Tuesday 31 July 2012

White Girl Bleed a Lot - Colin Flaherty interview

The Jamie Glazov Show that will air on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm EST) on Blog Talk Radio.

This week’s guest is: Colin Flaherty, award-winning writer of White Girl Bleed a Lot whose work has appeared in more than 1000 new sites around the world, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and others.

He is a former ghost writer for a Chairman of the US Commission on Civil Rights and author of White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence and How the Media Ignore It.

Boyle's Dream of England

Some while ago, when hearing that Shallow Grave director Danny Boyle had been commissioned to produce the opening ceremony to the London Olympics, I wrote an article in which I imagined what sort of spectacle Boyle might produce.  The result was widely mocked on the troll sites and also slightly less vindictively on Rational Wiki.

However, in an outcome that was beyond satire the result was worse than even I had imagined. Instead of effigies of Obama and Mandela we were presented with the real  life Doreen Lawrence, taking time off from attending court cases which her glowering presence might just influence, and Shami Chakrabarti. Meanwhile Danny Boyle set before us a vision of England which resembled a cross between a multiracial Gormenghast and rap night at the Spearmint Rhino.

All it lacked were the vuvuzlas, or did I miss those?

The only permissible reaction was to rave about how wonderful it was, while any criticism was treated in rather the same way as the Pyongyang authorities might respond to a streaker at the Dear Leader's funeral.

 The old media and the mob of great and good have viciously attacked Conservative MP Aidan Burley for describing the ceremony as “Leftie, multi cultural crap” however, I fail to see how he could be faulted on that description.  The ceremony portrayed a version of British history only recognisable from the prejudiced and distorted perspective of a left wing bigot.  It was aggressively multicultural to the degree of psychosis, and Mr. Burley’s critical assessment that it was crap is one I find hard to argue with.

The show was an example of ideological propaganda of which North Korea or the old Soviet Union would have been proud, and Mr. Burley was entirely correct in pointing it out for what it was.

However, we live in an age where telling the truth is a punishable offence, and I regret that Adrian Burley’s attempts at explaining himself or even apologising will not save him from a vengeful old media and a left desperate to protect its precious but deformed ideology.

One person who long ago gave up apologising or attempting to explain himself is the much maligned historian David Irving, and I invite you to enjoy his intelligent description of Friday night’s macabre cabaret

After having speculated that the queen might come to view the ceremony as one of the low point of her reign, Irving goes on to say:
IN her sixty years' rule she has seen the feckless politicians turn her kingdom from a mono-ethnic wellspring of world civilisation into a drug-crazed, gun-toting, knife-wielding "multi-cultural" cesspit. The British Empire imploded. The BBC television cameras hover lovingly on every Black immigrant face that has been shoe-horned, heedless of chronology, into the scenes that Boyle has devised -- including the top-hatted 19th Century capitalist factory-owners, and even the Suffragettes. Black children dance around 19th Century English Maypoles. Boxer, George Orwell's heroic carthorse in Animal Farm, would be scratching his forelock: didn't remember them, somehow. On the far side of the arena, meanwhile, the Empire Windrush berths to orchestrated cheers, bringing its first toxic cargo of Caribbean doom.
[What a come-down for the good ole Windrush. Launched in Hamburg in 1930 as the Monte Rosa, she became one of Hitler's Kraft durch Freude fleet of cruise-liners for German workers, served as a fleet auxiliary to the Tirpitz battle group in the 1940s, then heroically evacuated refugees from East Prussia before the Soviet onslaught in 1945.]
After the first hour, the constant and inappropriate interpolation of Black faces in this London Olympics ceremony becomes offensive, and probably as much so to them as to us, the Whites. There is brief relief when the outside-broadcast cameras go on to other celebrations in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, where there is not a single Black face for the BBC cameras to linger joyously upon.

No doubt they will be digitally inserted later, just as Black faces, looking remarkably like Robertson's Marmelade golliwogs, were digitally superimposed on some of Harry Potter's cheering fellow-pupils in the final scene of the first Potter movie.

Wednesday 11 July 2012

Frank Ledwidge, Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan

Frank Ledwidge, Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2011, viii + pp.267, Notes, bibliography, Index, ISBN 978-0-300-16671-2

I consider it to be the duty of anyone who sees a flaw in the plan not to hesitate to say so

General Einsenhower immediately before General Montgomery’s briefing for Operation Overlord, 15th May 1944

© Frank Ellis 2012 All Rights Reserved

Anger and shame assailed me when I was reading Losing Small Wars: anger with a corrupt Prime Minister (Blair) for the lies used to justify the deployment of British forces to Iraq and Afghanistan and the professional collusion of senior officers and the security services in the dissemination of the lies; and shame for the untold misery inflicted on Iraqi and Afghan civilians, the deaths and maiming of our soldiers and the lies used to comfort their families and to mislead the public. As if this was not bad enough, we are confronted at every turn in these badly judged deployments with far too many examples of incompetent political and military leadership in theatre. With all these failings and the scale of the invasion and occupation in Iraq, and the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Ledwidge’s title hardly does justice to what is revealed. In any case these are hardly ‘small wars’: the lying alone was and remains even now on a mass industrial scale.

If, having read Losing Small Wars, I had to identify the single most important failing about the disastrous British interventions in Iraq and, currently Afghanistan, it would be the failure on the part of the British government and its military advisers to spell out quite clearly why the British armed forces were ever deployed to these two parts of the Middle East. Factor out the obvious lies disseminated by Blair and his political-military clique that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that these weapons posed a threat to Britain and there was no justified reason for Britain’s ever having had anything to do with the US-led invasion of Iraq. Bush’s ravings that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler reflect the appalling ignorance of American presidents about the world. Such claims were intended to provide some weak justification for Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. Nevertheless they are pitiful claims. By the standards of Arab leaders Saddam Hussein was averagely repressive. Oil is a factor on the Middle East but did it require that the US and others invade Iraq and inflict such dreadful misery and suffering? If we went there to impose democracy and other Western abstractions then that too has been a catastrophic failure and one that was bound to be in a part of the world where Islam rules. Why do Americans and their too willing British allies not realise that the liberal democracies that evolved in a small part of northern Europe among small groups of racially homogenous peoples cannot be just imposed on what are Third World tribal societies? Here we see a deadly serious failure of imagination, caused by what Pat Buchanan has correctly identified as democratic fundamentalism and which has been made to appear fallaciously plausible by the malevolent ideology of multiculturalism and neo-conservatism.

As for the British Army’s being in Afghanistan, no British politician has yet provided a convincing argument for the deployment. Brown’s claims that British troops in Afghanistan made the UK safer were obvious lies and so obviously clumsy one wonders why he thought he could get away with peddling such nonsense. Equally mendacious are the claims that UK forces are helping the Afghan population to build a better future. Do the Taliban – they are part of the Afghan population – want our help? How do we help people by laying their country waste and imposing utterly alien institutions such as elections and education and undermining the foundations of a tribal society? Other possible reasons for our being there may be related to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fears about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (and oil, of course). But even these are not that convincing when trying to find an explanation for why Britain has expended so much blood and treasure. Remove any geo-political considerations and one is left with the interests and rivalries of the three services. Ledwidge refers to remarks made by General Dannatt to a British diplomat that if the British army, with an exit date from Iraq established, did not redeploy its battle groups to Afghanistan, they would be removed in any Strategic Defence Review. Ledwidge also suggests that the British army wanted to go to Helmand to show what it could do and attempt to compensate for its less than glorious performance in southern Iraq. Another factor prompting the deployment was, as always, a desire on the part of senior British politicians and officers to ingratiate themselves with the Americans, to try to rebuild their damaged stock. 

Monday 9 July 2012

Financial crossbreeding.

By August Pointneuf

Politics is that pie slice of human behaviour which can be looked at as behaviour under constraint.

Economics is another pie slice - human behaviour which can be reduced to digital markers. It cannot be regarded as independent of the broad behaviour of humans, and must conform to the behavioural rules of human activity. Because economics can be reduced to mathematics is has another role. It can be used as an instrument to understand complex societal behaviour overall.


The Euro was created in an attempt to “unify” the financial patterns of the diverse groups of Europe. That illustrated the inherent folly of the politicians in the European Union. When a single monetary unit was imposed across a wide spectrum of societies the naive fumbling the political engineers assumed that human behaviour could be permanently changed by diktat.

But they failed to understand that economics was only a small outward feature of overall human behaviour. Finances cannot be manipulated independently of that. The political fatal assumption was that the underlying behavioural variances of different groups and nations could be forced into a universalized “economic” behaviour by imposing a “universal” currency.

From the outset it was not conceptually possible that a Thessalonian goatherd could be expected to behave - socially, culturally and economically - in the fashion of a banker in Bonn. By even attempting to force this, the European Union demonstrated its political gaucherie.

It is true that human humans can be changed by external forces, but only temporally, and only by suppression. Human behaviour is far too intricate and complex to be remodeled by muscle.

It is no coincidence that when the controlling politicians of Soviet Union and the Nazis wished to show their power they used parade-ground disciplined demonstrations of military manoeuvres to express their authority. After the parade the participants, of course, reverted to their previous behaviour.

A universal currency should represent a consistent value to all its users. It should display value parity. But it is an economic truism that the value of a currency should reflect the productivity of the user group, (when compared with a “marker” currency). Said another way any currency is expected to possess”productivity parity”

Currency values are therefore secondary to (and are determined by) the behaviour of the population which issues that currency. It cannot be the other way around: A currency cannot determine the behaviour of a population.

But the nations which were persuaded to use the Euro were highly varied. They had different resource mixes, differing population ages and various levels of socialism. The per capita savings and concepts of wealth (which included the willingness to rely on promissory notes, i.e. borrowing on the premise that it expected those borrowings to be honoured) differed. Most important, productivity differed.

In the complex equation which is Europe, inequality of productivity exists. Therefore the value of the euro (expressed in terms of the interchangeable bonds) cannot reflect equal value parity. Any currency is ultimately committed to reflect the productivity of that individual national culture. Equality of productivity has never (indeed will never) happen in the European Monetary Area because of the very varied societal behavioural patterns of the nations –which are now in stressed bondage.

As a result Greeks pay a higher interest rate to lure purchases. Greek bonds, although denominated in Euro therefore cost less. The Germans, on the other hand, do not need to lure investors; instead investors clamour for their bonds because they believed that their money would be safer with the Germans then it would be with the Greeks.

Since a Greek Euro denominated bond now has less value than German Euro bond, a Greek Euro is now worth less than a German Euro.

Bizarre? Yes, but only because of the bizarre underlying fallacy that the behaviour patterns of different groups could be economically forced into synchrony.

Devaluing money from an unproductive country (i.e. causing its bonds to devalue) moves money from that country (making it more poor) to another (making it more rich).

Now that the Euro has been seen not to hold consistent value parity it can only be doomed to a relentless downward spiral of inconsistent value.

Since it will not be possible to force lasting conformity on the variety of societal groups that use the Euro, the euro must fail.


Any attempt to separate economic behaviour from the broader field of universal human behaviour is folly.

Changes in monetary value of nations put on show the underlying differences in cultural and behaviour as expressed by their diverging "economics".

Since politics and economics overlap they can offer parallel messages. The EU’s predictable failure as a monetary system now presages an equally predictable failure of its political union.

Thus where differing peoples are ordered, by political directives, to behave in “universal” fashion the same catastrophic cascades can be expected to occur politically.

The most important of these political directives, by the European Union, is that varied populations have been ordered to tolerate alien cultural distinctions and “ignore” obvious differences whether these are racial, linguistic, cultural or behavioural. People are forced - by law - to transgress the natural interface between different communities, obliging them to suppress their instinctive, protective reactions.

This social perturbation, if forced union continues, will be the same as shown in the economic model - widening divergences accelerating into an avalanche of chaos. The endpoint will be conflict and societal destruction.

This predicts that ultimately the entire European Union is politically doomed.


End note: the EMA seems never to have learned that while the Germanys were divided (and socio-economically different) the “official” exchange rate was one Ostmark to one Westmark. Reality forced the (empirical and realistic) black-market rate to six inferior Ostmark to one Westmark, Helmut Kohl lured voters in East Germany by promising – misleading to engineer his re-election - that reunification would permit a one-to-one exchange of Marks. This another political legerdemain succeeded only to have repercussions which still reverberate: West Germans continue to pay for that political chicanery.

The Observer in the Gallery

It would be inappropriate to comment on the trial of former England football captain, John Terry, charged with using racially offensive language on the football pitch, whilst the case is still going on.  However, I found it interesting, and a little troubling, to note, that Mrs Doreen Laurence mother of Stephen Lawrence, the martyred saint of the anti-racist cause, felt it appropriate to attend the trial as an observer in the gallery.