for previously archived news article
pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)
This page helpful?
Share it ! Like it !
on politicians - rogue, controversial or just bluster?
"Of all the real concerns facing Britain, the British parliament is actually debating whether Donald Trump should be banned from the UK?! Every hard-working Brit should be up in arms that their elected officials are wasting their time, including tax payer funds, to debate such a stupid and inconsequential matter. What if Trump wins the presidential election? Will they ban an American president from their country? What about those British citizens who may agree with Trump? Will they too be banned from their own country?"
The Hoi Polloi, by popular outcry, wanted a 'debate'.
The British parliament is sort of democratic, so the Hoi Polloi got their 'debate'.
Thus, the party of the Hoi Polloi were given an opportunity to bluster and grandstand. But that party is shrinking and no-one with any intelligence believes that party has any relevance. (They're a bit like the lying Hillary Clinton, the Marxist Barak Obama and the nutty Bernie Sanders in the USA.)
The Hoi Polloi representatives had their time-wasting comedy.
So now we can go back to sleep, which anyone politically sophisticated, or with a modicum of intelligence, knew full-well would happen before the performance ever started.
Do you suppose Donald Trump the blow-hard will get the nomination? If that occurred, do you suppose Hillary the pathological liar would beat him, or will she get ten years jail?
Or will you be left with Sanders? He's the fellow who took his honeymoon in socialist Russia.
Our version, currently Opposition 'leader', took one of our more ludicrous, idiot party 'female' MPs (law-makers) around Socialist Russia on the back of his motor-bike - no marriage licence wanted.
The one before that was raised a Marxist by his daddy, just like Obama, but our one didn't get elected.!
france, russia, germany - the history they don't teach you
It is clear from Hillary Benn's summing up speech during the recent Syria debate in the UK, that he does not understand the overall political forces in Western Europe before WW2. Nor does he understand that Franco was fighting to stop an invasion of Spain by Stalin, and then by Hitler. Franco was a military dictator, but not a Fascist.
The three socialist dictators, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, used the civil war in Spain [1936 to 1939] as a proxy war to test their military machines. Note that the U.S.S.R. (Russia) was outspending Germany by 5 to 4.
France was seeking alliance with the U.S.S.R., in preparation should Germany attack. France was a a country with a smaller and more backward (agricultural/peasant) economy than Germany. As well, France had ruined their economic situation by clinging to the gold standard, while most advanced countries abandoned it in the face of the Great Depression. Poland was trapped between the allied Socialist dictators. The only hope for France was Germany would recoil from another two-front war.
Paul Reynaud, French Prime Minister at the start of WW2 (21 March - 16 June 1940) and known as the French Churchill, commented:
"Do you want, in spite of the advice of very competent generals who went to study the tank regiments in Russia and found them outstanding, to judge the Russian army as worthless? It is said that the Soviet air force is most up to date and that it has proved its value in Spain. Do you want us to consider it valueless? [Spoken in 1938, p.61, ibid.]
In the thick of the fight, 1930-1945 is the only useful source of Reyaud's career I could find in English. It is a translation of Paul Reynaud's account of France, and Europe, before and during WW2, written contemporaneously.
Reyaud kept warning the French, as Churchill warned Britain. The French behaved as foolishly as did Britain, but France doesn't have a moat.
It is fascinating to see Hitler as viewed from France, instead of from England.
"He who wishes to buy the friendship of his enemy will never be very rich". Bismark This comment reminds me of responses to Pootin's behaviour.
Hitler won a court case banning Mein Kampf appearing in a French edition.
"For Germans it is a sacred book. one does not correct the Koran."
"Money is filth." Hitler
"However unexpected it may seem, Macdonald appears to me to be very struck by Mussolini."
Paul-Boncour, French foreign minister, 1933 (Macdonald was the then Labour PM in the UK).
"An economic system does not absorb credits, or at least, does not use them when it does not possess a margin of profit." Hitler
In the thick of the fight, 1930-1945 is a door-stop worth reading, both for its view of that period, and for information that is so often being rewritten out of history by the current left-wing media and politicians, eager to make sure the common man forgets the lessons of history.
An excellent book, worthy of Five GoldenYaks.
After several years of France asserting, with regard to the League of Nations, that all countries who want peace must stand together against National Socialist and Fascist warmongering, Britain was less inclined to being enmeshed in such treaties.
Mussolini decided to invade against Abyssinia. Britain decided
to stand firm against Mussolini.
At just this point, France got cold feet.
Paul Reynaud was French Prime Minister at the start of WW2, and was known as the French Churchill.
The following is from his speech made to try to change opinion in France. Unfortunately France would not move.
"On the day Germany attacks Austria, she will say: 'But the Austrian people were coming to greet us with open arms.' On the day she attacks Czechoslovakia she will say:; 'There exists in Czechoslovakia a German and a Slav minority.' On the day she attacks Yugoslavia she will say: 'The Croats of Yugoslavia are bearing with difficulty the yoke of the Serbs.' On the day she attacks Roumania, she will say: There is a large Hungarian minority.' " [p.74, In the thick of the fight, 1930-1945]
And here, this speech is rewritten for today:
"On the day Pootin attacks Georgia, he will say: 'But the Georgian people were coming to greet us with open arms.' On the day he attacks the Ukraine he will say; 'There exists in Ukraine a Russian minority.' On the day he attacks the people of Syria he will say: 'Aassad wants us to protect him from the people.' On the day he attacks Crimea , he will say: 'There is a large Russian-speaking minority.' "
From Hitler's address to the commanders of the Wehrmacht on 22 August 1939, the so-called second speech:
"I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war, whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory."
"Close your hearts to pity. Act brutally. Eighty million people must obtain what is their right. Their existence must be made secure. The strongest man is right."
In the thick of the fight, 1930-1945
by Paul Reynaud, translated by James D. Lambert
from Au coeur de la mêlée, 1951
"the jesuits are trying to take over the world" - socialism is mental/social poison
"The bourgeois families of France, like the middle classes today, wanted the best available education for their children irrespective of their own personal principles and prejudices. The Jesuits were unpopular, he said, but the [...] respectable folk of the [French] court and of the capital, did not care — it is enough for them to know that the Jesuits give a perfectly good education to youth in general." [Church and society in eighteenth-century France, vol.2, pp. 510-1]
In the mid-1700s, as they were trying to bring the Jesuit organisation down, the envious were going on about the Jesuits trying to take over the world.
In due course, there came the French Revolution.
By the end of the Battle of Verdun, 21 February to 18 December 1916, there were one thousand dead per square metre. Total fatalities could reasonably be' estimated at 182,000, both French and Germans.
"For many years after the armistice(sic) the great swathe, four hundred
miles long, to or twenty miles wide, where the front had been lay
The Afghanistan coalition operation started in 2001. since then, there have been 3,407 coalition deaths from all causes, of which there are several besides "as a result of hostile
action". British forces have had 404 soldiers killed as a result of hostile action.
"In all, 404
of the fatalities are classed as killed "as a result of hostile
action" and 49 are known to have died either as a result of illness,
non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been
assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation."