Posts Tagged ‘Cameron’

How Brexit Would Destroy World

May 12, 2016

Cameron goes on with his “Corruption Summit” in London. As if nobody knew already that London was a summit of corruption. The Nigerian president, sitting on Cameron’s left, calmly asked for the return of the billions of stolen Nigerian assets which Great Britain has stolen.

Is that Nigerian, to quote PM Cameron, “fantastically corrupt”? Does not he understand, with his tiny African mind, that Great Britain is very great, and rich, thanks to trillions and trillions and trillions of stolen property from savage countries not worthy of the Great British civilization? Watch “The Economist”, the great Great British economic magazine, always giving economy lessons to the whole world, while shipping all its profits to tax haven Luxembourg, to start with. This reminds me of when Britain was importing food from India, while India starved.

Another of Cameron’s effrontery is his “Brexit” referendum, or whether Great Britain should leave the European Union. “Brexit” is the exit of Britain from the EU. For the second time, Britain is voting in a referendum about whether it should be in the European Union. Why not to hold one whether Great Britain should be a member of the United Nations? As I will show, the question is not in jest. Brexit is a referendum about whether Great Britain should exist.

The Idiot Can Jump Out, To Be Torn Apart, The EU Will Fly Better Than Ever

The Idiot Can Jump Out, To Be Torn Apart, The EU Will Fly Better Than Ever

The first British referendum about whether Britain was in Europe, or in America, did not matter. The French government had consented to let Britain in, after blocking it for decades: that was the only thing which mattered. This time the stakes are completely different.

Specious liars will point out that the expression “European Community” (EC) was then used, instead of “European Union” (EU). This is a distinction without a difference; the concept of “ever closer union” was the fundamental concept of the European Community. The whole idea was to make a European war impossible in the future, something to which the Germans and the French felt, and feel, very strongly about. And it’s not just them: there is another one hundred million people living in the area in between or immediately around Franco-Germania.

Charlemagne’s empire covered France (including Belgium and the Netherlands), Germany, Italy, liberated Spain, and their satellites (Chechia, Austria, Switzerland, much of Poland, etc.). Some, ignorant of real history, may scoff, and say this was just Charlemagne. Not so: the Franks controlled most of Germany from the Sixth Century. The Franks played a strange game with the Pope, using the hated Lombards for leverage, until the Pope thoroughly surrendered (after Charles Martel nationalized the Church, and was NOT excommunicated for it). Then they conquered Italy (before Charlemagne). Finally it’s officially the Franks who extirpated slavery from liberated Britannia in 1066 CE (as the Anglo-Saxon realms in Britain were fundamentally unlawful invasions of Britannia).

The problem with Brexit is not what it will do to the European Union: the EU will do better without a obfuscating, obstructing, fiscally cheating, plutocratically plotting “Great” Britain playing Trojan Horse for global corruptocracy.

Brexit Is A Mental Illness Of Old Idiots Affected Gravely By Encroaching Senility

Brexit Is A Mental Illness Of Old Idiots Affected Gravely By Encroaching Senility

Once the British brats and obsequious servants of global corruptocrats are safely out of the European conference rooms, the grown-ups (Franco-Germania and its satellites) will be able to take the right decisions which are urgently needed.

(Right now, the French are letting Merkel run the European show: according to French socialist president Hollande, there are no disagreements with the conservative German chancellor. A 36 year old punk with red hair and horse teeth, the very cute Lea Salame’, called Hollande a liar about that, to his face, but that’s what happen when one runs a celebrity society. Cute Lea is a star, so she does not need a brain, and can say whatever looks good in the instant.)

A sobering Great Britain will stand outside, all conference rooms. It will take orders, from the EU, just as Switzerland does (through more than 600 bilateral treaties). A difference is that Switzerland is loved by France, Germany and Italy. Switzerland is not just 10% of Germany’s size: its French part is more French than it is attached to its own “German” part. I understand German, but not really Switzerdeutsch. The French spoken by the Swiss is standard French.

So Great Britain, should it Brexit, would be struck by at least ten years of lawsuits. One sixth of British law is pure European law. London is one of the largest French cities (4% of London is French).

Scotland and Wales will immediately vote to keep European law and exit Britain. The argument used by Brussels that Scotland as an independent nation would have to apply to the EU would become vacuous.

Scotland would probably not leave the EU, avoiding an awkward situation such as Albania getting into the EU, while Edinburgh and Glasgow are outside (Albania, a “francophone” country is pushing hard to get in the EU, in part thanks to its president, a perfect francophone; I approve this motion, and not just because it will make president Donald Trump laugh).

The problem with Brexit is mostly what it will do to world peace (no, I am not trying to be funny!)

Indeed, Scotland has made very clear it did not want the “British” nuclear fleet, the only deterrent Britain has. Emergency plans call on sheltering the nuclear fleet in… France (England has no appropriate deep ports).

Moreover, Britain would lose one third of its territory, once Scotland decides to stay inside the EU.

So what of the British permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)?

It would go. And so would the United Nations’ fundamental organization. Once “Britain”, having disappeared, is out of the UNSC, a pandemonium may ensue.

Notice that Obama, at the last moment, told the French he was not attacking Assad, because he had got cold feet from the British refusal to strike (Assad’s family is a  major plutocratic organization, thus a British sacred cow). Obama himself said it. Cold feet. The French pilots were already in their seats.

Britain’s surrender to plutocracy is indeed a major threat to world peace. Cameron talks corruption, but it starts with the minds. Voting about whether Britain is in Europe, is a complete idiocy, the intoxicating fruit of minds corrupted by a corrupt system.

Patrice Ayme’

Is Britain The World’s Most Corrupt Country?

May 11, 2016

Britain is organizing an anti-corruption conference. Is that a form of British humor, or:

Should the EU Expel Britain From The European Onion?

More than 40 years ago, Great Britain’s population voted to join the European Union. Now it’s voting to see whether it wants to leave. This smacks of the tactic of obstruction through obfuscation, the story of the criminal accusing the police of being violent.  From the point of view of justice and solidarity, it should. Then the European Union could apply sanctions against it for TAX FRAUD.

One third of tax havens of the planet are actually states which have as head of state the Queen of England. That makes the Queen of England assuredly one of the greatest head of organized crime in the history of civilization. That criminal network pervades the USA. Just contemplate this:

Anglo-Saxon Plutocrats Own The Anglo-Saxon Main Stream Media Which Wants You To Not Know That Many Of Said Plutocrats Are Just Tax Criminals (To Start With).

Anglo-Saxon Plutocrats Own The Anglo-Saxon Main Stream Media Which Wants You To Not Know That Many Of Said Plutocrats Are Just Tax Criminals (To Start With).

Let me repeat slowly. One third of the world’s tax havens in monetary volume are British: Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Isles, Isle of Man, Channel Islands. If one evaluates the half of the world of entities made to avoid all authorities, including tax authorities, are residents of territories headed by the Queen of England.

That corruption is becoming a problem is not just my opinion. David Cameron thinks that Afghanistan and Nigeria are “fantastically corrupt”. Cameron was caught on tape boasting in front of Queen Elizabeth Cameron that  “some leaders of some fantastically corrupt countries [are] coming to Britain” for his anti-corruption summit”. And he was joking with the corrupter in chief, the Queen!

Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari said he did not want an apology from Cameron. Instead he pointed out that Britain could return assets stolen by officials who fled to London.

Forget Nigeria – David Cameron needs to tackle the tax havens in Britain’s own backyard

Says The Telegraph:

“Certainly Nigeria has a reputation. But the Panama Papers have shifted the focus of corruption far up the supply chain, to the people who make corruption possible – and those people are often rather closer to home.  

The UK, to its credit, has been at the forefront of the movement to make the world more financially transparent. The 2009 G20 Summit, hosted by Gordon Brown in London, created the first blacklist of tax havens that were holding out against sharing information on bank accounts with other countries’ tax authorities.

Under David Cameron’s leadership, the UK also became the first country in the world to require companies to be fully transparent about the people who own and control them. This is the key step towards stopping people squirreling money away behind fake companies they secretly own, out of the reach of the taxman and other authorities.

Other countries have since followed suit, and soon all countries that are part of the EU will have to collect information on who ultimately owns and controls companies and make that available to anyone who can demonstrate a legitimate interest.  So we should be proud of our leadership here.     

But careful readers of the Panama Papers will notice an important fact that should have given Cameron pause for thought before he made his comments to the Queen. More than half of the companies named in law firm Mossack Fonseca files are incorporated in Britain’s own tax havens. In fact, a full 50 per cent of the companies are from the British Virgin Islands.

Prime Minister David Cameron knows this. He said so just a few months ago:

“Some of the British Crown Dependences and Overseas Territories are making progress […]. Others, frankly, are not moving anywhere near fast enough. […] If we want to break the business model of stealing money and hiding it in places where it can’t be seen, transparency is the answer.”

Thanks to unfair austerity, avoiding taxes – whether legally or illegally – is coming to be seen as wrong.  If one wants to live in a society with decent schools and hospitals, no terrorism and an army powerful enough to not have tens of millions of refugees trying to smash through the border, all – rich and poor, small companies and giant ones – should be contributing to the public power. A recent poll for anti-corruption organisation, Global Witness, and Oxfam showed that 80 per cent of British adults agreed with the statement that “David Cameron has a moral responsibility to ensure that the UK’s Overseas Territories are as transparent as possible.”

However, PM David Cameron has whined disingenuously, for years, that “he cannot impose his wishes on independent territories.” So, instead of organizing a referendum on whether massive tax fraud can be perpetrated by the Queen of England, her dependencies, dominions and other minions, Cameron organized a referendum about whether Britain wanted to be in Europe or not. As if, after voting against Europe, it would find itself somewhere southeast of New Zealand.

There are fourteen “British Overseas Territories”. The Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are also tax havens, under the sovereignty of the British monarch. When Britain want to exert power on the dominions, it can: Britain forced dominions to abandon the death penalty (1991), or punishments against homosexuality (2000).

Meanwhile any fantastically corrupt rogue official, thief or criminal can come to Great Britain and become a “Non Dom”, a non-domiciliated person, not taxed for at least seven years. Canada and the USA have imitated facets of this program. Some of China’s richest billionaires, anxious to be skewered by president Xi’s anti-pollution drive, have their children in Canada, driving around in cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

All this to say that the “summit in London on the struggle against corruption”, May 12, 2016, is a colossal hypocrisy. And the stakes are not small. Not only is civilization is at stake, but the biosphere itself.

How did Rome fall? Rome fell in many ways: it became a tyranny, a plutocracy (all emperors were born from a small clique of families jousting for power among themselves, and exchanging the imperial throne as if was a frisbee). Rome became also anti-technological, and anti-scientific. Later it became a theocracy.

The historian Edward Gibbon was connected to the British plutocracy, so he could not accuse the plutocratic phenomenon to have caused the Fall of Rome. Instead, he accused Catholicism (as did Nietzsche). However, theocracy was the last justification tyranny found for itself. Plutocracy caused the Fall of Rome, and, over the next centuries, piled up the outrages.

So how did plutocracy blossom? By eschewing old Roman Republican law which limited absolutely the size of a family fortune. And how was that accomplished? With all the overseas dependencies and possessions Rome found itself with after the victory of Rome in the Second Punic War (final victory in 201 BCE). Those included North Africa, Spain, Macedonia, Greece… In those territories, it was not clear that Roman law had jurisdiction. The same loophole allowed slavery in the New World after 1500 CE: Frankish law had established jurisdiction outlawing slavery, all over Europe, in 655 CE. But the law could not be imposed in the New World, be it only because those who ruled there had no interest to see to it.

Recent globalization has operated in a similar fashion. This is all the more strange because American and French jurisdiction proclaim themselves as universal (France is presently judging Rwandan civil war criminals).

The explanation? Great Britain and the USA have been milking the tax haven, international corruption trick: trillions of corrupt, dark, criminal money has kept them afloat, by coming from all over the world. France has done so too, but on a much smaller scale  The latter case explains why Frenchman Pierre Moscovici is showing no alacrity to punish Luxembourg.

France and Germany are the core of the European Onion. It’s high time for them to seize their responsibilities. The terrible example of Britain has led to massive tax thievery by the likes of the Netherlands and Luxembourg. High time to get tough on more than retirees, elementary school children, and the indigent.

The arsenals of democracies have become arsenals of corruption. That may give leverage over Putin, since his plutocrats put their money in Western tax havens, but it’s no way to run a civilization.

Patrice Ayme’

David Cameron’s speech on “extremism” and segregation

July 26, 2015

The “Right Honorable David Cameron, MP”, Prime Minister of Great Britain, gave a speech entitled “Extremism”. What Cameron truly meant was “Islamism”. I have been thinking about writing an essay on Cameron’s thought processes. As astrophysics Professor Coel wrote well on it, I decided to use his analysis instead. Coel concludes: Cameron’s speech is “seriously flawed by a lack of joined-up thinking”.

In other words, although Cameron makes some progress out of the Politically Correct abyss, he ends up all entangled in contradictions between his logic and his policies.

I will assert the following complements to Coel’s work. As Coel points out, the Islamist State, and, more generally Fundamentalist, knife-between-the-teeth, Islam is close to the essential violence found in the Qur’an, and the Hadith. I have documented this pretty well, over the years. Both sacred texts recommend to torture and kill all sorts of “non-believers”, and those deemed not to “believe” anymore (“apostates”).

“Belief” is in the eye of the beholder, thus, if one kills “apostates”, fanatical Islamists will have to spend lots of time killing Muslims, as observed. 

See for the general problem:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/submission-to-war/

For why Israelis are leery about Islam, see the Hadiths which order to exterminate them all, before God can finally proceed with the (highly desired) Apocalypse::

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/thought-crime/

The Qur’an’s violence makes for eventful reading:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

Last point: attacking “extremism” in general, promotes silliness. Any thought process starts by considering extremes. This is true in poetry, philosophy, science, and even technology. All and any creative thought process, and, a fortiori, the thinkers who hold them, can be, correctly, viewed as “extremism” at some point, early on. Thus the very title of Cameron’s self-contradictory attack on Islam is embarrassing: if the aim is to get rid of “extremism”, without further characterization, we may as well get rid of any creative process.

The West, and, more generally, civilization itself, whose supremacy was historically founded upon victory on superstition and fossilized thinking, need more from their so-called “leaders”, be it only to tackle the CO2 crisis (and the wars if could lead to).

coelsblog

Stop extremism recently given a major speech on “extremism”, and the full transcript can be read here. Here is my reaction to parts of the speech.

The title states that “Prime Minister David Cameron set out his plans to address extremism”. What sort of extremism? Well, we all know that we’re referring to extreme versions of Islam, though many politicians are reluctant to spell that out. Let’s see how Cameron fares.

Early on he declares that “Today, I want to talk about … how together we defeat extremism”. It is another nine sentences before he overcomes the “Voldemort effect” and actually names it:

“And because the focus of my remarks today is on tackling Islamist extremism — not Islam the religion — let me say this.”

Well done! Islamist extremism (even if it is accompanied by the hasty and obligatory assurance that Islamism is nothing to do with Islam).

View original post 1,871 more words