Tag Archives: Monarchy

What we do not get to read

 

Yes, we have all seen it, the bias in the media, the stage of reporting and more important not reporting, yet in all stages there was always the BBC. Now, for the most I am all about the BBC, I love that channel, whether it is one, two or BBC24, there is a place for all of them and as a conservative it is hard to judge as I went to the small island of Australia (extremely SSE of the UK) and there we do not have the BBC (weird, I know). Yet they are also online and I do see the BBC there regularly (mostly the news), so when the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/21/dominic-cummings-thinktank-called-for-end-of-bbc-in-current-form), where the Dominic Cummings thinktank announced that it was time that the UK ‘called for ‘end of BBC in current form’‘, and I got all huffy and puffy on that notice. When we look at some of this we see: 

  1. the undermining of the BBC’s credibility; 
  2. the creation of a Fox News equivalent / talk radio shows / bloggers etc to shift the centre of gravity; 
  3. the end of the ban on TV political advertising.”

Well let’s start with item one, anyone who is out there giving us that someone needs to be undermined has ulterior motives, I have never known that undermining is an acceptable fair strategy, more importantly, anyone making any claims towards undermining or optional smear campaigns need to become weary of the bringer of that message. 

The second part is even more hilarious, there is a Fox News equivalent, it is called Fox News, I reckon that the UK has plenty of issues, a lot of them in the direction of discrimination and adding to that with a flair of news worthiness is not the way to go, in light of the morning shows, there is a decent representation. As such, Fox would have a hard time getting a share, let alone someone who treats the news as something on the go, a voice to stage biased views is not the one to go with, especially when you require credibility. 

The third is everyone’s favourite thing to oppose, we are all stoned to death with political pushes from nearly EVERY station on the planet, the articles are often politically laced and less political BS is very much appreciated by most people

As politically I see it, there is a larger issue and as I see it this is about something else, even as we are told that it is about one thing, it is not. People like Dominic Cummings are about large corporations, this is as I see it a first stab at the monarchy, they will not claim it, the more likely they will massively deny it. You see, they are about the message, yet what that message is, is not debated, even as they hide behind “the “mortal enemy” of the Conservative party“, it is not what they are, as a conservative I never had issues with the BBC, if MP’s are not prepared that is THEIR mistake, when they are caught with their pants down THEY are at fault and both sides know that. 

The issue is that people need to be under an advertisement blanket 24:7 to become effective, that is the American way and what is the actual danger is that the Monarchy is a blight to large American corporations. Even as Brexit went wrong, the yanks think that blanket advertisement could have prevented this. There is a truth, it might have been, but at that point the people would have unknowingly taken the path of the wealthy industrialists, and glossy newspapers and some newspapers are all about that, are they not?

When we see “allow politicians to speak directly to the public in ad breaks during Coronation Street” we see the docile approach and when we are told “government ministers should avoid appearing on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme” we see a different level of subterfuge, lets face it, people can ALWAY decide not to appear anywhere, yet at times that leaves a larger question mark and in this it is not the BBC where that question mark is. If a politician is not prepared to answer hard questions, we need to see why not and it seems that BBC 4 Today asks the right questions, or so it seems.

And as we see: “The suggestions were made in a series of long blogposts in 2004 and 2005 by the New Frontiers Foundation, which was a short-lived free market thinktank that aimed to emulate rightwing US organisations such as the Heritage Foundation” we see a larger truth, this is about stating the right wing agenda, not the conservative agenda and you better believe that there is a difference. As such we see the steps of change, and you better believe that “decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee as a first step” is not a first step, it is an advanced step into the undermining of the BBC, I get it, most people do not want to pay it because there is a budget issue, we all see it and we all face it, yet there is a truth behind the existence of the BBC too, it is not shading or colouring, but the option to give a direct view of what is. So when we see “The prime minister first called the licence fee into question during the election campaign and Nicky Morgan, the culture secretary, has suggested a move to a Netflix-style subscription system could be considered for the BBC” you better believe that it is a direct assault on public broadcasting and its disappearance will have far reaching consequences. 

It is enahnced by Ben Bradshaw, a labour MP who gives us “they would like nothing more than to replace the BBC with a rightwing propaganda channel like Fox“, it is the stage for replacing information for advertisement and it would not change immediate, it would be a gradual chance and it can be that way because those who want propaganda have money, they have serious money and partially becasue both sids of the ile were cowards in the past. They refused to properly tax corporations who like the idea of £30 million, instead of the accounted part of £4,600,000,000 which ends up being a lot more than £30 million and there are 5 players already on that line, and more will want that situation but that is not possible in a monarchy and there is every chance, especially after the media debacle of HRH Prince Harry and his wife Meghan that too many people have had enough of that and as such these parties require a propaganda channel sooner rather than later, the BBC is too dangerous for them, as such they need that credibility gone. 

The second truth, the obvious one is also give to us by Ben Bradshaw “The BBC belongs to the British public, not the government, and the public value the public service ethos of the BBC, objective and accurate information and news and the broad range of much-loved radio and TV programmes and would not take kindly to them being sacrificed to Rupert Murdoch“, the immediate issues here are ‘the British public‘, the BBC to a larger degree works for them and as such political players cannot use that channel for ‘their’ message, the get asked serious questions and if they cannot answer, they are smeared with custard (pie in the face routine). In addition, any thinktank that is setting the stage where the people are sacrificed to Rupert Murdoch, or Roger Ailes. Now, they are both good at what they are involved in, yet the news is a larger stage. Even as we need to credit Ailes for a lot, his stage was set to “If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, “I have a solution to the Middle East problem,” and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?“, it is a fair assessment of our own needs, but at times we do not need a pretty picture, we need to get a real setting of where we are. And even if we do not like it, when it personally hits us we wanted and needed to know what was real and to a larger extent the solution that Cummings is attacking is a really bad thing. There is some level of acceptance as the US is a large place and WE do not watch the local news, but there tends to be local news, in the UK it is a much larger setting where that impact will hurt all the people in the UK. 

Now, I made an accusation earlier on and it is time to set the right frame there. When we consider the ludicrous attacks on the royal family, like the ones on HRH Prince Harry and is wife, most get a little angry, yet the larger population who was tainted by glossy news was not and that is the setting the UK is going to, as the real news is more and more presented in a breakfast and glossy way, we get mixed and opinionated news and it is not the same as actual (read: factual) news, but it is the first step in diminishing the monarchy. We seem to ignore (some successfully) on the news out there, when we look at late last year we see headlines like ‘Meghan Markle In New Documentary Said She Was Warned UK Tabloid Press Would “Destroy” Her Life But Was Unprepared For How Bad It Would Be‘, or perhaps even better Newsweek with ‘FOX NEWS HOST SAYS HE’S ‘SICK’ OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE: ‘BRITAIN SHOULD…BECOME A REAL REPUBLIC’‘ and there we see another example of what America needs, it does not need a monarchy where we look out for the wellbeing of EVERY citizen, it is about a republic where big business rules and the media (as I personally see it) as a well paid prostitute only adheres to their needs 

  1. their shareholders
  2. their stakeholders
  3. their advertisers
  4. their circulation

In this the British royal family does not add to the circulation and is an opponent to the first three who wants that juicy collection of consumers that add up to 55 million, they will not care about the well being of the 13 million they end up casually ignoring, and destroying what little degree of freedom they have in their life, they want a population with 100% enablers. That is the danger and it is time for the people in the UK to wake up to that danger, because the 55,000,000 will not care initially, but as they move from being a consumer/enabler, they will care a great deal as they become the target, and that will happen.

This is why I see the message from people like Dominic Cummings as a very dangerous one, and I feel it is important to speak out against such dangers. Yes, we all see the BBC, a lot of us see and hear the boring (and a real classic) music by Eric Spear of Coronation Street, and the Manchester setting, but the larger truth is that the people in the UK own the BBC, not the politicians. If there is one truth then it is the one where we need to remain aware that what is not owned by politicians could end up giving us the actual facts, not the ones that will make money for the rich industrialists, they have plenty of options, they merely want zero opposition so that they can wield us more comfortably.

As I see it, they need it all done, because too many people are shouting about tax changes, tax changes that properly tax large corporations to a fair degree. I have no problems with corporations having a profit, yet the stage where there is a tax bill of £30 million against £4,600,000,000 which leaves them with an optional 99.992% of their profits, it does not add up and that should not ever be allowed, more important, when that Cummings foundation gets their way, you will not even be informed on those events, unless the evidence gets spread to a much larger degree in a much wider setting, when that is no longer possible, we will be told and most will accept whatever the industrial driven media gives us and you better believe that this is not a good idea.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Paranoid

OK, I admit it, I am calling myself paranoid (at present). You see, I have been looking at the news (nearly all news in Europe) and there is seemingly a low creation of rumbles going on. The strongest two are the Netherlands and the UK. The issue is not easy to explain, but I will. Corporations are in a frantic level of actions, Brexit has scared them and the unfolding of the EU is basically becoming reality. In a corporatocracy, that is a scary realisation, but they have an alternative. You see, the balance of the EU is not the nations, it is the two most powerful ones that set this tone. The difference is seemingly small but essential. Any nation can govern by the needs of its corporations, yet a monarchy has the responsibility to take ALL its citizens into account, a lot of issues would not exist if these monarchies did not exist. So the need of corporations is to destabilize and overthrow monarchies. In the end overthrown they might take their value and business interests, and those corporations do not care, they can tighten the screws and focus on the 80% that is consumer, not the 100% that is population. We have seen these acts in the US for the longest time in the Walmart family, not the strongest example, but the most visible one. They have spent well over $4,500,000 this year alone on lobbyists. Firms like the Alpine group, Capitol counsel, Cove Strategies, Ferox Strategies, Mehlman, Castagnetti et al and several more to represent their needs in political Washington. Let’s be clear, they are not breaking any laws, they committed no crimes, the Walton family merely uses the tools available to them to set the premise as powerful as possible towards THEIR needs. This is where the issue become a problem, as a republic driven political might adheres to the needs of a corporation, the people lose. In this the Walton family grows its wealth by a little over $100 million a day, some sources indicate that their total wealth grew by over 20% last year alone. That family has a wealth that puts the wealth of Bill Gates (Software Man), Jeff Bezos (the Amazon Boy) and Warren Buffett (Mr. Investment calling himself the Philanthropist Man) and their wealth combined to shame. That is the impact of a corporatocracy, when the companies rule a nation, their needs are set as the number one, followed by actual consumers and enablers as a second.

Poverty in the US might be the lowest in the last decade, but it is still set to 11.8%, in the Netherlands it is a little below 5%, that is not because the Netherlands is so rich, or their situation is so much better, it is because a monarchy looks at the needs of all its citizens (the rich, the poor the enablers and the non-enablers). So when I see ‘Money is the Achilles heel of a monarchy‘ (at https://www.nu.nl/economie/5991045/de-kosten-van-het-koningshuis-geld-is-de-achilleshiel-van-de-monarchie.html) with mention of Alles samen kost het koningshuis daarmee op papier in 2019 bijna 36 miljoen euro” (All together, the cost for the monarchy are set on paper to be around 36 million Euro). Now in opposition I will throw that Robeco paid a new CEO €30,000,000 annually around a decade ago, so it seems a little farfetched to look at the cost of royalty, and we need to consider that a monarchy comes with cost, it is in part also the cost we pay to keep all citizens safe, in other settings this tends to be the consumers and rich people. 

The second large monarchy is the British one, even as we have a lot more to look at, I will not, yet I will highlight that the attacks on Prince Andrew were more than attacks. It was the need of media to get circulation and in the UK that sells, it is money. OK, I will admit that HRH Prince Andrew received some real bad advice from direction he was listening to, yet beyond that the man is under constant (and not just him in that family) attack, even today I find well over a quarter of a million articles (not just from the UK) with headlines like ‘Who’s your Prince Andrew? Ten signs one of your employees is deadwood‘ (Source: Smart Company, Australia). Titles like ‘surplus prince‘ and statements like “The total number of people in the world who believe his side of this super-creepy story is one. You’d ground your small kid for telling tales like: “I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War, when I was shot at … it was almost impossible for me to sweat.”“, from my point of view, the royal family is under non-stop attack by the media and haters. In the UK we see optionally one part that is an issue, their Monarchy is a lot larger, yet so is their population, yet the UK is a monarchy, both the Netherlands and the UK would not have made it to the place they are now if they were a republic, that much is almost certain. Europe has other monarchies, There is Denmark, Monaco, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain and the small ones Andorra and Liechtenstein. Norway is not part of the EU, yet they are so close to the Danish and Swedish families that they are part of the problem for corporations. Yet for corporations the Netherlands and the UK are the largest problems, they have strong political ties, they have well organised systems and they both have the ability to limit the actions of most corporations. 

Now, just to be clear, we see the cost of royalty (especially the Dutch one) almost every year (the Dutch are cheap as), yet the underlying story is still within me, there has been a larger attack on royalty in Europe and I personally believe that corporations are fuelling it through their links in the media. The attacks are subtle and for some reason two links I saw earlier this week are no nowhere to be found, the right to be forgotten is seemingly used to a wider degree (my speculation). More important, I believe that the Brexit delivery from Boris Johnson will open up a lot more than just the Brexit, at that point these corporations in denial realise that the overall force of greed will end in 2-3 years and when Brexit is complete there will be a larger need in the EU breaking it up faster. When we see ‘EU ministers opt to continue overfishing, despite 2020 deadline‘, we see more, we see a larger need towards greed and as we read “ministers ignored science and fought bitterly for their own vested interests” we see some of the signs that the EU has ended, the fact that they knowingly, willingly and intentionally ignored “By 2020, all quotas were meant to be based on a maximum sustainable yield – the most fish that can be caught without damaging the ability of the species to recover itself” should be regarded as evidence, I personally stand by my original thought, merely end the lives ot 94% of the global population and the problem is solved (that did not take long did it?) The issue is larger and more complex ad as such my thoughts towards the monarchies can be seen as paranoia. The two nations (UK and Dutch) have all kinds of interactions and even as the attacks on Prince Andrew are actual attacks, they are often done by circulation desperate media, which is still a corporation, but it would be a twisted example. Perhaps I am paranoid, but I feel that there is a larger attack on EU monarchies, I will let you look at the evidence in your own newspapers and tally the articles that are an example. Oh and I am not dismissing the fact that there are other driving factors either, that was shown by the NL Times last April (at https://nltimes.nl/2019/04/15/dutch-royals-less-popular-among-young-people-study). Here we see: “Support for the Dutch monarchy among young people fell sharply over the past years. In 2007, 70 percent of Dutch between the ages of 18 and 34 were enthusiastic about the Royal Family, last year it was only 55 percent, according to surveys by Ipsos commissioned by NOS“, I wonder how the percentages fall when we tae that number and set it in two groups, 17-26 and 27-34. You see until 25 you have no need to take things into consideration (like retirement), after 25 you do and that is when people get to realise that a Monarchy is a larger economic umbrella than a republic is. Yet they also illuminate the other side “support for a republic with an elected president is not increasing much. In 2007, 14 percent of respondents supported the idea of such a government, last year it was 15 percent, according to the surveys“, I reckon that the people realise that their cushy life is over when it becomes a republic, but the Netherlands and the UK are too large spoils of war for the large corporations and it is my personal believe that they will not give up on rich grounds of that nature, the breaking of the EU will force them in that direction soon enough, in that regard I have absolutely no doubt, greed remains an eternal journey.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The fake promise

Even as the media relies on fake news to get things done, politicians rely on fake promises, that is visible in the elections in that, UK Labour thinks it can rally 3 million elderly votes and as such is makes that so called promise to ‘Labour pledges £58bn for women caught in pension trap‘ there is just one problem both sides whilst in government have spent too much, Labour lost (through stupidity) £11.2 billion on an IT system that never worked. The conservatives made different mistakes and both of them gutted social housing. The Guardian voiced it as “More than 3 million women who believe they have been left thousands of pounds out of pocket after steep increases to the state pension age are being promised compensation by Labour as part of a £58bn scheme designed to end a “historic injustice”” In addition they give us “Labour would introduce a universal scheme that would see the women affected given a maximum payment of £31,300, with an average payment of £15,380“, so here is the problem, first of all until they get elected they cannot make a guarantee, if they get into office they will have to deal with terms like ‘universal scheme‘ and with ‘the women affected‘, If they are setting apart £58 billion, they have more pronounced numbers (and better statements), would they not?

The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/labour-fifty-eight-billion-pound-pledge-women-pension-age-trap) comes hand in hand with (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/23/station-pension-age-women-labour-compensation), yet they all are forgetting about the fact that in a world with same incomes, also comes same laws and as such both genders have to retire at the same point, do they not? So as we see ‘The Tories stole my state pension when I was 60, now I want it back‘, in addition, the Tories stole nothing, both sides of the isle overspend by way too much and the political ruling administration had to sacrifice, people do not seem to get that money that is spent from a place where it does not exists, will have to come from a place where is optionally is, as you can see in the image (which Tejvan Pettinger uploaded on May 1st 2017) for those not completely aware of him, he is an Economics teacher (A Level students) at Greenes College and formerly with Cherwell College, Oxford.

He shows that during Labour reign, government spending close to doubled, can you name at least one place where that you as a person benefitted from that? I doubt you can, and that is part of the problem, austerity and government austerity was essential for well over 10 years, when Tories get back we see a rise, but a rise that is less than 1% per year and in an age of 3%-4% cost rise that is a pretty amazing result, yet Labour DOUBLED their government spending, so what did they spend it on? So when we see John McDonnell state “We’ll raise the money in the appropriate way” I wonder what he means because it is not an answer and the government coffers are empty, leave it to labour to give an empty statement like ‘We’ll raise the money in the appropriate way‘, we see a whole lot of that and no real answers. You did not actually think that labour has answers for the money they are ‘stately’ boasting to spend, are you?

One day earlier we see: (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/22/unforgivable-jo-swinson-confronted-student-lib-dems-record-austerity-video) another attack, but one on the LibDems. Here we see Jo Swinson getting attacked with no option to respond, but there you have it, people are starving in Glasgow that is what I got out of it. The issue is not Jo Swinson, it is the attack and part of this is the Scottish political wing, for over 5 years the political wing has (seemingly mind you) not done enough to bolster its economy, now Scotland is part of the UK and that makes it also a UK need, yet in the all the political dealings we see that Scotland does not have its eggs in the same basket on the same route and that is a larger failing, some might watch “The party has tried, by portraying its leader, Jo Swinson, as a potential prime minister, although this is an unlikely possibility, given its position third in the polls“, but Labour is dealing with several issues and the LibDems are pushing for those results. the Anti-Semitic attacks on labour alone could cost them somewhere between 5%-10% of the votes, it might merely result in 15 seats, but those seats are coming straight from the Labour angle (and those people are more likely to swing towards the LibDems than the Tories, which is fair), and it is a very small step from third to second in that race, even as the Tories are bound to get the largest swing in votes, the LibDems are back and together with the Tories they are bound to get a few wins in for their party (Brexit not being one of them).

That will be the party Achilles heel, the entire Brexit mess is exasperated by large corporations to find delay on delay to maximise their profits in 2019-2020, too many CEO’s have too much riding on that and the quote “a slogan criticised for underestimating the amount of time and effort required to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU” is on the money, but the people are seemingly not asking whose money was that anyway? In all respects the Tories have a large advantage and Labour is more likely than not getting the hot breath of the LibDems on their heels, Labour will lose a few places to the Tories, but they will lose a whole lot to the LibDems and that changes the race considerably.

So, why my attack on Shadow chancellor John McDonnell? Jeremy Corbyn did the same thing last election, at that point he made promises towards nurses, doctors and police forces that he would never be able to keep, the coffers of Britannia are empty, they will remain on empty whilst the UK is part of the EU, in addition there are a whole range of issues playing and yes, there will be an end to those elements, but not with the EU dictating budgets, they are keeping budgets their state coffers cannot write and it forces them all to become Corporatocratic nations to the largest extend, that must be prevented in the UK. There is a reason that corporation fear monarchies, they fear them because a monarchy takes into consideration all lives, the poor as well, you merely have to look into the US to see their rights dwindle, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and those other nations see a much larger picture, one that does not fit the spreadsheet of a corporation, we much protect that part of life, even as other governments are willing to adjust their views to fit corporations to a much larger degree.

It is merely my point of view, but so far that view has shown to be correct. I’ll let you figure it out on your own terms; you are entitled to do that.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Mad(e) in Sweden

We have seen the news for weeks now on how one activist named Greta Thunberg, one activist who will be exactly 201 months old in 3 days is shaming politicians all over the world on environmental issues, and she is 100% correct. Even now as I see how she privately met with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and how she is urging to do more for the environment, the media is eating it up and spewing how one girl is fighting the established order like David met Goliath, yet that is not what is in play is it?

When we see the tweeting sarcasms giving us ‘Make America Greta Again‘, we see what happens but we ignore the issues at hand; as does the media to the largest degree. In all the news articles I read there is one massive part missing, one part that is at the foundation of environmental failure, from Southern California to northern Canada, from the East of China to the West of Russia, they all accomplish the not mentioning of the one element that has been the foundation of this failure.

The non-politicians

We see that the noted climate change sceptics are all doing someone’s biding, yet we do not see who they are ‘fighting’ for. We have entered an age of Corporatocracy, they are the powers in the US, in Canada, and they seemingly have the largest sway in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. They have large footing in most monarchies and for the most they have a larger iron grip in Russia to the degree we never fathomed. Through Corporatocracy the growth of billionaires has never been stronger and they want their wealth and they need it to keep on growing. Over the last 8 years their combined wealth went from $2 trillion to $8 trillion whilst the amount of billionaires dipped a little, it is harder to enter that pool whilst those in that pond are growing fatter day by day, in that pool the premise of environment has no hope of survival and until these governments take back the power from these corporatocratics and give it back to the people and the established order there will be no change, it will only get worse.

The fact that the EU gravy train can continue almost completely unhindered is evidence still to a failing much larger that anyone fathoms and as these corporations are shareholders, stake holders and advertisers, the media will only respond to actions that the controlling corporatocratics find acceptable. That is the failing in this entire matter and the fact that the media is ‘catering’ to her is only a viewpoint towards populist stages that are under control of the corporations, it will instil them to make ‘environmental’ donations, but only as long as it can be wielded as a form of advertisement and exploitation down the road. For them it is a double whammy, because Greta Thunberg is doing the right thing and she is fighting all the right windmills, as she is seen as a larger greater good, the people will herald her, yet in their hearts they know that almost nothing will come of it. For the ruling of Corporatocracy is bound to the needs of Wall Street and surpassing those set markers. As they play their games they basically surpassed the Gnomes of Zurich, the Swiss bankers that dictated economic policies for decades, yet as economic dictates moved more and more towards Wall Street and as the Gnomes of Zurich revoked their legendary discretion matters we see that Wall Street becomes the more powerful voice and without the balance that the Gnomes of Zurich brought to some degree we see that only the bottom line remains, a bottom line that is about profit and set on a stage of ‘contribution’ (a better stage of profit metrics), as such the environmental stage was mostly removed and in Sweden it is still at an all-time high because monarchies are about the whole nations, not just the actual consumers and facilitators, like New Zealand their environment needs are among the highest. So whilst the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/27/greta-thunberg-justin-trudeau-meeting-climate-strikes) gave us: “I really believe in Greta’s movement. She is doing amazing things and it’s great that she’s able to press politicians to act on climate change, during an election“, the quoted was 13 year old Annabelle Vellend, the reality is that whatever gain she makes, it will be small and optionally overturned within 2-4 years. In the end when it crosses the needs of Wall Street hard choices will have to be made and in that stage there is a close to 100% certainty that the environment loses.

That is the reality of the matter and the media knows this, they merely like to sprout the fairy tail (pun intended) and when that tail gets shortened it was not due to a young lady of 200 months, it was merely the heart of the economic matter, yet it will be voiced in such a way that it still reads lovely, because that is how the shareholders, stake holders and advertisers need it to be, and as long as the corporatocratic engine is not shown in the out and open this game continues.

In the end Corporations will claim that the desire from Sweden was nice, but in the end not attainable, it was mad to think it ever was, when you see those words consider who you elected and who they enabled in the process, it does not matter which side you elect, corporations have elected beneficiaries on both sides of the political line, it makes continuation a certainty. And whilst we see the positive spark of ‘planting of 2,000,000,000 trees‘ consider what some forests will be valued at for cutting in 3-5 years, and who gets that profit?

In the end this is not a failure of Greta Thunberg, it merely shows the world where the media is at, did you consider that part of the equation?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Funny Money, Amusing Thickheads

There are two issues and they do not link, but they are supportive of one another. I made notice of this situation 5 months ago in my article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/04/27/then-the-hard/) called ‘Then the hard‘, in the article I give “Now we get to the part where the €2.5 trillion mark matters, as the ECB is trying to find new ways to convince others that the continued provision of stimulus to the economy matters“, as I see it the stimulus protects banks, makes them more powerful, it allows for political stupidity, yet the economy has not been saved (not in the two attempts), it has not been jump started, and it has not been a positive impact for its citizens, merely the industrial executives and the rich CEO’s (OK, that was a more biased view from yours truly, the writer).

As Bloomberg gave us on Saturday (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/more-ecb-officials-pile-into-stimulus-debate-as-economy-wilts) ‘More ECB Officials Pile Into Stimulus Debate as Economy Wilts‘, and when we see: “the ECB should keep all options on the table to reinvigorate inflation and growth, including a relaunch of quantitative easing“, it is at that point that the EU citizens are getting screwed (again), more debt (again) and no resolution because the ECB is about the gravy train and not about resolutions. Yes that same article gives opposing voices, yet I would not be surprised that (by a narrow margin) the stimulus people win. This is why Brexit was so important!

In the end the retirees get hammered for those debts, the ECB officials have too fat wallets to care. At this point the debts have surpassed €3,000,000,000,000 and it seems that the end is nowhere near, yet the stage of bankruptcy is there. Even at 0.1% (no debt interest is ever that low) implies that the interest is €3 billion a year. A payment that is way beyond the budgets of any of the EU nations, payment due every year whilst the bulk of them have overextended themselves with budgets that should have been shrunk by well over 5%, so pretty much all the EU nations are running an economic deficit whilst the Mario Draghi Posse is handing out more money, printed money, for a lack of a better term funny money.

What the ECB is not telling anyone that most stimulus options fall flat when the UK officially leaves the EU that is the despair there. Their options melt away when the UK is out and that is why everyone is suddenly in a panic, that is why we get these moronic acts and even UK Labour is all about remain now. And with that part we move to the second part of this.

Now we get to the Chief of Grief, the Duke of Fluke, the one and only real loser in history (as I personally see it) Jeremy Corbyn. When we see headlines like ‘No-deal Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn vows to ‘pull Britain back from the brink’‘, or ‘Final sovereignty on Brexit must rest with the people‘ we see the idiot he is. There was a referendum, there was a voice and Brexit won, the issues with the ECB shows us that we are a lot better outside then inside that mess. There is no brink of Brexit, there is an economic mess and we will enter a stage of recession, anyone telling you that it can be presented is lying to you, or they are wielding massive amounts of money, amounts that no one has. This has been shown by people more intelligent than me and by people with actual economic degrees; they all are on the ‘remain’ fence, merely because it butters their bread. It gets worse when we see that the Hysterical Remain groups that have become violent, abusive and out of control, more important, to a larger degree the media isn’t even covering it. How is that for balanced information?

I have heard one or two actual ‘remainers’ who made a really good case, yet in the end, they have no control over the ECB and the ECB is in Europe at present the great evil. What they claim is good for Europe is to a much larger extent merely good for big business. When we look at those companies leaving the UK, these are all companies hiding behind taxation options, or facilitating to really large players and to some degree that is fine, but the ECB forgot that the well over 150 million small business owners see nothing of any of that and more important, they will see the impact of the 3 trillion euro of debt that the ECB created, things are that much out of whack and I do not get why people accept the presented BS that people like Jeremy Corbyn have been presenting to the masses. I am aware and I also believe that Brexit had its own waves of BS presenters. I made up my own mind and for the most I was leaning towards Remain, Mark Carney (the Marky Mark of the British bank) and especially his speech to the House of Lords was the setting of that stage. Yet he too had one flaw (if you want to call it that), there was no controlling the ECB and they are out again making some lame excuse on the essential economic need for more stimulus, whilst we already know now that it will not save the economy and they are willing to wager another trillion euro and spend it up front.

These people are not held accountable in any way and I say: ‘Enough is enough!‘ The UK is better off by itself steering the economic waters as it had done for centuries. Oh, I almost forgot the second part on sovereignty, sovereignty does not rest with the people, it rests in Buckingham Palace with HRH Queen Elisabeth II. There was a referendum and the Brexit group with a little over 51% won. And to those people still in doubt, you only have yourself to blame with the mess you are creating. There were 46 million votes, representing a 72% group, so 28% did not even bother to vote! Those 13 million votes were invalid straight of the bat, with only 25,000 invalid or blank votes we see no real impact, it they were all remain voted it would not have mattered. When you consider all this and you see the hooligan masses being remain people, we see two parts, the first is that they are moronic (worthy of UK Labour), yet the larger issue is that a lot are in anger because they are not getting properly informed. Stories like: ‘UK government officials told the food industry that supplies of liquid egg could run out in a no-deal Brexit‘, yet the operative word is ‘could‘ we just do not know, and not knowing is adamant in a lot of this, yet the people have faced two years of fear mongering, all large consortiums that see a danger to their margins, not the margins of the shop, the margins to executives and their bonuses, and the people are eating the fear hook, line and sinker. There will be actual issues, but the foundation of all this is that this has never happened before and the EU and the ECB did this to themselves. We all forget how this started, this all started when Greece in 2009 had misrepresented itself and we saw issue after issue, debt after debt and the politicians that caused it merely walked away. Then we were told stories on how Greece might be evicted from the EU, the news was all over that yet the truth was that we were misled (or is that made Miss Led?) The Guardian (in 2015) gave us: “As Athens will be unable to satisfy its financial obligations after a default, many hardliners expect Greece to leave the Eurozone, and printing as much neo-drachma as necessary. Some see this as the only solution to the Greek crisis: it would allow Greece to devalue its new currency, supposedly making the country competitive and resulting in economic growth and the ability to repay its debt“, in addition we get: “while only article 50 of the EU treaty regulates how a state can leave the union. And a mechanism for leaving only the Eurozone or for expulsion even has not been provided for at all“, basically the stupidity of the EU was that they stated that every member will always be up front and do what must be done, which was deceptive in its own rights. So a group that is merely inclusive and under stringent rules can they leave, yet in addition other sources gave us that NO MEMBER can be expelled. This is called a Corporatocracy, not a democracy. Corporations decide on what happens and that is what we basically see at present. The problem here is that any Corporatocracy will limit its actions towards enablers and consumers; the rest is pretty much screwed. In a monarchy all citizens matter and the people do not seem to be able to grasp that, the UK (and the Netherlands, as well as Sweden, Belgium and so on are monarchies within a Corporatocracy and that is a very different setting, that stage can only be made profitable where debts are soaring and the banks not the government decide where you can be at, a situation we see all over Europe. this is not new, I did not invent it, other voices going back to 2014 say pretty much the same thing, I merely have a lot more data available at present. The media relies on advertisement money from any Corporatocracy, so you cannot expect them to actually inform you, it is a double edged blade and both sides are pointed at YOUR guts, it is that detrimental a situation.

So as Greece made a few issues clear in the wrong way, people like Nigel Farage went with the notion of ‘Better Out than in‘, I agree with him, yet I remained on the fence for the longest of times. It was the second ECB stimulus who would put us so much deeper in debt that got me across. The first stimulus was fine, it was an option and even as it did not work out, it gave Europe time, yet the second one the best we could hope for was time and that is where the problem started and now as stimulus 3 is on the table the setting is too unacceptable, the UK needs to get out and fast, deal or not.

Let’s not make a fairy tale, this will not be a nice time and things will get worse for a little while, anyone telling you different is lying to you. The issue is that with the ropes cut the EU cannot force debts on the UK to the degree it is doing now, more important the UK gets to make a few other choices and it will down the road (3-4 years) turn the economy in something stronger. It will result in an actual better quality of life over time, but it will not be immediate. This is why the ties and economic options with players like Huawei (5G), nations like Saudi Arabia (all kinds of goods) and a few other players become important (optionally India with generic medication). Anyone with the misguided notion that Human Rights are the optimal route better stay at home. If Human Rights were an actual power there would be no age discrimination, there would be actual better (and more) housing and there would be a better social security. All missing and mostly because in a Corporatocracy, corporations are largely tax exempt, exactly what we see today. In that stage we now see the rumblings, even as players like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others are all making noises on leaving, they do so at the risk of losing 69 million consumers. Facebook is truly global, so is Google to the largest extent, yet for Apple we get Huawei, ASUS and HP, Amazon leaving would give the people a slimmer HMV and optionally small businesses come back (my preferred solution), and even as corporations are shouting, screaming, streaming and threatening, they all realise that you cannot walk away from 69 million consumers. Not when they need to share the smaller EU pool with 3-4 competitors at every corner. That is the part we all forgot, consumer power is actually power and we listened to the likes of Jeremy Corbyn for far too long. To be honest, I never thought that it would be possible to be more dim than Nick Clegg (LIBDEMS), yet I was wrong, Jeremy Corbyn pulled it off nicely. I am not stating that Boris Johnson is without flaws (his barber being the obvious one). I am stating that the UK has been in a dangerous position for far too long and as long as the ECB does the way it does it, the danger stays, getting away from that danger is an immediate need at present.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

A different Europe

This is something that started last week. I heard about it in passing, but I ignored it for various reasons, the most important one was that it was too ‘conspiracy theory’ and too ‘looney tunes’ like to take serious. In light of the shooting in Florida, the escalations in Syria and just now the cease fire that is not adhered to (as if that was going to be a surprise), the Danish issue is one that is slightly more unsettling at present.

The sources are the Danish news (at http://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2018-02-22-liste-paa-internettet-opfordrer-til-drab-paa-danske-politikere) as well as it was mentioned (at  https://www.dr.dk/radio/p1/p1-dokumentar/p1-dokumentar-2018-02-22), there is also the mention that the Politiets Efterretningstjeneste, short for PET, which is the Danish intelligence and security apparatus, where we get that the list has existed for some time.

What is going on?

The list that had been placed online is a list of the members of the Folketing with names and addresses, the list is followed by an invitation to go ‘Breivik’ on these people (a reference to the Norwegian mass murderer of 2011) and end the lives of these members. You see how this all comes across a little too ‘looney tunes’ for most people. Yet the truth is a given, this is actually going on, and even though there are no fatalities at present, in addition to the fact that most expat Danes are all in favour of alcohol in many cases, yet they lack a massive amount of internal rage, anger issues as well as a psychotic need to end lives is where this list is optionally likely to fail. The fact that the list offers in addition to some of the names, specific information about family and children and even instructions on where exactly to be to get the best look at these victims is more than a worry. Apart from the list optionally having been compiled by people who had way too much free time, the hatred we see here is something I have never seen before In Denmark, or in regards to the Danes as far as I can tell.

So what is Folketing?

Folketing is the Danish Parliament, they approve the cabinet, and they supervise the work of the government. They are also responsible for adopting the state’s budgets and approving the state’s accounts. So it is in fact the governing body of the nation. Even as Denmark is a monarchy, that monarchy has limited powers, which is almost on par with both the Dutch and the Swedish monarchies.

I have been to Denmark a few times, the people tend to be a little too nationalistic for my taste, but that is not a real mark against them; nationalistic pride is what drives a nation forward as I personally see it and they are not the only nations that have that drive. Beyond that, the food is awesome, the beer is good and the cities are almost irritatingly clean, which is unsettling when you see just how crowded Copenhagen can be. The people are polite in the shops (almost too polite) and the Danes as far as I have seen in the Capital are well educated and most are fluent in English (which is great as my Danish sucks big time). The place looks pleasant and pretty, especially when you get to the harbour area where the ferry to Malmo resides.

So why is this list there?

That is the question that most cannot answer, nor where the source is from. Even as most Danes are never in hiding, most are weirdly easy to find and track down in the easiest of ways. The fact remains that an ‘invitation’ to take Danish Parliament duck hunting whilst these members are the ducks is slightly unheard of. The biggest Danish issues I found were the refugee issues in 2016 and the crises they faced to some degree last year. None of this makes sense in a larger setting, the only part that fits is that one individual felt personally attacked and decided to spread fear in this way, making the issue an optional non-issue to begin with.

The question is how the PET addressed it. Even as we see that Denmark is gearing up for the ban on Islamic full-face veils and that in addition 2 years ago the PET failed to warn a Danish Asylum centre that a stateless Palestinian refugee was supposed to be seen as dangerous. So if that is it, than being a member of the PET must be one of the best cushiest jobs in the intelligence industry. For the rest there was not much to find, so the PET might not have regarded it as too serious. On the one hand this could be seen as good, but on the other hand, someone got creative and gave an optional handful of radicalised a list of 179 targets to dip a nation in chaos, which is equally unsettling.

So why is this issue an issue?

There is absolutely no guarantee that this is the case, yet Denmark is only 2 months away from a seminar in Copenhagen, you see on the 13th of April, this seminar will look at the role of women in extremism, with ISIS targeting recruitment of women stronger and stronger, they might see this seminar as an effort to stop their recruitment and that could spell trouble, make sure that you realise my usage of the word ‘could‘. In addition Denmark is one of the nations who has been funding and supporting efforts to increase stability in Iraq. So far this support has been in excess of $20 million, it might not seem much, but it could optionally rebuild a partial area, which means growth of commerce and as safety and stability returns such funds could grow the return of normal life to Iraq, which is very much in opposition of what ISIS wants. Past of this is shown in the charters and articles by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). They voiced last week in an article regarding Tunisia “Young Tunisians widely voice an angry despair at being unemployed, untrained for jobs, and unable to build futures for themselves. The single democracy to have arisen from the Arab Spring uprisings is undermined by the feelings of hopelessness among many youth“, those issues are the ones that Denmark could be fighting and achieving in Iraq, but growing stability and with local shops having the option of returning to a normal pre-war life, it will spark options towards hope and resolution to join those areas. It could be in line with “a small, USIP-funded project is measuring which kinds of programs are actually effective“, which would make perfect sense, instead of pumping cash into a place not knowing what will work, Denmark’s additional assistance in Iraq could spell a path to lowering pressures and starting to get things actually done. Now, let’s be clear that Denmark and USIP are not the only players in town and that their effort is seen, in equal measure attacks on the Danish members of parliament could spell trouble and trouble is what the players like ISIS want, making that list optionally a larger issue.

The view of Iraq is equally seen in “The Kuwait conference will gather government, business and civil society leaders to consider a reconstruction that Iraq has said could cost $100 billion. USIP’s president, Nancy Lindborg, and Middle East program director, Sarhang Hamasaeed, say any realistic rebuilding plan must focus also on the divisions and grievances in Iraq that led to ISIS’ violence and that still exist” so even as 22 million is not 100 billion, yet every small victory and every success that is measured would count towards optionally lowering the 100 billion needed and could show a path to success, whilst we have seen in the past there has been no real direction to tread in, and as such Denmark is making its own journey, one step at a time.

So in the end, should this list be taken seriously?

There are two elements, the maker of the list and the list itself. Even as we might not take the maker serious, even as the PET might have come to the conclusion that the maker is a non-violent person with anger issues towards the Danish parliament, their cushy jobs are now a little less relaxed because every lone wolf nut-job with a need to get into the large limelight will be an additional worry. Even as the danger to Denmark is small, the consideration that foreign Isil fighters ‘return home with military skills‘ in 2018 will become a worry. Now, the list of Danes who went this way might be small, yet the list of German and Swedish ISIL fighters is a lot larger than zero, and larger than the Danish list, not to forget that Denmark is directly linked to these places, we should consider that there is absolutely no guarantee that those returnees will not be looking across the borders, to gain more infamy in any way, shape or form. In that regards, any of those Germans returning are in addition an optional threat to the Dutch security, so there is that issue to deal with at some point.

Shakespeare

There is no way that we can get past this without the quote from Hamlet. With: “something is rotten in the state of Denmark“, we recognise Hamlet, and we tend to only remember it there. Denmark is considered one of the least corrupt nations in the world (together with their Scandinavian siblings), In addition it has been regarded more than once to be the number one nations when it comes to the rule of law, two elements that make the Danes proud of their Denmark and rightfully so, yet in my view, is a nation so bathing in the light of ‘goodness‘ able to recognise darkness, as well as darkness in motion? You see, I moved house once from the Netherlands to Sweden and after leaving the Netherlands, I was not stopped once, not until I got into Sweden and that was a 5 minute exercise with 2 friends and a large van filled with boxes. If we consider these events, how much danger cold the Danish population (most likely the people in Copenhagen) optionally end up being in? Any answer might be sheer speculation, but the fact that the list exist makes for an issue on how the people see their government, because if one made the list, at least 30 considered making the list and that is less of a good thing, because in such places where the anger and frustration is skin-deep, the danger of radicalising such people is not zero and should be considered or better stated cannot be ignored. Yet in opposition we should equally accept that unemployment has been a large reason for pressing and pushing towards frustration and outrage, with that level in Denmark being 4.2% and on route to get lower to 4%, it is one of the best places to be able to work (if your fluent in Danish). Considering that the highest long term unemployment rate has not been above 2.5%, whilst that group tends to be mainly those who cannot work due to being a ‘ripe old age‘ with added medical conditions makes for one of the healthiest economic places to live in, so the usual paths to get lone wolves tend to not be the working path. This is only partially important as it makes the list less and less useful yet not useless to the radicalised individuals with radicalised needs to step into in the limelight.

The fact that the list exists gives reason to consider actions. Even as TV2 news at the link mentioned at the top gives us the view by Keld Vrå Andersen, which gives the quote “It is a democratic problem” is in equal term the underdog of democracy, you see, we might consider to be democratic, but when we are the losing party in a vote that might benefit 90%, when you are one of the 10%, the onset of what you lost as the smallest majority is equally a worry when the issue was important within your household. We much keep track of that distinction, yet without knowing the maker of the list and his/her reasoning, we can only hope that the list does not make it to the wrong party that got invited and it is for that reason that I will not link to the list or attach it here.

Oh, and whilst I was looking at this, just now, less than an hour ago, the ABC (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-26/syria-conflict:-impotence-of-un-security-council-laid-bare/9484136), gave us “Air strikes by the Syrian Government and their allies continued, with pro-regime media claiming a new ground offensive had begun“, almost nullifying the Danish issue as the issues we face on a global scale as the UN will be seen as a paper tiger by more and more people give rise that we are in hot waters in several ways. So when we read that “The UN resolution stipulates that the ceasefire does not apply to a jihadist group called Nusra Front, also known as Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS), a former Al Qaeda affiliate” give us exemptions, how long until exemption driven actions lead to the dangers that those return to Europe are exempt from following the rule of law, because they were taught to use a weapon and they are exempt from the UN to follow cease fires? So why would the UN intentionally phrase an international terrorist organisation as ‘exempt from the ceasefire‘?

In that I hope that the UN reveals the names of those working on that papers and who EXACTLY decided to make a terrorist organisation an exemption to the rule and why. Are you not curious? To have one person make a death list, to have one group excluded from the ceasefire conditions. There is something very wrong about all that. I just hope that the people are getting ‘less clueless’ quickly on the dangers that they expose themselves to far outside the Syrian borders, because those expat fighters will come home soon (read: this year) and it could make for a very different Europe soon enough.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Removing the right of choice

Fox News had an opinion piece 2 days ago that only now met my eyes. Now, for the most, apart from some Guardian opinion pieces, I tend to stay away from them. Yet, this one caught my eye because not only was the situation upsetting. The issue that Americans use their right to free speech to deny others the right to choose (to some degree) is another matter and it became clear that I should give my view in all this.

The title ‘Is the West finally pushing Saudi Arabia to squelch its version of radical Islam?‘ First off, why on earth do we see the need ‘forcefully silence or suppress‘ the choice of Islam? Now, I am merely a Christian in this, but I do not see any reason here. In the second, the setting of ‘radical Islam‘ is equally an issue. What makes it radical? That is not me being clever, it is an actual question. When does any religion become ‘radical’?

Now, I am merely quoting Wiki here (just the easiest part), and important that as a Christian and not armed with a knowledge of Arabic, I might wrongfully quote her, so be aware of that. With: “In the 18th century, a pact between Islamic preacher Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and a regional emir, Muhammad bin Saud, brought a fiercely puritanical strain of Sunni Islam first to the Najd region and then to the Arabian Peninsula. Referred to by supporters as “Salafism” and by others as “Wahhabism”, this interpretation of Islam became the state religion and interpretation of Islam espoused by Muhammad bin Saud and his successors (the Al Saud family), who eventually created the modern kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932“, you see, my issue, perhaps partially better stated as my grievance with Nina Shea is not that she is a lawyer or a Christian, but that she is both. That one nation that has been hypocrite towards empowering outspoken Christians and Christian puritans at nearly every twist and turn of every American administration since WW1 is now speaking out against another puritan based religion? How screwed up is that?

And the fact that we also see in the Fox News pages that she currently is a leader of a campaign for Christians threatened with genocide by ISIS, is even worse. As American Presidents have refused to name the Armenian Genocide as such because of concerns over alienating Turkey, with former president Barack Obama being the latest weakling in that long line of individuals in denial. And when we get to alienating Turkey? Turkey alienated them self for a long time, going all the way back to 2001 and they only alienated themselves stronger with nearly everyone after that. So genocide is only recognised when it is in the interest of US political policies? How hypocrite is that? So even as this happened less than a year ago, we see: “But although ISIS’ genocidal intent has long been clear, the extent of the group’s atrocities has remained murky. Local authorities and human rights organizations have made some attempts to compile lists of victims. According to those lists, between 2,500 and 5,000 Yazidis had been killed by ISIS while over 6,000 had been kidnapped. But the UN has not yet been able to independently verify these figures” (source: www.foreignaffairs.com), so how should we see these differences?

Personally I have no issue with people and their religion, you see they can be a puritan as they want to be, and until they start pushing that onto us (read: me) they are fine. I have absolutely no regard for any Christian pushing their values onto others, in that I am quite happy to see the separation of state and church to be forever. There is in equal measure another issue, you see, puritan is often seen as ‘against pleasure‘, which is not always the case and that makes that discussion a lot harder, for what sets the definition of Puritan?

So when we see the quote from Nina Shea that gives us: “Now Europe is finding its voice with a new willingness to pressure the Saudi Arabian government to end its spread of extreme Islamic ideology, known in the West as Wahhabism“, so she has set ‘puritan‘ as ‘extreme version of‘. The question is on one side is what constitutes a puritan version as such and even if so, the Vatican forced Christianity into the world, whilst under its flag committed genocide by removing no less that 11 civilisations. The church and greed have gone hand in hand for centuries whilst the nobility, or should that be in modern tongue ‘Big Business’ have not been held accountable since before World War 1. The bible approved of slavery and in Matthew 19:14 and Mark 10:13 stated ‘Let the children come to me‘, Catholic priests saw that as an optional clear signal to fuck every young boy in town (whenever possible). So as the Holy See was considering thousands of priests actively taking the cherry from young boys for over 50 years, how many went to prison? In that light the media is equally to blame, until the movie Spotlight got the limelight in the Academy Awards, millions of Americans remained in denial. Even as the Boston Globe exposed it in 2002, it would take 13 years, until after the movie was released that the larger part of the media changed their tunes, the church still has that much power. So as we oppose one form of puritan religion, we see the outrages acts of our own religions and in that regard I have an issue with certain settings.

In addition we see: “As I told Congress in testimony last July, 16 years after the 9/11 attacks – led and carried out primarily by Saudis” we see yet another issue. In the first, this attack was done by Al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden, who was indeed born Saudi, yet he was banished from Saudi Arabia in 1992, 9 years before the event. More important, their family came from the Yememi Kindah, so another ‘faith’ altogether, in that regard, when we consider that Kindites converted to Judaism following the conversion of the Ḥimyarite kings, which happened roughly 1500 years ago, so why is she not blaming Israel in all this? It seems to me that Nina Shea has no religious agenda; she has a political one and is willing to play Saudi Arabia towards her needs. In the part that we accept that Al-Qaeda was made up from Islamic Extremists and Salafists, there is the legitimate question on how many of the members of Al-Qaeda are (still) Saudi, but is that even possible to grasp? There are so many splinter organisations, active all over the Middle East, In Yemen is gets even more of an issue where they are fighting the Houthi’s. The New York Post gave us two weeks ago: “An immigrant from Saudi Arabia suspected of applying to join an al-Qaeda training camp has been arrested on a visa fraud charge in Oklahoma, according to a report. The FBI recently discovered Naif Abdulaziz Alfallaj after his fingerprints matched those taken from a document found in Afghanistan“, it makes matters worse and less clear. It is not a clear picture for those getting all the information, for people like Nina Shea who are willing to ‘filter’ data before their presentation make matters worse, we do not only get a distorted picture, we get more non-truths (at times non-verifiable truths, or speculations) and as such the picture shift a little more. We can argue that to some Saudi citizens desire a life of ‘action’ in perhaps the wrong direction is preferred over whatever they had before. We have all had those moments. I myself have argued within myself to find 1-2 paedophilic priests and hang them in the nearest tree without trial, so should I join some anti-religion and blow up churches? Of course not, that would be just insane, but some might do just that.

So when we consider ‘members of the Ku Klux Klan planted and detonated dynamite at the 16th Street Baptist Church‘ we also need to see that J. Edgar Hoover had secret recordings that proving the involvement of guilty parties (according to some sources), he also ensured that a court could not use them as evidence to prosecute the attackers, making it more difficult to convict. For 14 years after the bombing, none of the men were prosecuted for their crime. The first one to be arrested (and convicted) was Robert Edward Chambliss in 1977. So we, Americans and non-American Christians alike have closets full of skeletons, perhaps when it comes to certain matters we should not be the judging or reforming parties in the matters of other nations.

Now, there are a few sides that do bare consideration.

Even if we agree with: “In 2010, a top U.S. Treasury counterterrorism official warned that without Saudi education reform “we will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”“, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state, it has its rights and it has forever been a Muslim state. You see, until the oil prices went down and the profits declined, America remained unwilling to hear any level of criticism on Saudi Arabia, making a lot of the matters in play hypocrite at best.

The next ‘wrongful representation‘ is “The West seems to be finally waking up. The new assertiveness shows official recognition of the link between Islamist ideology and terror, and our governments must keep it up“, you see, I see this as “as the profits are declining and as Saudi Arabia is now set to be a growing force beyond the petrochemical industry” we see issues because the ‘link between Islamist ideology and terror’ has been known for a long time and seen as such. Hamas, Hezbollah are the clearest ones. There is the Muslim Brotherhood, and plenty of others, whilst the PLO was delisted as a terrorist organisation is now again rearing its tail by no longer recognising the state of Israel, so that could escalate again. In addition we see that only the UK saw the Orange Volunteers as a terrorist organisation, I wonder why the US did not see it that way. So whatever makes that list is also very dependent on how they cross the United States of America (speculation on my side), so as the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia is becoming a growing centre of commerce and an economic power we start seeing more anti-Saudi events. Yet the US will happily sell all the weapons and planes they can for now. Nina also refers to a report that was classified and forced into the open in 2016 regarding the Saudi textbooks (at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/17/international-home/document-state-dept-study-on-saudi-textbooks.html), it is 148 pages, so read it there (the PDF was too large to place here).

My issue in this is not the paper; it is the chance of comprehending it all, it is linked to hundreds of books, to hundreds or issues all linked to the Koran and to the rights that Saudi Arabia has as a sovereign nation. We might not agree and as Christians we might to a certain degree oppose outside of Saudi Arabia, but its sovereign rights are as they wanted it, linked to the Muslim faith. We need to recognise that we are not all alike, that others have their rights and they need not be based on democracy. However we must also recognise that ‘democracy’ in America and largely in Europe is set towards what the rich and powerful want it to be. If you disbelief that then try to change laws in America that makes Wall Street criminally accountable. Good luck getting that done within the next 50 years!

You see, in support of my view, I would like to call attention to page 3, where we see “The national identity of Saudi Arabia is deceptively simple. It is an absolute monarchy“, so what makes a monarchy absolute? The Netherlands is a monarchy, so is Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain and a few others. So as these are predominantly Christian monarchies, are they not absolute or dangerous? Perhaps they are merely seeing eye-to-eye with the US and not that much of an economic threat? The EU and the ECB simmered down the European nations as threats is another view and it is for people with better economic degrees than mine to make a call on that. Again a speculation from my side, but it seems to me that the US would prefer every nation to be a republic, so that the larger corporations can sweep in and reduce that national population into a spreadsheet and reduce the abilities of those being a hindrance, a non-consumer or a liability.

We can take any view on these matters, but in the end we see a person with a rightful opinion get the centre stage all the way to the US Congress, whilst we consider her quote: “Germany finally pressed Saudi Arabia to close the King Fahd Academy in Bonn in spring 2017, according to a 2016 Deutsche Welle report. It first came under investigation 14 years earlier for alleged ties to al Qaeda“. The question that is here is ‘It first came under investigation 14 years earlier for alleged ties to al Qaeda‘, so was that ever proven? That is the part that Nina Shea does not want you to know; in addition there is the part that was in the Deutsche Welle. ‘Now, the King Fahd Academy is about to close its doors of its own accord‘, which she did not mention. In addition (at http://www.dw.com/en/controversial-saudi-school-in-bonn-to-close/a-19511109), we see the clear mention of ‘Moving beyond oil‘, it seems that Europe and the US stayed very silent whilst the oil profits were flowing their way making a lot Nina states even more hypocrite. So as Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is pushing stronger towards his “Vision 2030“, we see that slowly his reforms are catching hold, there is momentum and there is additional evidence that it is a worry for the United States, particularly the people who were having benefits on the matters before Vision 2030. When we consider the rumour from last month when we were introduced to “The new policy means Apple is administering collection and remittance of tax to authorities at a rate of 20 percent in Armenia and Belarus; 5 percent in Saudi Arabia; 18 percent in Turkey; and 5 percent in United Arab Emirates” we see the clear benefit for Apple to grow in Saudi Arabia, yet in that it could cost the US 20 cents to every dollar pushed to Saudi Arabia and as Apple tends to think in tens of billions, the US is about to lose out of a pretty penny they desperately need. In addition with Amazon and Google gaining tech hubs there, the loss of revenue and data is about to cost the US a lot more and in this greed driven economy that is what has been setting plenty of people over the rails and into the sea of chaos, frustration and outcry. So as Saudi Arabia ends up getting 5 data centres, how many will not be upgraded in the US or Europe in the near future? How much is that going to cost them?

These are all matters linked to the opinion of Nina Shea, because if that was not the case we would not have seen “These events are being driven by Western governments that are now pushing hard for the government of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to pull back from Wahhabist support – a push that appears to be working“, you see, the fact that (some) schools closed on their own accord was not mentioned, neither is any part of Vision 2030 which has been on the front page of the Saudi plans of actions for almost 2 years now and in addition, when we see “For decades European and U.S. leaders bit their tongues while the Saudi governments spent billions of dollars indoctrinating Sunni Muslim communities“, whilst not stating that the oil money flowing into these places was too good to ignore is equally an issue because it shows us to be hypocrite and it shows Saudi Arabia to be business oriented. OK, I will give you that the last part is not entirely correct, but why did Europe and the US bite their tongues? If they were so morally high we would have seen a lot more, an issue that never happened.

So who will Nina Shea blame for that? I reckon we will leave it non-mentioned (for now).

Finally we need to look at her statement “Tiny Belgium, population 11.27 million, has sent more Islamic fighters to Syria per capita than any other European country“, so when we see the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-balks-at-taking-back-isis-fighters-1518557328) where we see the quote “An estimated two to three dozen Belgian foreign fighters are in detention in Syria and Iraq, another Belgian official said“, so as we consider an unrelated statistic like “Hospital medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the United States. That’s 700 people per day, notes Steve Swensen“, the fact that we see the mention of 36 Belgium fighters in Syria in a pool of 5000, seems to be too irrelevant to use as a focal point in her presentation, whilst in the US 700 people a day die in Hospitals through mere errors. She has the wrong focus as illumination in her presentations. You see, it would not have mattered if she had mentioned the number of Belgium fighters and the total pool of ‘extremists’ but she did not want that, she wanted the hypocrite limelight, so I will happily keep a focus on her and how she tries to misinform the people around her next.

In all this Fox News should get an equal share in the blame by not setting the stage properly. By leaving too much unstated we should consider that the reliability of Fox News and what they present is equally taking a turn downwards.

In the end

In the end this was less about speaking for Saudi Arabia (they can do that themselves perfectly well), then speaking against Nina Shea. I find this a hatched job that should not have been placed on Fox News the way it was. Whatever points she could have made was drowned out by the misrepresentation that I see them to be and in several fields in many ways. This requires me to add her mention of ‘Islamist terror has replaced chocolate as Belgium’s best known export‘, you see the best export the Belgium ever had was beer, the finest in the world. And even as we agree that their chocolates are the best, we need to see that terrorism is not their export, or their best known export. Perhaps their flaw was to have the most cordial of borders in Europe, together with Sweden, yet as Sweden is up in the north and Belgium is caught between the Netherlands, Germany and France, there is no doubt that whatever they get came initially from one of the three other nations and guess what, Nina made no mention of that either. Perhaps because she was in doubt whether it was a good idea to piss the other three nations off? Again, merely speculation from my side, but in the end, we have seen in evidence from reputable sources that the economy has been a central reason in creating extremism, a part that has hit Belgium and several other nations. That too remains unmentioned.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science