Monday, 6 July 2015

Greece: What It Means For Us All

The comi-tragedy of the Greek financial situation continues, with the new twist of a 'no' vote in a referendum. The options for the Greeks currently are either a) to follow the diktats of the technocrats in Brussels or b) to follow the lead of a far-left party of Greek politicians.

The EU have supported the Greeks by loaning them enormous amounts of money over a long period of time. This has become so large that the Greeks have no way of meeting the repayments. The cause of this poverty is the dysfunctional nature of Greek society, where it seems almost no-one pays their taxes and have no idea that this has to have repercussions somewhere down the line.

Particularly amazing when they also expect to retire early on good pensions, they haven't paid for. The EU knew that the Greek economy did not meet the 'Euro' criteria when they allowed them to join, but everyone in Athens and Brussels hoped that this small detail didn't matter. And they also knew that, as a currency, the euro was of no use to the Greeks; it was bound to undermine their economy.

But Greece had to be part of the great European Project and facts and the plight of populations are irrelevant in that context. For the EU it represented their power and to the Greeks a source of funds.

This economic stupidity is symptomatic of Marxist regimes like the EU, but unfortunately Greece, in Syriza have a government that shares the same ideology. It has been playing dangerous games with the EU and the referendum was a stunt to scare them into doing what Syriza wants; more free money.

Whilst the Greek PM talks tough on nationhood, he is careful to not actually do anything to make withdrawal from the euro, from the EU inevitable. He certainly doesn't want the taps turned off, he wants the debt cancelled.

The EU don't want them to leave as the Project is about the power gained by forcing 'ever closer political union, under Brussels'. If Greece left, it would mean nothing is for ever, other countries being severely damaged by the incorrect currency forced on their economies could also seek to make their own way in the world, much more successfully than when shackled to a corpse.

So what does this mean for the wider world? Well, it is important to notice what has happened in our media over the last few days in particular. Phrases like 'facing the abyss', 'catastrophe' and 'disaster' were bandied about, without, in the following articles any supporting text. We were warned at the weekend that the markets would fall 5-10%, that currency instability would follow a 'no' vote.

Then the Greeks voted 'no' and the markets barely noticed and the commentators kept quiet about how incorrect their prior, dire warnings were. For Greece things are desperate and for the EU it is a political crisis, but for the rest of the world it matters not a jot.

Another favourite, to scare us into not voting 'incorrectly' in any referendum David Cameron might offer on EU membership, apart from the BBC's Nick Robinson saying referendums can have unforeseen consequences -hint; you are too stupid to be allowed to vote-, is that Britain trades mainly with the EU, it is our main trading partner.

Again without any substance, we are being given a vague, but scary warning of catastrophe and disaster, if we leave the EU. Lord knows why trade would be affected, but it is what they say.

But I have looked up some trade figures and it seems that the value of our trade with the EU is precisely £0. I looked and checked, but couldn't find anything that we export to the EU. Except that is the £13+ billion we send to Brussels. Certainly, Britain exports substantial amounts to a number of countries that are also members of the European Union, but not to the EU per se as the media and politicians keep insisting we do.

If Britain leaves the EU, we can still trade with EU members, just as others do. In fact, we could stay in the Single Market and ignore the political control if we want. Not something Brussels, or its love-struck follower David Cameron wants you to know. So, if you get the chance, don't hesitate to force our politicians to work harder once more, setting our laws and dealing with international bodies, to whom we are presently denied access, by voting to leave the EU.

Specifically, don't worry about the negatives. I don't think that we should overly concern ourselves with the salaries and pensions of people who care nothing for the people of Europe and who have done such damage. People like Jacque Delors, Angela Merkel, Neil and Glenys Kinnock and Peter Mandelson. Not people you could warm to!

Thursday, 2 July 2015

What Kind Of Enemy Is Daesh?

The self-styled Islamic State, which is the same state as any group of murderous thugs, is more often related as Daesh in the civilised world. Whatever the name, who actually is the enemy, because if you don't know who your enemy is, how can you defeat them?

It is an Islamic sub-set, a cult that has gained some grip on today's muslims. This in itself is amusing as Mohammed, the prophet not one of the millions who choose to use the same name for some reason, after having to hide from his numerous enemies emerged with the literal word of God, the Koran.

He had apparently, been instructed to write down exactly what God said and from this he suddenly became popular (he had tried to gain followers for years, but with little success). Naturally, once he was powerful enough he killed all those who had tormented him previously (no doubt God had told him to do this in a side chat - no need to write this down- and was in no way personal).

As the literal word of God (something the Christian Bible does not claim for itself), no interpretation was allowed, so as the Americans would say, 'go figure' how today we have Sunni and Shiite, sects requiring the Mohammed/God inspired murder to continue.

Daesh are very particular in pushing their assertion that they are, in fact, in the right. True to the faith. Not sure what they base that on, when it is so critical that it is you who are following God's word and are not the faction. Maybe it is the usual belief in the authority of the gun; evidence would seem to point in that direction.

It has proven hard enough to deal with guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan, where territorial gain was the object, to throw out the foreigner, so how do we deal with people who don't even want that, but are satisfied with the most cowardly acts of murder?

Fundamentally, Islam is not the enemy. All the terrorists are muslims, not all muslims are terrorists. So that 'community' will supply the people that go on to cause the killings, but it is those that guide the murders that are the issue. We must, by all measures, kill them.

Bombing the forces involved in Syria is merely attacking where they feel strong, so maybe it helps, but decapitation is the key. Not of individuals, but of the organisation. If you kill the ideological leaders and keep doing it, the impetus will die too.

And we have to find and kill them without borders, no matter where they hide. Weak-minded muslims may send their sons to die a pointless death for these murderers, but ultimately the leadership are not a faith based outfit. Their ideas and mind-set are rooted in the medieval.

Now, religion is a part of it and a change within Islam would be the most powerful way to undermine these people. We have been here before.

In Western Europe of the Middle Ages, religion was a powerful force. People really believed in God, in a way that is difficult to understand today (and impossible if you are a self-impressed liberal luvvie). Kings warred on each other, but feared God and in some measure, the Pope.

When all Europe was Catholic, to be warned and/or excommunicated by the Pope was a serious business. And of course, the Church was very much behind the Crusades and the barbarity that often involved, much as the crusaders in the opposite direction today use the power of their religion.

But importantly, the Christian Church had those who questioned when they felt things went a bit far and we had a Reformation of the religious practices and schism and cults did not undermine basic faith or cause murder to become normal.

The important point here was that when Christianity had a hold on power, was allied to and involved in politics, the result was war and death. Islam is a political religion; it seeks political power. This was very important for Mohammed but has stayed unchanged and unchallenged ever since, locked in a medieval mind-set. It has held those countries back that allow it strong political power.

The Imams must as a matter of urgency, for the success of their religion, for the welfare of muslims and to scrub out the murderers that stain their holy books, introduce reform to their faith. They must humanise it and make it work with what we have come to understand of the world.

They do not need to supplant or diminish their faith in God, but when some person within their church makes crackpot assertions, quoting the Koran, the literal word of God, they need to tell them to stuff off. And nation states need to assert their independence. They need to separate church and state and no matter how devout allow politics to run the country and religion to guide their politicians conscience.

The Pound, Sterling

Briefly cornered, the self-centred Tony Blair succumbed to pressure for the UK not to join the Eurozone, much though he wanted to. So we prepared to endure all the privations of being alone and cast adrift as everyone who was allowed a say predicted.

I remember one of the key reasons the idiots quoted as to why we had to join in with the Euro was that we would not be able to survive, so close to an enormous trading bloc without having the same currency. In fact, that was one of a very, very small number of reasons, none of which had any substantiation, well, apart from fatuous assertions that millions of jobs would be lost.

Apparently, if your company deals with an EU country, all your jobs would go if the UK wasn't in the Eurozone, hence the size of the numbers 'at risk'. Jeremy Clarkson himself pointed out that we should join because then, people like him who travel extensively wouldn't have to keep getting foreign currency. So, of all the problems and paperwork facing a company trading overseas, currency exchange was of overriding concern.

Except, Clarkson still has to acquire local currency should he visit a backward country like Australia, or China, or India where, stupidly they have their own currency. And as to the problem of the big neighbour with a different currency, how on earth does Canada survive? It is not only next door to one of the largest economies in the world, but also a reasonably competent one, not something that you could accuse Brussels of.

And yet it still hasn't occurred to them that they cannot survive by the EU law of economics, without having adopted the US dollar.

Still, let us try to find some positives, after all this knocking, about the EU. It offers employment to a lot of people who don't seem otherwise employable. By taking a long time to establish a Europe wide dictatorship, they have given people the chance to realise what is being proposed for them and put a stop to it. And I suppose, it has contributed to society by keeping France and Germany distracted so they didn't start yet another war.

It is entertaining to consider that the weak and pusillanimous Cameron is almost ideally placed, by position and timing, to play the role of a Marlborough, Wellington or Churchill. He could, if he was another type of creature indeed, save Europe from the power mad grab of would be emperors in France and Germany.

Britain has used her power and prestige to stand above ridiculous continental politics and to intervene for the good when they tear each other apart. Today, we could, through resolute action of word and deed, completely destroy the Marxist Project spreading through Europe and hand back nations to their peoples.

Never forget, when Napoleon defeated Spain it became part of his empire, when Hitler invaded Poland, he didn't intend to ever give it back; it was now part of his Third Reich of a thousand years. But when a coalition led by the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, he dumped the little corporal on the naughty step of St. Helena and went home. France stayed French.

If we vote (sensibly) to leave the EU, the same will happen as when we didn't join the Euro; nothing at all. But it opens up our ability to become a world player again, as a sovereign country once more, to trade where we like and get involved in international agreements. We could trade globally how we wished and look after our own people, without doing harm to others.

To ram it home, we could trade with all the countries of the world, particularly the growing economies and not be shackled to a corpse as at present. A united Europe was a great idea in the inter-war years (when it was thought of first) for all except Britain, but why would anyone stick with a 1920's idea in the global economy of today?

Greece And Democracy

As the papers are full of comments and articles about the current Greek crisis, I won't bother to recap. What I found interesting was the bleating from Brussels that they had a consensus of what Greece should do, but they won't play ball. And then outrage that the Greek government should dare to ask their people what they think, in a referendum.

So Brussels likes their version of democracy, a group of like minded gravy-train slurpers agreeing on a course of action, but thinks that the great mass of those their measures actually affect shouldn't have a say, should not rely on democracy.

I said before about the mass of media coverage, but it is not really coverage, not if you wanted information. If all you require to know is what the EU's point of view is, then fine, you are up to date. However, if you wanted more detail, well, tough luck.

For instance, I see quite a few stories about the British Treasury drawing up contingency plans in case of a Grexit. That stock markets will sink, how your pension will be affected and generally talking of financial disaster. In passing they do mention that British banks and institutions have almost no exposure in Greece, but fail to substantiate where, exactly the disaster lies.

The reason for this is simple. The disaster will be political. It will damage, perhaps fatally the politics of the European Project. And that is way, way more important than money (it's someone else's anyway) or the well being of the Greek people.

You see, if Greece leaves the Eurozone it will prove it is possible, ditto if it also leaves the EU. All this at a time when much of Europe is concerned with the nature and competence of the Project and David Cameron in particular is carefully crafting scare stories about leaving the EU.

Worse still of course, is the prospect of Greece reverting to the Drachma and with a currency floating to its natural level in the market, becoming a successful nation. (This would require the Greeks to get off their backsides and work and the government to actually collect the taxes too, though).

This example would have the other injured countries in a Franco-German pact set at a level to suit themselves, rushing for the exit. And having risked and been rewarded with a war as a result of attempting to expand this empire into Ukraine, Brussels would not then want to see Spain, Portugal, Italy and perhaps Ireland, leave.

The Spectator had a blog by some dimwit fashion writer for the Guardian wittering on about her amazement that the anti-EU stance of anyone, let alone the ungrateful Greeks should be tolerated. This not only says much about her statist, Marxist mind-set, but also how far reaching is the propaganda of the EU (they do spend a lot of your money on it).

It also shows how the current vogue, much promoted by and for the service of Marxists of not thinking about things yourself has caught on. How keen people are to have ideas planted, fully furnished in their heads, which they then believe and spout, no matter how evidently absurd the notion.

No, what the Greeks have to fear is either they will have to work harder and pay their taxes, or that they stay in the EU and accept the current status as their lot in perpetuity. They are not facing austerity to pay back debts, they are being pushed until the country exists at a level that fits the Franco-German model.