Racist Australians

Posted in Australia, Political Correctness, United States on October 10th, 2009 by Jacob

10 October, 2009

We made it, our trendies and left wing whackos has managed to draw the world attention and copy-cat the American Marxists activism with a “proof” that Australia is an evil country and all Australians are a bunch of racists.

It started with TV show, resurrected from memory lane of the 1980’s and … oy-vei included a parody on the Jackson Fives and Michael Jackson, played by … get that! White people who painted their fact black.

The PC brigade shouted to high heaven “gotcha!” demanding apologies on behalf of people who really don’t live here and more important, could not care less. A member of the Jackson family said that they did not find the parody offensive but who cares? The PC brigade pushed on anyway.

The so-called international traction has been exaggerated by our narcissist media, but the issue apparently got some traction in America.

The matter was raised on the “Culture Warriors” segment the Fox’s O’Reilly Factor with Margaret Hoover and Gretchen Carlson. Whilst Bill O’Reilly saw it for what it was, Australian having fun, both ms. Hoover and Ms. Carlson demonstrated their utter ignorance, which caught me by surprise – not the ignorance part but the fact that both ladies expressed opinion without any real facts or understanding of out culture to back their opinion, or making up the facts to support their opinion. The verdict of most Australians was a yawn.

Watch the part that starts at about 3:35 minutes into the clip

Ms. Hoover:

Australia is a little bit behind the US insofar as has human rights is concerned …

She then continues and talk about the white Australian policy (that was finished in the 1960’s not in 1973 as Hoover claimed) and brought in our “issues with Aboriginal culture and integration of Aboriginal culture” and therefore, she concluded that Australia is racist and behind on human rights as she put it.

For crying out loud, we are talking about a short segment of a TV show, in poor taste some will say, yet Ms. Hoover (with the active support of Ms. Carlson) had no qualm vilify a whole nation. This is when the TV show itself stops from being an issue.

Let us start with white Australia policy (it was not a law, Ms. Hoover) that had its root in the beginning of the last century as it sought to limit Asian immigration viz-a-viz Europeans for demographic reasons. whether you agree with the motives for the policy or not, it had nothing to do racism and indeed Asians who had come to Australia during our gold rush were not affected by the policy.

White Australia policy had nothing to do with the Aboriginal people, nothing! Nada! Gurnischt! tipota!

As to Australia being a “little bit behind the US” let me remind Ms. Hoover and Ms. Carlson that Australia has never had neither slavery nor segregation against Aborigines, Asians or anyone else for that matter, either by law or by custom, NEVER! Asian who had come to Australia during the gold rush were totally unaffected by the policy.

The issue here is not racism, human rights or even human rights comparisons between Australia and the USA, the issue is purely a demonstration of political correctness by stupid individuals.

If political correctness is the yardstick for our human rights progress or otherwise, I am surely glad that Australia stayed behind.

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009.
Tags: , , , ,

Whose Side Are They ON?

Posted in Australia, Globalism, Other Current Affairs, United Nations, United States on October 2nd, 2009 by Jacob

02 October, 2009

Last week we saw one of the most frightening exposition of the end of our individual (respective) national sovereignties as we have been accustom to know it. Last week was the watershed in what our politicians often refer to as “the journey” towards global governance. Call me “scare monger” or “conspiracy theorist” if you wish but I am here neither to scare you nor to advocate a conspiracy theory, I merely seek to highlight certain facts that are unfolding right in front of our eyes and ears and propose their significance, as I see it.

But first let me explain, global governance is not the same as global government. Global government refers to the establishment of one world-wide government, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations (or a similar organisation yet to be established), that would govern the whole world as if it was one single country. Although there are some who aspire to it, world government is not going to happen, not without a lot of bloodshed anyway.

On the other hand global governance is the action of governing under common global set of rules. Instead of blue helmets “policemen” and Black Hawk helicopters with blue UN emblem enforcing the rules of a global tyrant, under global governance, our own, friendly (or not), policemen and women will continue enforce the laws of the land, except that increasingly the laws of the land will be the laws of the globe and will come from a global governance bodies such as the UN and its agencies, proposed and drafted by faceless UN bureaucrats and rubberstamped largely by Non-Aligned Movement’s countries who hold the majority voting power in the UN.

Those of us who live under democracy will still have democracy of sort, we shall continue to vote for our respective national democratic institutions except that those institutions will be subservient to the global governance body. In other words our national governments of the future, in time, will have as much powers as the current federal powers of your local municipal council, the powers given to it by Agenda 21, more about Agenda 21 later.

Within a week, the week ended on 28September, 2009, we saw the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change in New-York (Sept 22), the United Nations Security Council Meeting (25 September,2009, chaired by president Obama, the general debate of the opening of the 64th session of the General Assembly of the United Nation in New-York (on 23-28 September,2009) and the Pittsburgh G20 Partnership Meeting (on 24-28 September, 2009). Whilst none of these events, in themselves, are anything new, apart from a lot of symbolism, it was the first time that leaders of the western democracies not only spoke in such unison on all raised issues BUT the all push the “Global” part above the interest of their own countries.

Our so-called leaders went to New-York and Pittsburgh to represent us, one would assume, but instead they ended up pushing their own global governance agenda through climate change, G20 or straight out UN speak, here are some example:

Barack Obama in a speech to General Assembly, highlights provided:

We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

He later said:

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Go and tell the brainless idiot Marxists anti-globalisation protestors in Pittsburgh that their Messiah and their activists professors are the champion of globalisation, but hey why lets some pesky fact spoil a good anti capitalists demonstration, beside, who said that riots need have a good reason?

And our illustrious Prime Minister Kevin Rudd aka Kevin747 was at his besting terms of laying grounds for his next job, he said to the very same forum:

And it is on the current challenges facing the global order that I wish to speak to this 64th General Assembly today – the global financial crisis, the unfinished business of the Doha Round, the unfolding crisis of the planet itself, the unresolved question of nuclear weapons 20 years after the end of the Cold War – and of the future of global governance itself.

Dear Kevin, he does not mince his words, does he? He continued:

And a wake-up call that our system of global governance today is in radical need of reform.

You see, to Mr. Rudd, global governance is already in here, all it needs is a radical reform, is that the same person who had told the Australian voters the he, Kevin 07, has plans for Australia? I do not recall any mention of making Australia governed from New-York.

Indeed, in certain aspect global governance is already with us, it has been here for some thirty years, just look at all conventions, declarations, charters, protocol and other euphemisms for RULES, coming down from the UN and ratified by our respective governments under our noses.

Whilst you and I been busy labouring to put roofs over our respective families, and food on our tables, the people who we elected and TRUSTED to protect our interests we busy scheming amongst themselves to bring us a global governance by stealth.

Take a look at some examples, The Lima Declaration of 1975, states, inter alia:

[Solemnly declare] their resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; [para 25]

And

That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis; [para 27]

In other words, we “particularly the developed countries”, must hand our production to under-developed countries. Why? Because we, the developed country are evil and must pay for our sins – nothing about the billions of aid money that was squandered by corrupt leaders, nothing, no one talks about it because they are VICTIMS.

Then we have The Rio Declaration which is part of Agenda 21, documents that, irrespective of our sovereign laws, mandates local government and NON-GOVERNMENTAL organisations (NGO’s) an official status not only in relation to environmental legislation but also, the use of the environment as an excuse for all left wing doctrines – indeed a masterpiece of left wing activism, here are some examples (from the Rio declaration):

Principle 20

Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21

The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23

The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24

Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

[Highlights provided]

And we had thought that looking after the environment means to ensure clean air, clean water and rain forests. Oh no! Agenda 21 makes it clear that just about any left wing activist can become a police officer.

When your local council require an environmental impact study before it approve your car port, say Agenda 21, when you council declare you town Nuclear Free Zone, say Agenda 21, when your council put up signes calling for the protection of the Tasmanian rain forest, say Agenda 21 – in fact when you council involves itself with issues outside its boundaries chances are that it is Agenda 21.

Charity organisations such as Oxfam or World Vision, supposedly established in order to assist the needy in poor countries (but not in their own for some reason) are getting vocally involved in issues such as global warming or join in condemning Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force, say Agenda 21 – You see my friends, the misery industry, just as the watermelon environmentalism, green on the outside and red on the inside.

The way it works is that the UN organises a convention on the issue, the UN bureaucrats, most come from under-developed countries, who prepare the final outcome and name it as a convention, protocol, declaration, agenda or whatever, it automatically passed by two third majority of the so-called non-aligned bloc with 113 votes of which about Half (56) are also members of the Organisation Of The Islamic Conference (IOC) and now you have it a “UN resolution” that your government rash to ratify as a good global citizen – It is for your own good, even the UN said so ….. hmmm hmmm hmmm.

I am sick and tired hearing politicians using “other countries” excuse as if the monopoly on wisdom lay in other countries – I like it here as it is, thank you very much but when I see politicians from all over the world using the same speak about global governance I get frightened.

whose side are they on?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, 2009
Tags: , , ,

The Ethics of Ethics

Posted in Europe, Islam & Terror, Israel, Social Engineering on September 14th, 2009 by Jacob

14 September, 2009

Recently I came across a snippet of news that on the advice of its fund’s Ethics Council , Norway state’s pension funds (previously Oil Fund) divested themselves from share holding in the electronic company Elbit Systems Ltd. Elbit is an Israeli hi-tech corporation heavily involved with defence projects.

The Norwegians cited the reason for divesting from Elbit that apparently, Elbit supplies components that are used in surveillance on the fence between Israel and the West Bank, the fence specifically built to block easy passage of suicide bombers into Israel.

You see, it is all about ethics, another term that has been hijacked by the loony left and liberal activism. No longer ethics is a set of values, axiomatically a force of good but it has become a spin intended to indoctrinate students of activists liberal professor into their political agenda, after all no one likes people who behave unethically.

Once upon a time ethics was about decent behaviour, personal or professional. These days the term imply activism, particularly, but not limited to, the environment.

Whilst originally ethical investments may introduced by the environmentalism movement in an attempt to encourage investment decisions towards companies which are doing the “right” thing by the environment, the eco-whackos quickly moved from encouragement to penalty, They no longer “pushing” investments in “worthy” enterprises but instead they “punish” those who they, the “ethics police”, consider unfriendly to their (environmental) cause.

About twelve out of some twenty six banned corporations from the Norwegian Pension Fund are American including Boeing, General Dynamic, Lockheed Martin and Wal-Mart. The reason vary from participation in the production of nuclear weapon, cluster bombs, land mines to alleged breaches of Human Rights and environmental “crimes” that cover both (real) pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

To this impressive list of causes the Ethics Council now added a new cause, Palestinianism, a term coined by Bat Yeor, the author of the book Eurabia and describe the European anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Israel.

Heading the Corporate Governance of the Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) until 2007 was Dr. Henrik Syse, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO), a man with no qualification in banking or investment whatsoever who is suppose to look after a fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars, some ethic!

Question: What is common to environment, peace human rights and Palestinianism causes?

Answer: Marxism! But somehow, unlike Stalin’s one, an ethical Marxism, are you kidding me? Some ethics!

Once more we see is the infamous environmental watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Let us just examine those causes and those who are pushing them;

One of the causes pushed by NBIM and its “peace scientist” head was anti- nuclear weapon. The Norwegian central bank took the high moral ground “punishing” American corporation that are alleged to be involved with the development of nuclear weapon whilst at the same time, Norway, as a member of NATO, is quite prepared to accept the outcome of such developments and stay under the nuclear umbrella provided by the USA to its allies, some ally, some ethics!

The front line jetfighter aircraft of the Royal Norwegian Air Force is the F-16 (Falcon) developed by General Dynamic and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, BOTH are excluded corporations by the investments Ethics Council of Norway. Do you get it? American corporations that are so crucial to Norway’s national defence are banned as unethical, some ethics!

Norway’s so-called Oil Fund (now renames “Pension Fund” has been established to preserve the wealth that comes from Norway’s North Sea oil and gas. The idea is that as oil is finite resource, thus the benefits it brings must be preserved by a special fund for future generations.

In order to avoid the new riches affecting the Norwegian economy (how?), by law the fund is prohibited from investing in Norway. In other words the people of Norway are denied their oil and gas wealth developed by their own tax money through a government owned (now privatised) Statoil, hopefully their children or grandchildren will. In other words, the current generation paid for the development of the resource but is not allowed to participate in the wealth it brings for ethical reasons, some ethics!

The echo-whackos call it sustainability, hardly a day pass that we don’t hear the word, what is sustainability? The concept is simple to explain, suppose you go to the supermarket to get your favourite bread, when you get to the bread shelves you see the last of loaves sitting lonely on the shelf. You are now suppose to leave that loaf of bread to someone “more deserving” who will come later, who that someone is or why that someone is more deriving then you is never explained, it is a question of sustainability and ethics, some ethics!

And let us not forget, the source of that investment funds, fossil fuels, the villain of global warming. Yes, I agree, global warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind but I don’t go around selling oil then wagging fingers at corporation who use it describing them as unethical for burning fuel that I has sold them, some ethics!

And if we are talking about global warming (aka Climate Change) let just concentrate on one aspect of it, ethics. In a recent BBC’s HARDtalk program, Stephen Sackur interview the CEO of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold, who incidentally calls himself “climate scientist” watch:

Global Warming Lies (aka emotionalism)

Now do you want to get more emotionalised, do you want to see some photo of “cute” polar bears? Perhaps some seals cubs? But never the two together because polar bear EATS seals cubs.

SOME ETHICS!

* * * * *

Let us now turn to Palestinianism. According to Bat Yeor, who coined the term, Palestinianism is

… the moral justification for the elimination of Israel

One does not have to look far into the histories of anti-Semitism in Europe and United State, to understand why Palestinianism has become so successful in Europe.

This is not to say that Israel is beyond criticism, nor anyone who criticise Israel is anti-Semite as not everyone who disagree with president Obama is racist but there is no doubt an anti-Semitism element ma

The divesting of $5 million out of Elbit represents less then 1% of Elbit’s capital, thus is financially meaningless but not so symbolically. It support the Arab propaganda that the wall represents some sort of apartheid.

Here is what apartheid looks like:

Apartheid sign on-Durban beach

Apartheid sign on Durban beach

You will not find signe like this on any beach, or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. There are no laws in Israel forbidding sex between Jews and Arabs or segregating Arabs citizens in any shape or form. The fence was erected primarily to stop suicide bombers cross over into Israel, yes, to save innocents lives. Yet the Ethics Council seem to think that monitoring the fence is somehow unethical, some ethics.

(By the way, the fence has brought another benefit to Israel, a drastic decline in car theft. May I ask the ethics council what happened to their level of car theft since their gates were opened to Muslim immigration? Hmmm? Just asking!)

From a cultural point of view, Israel is largely a European county. It has more in common with Europe than with the Middle East, any feminist, homosexual, atheist, trade unionist, whether incorporated in one person or more, can walk the streets of Israel with safety, something they cannot do in any other country in the Middle East. Yet the Ethics Council find the fence that contributes to that safety objectionable, some ethics!

For crying out loud, we have just seen a female journalist arrested in Sudan for …. Wearing “inappropriate” trousers, This is the same country that arrested a British teacher because of “inappropriate” teddy bears. But you would not hear a peep from the ethics council about Sudanese Human rights, the reason is a question of ethics, some ethics!

* * * * *

It is fair to say that Norway is not alone in having either ethics council, supporting Palestinianism or displaying anti-Israeli sentiments. The situation is very across the border in “neutral” Sweden and to lesser extent across the water in Denmark and France with the rest of Europe not far behind.

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally so close to Europe, is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the Euro-Arab Dialogue. Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

In other words, the EAD does not only cements the Arab ant-Israel policy with Europe in exchange for oil (surprise, surprise), it also set European policy apart from America for the purpose of being apart, and oil and, of course ethics, SOME ETHICS!

If you never heard of EAD, do not despair, you are not alone the EU is doing its best to hide the EAD in an assortment of euphemisms and diplomatic jargon. One of the main reasons why Israel has never agreed that Europe be part of the peace talks is the EAD. You see, Israel interpretation of ethics is different.

Have I got the meaning of the word wrong?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer, 2009 – All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , ,

By The Short And Curly

Posted in Australia, Globalism, United States on July 26th, 2009 by Jacob

26 July, 2009

I must confess, I got it wrong, it seemed a good idea at the time, but it turned out like all other ideologies, WRONG!!! I am talking about the ideology of free trade, the philosophy that says that it generate wealth to all that practice it. As it turned out it does not!

The principle of free trade is simple, if I can grow tomatoes better (more efficiently, as economists say) then my next door farmer, who in turn can grow cucumbers better then I do, then we are both better off by I growing all the tomatoes and my next door neighbour growing all the cucumbers and we trade tomatoes for cucumbers between us. In this way we each get better products all around.

In real life, more efficient usually means cheaper, we all agree that if we produce widgets here for say, $4.00 a piece and the Chinese produce them for 10 cents each, it is a prima facie evidence that, the Chinese are more efficient in producing widgets thus we should stop making them, buy all our widgets from the Chinese and concentrate on producing something that we are more efficient at, say gismos, sell them to China and we would all be better off for it, or would we?

Let us pause and look at the “efficiency” again, suppose our workers produce 10 widgets per hour and a Chinese worker can manage only 2 widgets per hour, wouldn’t you say that our workers are more efficient then the Chinese? On this example, of course they are! So you can see that “cheaper” is not always synonym with more efficient, here is why;

If our widget wage costs (actual wage paid to workers and on-costs) amounts to $40.00 per hour whiles a Chinese worker equivalent cost is only $2.00 per 10 hours day,  the vast gap in wage costs completely obscures our advantage in terms of efficiency.

Therefore, we get rid of our workers and produce all our widgets in China albeit it would take five times the number of Chinese workers to produce the same number of widgets.

And in order to further obfuscate the treachery to our more workers we use the euphemism outsourcing. Hey man, you are not sucked, you are just outsourced. (How strange, you never hear of outsourcing the CEO’s of large corporation, do you?)

Further, in order to ensure that outsourcing is REALLY successful, the free traders call on our governments to remove all import duty our forefathers put in place for the very reason of protecting jobs. They even go as far as demonise the word “protection” as a dirty word, something to be avoided at all costs. No politician OF EITHER SIDES, wish to be called “protectionist”, oh no! As if protecting our jobs is the wrong thing to do.

Whose side these people are on?

And so we are handing over our manufacturing expertise to under-developed nations, lock stock and barrel, some of whom don’t even like us. We are quickly reaching the point that whole sections of manufacturing industries are disappearing from our local landscape. What is going to replace lost employment in apparel, steel mills and food canneries that disappeared in recent years?

The economic rationale of free trade implies that everybody has some comparative advantage whereas we may not be as good as say the Chinese at making widgets but are really good in making gizmos, so we let the Chinese make all the widgets and we make all the gizmos … but wait, it has not worked like that at all. What in fact has happened is that, China is making BOTH widgets and gizmos.

Slowly and not so slowly we see that the emerging economies, (a euphemism for China and India) China in particular, are taking over sector after sector of our manufacturing industries, it is like slicing a salami- every day a small slice of our manufacturing industry is carved away without any impact until we wake up one day and realise that the salami  has gone.

Few of us ask where does this jobs destruction lead us get the standard spin is that we do not need manufacturing industry to prosper, we can still prosper by being a service economy .  It make no sense whatsoever we cannot produce wealth by producing nothing.

Serving each other drinks and making each others’ beds is not an economy!

One day we shall wake up, not only with no factories and with no manufacturing expertise, then what?

The Chinese will have us by the sort and curly and they will pull, have no doubt about it!

* * * * *

All ideologies, euphemisms and spins do not change one fact and that is that CHINA IS A TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRY. All the Western democracies would be better advised to take this fact into account when dealing with China before we hand over our manufacturing industry.

Whilst we all pontificating on the merits or otherwise of free trade China is forging forward, not by reciprocating our free trade but by practicing protectionism – the Chinese current import duty tariffs may not be high but don’t let it fools you, the Chinese government has achieved protectionism by other means, not the least their by tight control over EXCHANGE RATES, foreign currency restrictions and other administrative and bureaucratic limitations and control, all aim at supporting their emerging economy not ours.

Since 1984, the Renminbi (China’s people’s currency) has been devalued by 200%. This is as “good” as having across the board tariff of 200% increase on all imports at the time when our tariffs are for Chinese products coming down.

Further the Renminbi is not a readily convertible currency. Traditionally Chinese citizen could not receive allocation of foreign currency for imports, unless they had earned foreign exchange in previous exports. (These restrictions have somewhat relaxed in recent times due to large foreign currency reserves accumulated in recent years.)

As you can see, China’s current wealths is a combine result of sever protectionism on their side and the free trade ideology on our side.

In fact China approach is not unique, all historical economic empires were built on the foundation of protectionism, or mercantilism as it was known years ago. England’s Navigation Act of 1651 reserved all English trade, including to, from and between its colonies to be carried only by English ships (or ships owned by English nationals). The Corn Laws of 1815 that prohibited importing grain into England at a price less than 80 shillings per quarter (28 pounds) are some of such examples of protectionism going back to the 19th century.

Britain before 1846 (when the Corn Laws were repealed), the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan of after WWII and Australia till the 1970’s all developed their economies on a foundation of protectionism.

If free trade is best for nations, how is it that every modern state that rose to prominent and power …. Was protectionist?

Asks Pat Buchanan rhetorically in his book Day Of Reckoning and continues to cite that

All four presidents on Mount Rushmore – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt – were economic nationalists.

[- pp 195]

The apparent discrepancy in the benefits of free trade is simple to explain, free trade is beneficial to both parties ONLY when it is practised between nations of similar standard of living.

There are many examples that prove this hypothesis, not the least the free trades among the states in the USA, Australia, and the EU, as well as our free trade with New Zealand albeit we are competitors on many products when it comes to international trade.

A recent survey done in Australia, has shown that about 80% of shopper SAYING that they prefer Australian products over overseas’ even if it costs more BUT when it comes to action, only about 20%  of shoppers actually put their money where their mouth is.

I suspect that the situation in America and other western democracies is similar. Come on people, put you money where your mouth is, use it or loose it!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

Tags: , , ,

The Global Village Idiots

Posted in Australia, Europe, Global Warming, Globalism, United States on July 15th, 2009 by Jacob

15 July, 2009

The G-8 Plus meeting in L’Aquila, Italy has finished with the usual pre-scripted, tears generating worded declarations which can be summed up along these lines:

We, the one who know best, [rubbing of hairy chests] agree that global problems require global solutions and regardless of what the people who elected us think about [insert issue here] and about spending their money are going spend it on their behalf anyway and by the tonne.

Much of the time and media management (i.e. propaganda) of this charade was devoted to Climate Change, a euphemism for Global Warming, that is much like the tale about Herscheleh from Ostropol, a fictitious folkloristic Jewish comedian, prankster and village idiot figure in !8th century Eastern Europe:

One early morning, just before dawn, as the folks were on their way to the synagogue for the Shaharit (early morning payer) they notice Herscheleh under the lamp post, circling the post scanning the ground.

“Herschel” said the rabbi “What on earth are you doing here this time of the morning?”

“I lost my key” replied Herscheleh

“Where did you lose it?” inquire the rabbi

“There” said Herscheleh pointing into the darkness away from the light of the lamp post.

“So why are looking for you key in here if you lost it there”? persisted the rabbi with a puzzle.

“Because the light is here Rabbi, not there” replied Herschel with a smug.

The same goes for the leaders of G-8, the eight largest economies in the world, are all in deep economic disarray which they have no idea as to how to get out of it, using climate change as a decoy away from their incompetence.

The G-8 Plus (some of the G-20) leaders declared amongst other things that they

[R]ecognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees C. [highlight added]

Scientific view, what is it? Science does not have views, sciences has hypotheses which are either proven, disproven or remained unproven. Views express by scientists are only views and are as valid as anyone else’s view, there is nothing scientific about a scientists’ views.

Don’t let them (the scare mongers) fool you, it is not the first time, and probably not the last time, that politicians use science as a fig leaf. We all remember Al Gore’s proclamation that “the science has been settled” and global warming is has been proven by “a scientific consensus” placing science on par with beauty pageant as to picking winners.

Science is never settled and it is not about consensus, science is about selecting hypotheses and proving them (or not). ask Copernicus and Galileo Galilei who, contrary to massive scientific (and theological) consensus, risked their lives and disproved geocentricism. Had science been about consensus, who knows, we may gave still be walking this earth believing that it is flat and that we are the centre of universe.

One can imagine the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Geocentricism warning us of the danger paused by people such as Copernicus and Gallie.

The “science” of global warming is based on two mutual inclusive hypotheses (meaning BOTH must exist) and they are that the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is THE CAUSE for global warming of the planet AND that the increase in CO2 is cause by human activities (anthropogenic).

The facts of the matter are that NONE of these hypotheses have been scientifically proven!

Bear in mind, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 350ppm (parts per million), compare it to a teaspoon of sugar in a standard glass at about 2,500ppm. More important the so-called “carbon pollution” is only 4% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (14ppm).

So what are we talking about? Nothing, nada, tipota, gurnischt! BUT the echophiles always come up with escaper route and their escape route is something called the Precautionary Principle, another non-scientific PC term which is neither precautionary nor a scientific.

Under the pretence of science those echophiles tell although we don’t really know what cause global warming we better pretend and behave as if it is manmade carbon dioxide just in case (JIC).

Absolute crap! We already have scientific (mathematical) tools to deal with decision making under uncertainty, it is the Mathematical branch of Operations Research that deals with such questions.

For example Operations Research is used to determine how many bank tellers or supermarket checkout will be setup given a the pattern of the demand for the service and acceptable level of customer queues. The Bank or the Supermarket does not construct 500 service point just in case a one time unusual demend.

BUT, Operations Resreach is based on sound mathematical rules not some eco-whacko furphies such as the “science” of global warming.

Do you really want to use Precautionary Theory? Fine, go right ahead; lets see: Helmet, sky-divers suit, parachute and ejecting seat for every airline passenger, JIC; mandatory crush helmet and fire suit installed in every family car for every passenger, JIC; a man with a red flag in front of every car (with phosphorous vest and a hard hat), JIC … I guess that you get the idea.

Use the precautionary principle argument when you run out valid arguments for your case.

* * * * *

The last two counties to fall to the global warming hoax was Australia (in November 2007) and the USA (in January 2009). We now have almost a global unanimity on the issue among almost all politicians of all persuasions which is frightening – To me it is a true conspiracy even if I am not one who for conspiracies.

If you think that “conspiracy” is too stronger word for it how about reading of the Declaration Of The Leaders The Major Economies Forum On Energy And Climate that formed a part of the G-8 Plus in L’Aquila meeting which foreshadowed global climate change measures not normally spoken about, not loudly anyhow.

In addition to emission trading (however such scheme named) there is a unanimity on a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, over and above the various stimuli already flushed down the drains, and

dramatically increase and coordinate public sector investments in research, development, and demonstration of these [green] technologies, with a view to doubling such investments by 2015 [Emphasis added]

Simply put this is a hijack of the global economy by putting obscene amounts of money into the “greening” of our economies.

The last ecophile to join the global war4mning asylum, President Obama, glorified Spain and other countries and use them as examples for the USA to follow, for their “progress” in greening their economies, some six moths ago he said in Bedford, Ohio that:

And think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.

This isn’t because they’re smarter than us, … It’s because their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments – investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs – jobs they won’t lose to other countries. [Highlight added]

Not quite Mr. President, a Spanish academic, Dr. Gabriel Álvarez of the Juan Carlos University in Madrid has published a study that shows, amongst other things, that

we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average [Highlight added]

–Summary, No 2, pg. 1

(I strongly recommend that you read, at least, the whole summary on pages 1-4)

The loss of jobs cited by Dr Álvarez is primarily due to high electricity charges, up to 7 times the market level, that are forced on industry, particularly electricity intensive ones, such as aluminium, steel, other metallurgy, food processing and tobacco. They all move their operation to countries who will not have a bar of this stupidity (eg China, India, Vietnam) and who guarantee low electricity charges for years to come – China is connecting a new (coal fired) power station to their grid every 10 days or so.

In fact the actual loss of jobs to the economy is more then 2.2 per each “smart” job but I leave it for now mainly for sake of simplicity.

* * * * *

As important as jobs are there is something even more insidious that I wish to draw your attention to but I need to explain it a bit first;

Suppose that I am a tomatoes’ farmer, growing your normal humble tomatoes and selling them to the local supermarket for years at market prices that fluctuate with supply, demand quality etc. Nothing to write home about.

One day a man from the government comes around and he want me to grew a new type of pear shaped “green” tomatoes which are environmentally friendly thus give me the opportunity to be part of the movement to save the planet – ain’t that exciting?

I tell the man that I love to help but… those tomatoes are hard to grow, the farm machinery that I need for them is very expensive, and has long period of down time, the yield I would per acre is about 12% of I get now and that them eco-friendly tomatoes are very susceptible to the weather and insects. According to a quick calculation I would probably need to charge about three times the prices I get now and all that I don’t even sure that people would like such tomatoes. “Thanks but no thanks, I pass” I conclude.

To my surprise, the man smiles and says that the government is aware of all the difficulties but here is the deal: The machinery and other investment I need will be provided by the government, the government also guarantees the price I would be getting at about 6-7 times what I get now AND most importantly the government guarantee the sale of the whole crop.

I go back to do my sums and discover that with such massive help I would be earning some 17% on my investment compare with 4% that I get now, wow!

Now my friends, instead of tomatoes think of “renewable energy” and you would immediately understand the attraction global warming has to the likes of GE and Suzlon who adopt global warming AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES all heartedly.

So much so that they even “grow” their “tomatoes” in (wind) FARMS, this gives the farming profession a whole new meaning.

If yo were a CEO of any company and had the opportunity to earn 17% return on your shareholders capital, you too will jump on it irrespective of your opinion on the “science” behind it, I know I would, it would be incumbent upon me to do so.

In fact in total subsidies, paid-up and committed, Spain, a country of 46 millions, spent some $36 billions. If America spend the same on a per capita basis it would amount to about $235 billions.

So generous was the Spanish program that it influenced the financial markets and created an investment “bubble” paused to explode in a middle of a global financial crisis that forced the Spanish government to tweak their generosity back somewhat.

And what does that mean in terms of your air-conditioning and hot water regulators? Dr Álvarez worked it out as an increase of 31% in electricity expenses, payable either on you bill or by your taxes.

I hope that now you see why we all going to get carbon trading of some description – much of that money has already been spent. It is now time to pay for it, just watch it coming.

(BTW, has anyone studied the relationship between wind and photovoltaic farms in their states and their state deficit? e.g. California)

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009
Tags: , , , ,

They Don’t Want A State, They Want To Fight For One.

Posted in Current Affairs, Islam & Terror, Israel on June 21st, 2009 by Jacob

21 June, 2009.

So there you have it, Mr. Netanyahu bowed to Obama pressure and acknowledged a two states solution or word to that affect, depending on the inspiration of the journalist or the talking heads. I wonder, how many so-called journalist actually listened to (or read transcript of) the speech, They got pre-occupied with one aspect of the speech, perhaps one and a half if we count those who mentioned the settlements too.

Some took the view that if there is an Obama angle in this, it must be historical. Our (Australian) foreign minister, Stephen Smith said on the ABC that:

[He] think[s that] the key point for the international community is for the first occasion we have an acknowledgement that a two-state solution is required as the basis for peace in the Middle East. [My highlighting]

First occasion? Are you kidding me? In his speech Bibi reminded his listeners that Israel agreed to a two state solution 61 years ago! It is in his speech, for crying out loud. I am reminded of the joke about an old man who goes to see his doctor, the following dialogue ensues:

Patient: Doctor, I thing that I suffer from Amnesia.

Doctor: How long you have been suffering from it?

Patient: Suffering from what?

On 29 November, 1947 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed Resolution No 181, commonly known as the Partition of Palestine Plan that, among other sings said:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.[My highlighting]

This looks to me as two states solution as two state solution can be AND that the solution includes … a Jewish state. 1947 Messrs. Obama and Smith! Not 2009!

The leadership of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (the Ishuv) agreed to the plan whilst the Arab countries (repeat: Arab countries) rejected it, Note that the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, or their leadership, had no say on the matter. (also note that at that time there was no such thing as Palestinians, the inhabitants of area under the British Mandate of Palestine, were known as either Jews or Arabs).

As the last British soldier left Palestine on 15 May, 1948, the Jews of Palestine declare the State Of Israel within the partition boundaries. The same day, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan (Jordan), Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and a volunteers army called the Arab Liberation Army (note: no “Palestine” in sight) invaded the new country. Israeli War of Independence erupted.

1948 War of Independence

Israel War of Independence 1948

All this is in the Netanyahu’s speech but the corrupt bumper sticker editors of the media would not mention it in a month of Sundays because it runs against the two state solution bumper sticker slogan advanced by the Grand Mufti of Washington DC in Cairo earlier this month.

Have no doubt my friend, the invading Arab armies aim was to annihilate the new independent nation of Israel and carve the spoils amongst themselves, not to create another Arab country. They opposed ANY NEW state, not only the Jewish one.

During the ensuing war some 700,000 Arabs left, BOTH the Jewish and the Arab areas of the partition plan, at the behest of the Arab countries. They were promptly rounded up in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Arab Refugee problem was born.

Since 1948 the world has known many refugees problems, Europe, Eastern Europe, India-Pakistan, Korea War, Vietnam War, Cambodia, some in Africa and even as late as ten years ago in Bosnia. All such refugees problems has been resolved except the Arab (later renamed Palestinian) refugee problem, why?

From its inception, the so-called Arab/Palestinian refugee problem was kept alive by the Arab government as a diversion from their shaky inept, often corrupt hold on their people. Whilst the Arabs are vocal when it come to Human Rights, they deny basic human rights to Palestinian living in their country.

Yet there some one million Arabs living inside Israel as full citizen with more rights that any other Arabs in the Middle East – there have never been any refugee camps for Arabs inside Israel albeit there were some for Jewish refugees, some from Arab countries, in the 1950’s

Despite Israel continuing declaration that it seek peace with its neighbours, the Arab countries not only steadfastly refused to recognise Israel but also had developed a common doctrine to annihilate Israel in a coordinated invasion as indeed they attempted and failed in 1967 and 1973.

Israel security policies were to meet such threats through a one command military (IDF) which rely on reserve manpower, competent intelligence organisation (Mossad, Shin Beth and the Military Intelligence) and development of military and aeronautical industries to reduce dependency on imports and reduce the effects of Arm embargoes.

Contrary to common belief, America’s relations with Israel were hostile to cold until 1968. Whilst the USA was the first county to recognise Israel, it also adhered to the international embargo on arms shipment to the Middle East in 1948/49 which was in fact an embargo against Israel only

The CIA assessment at the time was that the new state is unlikely to survive the (1948) war and if it did, having regard to its “socialist” background, in all probability it would join and be part of the Soviet bloc. America was “neutral”, the USA has no interest in risking its relation with the Arab world. The word “neutrality” has received a whole new meaning, George Orwell’s one.

Whilst it was quickly realised that the CIA (and the State Department) were wrong on both counts when Israel supported the West in the Korea War, it took a further 20 years before president Johnson agreed to sell American weapon to Israel.

Whilst the Arab countries were receiving weapons from the Soviet Union on a “never never” basis, Israel was forced to scrounge its weapon from whoever was prepared to sell it for cash.

For nearly 19 years (between 1948 and 1967) the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule, both busting at the seams with Arab refugees, (that what they were called) yet not a peep about Palestinians let alone about a Palestinian state.

The Arab countries, quietly abandoned their doctrine to destroy Israel by a coordinated military invasion after their defeat in 1973 (Yom Kippur War). Indeed in 1979, Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt and 1995 with Jordan.

* * * * *

In 1959, Yassir Arafat, together with four others, founded the Fatah organisation and introduced the term “Palestinians” to mean the Arab inhabitant of the West part pf the British Mandate over Palestine that included Jordan of today in it. The aim of the organisation was to provide a venue for the newly created Palestinian identity to take charge of its destiny, namely, taking back Falastin (Israel) by force (terror). It was not until January 1965 when the first terror attack took place as the Fatah failed to sabotage the (Israeli) National Water Carrier.

In 1964 the Arab countries created the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), a parent organisation for a number of Palestinian terror organisations, including the Fatah, also defining the Palestinian nation and it right for land of Falastin, being Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Have no doubt, the Palestinian terror is the forerunner of the Global Islamic terror. The Muslim terror, that has no equivalent in any other religion, born out of Muslim Brotherhood principles, and was surreptitiously developed as “fine art” with training, equipment and propaganda, by the Soviet Union (and China to a lesser degree). The relation between the Left and the Palestinian terror was forged in Soviet training camps.

As Communism itself survived the fall of the Soviet Union, so did the Socialist support to the so-called Palestinian cause. There is no single American university that respects itself that does not have department for Middle East Studies that are no more than a channel for vile Palestinian propaganda and sheer Anti-Semitism dressed up as “academic freedom”.

Since the 1960’s Israel has been warning the West against idolising terrorists in general and Muslim terrorists in particular and calling for international measure against Muslim terror. But with a very few exceptions, most western countries look at the problem as an Israeli only problem, not an international one … until it hit home and even then, the fault was not Islam’s.

No one symbolised such obtuse attitude as the deputy assistant commissioner of the (London) metropolitan police, Brian Paddick who said:

As far as I am Concerned, Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.

This is not politically correctness gone mad, this is not moral equivalence gone bad, this is mad!!! If such people are in charge of our safety from terror, God save us all!

Too often the terror apologisers tell us that the terrorist are only a small core of extremists. Have no doubt, Muslim terror is NOT an action of a few radical nutcases, Muslim terror is a well coordinated world-wide movement, it is also known as political Islam.

Political Islam, also referred to as radical Islam or Islamism (I hate this word, but this is another story) is the movement seeks to achieve a global hegemony of Islam, nothing short of that. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, Taliban Wahhabism are all example of Political Islam.

Ehud Yaari, a well known Israeli commentator on Islam and the Arab-Israeli conflict explains that as the Arab countries have given up on destroying Israel (Iran is not an Arab country), Political Islam has stepped into the vacuum in the forms of the Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and alike. They brought with them a new doctrine, muqawama, a doctrine that many seem to loose sight of its effects.

Muqawama, which, incidentally, forms a part of the Hamas’s name, Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah (Islamic Resistance Movement), means “resistance” but the muqawama doctrine is characterised by a lot more than just resistance and its affects are felt far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Muqawama has the following characteristics:

Fighting against a superior forces: The enemy is always powerful, such as the Israeli, American or Turkish military, depending on the circumstances

Fight not for territory: That may seem strange in the “two states solution” age but the aim is not territory, THE AIM IS BLOOD, plenty of it and on both sides including innocent civilians, children and women. The aim is a war of attrition by blood letting, the more blood spilled the better. The sensitivity of the enemy (us) to our casualties alone will cause public outcry for surrender.

Shahada: Martyrdom and death are objectives on their own right, the afterlife world is more important than the here and now. This is how suicide bombers are glorified.

Fight not for victory: Victory is only a long term objective. This is part of the doctrine to avoid frustrations due to lack of real achievement in the short run.

In fact muqawama doctrine has familiar tone to it, they don’t want to win, they want to fight.

* * * * *

When you examine events in the Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Southern Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Western Turkey in light of muqawama you quickly realise that the Islamic terror is a lot larger than “a few radical Islamists”

Further, if you understand muqawama, you would also understand why the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates (NOT the Hamas) was quick on their feet to reject Netanyahu’s speech not for what is in it, but for what is not.

If you have been watching the Palestinian leadership, all of them, you would note that every time it looks as if they are getting closer to achieving a state they run away from it, under one pretence or another – indeed they don’t want a state, they want to fight for one.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

Tags: , , , , , ,