EU Talks Tough But George Galloway Exposes Their Bluff

George Galloway is a man I suspect most people here have little time for but from time to time he does talk sense and he’s certainly on target with his latest comments on Brext, which concern leaked information from Berlin that suggest the German government’s tough talk about not reopening negotiations with the UK to reach a more reasonable deal are just bluff. Galloway says that in private German politicians and business leaders are saying the EU needs a deal as much as the UK, if not more. This aligns with what I’m hearing from other sources in The City, in politics and in the EU. Let’s hope if it comes down to a High Noon type face off, Boris is playing Gary Cooper.

EU may talk tough, but it needs Brexit deal as much as UK – Galloway on German leaks — RT UK News

Both sides may try to seem tough ahead of Brexit talks, but the EU needs the deal as much as the UK, George Galloway said in reference to leaks claiming that Germany is reluctant to renegotiate an agreement with Britain.

MORE ON BREXIT
Posts on Germany

Shattering Remainer Delusions

As I have written extensively for U.S. new websites on this topic it seems fair to post an extract from an article by an American writer on the pathetic obsession of Remainer MPs and media commentators with the idea that Remain supporting MPs can stop a no deal Brexit.

Brexit: Still More ‘Remainer’ Delusions

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

  • Remainer MPs are reportedly plotting to bring down Boris Johnson’s government, install a “unity prime minister” for a few days to delay Brexit, then call a general election.
  • Remainer Members of Parliament are considering a plan to install a “unity prime minister” to replace Boris Johnson with the sole purpose of delaying Brexit before calling a general election, according to a report.

90% Chance Silliness

Business Insider also claims There is a 90% chance Boris Johnson will break his ‘no-deal’ Brexit promise, according to these numbers.

Here’s yet another one: We can collapse your government to prevent no-deal Brexit, senior Conservative MP warns Boris Johnson

March to the Queen

The most ridiculous all is the Remainer threat by John McDonnell who proposes Corbyn Should Tell Queen ‘We’re Taking Over’ if Johnson Loses Confidence Vote.

Useful Tip From Eurointelligence

We have a useful tip for readers who follow Brexit professionally. The easiest way to cut down on your daily Brexit readings without losing any information whatsoever is to exclude two overlapping categories of writers and commentators: anybody who has not read or understood Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and thus treats Brexit purely in the context of UK law and politics; and anybody who involves the Queen at some part in the process, like the extreme Leavers who call for the prorogation of parliament, and the extreme Remainers who want parliament to stop a no-deal Brexit. Some commentators fall into both categories simultaneously.

Today we would like to debunk the myth that the UK parliament can stop the no-deal Brexit. Under EU law – the law that matters in this specific discussion – there are only two technical possibilities for the UK parliament to frustrate an October 31st Brexit. The first and the only certain route is a majority in favour of unilateral revocation of Brexit. No such majority exists.

This leaves a less certain pathway: to seek a further Art. 50 extension. Since Boris Johnson refuses to do this, it would have to involve a new prime minister before October.

So what would happen if the House of Commons were to pass a vote of no-confidence in Johnson’s government? Under the fixed-term parliaments act, this would trigger a 14-day period in which parliament can seek an alternative candidate for the job of prime minister. Failing that, there would have to be elections.

An alternative prime minister would be tasked with doing two things only: to write a letter asking the European Council for an extension and to seek immediate elections. It would be what the Italians call a technical government. There was some discussion yesterday on whether Johnson would need to resign even if parliament were to succeed in finding such a candidate. We believe that to be the case. Others do not. But for now this is an idle discussion to which we will happily return if we get to that point. We will probably not, because the numbers are simply not there.

Technically Possible vs Politically Impossible

This notion of marching to the Queen is madness.

The Queen aside, it is technically possible for Parliament to oust Johnson and hold elections.

Repercussions

  • Any Tory voting against the government would be outed from the Tory party and lose their seat in the next election. Perhaps a few would, but not the 17 that Business Insider requires to come up with their ridiculous 90% confidence level.
  • The second thing that would happen is the Tories would form an alliance with the Brexit Party and Labour would get smashed in the elections.

It will not get to that point because the threat is political madness.

Politically Impossible

It would take nearly 100% of the opposition plus a handful of Tories to agree to a caretaker government. 17 Tories will not vote themselves out of office.

A handful might. Even then it would be iffy because there are a handful of Labour MPs who want Brexit.

Then, even if the Remainers managed to form a caretaker government until the next election, they would still have to win the election.

Let’s dive in further.

The Financial Times reports Lib Dems scotch idea of Corbyn-led caretaker government.

  • “I can’t conceive of any circumstances under which we would put Jeremy Corbyn into No. 10,” said one senior Liberal Democrat MP. “He’s not only dangerous for our national security but for our economic security too.”
  • Corbyn’s Labour don’t want to work with other parties to stop Brexit, because the truth is they want to deliver Brexit,” said Jo Swinson, the recently elected Liberal Democrat leader.

While technically possible, the Liberal Democrats want nothing to do with Corbyn. Labour’s official policy is a customs union, not remaining in the EU.

Technically, I suppose Corbyn could resign as Labour party leader to make an alliance possible but the Liberal Democrats want to be the senior party, not the junior party.

Yeah, right.

 

Dr. Robert Epstein: Google’s Ephemeral Experiences Manipulate People on a ‘Massive Scale’

Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and wel known critic of Google’s use of psychologial techniques to manipulate users decision making process by heavily censoring the information search users are fed, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Google’s latest tactics in election manipulation ahead on the us 2020 presidenyial election, and how voters and political campaign managers can combat them with host Alex Marlow.


Robert Epstein – warning us about Google’s evil ambitions

Epstein and Breitbart News editor-in-chief  Marlow discussed the current state of Google’s business and political activities and how the company could use its technology to influence voters.

Host Alex Marlow examined Epstein’s research saying: “I think you put out some pretty hard data on how many votes you think were moved in the 2016 election and I think you estimated it was over two million or so, is that not the case?”

Epstein responded: “Well it was at least 2.6 million and it could have been as many as 10.4 million depending on how aggressive google was in using the various tools they have available to them to shift votes. I can’t pin it down exactly but I know it’s in that range.”

Discussing the need for a system capable of analysing Google search results and suggestions to detect political and commercial bias, Epstein stated: “We need big monitoring systems in place, I’m so far the only person that’s created monitoring systems, I did one in 2016 and one in 2018. I’m trying now to raise funds to build a very big monitoring system for 2020 and to monitor a lot more than Google search results, to monitor newsfeeds, answers that people are getting from their personal assistants.”

Epstein explained that monitoring search results and auto-suggest terms are so important when monitoring election interference, stating: “If you don’t monitor, you can’t go back in time and figure out what these companies were showing people because what they’re showing people is ephemeral. That’s the term that Google’s own employees use internally, they’re showing ephemeral experiences, those really short-lived experiences that kind of appear before your eyes and then disappear, like search results for example.”

Google have openly acknowledged that their algorithms are set up to skew search results against content or sites favouring conservative or libertarian politics, while raising the visibility of liberal or progressive supporting content.

Epstein continued: “They’re using ephemeral experiences to manipulate people on a massive scale, people don’t know they’re being manipulated, and there’s no record kept of those experiences, they’re just generated for you on the fly and then they disappear.”

Listen to the full interview on Breitbart News Daily here.

To us the only question here is why are people still using Google as a search engine? Any pretence to neutrality in raking search relults was abandoned long ago, now search results are ranked in whether they serve Google’s political or financial interests.

RELATED POSTS:
Report reveals Google’s manipulation of search results to influence outcomes.
After years of being called ‘conspiracy theorists’ the wise people who noticed how Google were manipulating search result listings to server the corporation’s business and political ambitions have been proved right …
How will you know who is tracking your internet enabled sex toys
Google omnibus

 

Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary

Hillary Clinton was narrowly beaten by Trump, in fact her supporters still claim she won by virtue of gaining te larger number of votes, although they cannot possibly be unaware that the U.S. system is not quite that simple. Trump won under the rules as they have stood for many decades. Now in depth analysis of new media and internet content during the campaign shows Clinton would likely have lost by a much larger margin had Google, and other internet corporations including Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft not manipulated the search results and news feeds in her favor.

Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive report from conservative news site Breitbart, the results are based on a 16 months long experiment involving a total of 1,800 people from across 50 U.S. states.

Participants were selected from diverse ideological and social backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate, professional, skilled and manual workers and various religious commitments. In order to account for prior biases, participants were required to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.

The research showed clearly that the manipulation of search results pages in search engines can shift voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –showing beyond reasonable doubt that Google’s algorithmic manipulation of results was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018

Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.”  Therefore the Russian collusion meme pushed by the Democrats and mainstream media was always a hoax, probably created to divert attention from the scandals relating to various scandals Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign. This news page had reported many times on the unhealthily close relationships between The Obama Administration and Google, along with other tech companies.

It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people who use its services. The company acknowledges it employes techniques recommended by psychologists and sociologists with the intention of influencing public opinion and personal decisions. Look at the amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo. The researchers showed that the search suggestion manipulation used against Trump during the 2016 election when the tech giant, as it has now admitted, suppresed negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while promoting through search suggestions, negative stories relating to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, remain in place and are being used to promote commercial products as well as political campaigns.

This is not a coincidence, especially when considering Google was the Clinton campaign’s largest corporate contributor. Google employees, including at least six high-ranking executives, donated more than $1.3 million to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Call it censorship or manipulation, but the truth is…Google attempted to rig the election for Hillary Clinton by manipulating searches and suggestions, and therefore, voters minds.

RELATED POSTS:
Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary
They’re at it again for 2020

Zuckerberg Admits Facebook Interfered In Irish Abortion Vote

After three years of Facebook being among the most vociferous campaigners for the impeachment and removal from office of President Trump because of his camaigns alleged cooperation with the government of Russia in rigging the 2016 US election, the Social Media giant’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has at last admitted what many of us ‘conspiracy theorists’ suspected all along, that it is Facebook itself, rather that hostile governments which interfere in the political processes of democratic nations.

During a recent talk, Zuck admitted that the social media network banned a number of pro-life advertisements ahead of the Irish abortion referendum, thus slewing the weight of propaganda visible on Facebook news feeds in favour of the pro – choice campaign.

He also confirmed the suspicion that the Irish referendum on abortion is not the only political campaign Facebook has taken sides in, another act of corporate malfeasance that was always strongly suspected. Facebook’s support for Britain staying in the EU was highly evident in the UK Referendum campaign, and the smearing of new populist and nationalist Eurosceptic parties in EU member states as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ has been ever present on Facebook pages.

PJ Media reports that during a recent interview at this year’s Aspen Ideas Festival, the Facebook CEO began to explain how the social media firm is attempting to work with the governments of other countries to determine what political speech should be allowed on the site. Zuckerberg gave an example of Facebook’s interaction with the Irish government ahead of a 2018 referendum on the legalization of abortion in the country.

In other words, Zuckerberg is trying to set Facebook up as an official censor, helping authoritarian regimes subvert democracy by suppressing opposition supporters presenting their case to the public.

Zuckerberg justified interference in the Irish abortion debated by explaining that American pro-life groups wanted to run Facebook ads targeted towards Irish citizens. Facebook reached out to the Irish government to determine whether or not the ads should be allowed at the time. Zuckerberg stated: “Their response at the time was, ‘we don’t currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.’”

“We ended up not allowing the ads,” Zuckerberg stated. Abortion activist Lila Rose commented on how Silicon Valley tech executives have reacted towards the issue of abortion in a tweet which can be seen below:

In other words, Facebook helped the Irish government ensure the side supported by the Europhile liberal Prime Minister achieve the result they wanted. Zuckerber is of course an enthusiastic suppoter of the far left wing of the US Democratic Party, a group which not only supports the right of abortion but actively promotes the idea that women should choose abortion over contraception as their preferred method of birth control.

Breitbart News recently reported that Facebook has been removed from Standard & Poor’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Index after the company received a score of 22 for social responsibility and only 6 for governance, out of a possible 100. This is quite justified for a company with a huge outreach to the general public which it uses to promote its founder’s own, extremist, political positions. Facebook has been caught out censoring supports of the ‘Leave’ campaign in the Brexit referendum, groups presenting perfectly reasonable arguments against abortion, the work of independent journalists, including scientists, who challenge the  consensus position on such things as climate change, vaccines, transgenderism, human rights and many more topics that are counted among the left’s ever growing herd of sacred cows.

Reid Steadman, S&P’s social and governance chief, stated that the growing number of privacy concerns around the company including “a lack of transparency as to why Facebook collects and shares certain user information, resulted in low scores for the firm. S&P cited the Cambridge Analytica scandal as one of the reasons for the tech giant’s poor performance.”

“These events have created uncertainty about Facebook’s diligence regarding privacy protection, and the effectiveness of the company risk management processes and how the company enforces them,” Steadman said. “These issues caused the company to lag behind its peers in terms of ESG performance.”

This has to be good news, because along with statistics showing Facebook is haemorrhaging users to newswer, les politically biased sites like MINDS and STEEMIT, it shows Zuckerberg’s megalomaniacal bid for world domination is faltering.

RELATED:
Facebook catalogue
Facebook megalomania
Facebook privacy piracy
Facebook fake news

Let Them Eat Cake, Drink Booze and Smoke Ciggies Says Libertarian Politician

Smoke, Drink And Eat Whatever You Want: Norway’s Public Health Minister

11 May 2019

For years we have been lectured and harangued by the bansturbators, (that is, the people who get off on stopping us doing things that give us pleasure,) their fingers wagging furiously in our faces as they tell us smoking will kill us, even looking at an alcpholic drink will destroy our livrers, a pinch of salt will cause heart attacks, strokes and acute asplaxification of the nurdlers, a cream cake or two will make us obese, a steak dinner or a burger will give us cancer, and driving our cars will destroy the planet. So it was a pleasure to come across a news item about a politician who believes adults can be trusted to behave sensibly and left make their own choices in life.

Norway’s new public health minister, Sylvi Listhaug is such a politician, she believes that adults don’t need the constant lectures and admonishments from government about what they put into their bodies – telling Norway’s state broadcaster NRK that “people should be allowed to smoke, drink and eat as much red meat as they like,” according to a report in the snowflakes favourite journal, the New York Times.

norwegian health minister sylvie listhaug
Norwegian Health Secretary Sylvie Listhaug – Picture: http://www.hegnar.no/

“The government may provide information, but I think people in general know what is healthy and what is not,” she added.

The interview – published a few days into her new role as head of the ministry, was “dotted with the kind of sharp, controversial comments Ms. Listhaug, deputy leader of the right-wing, anti-immigration Progress Party, is known for,” reports the Times – which promptly goes on to disparage the conservative politician for actually believing in individual freedom and personal responsibility, two of the basic principles of real liberalism, (we all know people who ‘identify’ as liberals do so only because hir sounds cuddlier and less threaening that if they were honest and called themselves fascistic authoritarians.

Ms Listhaug is no stranger to controversy, as immigration minister she made headlines in 2017 with disparaging comments about Sweden, saying that Norway should not become like its neighbor, which was accepting more refugeesnd African despite having experiences a huge rise in crome rates, especiall in sex crimed by middle – eastern a males against European women since abolishing border controls and letting all comers claim residency in the country. Last year, she resigned as justice minister after comments about terrorists
(which were in fact true,)
she made on Facebook threatened to bring down the government.

This week, opposition politicians and health advocates suffered collective apoplexy as they tried to outdo each other in denouncing in the strongest terms Ms. Listhaug’s comments on habits that are hyped as major risk factors for many serious diseases, all of which are big money spinners for Big Pharma

The secretary general of Norway’s Cancer Society, Anne Lise Ryel was shocked by the comments – saying in a statement: “I fear that this will set public health efforts back for decades, and that this will compromise the general understanding among Norwegians of the health consequences of tobacco and alcohol use.” It is notable that a way of preventing cancer (and some maverick doctors say a cure,) has been available since the 1960s but no public health charity or government department in the democratic world is promoting it. Could that be, perhaps, that no expensive drugs, therapies or surgery are involved, only self discipline.

Ryel has called for Listhaug to be removed from her post, adding that “she seems to lack understanding of what public health really means and what her role as minister in that area should be.” Perhaps she understands more than Ryel admits. This publication knows public health is about shovelling taxpayers’ money into Big Pharma’s coffers.

Listhaug stuck to her guns, fireing back in a Friday email to the Times, writing: “The government believes that people have to take responsibility for their own life, but the government has to make sure that everyone can make healthy and informed choices.”

“The number of daily smokers has declined sharply since 2000,” she added. “This confirms that the Norwegian tobacco policy and control strategy works.”

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2017, 11 percent of Norwegians aged 15 or older smoked daily, one of the lowest rates among the group’s 34 member nations. Norway has also had the steepest decrease of any of the countries since 2000, when the equivalent figure was 32 percent.

The Eurosceptoc Progress Party has been a junior partner in Norway’s center-right governing coalition since 2013. Its rise to prominence created unease, coming just two years after a far-right, anti-Muslim extremist who had once belonged to the party killed 77 people in a murderous rampage. It;s rapid rise has accompanied a crime wave in the immigrant communities of Noway’s cities, with turf wars between rival immigrant gangs for control of the drugs and sex trades often erupting into violence on the streeets of the capital city Oslo.

Governments around the world have stepped up campaigns to fight unhealthy habits usually be imposing punitive taxation. France recently told people not to drink every day; a soda tax in Britain has helped lower sugar levels in some drinks, and Australia’s graphic warnings on cigarette packages, considered a success, are being copied in other countries. –New York Times While governments claim success for their authoritarian attacks on personal liberty, the rise in contraband goods smuggled from nations were taxes on tobacco and alcohol are low or zero has risen astronomically and in Europe there have been cases of small factories being set up producing low quality cigarettes made with cheap tobacco in in healthy conditions, which are paked in fake reproductions of leading brand packaging and passed off as the real thing.

Listhaug also said that smokers in Norway are made to feel like “pariahs,” and that she would not be the “moral police” in government – echoing comments made by Austria’s far-right defense of freedom of choice in their oppostion of antismoking legislation.

Listhaug is a former regular smoker who told NRK that she is now just a social smoker.

RELATED POSTS:

MORE on Food Health Fascism

Food fascists and the obesity pandemic
Big Food Cartel Aims For Monopoly
Food comtaminated with toxic chemicals by food companies
Foood, health and cooking skills
Food crisis down to control freakery rather than shortages
Food giants promote bad diets
Food science fraud
GM crops will not feed the world
If GM foods are dangerous show us the evidence the Scienceology cult said. Here it is.
Health: Food and heart disease, the truth.
Big food lie, saturated fat not dangerous
Using fake science to sell GM foods.
UN Report Says Small-Scale Organic Farming Only Way To Feed The World

Trans Pacific Partnership, Monsanto and Global Food Dominance
Big Smack – Junk Food Addict Splatters Boyfriend
The friendly face of junk food
Another dodgy meat in processed food scandal rocks government.
Supersize Snacks (make Scooby Snack like like health food)

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

What George Orwell was telling us!

Posted by by opher goodwin on Writer Beat Apr 2, 2019

If we learn anything from George Orwell’s writing it should be this one thing:

There is always an enemy that is threatening our way of life and our very existence. That is what the establishment wants you to believe. That is what they use to generate fear and to unify people. That is what they deploy to divert attention from the reality of what they are doing.

They are systematically exploiting the whole population for the benefit of a small elite. They are giving as little as they can to the majority so that they can cream off a huge slice for the top.

They are condensing power and wealth in a small establishment group while demonising minorities, creating exaggerated threats and using this as a distraction …

READ the full article & join the comment thread on Writer Beat

MORE ABOUT ORWELL ON BOGGART BLOG

The Full Orwell -UK Government Comes Over All Big Brother

1984: Orwell’s Dystopian Nightmare Is Upon Us

Orwell Was Not Wrong About The Result – Only The Year

 

British left & right don Yellow vests to demonstrate anger over political chaos, Brexit & migrants

UK yellow vests, London
UK Yellow Vests – source RT

While mainstream media and the UK government Ministry of Propaganda organisation, BBC News, try to brant the UK’s Yellow Vests movement as ‘far right’ (anyone who is even slightly less fascistic than Chairman Mao is ‘far right’ according to modern, university brainwashed ‘anarchists,’ the people who put on their Yellow Vests to join British protests this weekend have embraced the ethos of the French movement by abandoning left – right name calling as both sides of the debate rally to the same symbol. This is not left versus right (a synthetic conflict engineered by propagandists and mainstream media,) and understood the battle is between the ruling elites and their cronies verus The People.

The Yellow Vests ceased to be a uniquely French phenomenon in mid December when protests took place in Netherlands, Belgium and other EU member states. Since then the movement has spread further afield with protestors in yellow vests taking to the streets in Egypt, India, Turkey, Canada and Australia. Before the Christmas break British protesters had started donning the distinctive high-visibility jackets to make their own (very different) points, but this weeken was the fiirst on which large scale demonstrations happened. In the UK, an array of left-wing movements vowed to use the yellow vest during their protests in favor of bringing down the Tory government and abandoning austerity. RT’s Polly Boiko explains. But this is where the similarities between the French and British factions end.

Far Right sand Far Left activists, some of whom belong to hardcore far-right groups like the English Defence League or Far left organisations like Aintifa or Unite Against Fascism, are also trying to capitalie on the hi – vis vest symbol of protest. They vent their anger at the Brexit deal stalemate, heckle politicians, and harass Muslims and Jews both online and offline. Such groups “who are trying to use anger and mobilize it against refugees and migrants and ethnic minorities are not welcomed in our demonstrations,” said Shabbir Lakha, spokesman for the anti-austerity People’s Assembly. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with people who harass Brext supporters, conservatives, Jews, or white people who stray into the wrong part of town of course.

READ MORE: Yellow Vest demos are sign of Europe-wide anger over financial woes & govt indifference – French PM

RELATED POSTS:
More On Brexit


May Nearing A Brexit Deal Breakthrough?

The UK Parliament is rumoured in some quarters to be nearing a breakthrough in negotiations that will enable an altered version of Prime Minister Theresa May’s sellout deal with the European Union to be accepted by elected representatives. It is thought a proposal by Graham Brady, leader of the Conservative rank and file (back benchers) which would throw out the hated ‘Irish backstop’

‘Brexiteers Consider your ETHICS! raves EU President Tusk in scaremongering speech threatening CATASTROPHE

EU chief Donald Tusk has made an astounding and irrational attack on Brexiteers and appeared to question the ethics of Leave voters as he used Brexit to urge politicians to consider what the consequences of their actions would be. If you thought Juncker was EU President BTW, you were right, in the best traditions of a bloated bureaucracy the EU has three presidents.

A Polish guy lecturing us on ethics? I read a lot of history and I remember reading several accounts of how in the 1930s Poland followed Germany’s lead and elected a Nazi government. Can;t see much ethical about that.

Speaking in Dortmund, Germany, Tusk said he wanted to remind leaders it was the centenary of the end of the First World War, when “sleepwalkers in power” with “hopelessly weak imaginations” led Europe to “catastrophe”. The European Council president said he wanted to dedicate the words of sociologist Max Weber to the “authors of Brexit”. He used the example of Brexit to urge politicians to consider what the consequences of their actions would be.

OK, if that’s how he feels, we should tell him Poland can forget about coming crying to us next time germany or Russia feels like giving them a kicking.

He went on to say: “Today we need leaders who understand that their role is not only having techonoctraic skill and the ability to stay in power. We need leaders who can use the potential of emotions to defend our fundamental values.

“When today I hear European politicians who wipe out all the tradition of liberal democracy for whom human rights, minority rights, government within the law, the precedence of the constitution over the will of rulers and free media are empty slogans I loudly say ‘no because I know what these principles mean remembering still what life is like for a man deprived of rights who is at the mercy, or lack of mercy of those in power.

“Europe is the best place on earth and the European Union is the best political invention in our history.”

All of which is rather projectile vomit inducing hypocrisy when we remember what the EU did to little Greece when they asked the EU to remember its ethical obligations, and what it is trying to to to not so litlle Britain and Italy (and fair play to Italy for standing its ground, while the political whore Theresa May tries to sell her country’s values, traditions and sovereignty.)

G20 Elitists Club Teetering On The Edge Of The Abyss


World leaders at the G20 in Buenos Aeries

Ten years after The G20 first convened to bring together around a conference table the heads of state and government of the world’s largest economic powers and controllers of natural resources, the Group of 20 was doomed from the start. Russia and China were never going to agree to US economic hegemony, the European Union Nations were never going to accept Saudi Arabian human rights abuses and some of the third world nations were never going to be happy with the liberal democracies’ obsession with LGBT rights.

For a while the group held together, though it was doomed from day one to start falling apart as son as global trading conditions started to get tough. At the latest G20 jolly, in Buenos Aires, the loud and clear message was the G20 and globalism are both on the wane as a forum for shaping economies and solving global problems. Set up in 2008 to regulate spiraling financial markets in the midst of the toxic debt crisis, the G20 format has managed to though when Angela Merkel or Barack Obama invited attendes to “All join hands and sing Kumbaya, fewer and fewer world leaders were willing to join in.

It’s not that the idea of finding global solutions to global problems is a bad one, but that global problems require very different solutions in different parts of the globe. On top of this many of leaders sitting around the negotiating table have lost the political will to find such answers. President Donald Trump was elected leader of the USA was elected on a promise to ‘Make America Great Again’, which is not the extreme form of nationalism his opponents in the US claim, but nonetheless does not sit comfortably alongside leaders like Merkel or Emmanuel Macron, both of whom have recently asked citizens of the nations they lead to put the interests of people in other nations ahead of their own.

With Merkel’s Germany facing a social crisis because of the stresses caused by her open doors immigration policy which has seen an influx of uneducated, semi – literate third world migrants whose lawless beaviour has led to the creation of no go zones for police and emergency services in cities and large towns, while the failure of Marcon’s presidency has plunged France into civil unrest as protests against rising prices, immigration, unemployment and falling standards of living have morphed into violent riots in the streets of big cities, these leaders remain in denial about the failure of globalism..

Isolation, nationalism and protectionism have all been resurgent since the financial crisis of 2008, as the alleged consequences of globalization that has widely been perceived as impoverishing working and middle classes while benefitting the rich and corporate business.

The de facto leader of the movement to national interest is US president, Donald Trump. He is an avowed deconstructivist, — according to his critics someone who wants to tear down the existing order because he doesn’t think it works in his favor. Such criticism is unfair, all national leaders in nations that claim to be democracies are, in theory, elected to put the interests of their citizens first, never mind the rest of the world as Angela Merkel said in different words recently. Merkel however is clinging to power by her fingertips, at the head of a coalition that is too weak to get any controversial legislation though, simply because she is unable to accept that with German prosperity falling, her time is over, for the sake of her party and her country she should have step down. And yet Hausfrau – Volksfuhrer Merkel does not see the hypocrisy of asking German voters to put the interests of people in third world countries ahead of their own as she puts her personal interests ahead of her country’s and its peoples’. Macron too, though in power for less than two years, has seen his popularity fall in polls to unprecedented lows. This is partly because of his obsession with telling French voters that foreigners are more important to him than his own fellow citizens, as those fellow citizens struggle to make ends meet due to his tax increases and the inflation his policies on top of EU policies are causing.

Merkel and Macron are the outliers however. Donald Trump, in his isolationism and protectionism is far from alone.

Russian president Vladimir Putin, China’s Chairman Xi, the Saudi crown prince Mohammed (Mad Mo) bin Salaman, the Turkish autocrat Erdogan, at the G20 table don’t have much respect for international law which they precieve as favouring western or Christian interests. And more leader joining the “My country first” club. Italy’s Matteo Salvini has challenged the EU over its right to reject Italy’s budget. In Mexico, a populist has just taken office. In Brazil, a professed right-wing radical will be moving into the presidential palace come January. These changes, along with the possible collapse of Merkel and Macron’s governments make a grim outlook for globalists between now and the next G20 summit in Osaka, Japan.

The German chancellor, the Canadian prime minister, the French president and EU representatives — those who waved the flag of multiculturalism and globalism, in Buenos Aires are facing an increasingly lonely struggle should they survive another year in office.

Even within the EU, populism and isolationism are spreading. After Brexit, followed by rebellions against Brussels diktat in Poland, Hungary, and Spain, the most recent example of this shift is the populist government in Italy.

Reading the thin communique adopted by G20 members, it appears that this assembly representing two thirds of humanity is little more than an empty shell. Admittedly, the leaders did commit to reforming the international trade system, although moves led by Rusia and China to replace the petrodollar as the main currency for world trade forced that decision on them. But in the meantime, members of the G20 impose punitive tariffs on each other in an attempt to get a bigger piece of the global economic pie. There’s certainly a wide gulf between theory and practice.

Read more: G20 summit opens as leaders give Saudi prince mixed reception

A Chronicle Of Decay – poem