holmes skills on these 3 stamps !
Monday, 6 January 2014
The following is copied from Robert Spencer's site, but it has been widely reported by Danish Newspapers and other internet sites.
The mentioned Danish Penal Code, paragraph 266b, is a controversioal clamp down on the freedom of speech.
Its intention was to protect minority religions or non-ethnic populations against bigotry, but the effect today is, that if you criticise Islam, you are almost certain to get a hefty fine or a prison sentence.
There are several examples of this having been done.
At the moment 2 muslims are accused under par. 266b for criticising - - - Islam!!!
It is simply becoming absurd andcertainly unjust.
Yahya Hassan grew up in a Muslim family and a Muslim environment. And now he is living with death threats.
Do Danish authorities really think he is an "ignorant Islamophobe"?
As Pamela Geller says, truth is the new hate speech.
"Danish Muslim Apostate Faces Hate Speech Charges," by Andrew Harrod for FrontPage Mag, January 2:
“Muslims love to take advantage of” free speech, Danish-Palestinian poet Yahya Hassan says, “and as soon as there is someone else saying something critical against them, they want to restrict it.”
In an action previously indicated by this writer, Hassan is now personally facing this double standard in Danish “hate speech” charges for his anti-Islam comments.
Following Danish-Iranian artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan’s conviction under Danish Penal Code Section 266b for condemning Islam as misogynist, a local Muslim Aarhus politician demanded a similar prosecution of Hassan.
His poetry says that "everybody in the ghettos like Vollsmose and Gellerup steal, don’t pay taxes and cheat themselves to pensions,” the Somali-Dane Mohamed Suleban stated after reporting Hassan to the police on November 27.
“Those are highly generalizing statements and they offend me and many other people.”
Authorities are currently considering Section 266b charges for, according to one English translation, any public “communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.”
(There are probably 25+ ghettos in Denmark and they are increasingly running Sharia controlled power points inside the Danish state. In many cases neither police, bus drivers nor firemen dare enter these areas.)
The 18-year-old Hassan’s eponymous debut book contains about 150 poems, “many of which are severely critical of the religious environment he grew up in” according to Wall Street Journal reporters Clemens Bomsdorf and Ellen Emmerentze Jervell.
Written in all capital letters, Hassan’s poems treat “issues like the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, child abuse, and the interplay between violence and religion” with “[p]rofanity and vivid analogies.”
Yahya Hassan has sold 80,000 copies following an October 17 release in the comparatively small Danish market and is expected to exceed 100,000 copies by Christmas.
Hassan’s publisher Gyldendal reports that Danish poetry books are fortunate to sell 500 copies.
A recent book forum honored Hassan as the debut author of the year and an English translation of his poetry is underway.
Hassan first became prominent with an October 5 Danish newspaper interview entitled “I F**king Hate My Parents’ Generation.” In it he blamed poor Muslim parenting for the juvenile delinquency and social maladjustment experienced by many Danish Muslim youth such as Hassan himself. With more than 85,000 social media shares, the interview became the most shared Politiken article of the year.
Days thereafter Hassan recited from his “LANG DIGT” or “LONG POEM” before his book’s release on the Danish news program Deadline.
“between the Friday prayers and the Ramadans/
you want to carry a knife in your pocket/
you want to go and ask people if they have a problem/
although the only problem is you.”
Such verses brought Hassan more death threats than any other previous Deadline guest.
Hassan has subsequently reported 27 Facebook threats against him, of which the police investigated six as serious and pressed charges in one case of a 15-year old boy.
A subsequent assault against Hassan occurred on November 18 in Copenhagen Central Station by a 24-year old Palestinian-Danish Muslim who had previously received a seven-year terrorism sentence.
Hassan now wears a bulletproof vest and receives protection from Denmark’s domestic intelligence agency PET at speaking engagements. A November 26 reading by Hassan from his book in a school in the Danish town of Odense, moreover, required an estimated one million kroner in security costs, more than the amount spent on a high-risk soccer game. Several hundred policemen had observed the school for two days before the event occurred with road checkpoints, a bomb sweep, and a five kilometer no-fly zone around the school.
Den Korte Avis (The Brief Newspaper), Trykkefrihedsselskabet (The Society of Free Speech) and Jyllandsposten (a major Danish newspaper, well known from the Muhammed-cartoons), regularly write about the political landscape in Norway and Sweden.
Because the Norwegians and the Swedes can’t do it themselves.
Because if you protest against anything undertaken by their respective governments, you may lose both friends and job!
You don’t believe me?
Then read on.
Recently “Jyllandsposten” reviewed a book by the ethnologist Karl-Olov Arnst¬berg and the journalist Gun¬nar San¬de¬lin called “Immigration and Curfew" [my translation from “Indvandring og Moerklaegning”] describing everyday events such as asylum smuggling, immigration and crime, sharia law, the costs of immigration and the PC-elite’s use of the words 'racist' and ‘fascist’ to silence critical discussion of Islam and immigration. In Sweden it took 3 months to negotiate the content of a newspaper advertisement for the book due to PC wrangling, and no editor dared proceed with publishing. It was finally privately published and went straight to the top of the bestseller list.
So what’s going on here?
Alternative views on immigration, Islam and much else are not tolerated by the PC elite in Sweden, i.e. the ruling political parties.
Nevertheless it came as a surprise that the official response to the book and other critical articles came from leftist thug-groups. The Swedish daily, Expressen, and a rather murky group called ‘Researchgruppen’ set out to discover and publish the names of 6,200 readers and writers of various Internet news outlets which dared to contradict or criticise Sweden's official attitude to immigration and the multicultural society.
These sites, Avpixlat, Fria Tider, and Exponerat, i.e. De-Pixelated, Free Times and Divulged, are classed as "hate sites" by the PC elite, i.e. same meaning as in the UK: a site, that does not express the official multi-culti, middle class, leftist prick attitude as the PC-elite.
Researchgruppen, however, is best compared to UAF and AFA, (United Against Fascism, Anti Fascist Action): Hitler Jugend in attitude and action!
I can’t see much “left” in them – but so is the confusion of the political landscape.
It seems to me that the PC-elite now feel that they have lost the argument and therefore have no other choice than resorting to value statements such as "hate crime", “Racist”, Fascist” and "Islamophobia", in order to silence all contradictory views.
However, why do these so-called “leftists” always find it OK to use such Big Brother 1984-methods, when at the same time they are the harshest attackers of e.g. Edward Snowden?
What makes one right and the other wrong?
In my opinion nothing has changed in the past 100 years, since Mad Marx and the officially declared psychopath Lenin appeared on the scene.
When I worked for the Ministry of Defence in Denmark in the 70s, I was hung out by the very same leftist groups with details of myself published in a book about “traitors”!
Today silence rules when the Muslims in Sweden and Norway commit heinous crimes of terrorism and rape (verified, although with difficulty, in the statistical material in both countries).
Silence rules when the Jews of Malmoe have been expelled through violent PC-action and a Mayor, who finds it natural that the Jews “can just move to Israel”.
Silence rules when Norwegian and Swedish whistleblowers lose friends and jobs.
And official silence rules, when the UAF thugs break up meetings by societies that support the freedom to express oneself.
One can only guess what might happen when Researchgruppen publish the names and addresses of people, whose opinion they don’t like.
Kvaellsposten, a Swedish newspaper, actually dared report the case of Anders Dahlberg, a member of the Swedish Democratic Party and a National Guardsman. If these events are anything to go by, the future is bleak. Dahlberg had posted some comments under a pseudonym on a site characterised by Researchgruppen as a “Hate Site”, but they managed to find him and Dahlberg had a bomb thrown through his letterbox. Luckily nobody was hurt.
But Dahlberg was subsequently discharged from his position in the Swedish military!
Compare that to the recent assassination attempt on the Danish politician Lars Hedegaard and the aggression against the young poet, Yahiya Hassan. Hassan’s book with poems centred on dysfunctional Muslim immigrants has gone straight to the best seller top (over 100,000 sold in Denmark, where poetry books normally sells in only hundreds; now expected in an English edition).
Both he and Hedegaard now live with publicly paid police protection.
The joke is that Yahiya Hassan, from a Muslim family, has been accused of racism.
Laugh or cry?
Your choice – but it will probably stress the public prosecutor in Denmark beyond his limits.
Luckily they still write about such matters in Denmark, but strong powers also call for a literary curfew here.
It’s too late – they’re lost as a free nation with a government that openly declares the death of the nation, open borders and with 1 million Muslim immigrants over the past 13 years.
If it were up to the OIC, not a single criticism about Muslims would see the light of day in the future.
As Voltaire said: “If you want to know who controls you, find out whom you can’t criticise”
The “Brave new world” has arrived.
Saturday, 23 November 2013
Setting the record straight.
The most common debate-grenade slung against anyone, who believes our society is squeaking in the hinges and creaking in the floor boards, is to append the label “Fascist” upon them.
But what does "Fascist" actually mean?
It is clear that most people using it don’t understand. It is an easy way of throwing a bucket of verbal paint with the colour “Hitler brown” or “Mussolini black” in the face of their opponents, but it should be understood that this label often is thrown from the open doors of a glass house!
Bigotry, violence, the use of force instead of debate to press the point and a severe level of intolerance are probably the characteristics appended by most people to the word “fascism”. The roots of the origin are therefore firmly planted in Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany.
Racist is a more direct word – but in fact it is also a tough word to define.
In many ways the classification of humanity into races smells of the 1930s. We forget that the pseudo-science of the 20th Century, which was used to such a detrimental effect by the Nazis, has been all but abandoned, and the reverberations linger on.
Considering that we share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, does that mean that Chimps are a different race?
Or are Mormons a different race from Catholics?
If not, why is it that a Christian, who expresses misgivings about Muslims, is being branded a racist?
And who says that Islam is a religion at all, when the mainstay seems to be a “culture”, a strictly regulated set of rules of how to live your life according to firm laws with prescribed punishment for deviation, and with a superstitious overbuilding? One without the other – so far at least – doesn’t seem possible.
In short, modern debate has been invaded by residual emotions from the mid 20th Century, used without thought and in the same way as one would say “you are stupid or dumb”, implicitly relying on a reference to historic times still well remembered by most.
Arguments based on “value” (dumb, stupid, imbecile – or fascist, populist or racist) usually come from the armoury of the chattering classes, who are so steeped in political correctness, that they are blind to facts and proper debate techniques.
As a lot of people use the word Fascist, let’s try to nail the jelly to the wall and find out what it means.
Fascism."Frustratingly, I can't give a simple definition," says Kevin Passmore, reader in history at Cardiff University and author of Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. "It depends on definitions."
Well, there you go.
Perhaps “White Superiority”?
Although this would match e.g. the tenet of Ku-Klux-Klan and probably the implicit meaning for many people, it is still too simplistic and woolly. No one has yet called Taliban for “Fascists”, let alone Stalin’s Communists – but wasn’t their society representing the ultimate in fascism?
In a liberal democracy the basic political unit is the individual. The corporatist model emphasises co-operation over competition. This was the case in Mussolini’s Italy – but who would ever understand or think about this model today, when using the word “Fascism”? They rather anticipate the concepts of authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and racial supremacy.
As someone commented on the Internet: “Right wing is seen as reactionary, yet people who stand up for democracy, sovereignty and the sanctity of the UK parliament are seen as reactionary [i.e. fascists], while people who champion the unelected supremacy of the EU are seen as progressive”. This is interesting, as the “we know all; our laws count; if you rebel, you must be eliminated; don’t work against us” are implicit Hitler/Mussolini-fascist tenets – but has anyone yet tried to call the EU supporters fascists?
There are 2 modern historians, who in particular have tried to define the volatile word “fascism” (my expression: Nailing the jelly to the wall): Umberto Eco and Emilio Gentile.
For the sake of enlightenment, I have quoted their definitions here:
Umberto Eco: (originally 14 points, delimited to these 10)
• "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism.
• "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
• "Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
• "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
• "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
• "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
• "Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
• "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
• "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
• "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Emilio Gentile:1. a mass movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and the militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity, organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin but on a sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of political power by using terror, parliamentary politics, and deals with leading groups, to create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy;
2. an 'anti-ideological' and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, anti-individualist, antiliberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anticapitalist in tendency, expresses itself aesthetically more than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a 'new man';
3. a culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived of as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity;
4. a totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation;
5. a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit;
6. a single state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime, selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a process of permanent mobilization of emotion and faith;
7. a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, even by using organized terror;
8. a political system organized by hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned by the figure of the 'leader,' invested with a sacred charisma, who commands, directs, and coordinates the activities of the party and the regime;
9. corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the 'productive sectors' under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions;
10. a foreign policy inspired by the myth of national power and greatness, with the goal of imperialist expansion
Personally I like Franklin D. Roosevelt’s statement, as it is clear and uncluttered:
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”
Whichever definition you’d prefer, I think it is important NOT to use the word if you have no idea what it actually means and therefore fall back on a pejorative.
If you do, you expose yourself, not the object of your scorn and you could just as well use the F*** or C*** words.
Now try to apply the definitions on a) Anti Fascist Action (AFA), the violent organisation that exists in Scandinavia, Holland and the UK (here called UAF) and who inevitably turns up at all meetings involving demonstrations for free speech, well armed with cricket bats and dressed in balaclavas and hoods; b) Islam and Sharia law; c) BNP; and d) UKIP.
a), b), c) are in my opinion round pegs in round fascist holes, considering their tendency to violence, narrow cultural views and laws, superiority claims and severe punishment for deviation.
No such thing can be said about UKIP.
It hardly needs explanation, but here goes:
- Does not claim racial superiority.
- Has no more supreme leader than any other party or CEO of a company.
- Promotes free speech and individual ambition.
- Has no “punishment” programme for people who think differently.
- Does not promote a Britain that’s better than everyone else, only a Britain that should be given the chance to compete using its inherent advantages, options and abilities, without being unduly constrained by anyone else.
- Refuses to accept uncontrolled influx of people who take but don’t give i.e. if you contribute, you’re welcome.
- Believes in action and decision making where the action is felt, i.e. not laws and decisions being taken out of touch with, and far afield from, the people concerned.
- promotes healthy competition and the individual’s right to self determination
- Supports same sex partnership
- Openly welcomes thinking people with no regard to creed, colour, religion or race
- Stands for minimal state interference
It is clear that the very moment you start a political party, you also set up a set of values that characterise the party.
This goes for Labour, who are now anything but the Labour Party of the 1950s, or the Tories, whose values are as unclear as the wobbling Lib. Dem.s, who don’t seem to know who they are at all.
It was inevitable, that a reaction to the failure of the old parties had to come.
Other European parties, like the Danish People’s Party (DF), have therefore arisen and gone through the same change of finding out who they are.
Common to their present success are the facts that the old parties have failed, lied, cheated and disappointed, but also that UKIP (and DF) have found their legs and begun to stand firm, while listening to what people want. Remember Blair: “We can’t leave important decisions to people, as they don’t understand”!!
The massive and corrupt colossus called the EU has changed our world, while creating a political and organisational monstrosity, that has proven not to work: centralised government, remoteness, decisions removed from action, common economy amongst wildly different cultures and abilities, complete lack of democracy and unelected commissioners.
The access to a money mountain (ca. £9000 mill p.a. – unaudited) and the objective of eliminating the national state have led to a situation that may break the back of several countries while making the EU cronies, NGOs, consultants, individuals, firms and other organisations immensely rich.
Those benefitting from this situation – and they are many – will resist change with all means at their disposal, and then some.
It is, therefore not strange, that UKIP and other EU-sceptics are being hung out to dry, are being called fascists and prevented from acquiring power, as they threaten to kill the goose that lays golden eggs!
In a world of massive demographic, religious and (possibly) climatic change it is evident, that we need to rethink who we are, how we live and consequently find the most appropriate systems to create a future for our children while optimising the use of scarce resources, mainly energy and water.
Someone has to stop the madness and say the emperor forgot to dress.
As we live with interaction on a global scale, we do have global responsibilities.
How far we take these responsibilities is the 64K question.
We could open our borders like Denmark and Sweden do at present and be swamped, but at a point in time we will discover that this is self destructive, eliminating our ability to implement any policy at all.
Closing our borders is just as bad.
The balance must be found, where the traditional parties, LibDemLabCon, have failed and lost all control.
So some of the questions that come to mind are:
Is it fascist to claim, that we need to understand what we are doing and implement a system of housekeeping that gives us a good life, at the same time as we continue to afford helping the needy as good world citizens?
The climate appears to be changing, but is it fascist to shout “Stop” to the ridiculous and hazardous move towards energy sources that are proven to be expensive and useless?
Is it fascist to call Ed Davey, the LibDem Energy Secretary, the most dangerous man in the UK today, as he will kill off our competitiveness, based on useless green investments while ignoring Fracking and Thorium opportunities?
Is it fascist to protest against a system that pays the developing world to pollute more and faster, while asphyxiating our own industry?
Is it fascist to ask a minority of citizens to adhere to, and respect, our way of life, while resisting minority cultural and religious rule?
Is it fascist to demand the law of the land to be managed in the land - and not in some foreign place?
Is it fascist to say “no” to parallel societies and multiple laws of the land, while being reasonably open and hospitable to immigrants?
Is it fascist to claim the right to free speech without being threatened with imprisonment?
Is it fascist to demand better local control with our utilities, all of which are now owned by non-UK companies, and demand reasonably priced el, gas and water for the WHOLE of the population, rather than paying foreign shareholders? (A UK MW costs £95 - a French MW costs Euro 45 - beat that!)
Is it fascist to demand that no old person dies of hypothermia in the winter - and that no child goes hungry to school - and perhaps balance the cost against sending money to countries that have big armies, send rockets to Mars and have nuclear capabilities?
Is it fascist to prioritise the needs and welfare of victims of crime over the "human rights" of foreign perpetrators and be able unconditionally to return them to their country of origin?
The list could go on.
In short: is it fascist to try and preserve the values of a country, that actually defeated fascism in WW2?
Sunday, 3 November 2013
|Ve have vays to make you - - - -|
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, called for the establishment of government surveillance bodies to directly monitor the “intolerant” behaviour of identified citizens and groups.
The ECTR presented it as part of the EU’s work towards a new “Equal Treatment Directive” (ETD), published under the title, “Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle for equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”.
Have they gone absolutely mad?
This is STASI reinvented!
Haven’t they learnt that the 20th Century produced some of the worst experiences in human history, based on total state control?
Have they forgotten East Germany, Romania under Ceausescu, the massive control of people in Czekoslovakia, Hungary and other East European communist states?
Or – almost a banal and repetitive reference - Nazism?
Luckily EDW, the European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behaviour of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
In the UK the Public Order Act was recently amended through the removal of Section 5. “The right to insult” was reinstated, underpinning the right to speak up against stupidity and bigotry, as long as the criticism was directed at groups and not against individuals.
The ECTR now tries to reverse this sensible and progressive step, stuffing a wet sock down everyone’s throat and banning the option of expressing an opinion about anything anywhere at any time.
This could lead to the possibility that charges are brought on an unclear basis or even without legal grounds. It would be a significant step backward, and would certainly be a dark day for European democracy.
The effect would be that we couldn’t speak up against e.g. Genital Mutilation, hanging of gays, stoning for adultery and honour killings, as it would hurt someone’s “culture” and feelings.
Frankly – EU has gone even more mad than I have thought for some time.
Better off out!!!!
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Columbia University’s Earth Institute has recently publicised their “Happiness Report” concerning the happiest people in the world. The Danish professor, Christian Bjørnskov from the University of Aarhus (Denmark), has subsequently summed up the perhaps surprisingly simple causes for general happiness in a nation.
Denmark has again landed at the top of the world.
If you believe in the ordinary leftist explanation, that happiness in a population comes from the re-distribution of material wealth, like taxing the rich and giving to the poor, you’re apparently off- track. Research does not support this notion.
Material wealth is perhaps an underlying fact, but as the aphorism goes: “If I have to be sick, I prefer to be a rich sick, rather than a poor sick!”
Three specific condition appear to be really significant; Trust, self determination and political freedom and stability.
In Denmark 70% of people indicate, that they implicitly trust other people. The international average is a miserable 27%.
94% of people asked thought they could change their lives if they wished to do so, indicating a high level of personal freedom. Again the international average trails at a mere 65%.
According to the professor, it is a major mistake to believe in the political big brother games, that have as an objective to create happy people through a manifesto of intervention, usually found in the blocks to the left.
It is more important to create the framework that supports the two first conditions. This can best be done through a stable political system, that ensures the individual’s ability to choose the life he or she wants – with an ability to change if the choice didn’t work out.
In short: Reasonably well off people in a stable and hands-off political society with strong norms of trust are the most happy.
In a way this is not a surprise to me.
In my career as a Management Consultant I always emphasised, that lots of research indicated ‘Trust’ in the Leaders of a company to be a necessary condition for success.
Surely, ‘Trust’ is not there by default – it has to be generated, earned.
This goes for politicians too!
But once there, it is incredible what a company – and a country – can achieve.
This lesson leads to some serious questions.
How come that muslim countries around the world experience mass emigration, violence and internal unrest? If the underlying conditions for happiness are general (self- determination, stable political hands-off regimes and trust) then that answers the question. An environment, where everything in life is dictated, where deviation is severely punished and half the population (women) are subservient to, and dependent on, the other half, does not seem to promote happiness.
And even more so: How about the attempts of the EU massively to grab power over people’s lives, issuing decrees, standards, directives and laws from a central ivory tower while eliminating the people of the member nations’ right to determine their own destinies?
The research of Columbia University’s Earth Institute seems to have proven beyond doubt that the EU, in particular the Spinelli Group, is on the way to create chaos and unhappiness.
Think about that when you vote next time, e.g. 2014 and 2015 in the UK and Denmark.
There’s still time to get it right.
Better off out – UKIP.
PS – UK is nr. 22 - - - - -
Monday, 28 October 2013
A Fundamental (F)Law
The Spinelli Group of the EU has just given birth to their proposed European Constitution, a revised Lisbon Treaty, of the future.
It is dire reading.
On the surface it looks thorough and with due consideration to the obvious – and admitted – flaws of the present system. They even admit to the mess the rest of us have been able to see for a long time.
But when you dive into the details it is nothing less than a horror story!
First of all: Who are these guys?
The Spinelli Group was formed in 2010 with the purpose of actively promoting European federalism and ultimately pushing the already existing attempts to eliminate the national state.
Well known members are Jacques Delors, Mario Monti, Joschka Fischer, Guy Verhofstadt, Daniel Cohn Bendit, Andrew Duff and Isabelle Durant and 100 more – all names that I am sure history will judge NOT as post-war peace makers, but as people who destroyed the uniqueness, competitiveness and strength of loosely united countries, that should have learnt from past wars and mistakes and realised that cooperation under diversity was a strength to cherish.
But here's news for you, guys: Centralisation doesn’t work!
We now have a monster of un-democracy, bribery of everything from states, companies and charities to NGOs and individual Consultants. Unbelievable waste of astronomically large funds is a daily occurrence and self-service and sufficiency is a standard that makes the officers of the EU monstrosity and their supporters rich beyond reason.
EU has become an organisation that mixes itself in a dangerous and uncontrolled way into the world’s politics, disregarding member states’ laws and sending money to terrorist organisations like Hamas while consistently blaming Israel for everything.
The failure of the Euro proves beyond doubt, that the founders had no idea about economics while pushing a political dreamscape down peoples’ throat. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are the external proof of this statement. Internally the costs to maintain the illusion continue to rise while everyone involved stuff their own pockets to the cost of taxpayers in the 28 participating states, in the UK £55 mill/day – except Greece, where no one pays tax.
Baroness Ashton, the EU “Foreign Secretary” maintains a budget of 500 mill Euro/year – for what? What is there to show for it?
And how about the 900 Bill Euro/year that floats around the Brussels labyrinth without proper accounting and audit?
So the Spinelli Group of MEPs has ostensibly set out to remedy some of the negative issues in the EU construction, at the same time as they are making an attempt to bring the derailed train back on the federal track through a new draft treaty of the European Union, published by Bertelsmann Stiftung.
A Fundamental Law of the European Union, as it is called, is offered as a major contribution to the debate on the future of Europe.
So far so good – but then one reads on - - - - -
The group admits that there is an economic crisis – well, none of the founding fathers had any idea about economics, so what to expect?
They also admit that there’s insufficient governance to deliver the EU objectives – let alone leadership. (Is that one in the eye for Baroso, Schultz and this guy, whom Nigel Farage calls a “wet cloth” – whazz’is name? Oh, Van Rompuy! Yes, again: who’s he?)
The Spinelli Group admits that the public opinion is hostile (how about asking why?) and they believe this is a barrier for the (stupid) national states to ignore their (stupid) citizens, as they refrain from explaining the golden future of joining a centralised colossus while releasing them from any form of autonomy.
EU knows best.
Wasn’t that the approach of Lenin and Stalin?
If just people understood that the government knew best and people only needed to be better informed in order to grasp the centralised happiness?
It didn’t work.
Again, history shows it: Centralisation in general just doesn’t work.
The following pearl is equally bland:
But the nightmare really begins, when we read the Headline Proposals.
What this really says is, that the national states’ values and constitutions shall become null and void as the centralised EU Federation develops its own constitution and laws.
19. New powers for the European Parliament in Economic and employment policies.How much new power? This is the gateway to complete national secession of decision making. Unbelievable.
Thursday, 3 October 2013
We are closing in on the anniversary of Magna Carta, this magnificent document that in 1215 produced one of the most important pillars of our modern society's freedom: The Law of the Land.
It was not the kings will, not some squire's idiosyncrasies, but a law, under which we are all equal, that would help form the society we have today.
About the same time, at the start of the 13th Century, the customs and habits of Denmark were assembled in the complex called "Jyske Lov", which was valid for Jutland, Funen and the duchies Schleswig and Holstein.
One must not underestimate the level of communication amongst the states in the middle ages and I am convinced, that the Magna Carta effect would not have gone unnoticed by the Danish king at the time, Valdemar the Victorious (Sejr). What I find truly amazing though is, that when Jyske Lov was put in print in March 1241, it already represented a civilised society - civilised in our 21st Century meaning.
It is even more amazing, that the content has remained by and large valid, albeit with many clarifications and additions, to our times - and that at least in 2 instances references to Jyske Lov have been crucial in court cases in Schleswig in the 20th Century (concerning heritage and land ownership).
This is a better performance than by Magna Carta, where only the statement "The Law of the Land" has present validity.
Magna Carta didn't come out of the blue either.
Like with Jyske Lov the content represented customs, habits or long standing desires, but common to both laws is one crucial matter:
It was the law of the land that mattered and - at least in principle! - that everyone was equal under the law.
Jyske Lov has an introduction, making it distinct from most other law complexes as it describes the essence of the law.
I found that it has so much in common with the essence of Magna Carta, that it was worth highlighting this introduction, in particular as our laws and freedoms are coming under severe threat these years.
A medieval complex called Sharia, which is as far removed from Magna Carta and Jyske Lov as possible has already become a de facto law in many areas of England and Scandinavia and an increasing portion of the UK law system has now been transported to the European Court, giving a completely new meaning to the concept "The Law of the Land". These are good examples of the potential break up and elimination of our free society.
There is one important difference between Magna Carta and Jyske Lov: Magna Carta was dictated by and made for the Barons in order to curb the King's power; Jyske Lov was made for the People!
Does that make Jyske Lov even more advanced than Magna Carta in "civilisation terms"?
I think so!
I have therefore tried to translate the rather wrinkled old Danish language in Jyske Lov into an understandable, but correspondingly "olde English"(and left the Danish translation from Wikipedia at the bottom) for anyone who has an interest to see.
It ought to be everyone!
LAW OF THE JUTES, March 1241
Through law the country must be built. But if anyone would settle for his own and let others enjoy the same right, one did not need any law. No law is as good to follow as the truth, but if you are in doubt about what is the truth, then the law must show the truth.
Were there no law in the country, then he who has opportunity would also acquire most. Therefore, the law must concern everyone, that the righteous and peaceful and innocent can enjoy their peace, and he, who has evil acts in mind can become fearful of the law.
The law must be honest and fair and bearable, after the country's custom, appropriate and useful and clear, so that all may know and understand what the law says. The law should not be done or written to provide any man special favours, but look after the best interests of the people, who live in the country. The law which the king gives and the country adopts, can not be changed or repealed without the will of the country, unless he obviously acts against God.
It is the king’s and the country's officials’ office to monitor judgments and do right and save those who are forced by violence, such as widows and defenseless, children, pilgrims and foreigners and the poor, who are all those most often subject to violence - and not let bad people, who will not improve, live in the country. As he punishes and kills such evil people, he acts as God's servant and the custodian of the country. For as the Holy Church is controlled by the pope and bishop, so every country must be controlled and guarded by the king and his officials. It is the duty of everyone who lives in his country to obey him and be obedient and submissive, and in return he must give them peace. All [secular] chieftains must know, that with the power that God gave them in this world, he also transferred to them the duty to defend his holy church against all claims.
But if they become forgetful or biased and do not fulfill their duty as guardians of the law, then they shall be held accountable on the day of judgement, if the church's freedom and the country's peace have suffered due to their failure.
Be aware, anyone who sees this book, that King Valdemar the second, son of Valdemar, who was Saint Canute's son, as he had been king in thirty-nine winters, and thousand and two hundred and forty years have gone after our Lord was born, wrote this book and gave this law in the month of March, which here is written in Danish, together with the consent of his sons , who were present, King Erik, Duke Abel and squires Christoffer and Uffe, the then Archbishop of Lund, and Bishop Niels Rodkilde, Bishop Iver in Fyn, Bishop Peter in Aarhus, Bishop Gunner in Ribe, Bishop Gunner of Viborg, Bishop Stephen in Vensyssel and Bishop Stephen in Hedeby and also with the consent of all the best men who are in his kingdom.
Original text in half modern transcription:
Med lov skal land bygges, men ville enhver nøjes med sit eget og lade andre nyde samme ret, da behøvede man ikke nogen lov. Men ingen lov er jævngod at følge som sandheden, men hvor man er i tvivl om, hvad der er sandhed, der skal loven vise sandheden.
Var der ikke lov i landet, da havde den mest, som kunne tilegne sig mest. Derfor skal loven gøres efter alles tarv, at retsindige og fredsommelige og sagesløse kan nyde deres fred, og uretfærdige og onde kan ræddes for det, der er skrevet i loven, og derfor ikke tør fuldbyrde den ondskab, som de har i sinde. Det er også rigtigt, dersom nogen ikke af frygt for Gud og kærlighed til retten kan lokkes til det gode, at frygten for øvrigheden og landets straffelov da kan hindre dem i at gøre ilde og straffe dem, hvis de gør det.
Loven skal være ærlig og retfærdig, tålelig, efter landets sædvane, passende og nyttig og tydelig, så at alle kan vide og forstå, hvad loven siger. Loven skal ikke gøres eller skrives til nogen mands særlige fordel, men efter alle deres tarv, som bor i landet. Heller ikke skal nogen mand dømme mod den lov, som kongen giver, og landet vedtager; men efter den lov skal landet dømmes og styres. Den lov, som kongen giver, og landet vedtager, den kan han heller ikke ændre eller ophæve uden landets vilje, medmindre han åbenbart handler mod Gud.
Det er kongens og landets høvdingers embede at overvåge domme og gøre ret og frelse dem, der tvinges med vold, såsom enker og værgeløse, børn, pilgrimme og udlændinge og fattige - dem overgår der tiest vold - og ikke lade slette mennesker, der ikke vil forbedre sig, leve i sit land; thi idet han straffer og dræber ugerningsmænd, da er han Guds tjener og landets vogter. Thi ligesom den hellige kirke styres af pave og biskop, således skal hvert land styres og værges af kongen eller hans embedsmænd. Derfor er også alle, der bor i hans land, skyldige at være ham hørige og lydige og underdanige, og til gengæld er han skyldig at give dem alle fred. Det skal alle verdslige høvdinger også vide, at med den magt, Gud gav dem i hænde i denne verden, overdrog han dem også at værge sin hellige kirke mod alle krav. Men bliver de glemsomme eller partiske og ikke værger, som ret er, da skal de på Dommens dag stå til ansvar, hvis kirkens frihed og landets fred mindskes ved deres skyld i deres tid.
Vide skal alle, der ser denne bog, at kong Valdemar, den anden søn af Valdemar, der var Sankt Knuds søn, da han havde været konge i ni og tredive vintre, og der var gået tusind og to hundrede og fyrretyve vintre, efter at Vor Herre var født, i den næstfølgende marts måned lod skrive denne bog og gav denne lov, som her står skrevet på dansk, i Vordingborg med samtykke af sine sønner, der var til stede, kong Erik, hertug Abel og junker Christoffer og Uffe, der da var ærkebiskop i Lund, og biskop Niels i Rodkilde, biskop Iver i Fyn, biskop Peder i Århus, biskop Gunner i Ribe, biskop Gunner i Viborg, biskop Jens i Vensyssel og biskop Jens i Hedeby og desuden med samtykke af alle de bedste mænd, der er i hans rige.