Our Wonderful Language

The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for the various groups of animals. Consider these examples. 

We are all familiar with a: Herd of cows, Flock of chickens, School of fish a Gaggle of geese, and A Pride of lions. However, less widely known is: A Murder of crows An Exaltation of doves And, presumably because they look so wise: A Congress of owls. Now consider a group of Baboons. They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive and least intelligent of all primates......... And the proper collective noun for a group of baboons is - Believe it or not ……. A Parliament     That's right, A PARLIAMENT OF BABOONS! Pretty much explains everything doesn't it?

Tension in the East

At present the world is focused on the tension between the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian people, and, as ever, there is a long history here, and a lot of deceit, passion and ambition. If one looks back in history, the Ukraine has had some very varied fortunes. It straddles one of the 'High Roads of History' and has seen waves of invaders from time immemorial. It has been 'occupied' by Ghengis Khan's hordes, it was once divided between the Ottoman Empire, Poland and Lithuania. Even the Hungarians have held parts of it at times, and from about 1400 onwards, the Russians have gradually absorbed more and more of it.

The people who identify themselves as Ukrainian have been deported, relocated, supplanted and suppressed, but they remain an ethnic and linguistic group. And they have, over the years held onto that no matter where they are, and, if possible, have drifted back to their land. The Crimea is a complicated problem on all sides, since it was not, except geographically, part of the original Ukraine, and its people were the Tartars, a largely Muslim group. Enter 19th Century politics, and the desire of Britain and France to prevent Russian influence spreading into the Middle East, and now we have the Crimean War in support of the dying Ottoman Empire. The outcome is probably best descriobed a stalemate, since Russia retained possession of the Crimea, the Ottomans lost territory and Britain and France got no more than a halt in Russian expansion. Add to this our support (by Naval bombardment) for the White Russian forces in the Black Sea and Ukraine-Crimea and you begin to see the background to the present difficulty.

Like the Georgians, the Tartars and the Ukrainians weren't too keen on the Bolsheviks who were mainly Russian, and fought for the White Russians, probably hoping to win their freedom from the Russian hegemony. Lenin and then Stalin exacted a ferocious revenge for that. Particularly under Stalin, large numbers of Ukrainians were deported from the eastern areas and replaced by ethnic Russians. The Tartars resisted, got 'cleansed', and then deported, and replaced by ethnic Russians again. Post 1945 western leaders - according to Josephus the Correspondent on this blog - may have been naive when they forcibly returned to Russia the captured Georgians and Ukrainians who had joined the German Nazi SS to fight against Stalin. The 40,000 Georgians were executed almost as soon as they landed, and the Ukrainians (some reports refer to two 'Divisions') simply vanished. No doubt some of the skeletons that turn up from time to time are all that remains of them.

The Ukrainians hoped, when the USSR broke up, to be able to restore their independence - lost since around 1600 - and become a part of the western European family of nations with which they identify themselves. They reckoned without the fact that the ethnic Russians, transplanted into their midst, would have none of it. Russia depends on the Ukraine for its supply of wheat. The Ukraine is not called the 'Bread Basket of Russia' for nothing. The problem for the Ukrainians is that, under the treaties binding them to Russia, it is the Kremlin that sets the price they get for it, and determines who they can sell to. Having all but exhausted the oil and gas reserves in the Ukraine, the Russians are now the suppliers of both commodities to that country - and again, the Kremlin dictates the terms, prices and conditions. Every winter in the last few years, the Kremlin has 'turned off' the supply to the western parts on one pretext or another, usually to prevent the sort of overthrow of their puppet regime we have just seen. And then there is the Russian military presence.

The Crimea is a complication. Until Kruschev placed it under the administrative control of Kiev in 1954 it was never a part of the Ukraine. Now, of course, it is essentially an armed camp, bristling with ethnic Russians and Russian troops. Not surprising, of course, since it is the base for the Black Sea Fleet, and the place where all the Russian Duma members have their holiday homes.

Josephus, in an email to me recently, summed it up like this -

I've been reading the BBC news pages on this topic and find some of the usual half-truths and blinding ignorance on display. 

However, they show maps of the ethnic demographic and the votes in the EU/Russia referendum.  The split is almost exactly linked to the ethnic identity in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.  Basically, those with EU neighbours wish to be closer to the EU and those with Russian neighbours whish to be closer to Mother Russia.  I find this totally understandable.

Putins actions, however are being misrepresented, yes he wishes Ukraine to remain a buffer state between him and NATO, it prevents him having a hostile boundary to "police".  The USSR had its buffer states, but they are now mostly EU, most notably Poland and the former GDR.

Putin has (knowing full well he would not be opposed directly) flooded Crimea with troops.  Bearing in mind that 58% of the population identifies as  ethnically Russian and that the Naval lease on the Sevastopol base runs until 2042 this will have been quite easy, it is also rumoured that officials are handing out Russian passports like sweeties.

BUT!  Crimea is not Ukraine, yes Kruschev handed it to the Ukraine Oblast in 1954 but it is a very separate region.  Ukraine could give Putin Crimea and hardly notice the difference.

The real question is "Can Ukraine consider itself one united country when 70%+ of the Eastern populace voted to stay East and 70%+ of the western to go West?"

Should Ukraine split itself along ethnic and language lines?

Bohemia certainly seems happy as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, such splits have been made within recent memory, the Balkans also provide examples, although not perfect ones.

Josephus has found the following images which explain something of the population split rather well.

 

The western powers find themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma here. Should Mr Putin get away with 're-incorporating' Ukraine into the Russian Federation as he evidently would like to do, who among the former Soviet satellite states will be next to be targeted? I suspect that this is a question many are asking privately, and many of the former Russian vassal peoples must be worried. We have seen his enforced partition of Georgia, and there has been a similar 'grab' of part of Moldova. Always the excuse is the same  - to 'protect' the interests of ethnic Russians. 

Funny how no one seems to make the link between these and a certain 'leader' in the 1930s and 40s who made similar claims. Nor does there seem to be any acknowledgement of the right of the majority populations to choose who their governors should be. The fact is that the Russians have consistently flouted the Geneva Convention articles which forbid ethnic transplantations and the seizure of territory from sovereign states by military force. If they are permitted to continue in this manner, what is to stop everyone else from doing the same? There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere - but I can't see the present collection of western politicians doing it.

Israel the 'obstacle' to peace?

I was delighted to see the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the Bundespräsident, Joachim Gauck, have roundly dismissed the call for Germany to impose 'sanctions' on Israel and to 'boycott' and 'disinvest' from Israeli businesses and trade. They are right, and the movement that calls for this is hypocritical. They do not acknowledge Istrael's right to exist, or the Jewish people's right to defend themselves. They are so blinded by their own lies and propaganda they refuse to see the realities of life in the socalled 'Palestinian Territories', which were seized by Jordan and Egypt immediately after the UN itself had drawn the boundaries of Israel to include them in Israel. Jordan and Egypt then proceeded against Art. 33 of the Geneva Convention, to relocate their own citizens to these territories and to consolidate them into their own countries. In an even more cynical move post the 1973 Yom Kippur War (which most of the promoters of boycotts, sanctions and so on probably think was a war of 'liberation'), Jordan and Egypt colluded to create the 'Palestinian State' on the West Bank and Gaza.

Why was this cynical? Put simply, the two areas are not viable 'states' and with no connecting corridor, can never be a homogenous territory. It is a fiction that they can even begin to be. Just as it is a total fiction that the 'Palestinian People' are the victims. As a simple bit of research son uncovers, most of those claiming this status are, at best, socnd generation 'Palestinians' since the name itself did not exist before Yasser Arafat created it in the 1970s. The British named the whole area 'Palestine' which was not its name under the Ottoman Turks, and if there is a 'Palestine' today, it is the Kingdom of Jordan according to maps drawn up and agreed by the League of Nations and accepted after the Jewish people rejected the British attempt to subject them to a second holocaust in 1946-7. The British had handed over the keys to the arsenals, the local and regional government and the military to the Hashemite Arabs despite the declared intention of them and every other Arab leader to 'cleanse' the land of Jews. They even deported desperate refugees back to the very concentration camps they'd just been released from. And now, British politicians, to what should be the shame of every Briton, do and say nothing to stop the perpetuation of lies, misinformation and anti-Jewish propaganda.

Synagogues in Britain are regularly defaced, and Jews attacked in our streets and nothing is said. But don't touch a mosque, or threaten a Salafist, or Islamist on a British street with the thrashing they deserve. Anti-semitism is fine, as long as its called 'anti-Zionism' - but 'Islamaphobia' is a heinous crime. So, our politicians hide behind a fiction of being impartial, of seeking 'peace' in the Middle East, but privately promoting the eradication of Israel by covertly supporting and encouraging the anti-Israel movements. Watch our Foreign Secretary duck and weave when any of this is discussed. Watch the BBC always promote the 'suffering' of the 'Palestinians' and justify the descration of Christian and Jewish holy places. Listen as they perpetuate the lies and the deceits. Let's face it, if you establish a bomb factory in a block of flats crowded with women and children, or make children play between you and the missile launchers, are you not expecting to get them killed? Just who is klilling the children in that situation? In my view it is Hamas, Al Fatah, Hezbollah and the rest of these gangsters, not the IDF.

It is often stated in the western media that Israel refuses to 'concede' this or that in the interests of 'peace' in the Middle East, but, when one actually looks at the truth, rather than the Arab propaganda, a very different picture emerges. I found this on the blog "The Elder of Zyon" and the fact is that his information is correct. The Arab League, which 'created' the Palestinian People out of refugees they have deliberately kept in camps and refused to allow to integrate into their host populations since 1948, don't want 'peace' with Israel, they want its complete eradication and have said so.

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Arab definition of "peace," 1948

This comes from a July 8, 1948 memo from the Arab League to UN mediator Count Bernadotte rejecting the extension of the truce during Israel's War of Independence. (I found this in a 1962 book of Arab League documents.)

The Arab States, however, were again disappointed when they received the proposals of the Count which he had based on partition, on the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and on recognition of what has been called the "accomplished" fact brought about by the Zionist gangs. We do not think that the Mediator is unaware that the present struggle is directed against the idea of partition and against the establishment of a Jewish state. Yet he soon took this as a basis for his proposals, (thus) disregarding the rights of the Arabs.

The Zionists are going ahead with the establishment of their so-called "state". There is nothing in this to encourage the prolongation of the cease-fire and the finding of a peaceful solution. The Mediator himself is fully convinced, as he has said on one occasion, that there is no hope of convincing the Jews to give up their state.

This means that the cease-fire will not enable us to find a peaceful solution.

Even then, the Arabs would use Western concepts of "peace" when talking to the West - but as they made clear, their definition of peace means no Jewish state.

Perhaps it is time the western 'peacemakers' like Blair, Kerry and the various Foreign Affairs departments all with fingers in the pie of appeasing the Arabs, and blaming the Jews, got real. Maybe it's time they admitted there is no hope of 'peace' until the Arabs accept that they do not have a right to destroy a people or a faith that built the city they claim to be the third holiest place in their faith (The Prophet never ever set foot there and until it became a symbol of their 'struggle' the mosques on the Temple Mount (former Christian Churches) were in a pretty run down state!) or provided the foundation of their faith. Perhaps it is time to stop pandering to the hatred of the Arabs and tell them, in no uncertain terms, to grow up.

Israel was created out of the broken promises of the British government in 1947-8, and recognised by the UN. That 'recognition' was immediately undermined by the Arab side in their attempt (using British led Armies) to 'drive the Jews into the sea'. They failed. Jordan imposed a 'province', in clear contravention of International law, on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt grabbed Gaza. Both then carried out a purge of Jewish families in these areas, many of them with roots going back to Biblical times. Both ignored the Geneva Convention, Article 33, which forbids the incorporation of land seized by war into the aggressor state. Neither had a right to repopulate these territories - as they did - with people moved from their own countries, and neither had a right to 'give up the land' to create the farce that is the Palestinian 'State' of today.

Let's get real. Let's recognise that the Arabs are the greatest obstacle to peace. They, not the Istraelis, are the aggressors. They label the Israelis as "Zionist gangs" but refuse to acknowledge the public statements on the eve of the 1947 British withdrawal, in which their leaders declared their intention of 'cleansing Palestine' of Jews, or of 'making the sea red with the blood of the Jews'. It is time to make them confront the evil in their own minds, to make them accept there can be no acceptance of such attitudes in the future. It is time to remind them that, much like today's Jihadis, the Grand Mufti of Istanbul helped raise a Division for the Nazi SS in Turkey, and that the Grand Mufti of Mecca attempted to do the same - both with the express desire to 'purge the Jews' from history.

The only stumbling block I can see is that they are now the owners of so much of London and so much of the world's banking system ... Well, money talks. It always has. Blair, Kerry, et al will continue ton take the thirty pieces of silver, and continue to be seeking peace in the full knowledge there is no intention of finding it.

Paperback Available

The Outer Edge is now avialable as a paperback as well as in the Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and Apple iBooks versions, but, at the moment, listed only on the US Amazon site. It is always exciting for an author when his book takes on a physical form, and I'm old fashioned enough to like holding a book even though I do have a number of 'e-books' in my collection.

The publisher, IndieGo Publishing has put a lot of effort into producing both the electronic versions and now the 'hard copy' and have produced a good looking book. Did I say I was pleased? Well, I'll say it again anyway. I'm really pleased with the way this book has been produced and I hope that readers will enjoy the story.

Internet Trolls are Psychopaths?

A few days ago, some interesting research hit the news. Everyone who has used a 'discussion forum' online, or perhaps posts to a blog, even uses FaceBook to post 'updates' abot their activities, or reads the comments beneath articles in online newspapers, will have encountered at least one 'troll'. These people never debate or discuss anything. They resort to offensive smears, name calling and often extremely personal attacks on any and every topic, from religion, through climate change and politics. Even science threads are not completely free of them.

The Canadian research, which is comprehensive in its sample and extensive in the testing, has come up with an interesting conclusion. 'Trolls' are generally people who display Machiavellian manipulative traits; they enjoy causing offence and hurt; they enjoy causing fear (one acquaintance had an exchange with a Troll, who then stalked her across the internet, making personal threats. The Police were called and traced him. He turned out to be a 13 year old with the classic psychopath profile) through stalking and threats, and who have sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. This should concern us, because it is often these behaviours that make the running on a wide range of subjects and topics in todays world.

Just look at how the political debate between left and right ideologies seems to have become bogged down and dominated by epithets, offensive labels and name-calling. Look at the typical behaviours of those leading it. It seems to be particularly prevalent among many 'atheists' who troll religious debates and sites. The same has happened in the 'climate change' debate - it is the Trolls who make all the running and currently have the attention of policy makers and politicians. Why is 'cyber bullying' such a problem? Once again, it is those inclined to 'trolling' who are the lead offenders, and other studies over the years have suggested a strong link between 'bullying' and psychopathic and sadistic behaviours.

Among the classic indicators found by the researchers was 'desire to hurt' among many Trolls. These people actively take 'roles' in online games which give them the best opportunity to 'cause hurt' to other game characters, or 'kill' opponents. Another tendency is to regard animals and people as 'things', objects to be used, manipulated and abused. Again, classic psychopath behaviour. Once someone becomes an 'object' he or she is no longer considered to have any more value than would be given to, say, a stone or a window to be broken with it.

The online Independent carries a good report on the research here.  The full report is available (behind a paywall) at Science Central entitled "Trolls just want to have fun". Unfortunately, it does seem that their idea of fun is to cause as much distress and pain as possible to anyone who happens to come into contact through the internet or any other medium.

We should be worried by this, since it does tell us something important about the society we have blundered into creating. Perhaps it is also a call to run a few checks on the trolls - none of the traits they display can be termed 'healthy' for anyone, least of all themselves. The research raises some very interesting questions across a very wide spectrum of behaviours closely related to 'trolling', with big implications for a number of organisations who encourage it as a part of 'civil action' for their causes.

When Politicians start to be 'certain' it's time to check which planet they're on ...

The US Secretary of State, Mr Kerry, seems to never read a briefing paper, or to have much contact with reality. Dr Judith Curry, a climate scientist of considerable note, though NOT one of the 'team', says it far better than I can. She is, after all, a scientist.

She has a long article on Mr Kerry's pronouncements on climate change on her blog.  I am more and more convinced that all of this hysteria on the subject of climate change is a cover for an agenda which wishes to de-industrialise and de-commercialise the western nations and economies, turning them into someone's ideal of a pre-industrial cottage industry style aggrarian world. I note that it is always the 'west' that must cut consumption, cut fuel use, cut emissions and cut its economic throat to 'save the planet' or 'give developing nations a fair deal' with the same never being asked of any of the real polluters and over populators.

The truth is that our leaders are apparently hell bent on destroying our economies in pursuit of the policies set out in the UN's Agenda 21. The question I ask is this; who, precisely, will benefit from it? Certainly not our societies, or our children.

Climate and Weather

Once again I see the terrible weather the UK and Europe have been enduring - the UK in particular taking the brunt of it - is fuelling the 'Global Warming/Climate Change' hysteria. Yet another 'paper' has been rushed into print claiming that 93% of the 'missing heat' (the gap between reality and climate model predictions) is lurking in the oceans. The Polar Vortex responsible for this battering we are currently enduring is, apparently, caused by the ice loss and warming of the Arctic Ocean. The paper also claims that Antarctica is losing its ice shelves, and the reason for the current increase in ice there is - you got it - global warming 'trapping' a vortex over the continent.

I get fed up with selective quotes, buzz phrases (the users of which seldom actually know what they mean) and headlines like "unprecedented" or "worst XXX in history". I get fed up with being told that something has never happened before, when right in front of us is ample evidence that it has, and may even have been worse. Why did the Victorians build the Embankments along the Thames in London? Why did the coastal authorities in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries spend enormous amounts of money (often the landowner's own) and effort building land drains, dykes and sea defences? Because none of these events or storms is "unprecedented" except in the minds of idle ignoramuses who never check their facts and are totally ignorant of any history. In medieval times an entire town vanished overnight in a storm that hit the Frisian coast of Germany. Archaeologists now know that wasn't 'unprecedented' then either. Holland has suffered massive flooding throughout its history, and the Thames suffered 'catastrophic' floods at regular intervals until quite recently. In fact, in February 1928 there was massive flooding in much the same areas now affected, people drowned in the western suburbs of London in the floods. So how is the current flood 'unprecedented'?

There can be no doubt that the climate is changing, but to ascribe it, as so many reports do, purely to the Carbon Dioxide emissions of mankind is pure garbage. "Carbon" has become a 'catch-all' word for everything Greenpeace and its devotees cal a 'greenhouse gas' - in which group they now include water vapour. But how many of the idiots who earnestly repeat this trash actually understand anything at all about the 'gases' they deem to be so harmful? Not many if any of the conversations and news reports I am constantly bombarded with are anything to go by. Once again we see the likes of the Labour Leader, and the Minister for the Environment trotting out the buzz phrase that 'we must de-carbonise society' in order to 'prevent catastrophic climate change'. As I have repeatedly said, the day I see proof they can control the rise and fall of the tides, is the day I will subscribe to this trash. Until then, stop running around like Chicken-licken screaming the sky is falling, and let's get real. The answer to climate change - a natural phenomenon that has been happening since the planet first formed - is to adapt.

Stop building in flood plains would be a good start. The Somerset Levels were a sea marsh until they were drained in the 18th and 19th Centuries, so were the Fens. The other little wriggle is that we now have probably 30 times the number of people living in Britain than at the beginning of the Industrial Age. Urban sprawl has increased run-off, created 'heat islands' and 'micro-climates' which all mess up the weather patterns - so let's take a look at the effect those have as well.

Let's do something positive about finding a reliable and efficient source of electrical energy. I'd love to see the figures for the output of all those damned useless windmills during the storms. I'm prepared to take a bet with the High Street Bookmakers that it was not the vaunted 17% capacity they supposedly give. I'd be surprised if it was as much as 1 or 2% because with the wind speeds reported, most of them will have had to be shut down to prevent damage. So the alternative supplies will have been brought online - massive diesel generating plants quietly installed by the wind generating companies to keep the current flowing when the wind turbines aren't producing. And Drax, the massive coal burning plant currently being converted to burn wood chips imported from Western Canada by rail and ship loads. Yes, I expect that does a huge amount to "de-carbonise" our energy use, Mr Milliband.

Yes, let's replace hydrocarbon fuelled vehicles with electric ones - but let's find a more efficient way of using those than with massive and extremely toxic batteries. Let's find better ways to build and insulate our homes. Let's make those less vulnerable and more efficient even if that means replacing and redesigning all the building stock we currently hang onto as if it were the epitome of architectural and construction achievement. Frankly, most of it was substandard when built, and it hasn't improved with age. I'm not talking about real heritage buildings, but, seriously, what is the attraction of a Victorian Terrace built for "t' workers up t' mill"? The rooms are often damp, cramped and even if the house has been renovated, built right onto the street, has no garden and the street outside is choked with the cars not invented when the houses were built.

Climate Change, like the tides, is unstoppable. Like the tides, or continental drift, we can't stop it. So let's, for pities sake, stop wasting time and money trying to 'stop' it. It's time to get seriously real. The 'Climate Scientists' can't actually say which way it's going anyway, since nature has, so far, refused to conform to their fantasy models, and while Britain is bombarded by rain and storms, the North American continent is being buried in snow and ice. All down to 'Global Warming' you see. Most of these models are using data that has been 'smoothed' or 'averaged' and 'adjusted' to fit the model, which means the data fed into them is pretty close to being worthless - except in terms of how much money can be extracted from the tax payer to keep funding the circus.

So here's a radical idea. Stop funding the research into this. Let the UN pay for it if they can find the money and divert it from the wastage and corruption of that fraudulent organisation. Stop funding the multi-million dollar operations of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, etc., all of which are now become purely political (socialist/communist) organisations. Stop subsidising the inefficient wind farms (a wind turbine is, at best, only 27% efficient, whereas a coal fire power station is at least 43% efficient and most likely more). The money saved could be invested in rebuilding our building stock, and in new generating plants with the latest and most efficient technology. Wind and solar won't do it, and neither are as 'clean and green' as their proponents like to argue.

I think I really must stop being practical. I wonder of the Church of Climate Change dances and uses tambourines in their worship? Might be good for a laugh ...