ericbj

They do both. It's called hypocrisy.

Full-scale nuclear war will have unimaginably horrific consequences. Not least "nuclear winter" which should put paid to the "man-made global warming" hypothesis. Think of the summer (that wasn't) of 1816. Industrial agriculture and global trade will collapse. Governments threaten war without usually any intention of launching it. As a means of bullying other governments and coercing, and gaining support from, their own people. But sometimes they overstep the mark. The result is: BOOM ! I suspect that no government in Europe, with the possible exception of Austria-Hungary, sought war in 1914. It had been considered impossible in any case, because of trade between the various nations, royal intermarriage, etc. But conflicting self-interests and sabre-rattling brought about what was thought would be a brief and glorious conflict to settle differences. But look at what resulted ! Brinkmanship has been taking us closer than ever to nuclear war. Treaties intended to reduce the likelihood have been abrogated of late. If nuclear warfare breaks out, whichever the power that kicks off, will, if it has any sense, go whole hog to wipe out every possible means of nuclear riposte available to its adversary. Let that sink in. Nowhere in the world will be safe, because nuclear destruction and fall-out are only the beginning of the problem. However, to get as far away as possible from blast and fall-out, the safest places may be those non-aligned countries that are as remote as possible from the main contenders for power. Let us hope for, and argue for, the abatement of warlike passions. Whatever the probability of nuclear war, there is one thing that is certain and which seems to be approaching at an ever quickening pace. And which shares some of the same challenges. An economic meltdown. To meet this latter eventuality, there is the need to consider sustainability of life over the short, medium, and perhaps longer term. A very complex issue. All the more so because although circumstances will be greatly changed, perhaps in unimaginable ways, it is necessary to try to envisage them. A few ideas: Community Money (gold, silver) Local Currency Barter-able Items & Services Shelter Clothing Water Food stores Food production & processing Energy - for cooking, lighting, space-heating Transport (human-powered, animal-powered, and other) Domestic Animals (for various ends)

The word of the U.S. government is worthless. And it shows.

Correct decision by Macron, but doubtful motive. 5.6% of the population identifies as being of Islamic faith and 0.8% as Jewish. Conflict is a two-sided affair. This one did not begin on the 7th October 2023. Can someone provide a reliable figure of how many hostages the Israeli authorities have released ? International Organization of Solidarity with Palestinian Prisoners: "March 2025 update on number of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli occupation’s custody "As of the start of March, the number of Palestinians held in Israeli occupation prisons, detention centers and military camps has exceeded 9,500 people. This figure does not include all the people who were arrested from Gaza, particularly those being held in military camps. "The 9,500 people include: - More than 350 Palestinian children - At least 21 Palestinian women - 3,405 Palestinians are held without trial or charge, under ‘administrative detention’"

Am curious to know where you came from two millennia ago.

The United Kingdom government must bear a large share of responsibility for the present state of affairs. This results from the declaration by Zionist settlers of the racially-based state of Israel. The initial impetus came from the Balfour Declaration. Understandable at a time when the Triple Entente was facing defeat, since it helped to mobilise U.S. opinion and involvement. But it had consequences that were not clearly foreseen. Anecdotal detail: the late Queen Elizabeth, although by no means anti-Jewish, is said to have regarded Israelis as being either "terrorists or sons of terrorists". https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/queen-elizabeth-refused-allow-israeli-officials-buckingham-palace-says-former-president For general background info. this may be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniited_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

[Received on my Facebook page. Some may have seen this info, some may not. Advertising, so view with circumspection!] --------------------------- The rules have changed. You might now be liable on your worldwide assets - even if you live overseas. … Under the new rules, individuals who have been UK tax resident for 10 of the past 20 years are now classified as Long Term Residents (LTR). Once you meet this threshold, your entire global estate could be exposed to UK Inheritance Tax - regardless of where you currently live or what nationality you hold. This shift has serious implications for those with: UK pensions or property Investments or trusts held abroad Dual tax residency or historic UK ties Long periods of UK residency, even in the distant past And from 6 April 2027, unused UK pension funds may also be added to the value of your estate on death - making your liability even higher. ------------------------- After filling in an online questionnaire stating my total estate comes to less than the threshold, and that I have not been resident in the UK within the past 20 years, but receive a (less than full) DWP pension, they estimated I have a 37% chance of falling with the ambit of this new tax law. FYI

Correction to the above (lapse of memory): Prince Arvaragus donated TWELVE hides of land - equivalent to 1,440 acres at the time of Domesday Book - to Joseph of Arimathea and his followers. More here, originally recorded in the 1970s/1980s: And from a decade ago: part 1 - part 2 - https://youtu.be/Hoxw3NvS8q4

I believe not irretrievably lost. But more difficult with each passing year. And costly, "in blood, sweat, tears and toil". Start with Britain. We are insular. Europe can follow. And remember this is not a question of race but of values. European civilisation developed in Britain, and spread from there, after Prince Arvaragus offered Joseph of Arimathea 9 hides of land at the Isle of Avalon (Glastonbury) free of tax forever. (confirmed a thousand years later in the Domesday Book).

It would have been more appropriate to use the word Zionist, since many Jews, a term which traditionally means one of the Jewish faith (i.e. belief in the Torah) are supportive of the Palestinian people. Truer of those living outside Israel. However as she refers to "a bigoted, far-right Jew, who post[s] vile Islamop[hob]ic trash daily" it should be fairly clear the reference is to a Zionist. Those who have studied at all the history of Zionism will be aware that in the early days in Germany the Zionists sought to persuade those of the Jewish faith to abandon their religion and everything else that differentiated them from German culture. It did not work out of course, and they subsequently discovered that the religion, suitably distorted, could be turned into a useful tool of persuasion.

To understand the relevance you need to go back to page #1 of this thread where 'EVENKEEL' posted this brief comment: "Diversity it [sic] our strength." Presumably in support of unrestricted immigration. 'BritManToo' responded: "Name just one time when it was?" "Quentin Zen" then made the reply quoted at the head of my post. What he wrote seemed none too clear as to the point he was making. So I elaborated by providing details. In effect responding to the question of 'BritManToo'. I hope this explains its relevance in the context of the earlier comments by 'Evenkeel' and 'BritManToo'.

What is this supposed to prove? There was constant warfare between North American tribes before the coming of the "white man". Leading to forced migrations. After the European arrival there was centuries-long warfare between the indigenous peoples and the settlers. In the midst of this there was a bitter war waged by European settlers seeking independence from the colonial power. The colonial power was supported by a significant part of the settler population and some of the indigenous tribes (a few of whom supported the rebel colonists). There was then (1812-15), taking advantage of the fighting in Europe, an attempt by the U.S.A. to seize what remained of British North America (now Canada), wither the greater portion of an estimated 100,000 loyal American refugees had fled. That invasion was repelled by a joint effort of British military, loyal Americans, and a native American confederacy. (Unity in diversity at last!) Finally (?) there was the War of Secession between the industrial north and the agricultural south of the USA. Can diversity lead to strength? Yes, where there are shared values, especially where the different groups feel threatened by an outside group, as clearly happened in the War of 1812. Where values are very different, and where individuals from the different groups do not interact socially, the result can be weakness; and vulnerability to external pressures.

Holiday-makers come and go. And occasionally return. Residents, even of the "Non-Immigrant" kind, tend to come and stay. And occasionally leave.

You dismiss what you have not bothered to investigate in any serious manner. Presumably because you are determined not to admit anything contrary to your preconceived opinions. So be it.

You are correct that he was with Rothschilds only once. I misread 'rejoint' in his bio as rejoined instead of joined. As regards his relations with Sanofi Labs there is no lack of information online. "… entre la macronie et Sanofi, c’est une idylle, une fusion, que les pires scandales ne troublent pas. Un amour qui remonte à loin : en 2007, Emmanuel Macron est rapporteur de la Commission Attali sur la « libération de la croissance française ». Parmi ses membres, une palanquée de PDG, dont Serge Weinberg. Qui conseille au jeune énarque : « Enrichissez-vous ! » Lui-même administrateur de Rothschild et Cie, il l’aide à entrer dans la banque d’affaires. Avant d’être, évidemment, plus tard, l’un des premiers soutiens d’En Marche !, encourageant la candidature. Et qui apparaît, sur nos écrans, dans les salons de l’Elysée, le 14 mai 2017, jour de l’intronisation de notre nouveau président ? Serge Weinberg." "Since then, Emmanuel Macron has served Sanofi. Before the French. And often, even, to the detriment of the French." There follow claims of how Sanofi's Dépakine, has caused malformations and autism amongst babies, to the knowledge of the Company since at least 1980. The ANSM and Assurance Maladie estimate the number of malformed children between 2,150 and 4,100, with between 16,600 and 30,400 cases of neuro-developmental problems. Children born seriously handicapped for life. This scandal was componbded by another: Sanofi refused to pay compensation for the injuries. This incident probably explains why the Company then announces that it will give priority to the U.S. market and not to France. [From the site of the review Santé-Environnement-Politique] The article goes on to complain that Sanofi does not produce vaccines in France, "a disgrace for the country of Louis Pasteur". But this was rectified when Macron recently opened a new Sanofi factory capable of producing 500 million doses of vaccine per year. As regards France's involvement in Africa in recent years you are clearly out of date. The French Treasury has had considerable control over the economies of francophone countries of Africa post-independence because it issues their currencies, the franc CFA [the Colonial French African franc]. French interference in their internal affairs, goes as far as coups and assassination (such as that of Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso) and has caused widespread distrust. Macron's behaviour on a recent African trip caused outspoken negative reactions. You can listen to it on YouTube. Another cause of African discontent is the documented corruption of three major French political parties which, through influence over the budget, arrange taxpayer-funded "aid to Africa". This goes to French companies, typically in the construction industry, who grease the palms of local African rulers and remit substantial amounts to Swiss bank accounts in the names of INGO intermediaries. Whence it is accessed by the political parties. I guess similar things happen with aid from other western countries. A former senior member of the KNU told me years ago that something similar was operated by German political parties, each one linked to an NGO. Which is apparently why their aid tended to be aimed at "building bridges" with the military regime; one of their objectives being to encourage favourable attitudes to German investment.

Macron was twice employed by Rothschild's so obviously a close association. Yes, you mention the mutual benefit between him and Pfizer but do not mention his long-standing relationship with Sanofi Labs. It is not for nothing that major pharmaceutical companies develop relations with promising politicians. He has also presided over a major loss of French influence in francophone Africa. Doubtlessly inevitable, but he accelerated the process by his insensitive, arrogant behaviour towards Africans. Russia has been happy to displace France. And is it for nothing that so many French people, including those who were duped into voting for him, are now angry at his performance?

It may be worth noting that Macron, the ex-bankster from Rothschilds & Co, is disparaged by many of the French. It is perhaps illustrative of his forked tongue that when standing for election he is said to have described himself as "a socialist". "Jesus, viens nous sauver d'Emmanuel" sung by Marie Reno:

You do not offer information nor contribute an opinion nor seek understanding; but merely, it seems, wish to provoke. Cockneys express themselves in colourful language, such as "Up yer Khyber!" Which in plain English means: get stuffed.

Like it or not, the differences between different 'races' are not merely cultural but also physiological. And not merely differences of outward appearance (of genetic origin) but also internal. E.g. Asians are said to have longer, thinner intestines than Europeans. Of course these differences can be attributed to differences of environment over many generations. But such differences of environment, including climate, food, activities, have an impact upon the genes. There are also 'races' within animal species, although we tend to refer to them as breeds. Finally, if there exists only one human race, what is the meaning of 'racism'? Is anti-racism a figment of our imagination?

So give us your solution.

It seems you do not understand what was written. Or else just ignore it. I reiterate: "It is understandable that citizens of bombed-out countries - some previously quite developed in terms of living standards, culture, health, and education - should seek to flee their ruins in search of a better life. The fault is not theirs." Read on for more.

If you read it all you would have seen I gave both definition and examples. Coming closer to home, here in Thailand, I have known many refugees, seeking acceptance by third countries. Most were genuine, either through opposition to military rule or because of belonging to an ethnicity the regime sought to eliminate ("In ten years time you will not see a Karen outside a museum" - as a Burma Army general put it some decades ago). But some merely sought a better life in the west. By my definition an "economic refugee".

Britain's ruling class built an empire, one of the many that have existed (Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, Chinese, etc.) They made use of Britons and non-Britons of many origins. (E.g. In the 14-18 War more than one million Indian ssoldiers served abroad, and by 1945 the Indian Army numbered 2.5 million). The ordinary Briton, the man on the Clapham omnibus, was mostly an unwitting pawn in this process. With bankrupcy finally brought about by the second of two world wars and the loss of the Indian Army at independence, the rentier-capitalist ruling class built a fresh, financial, empire in the shadow of the now-dominant U.S. one. This involved participating in the destitution of many independent states whose often-autocratic rulers stood in the way of the game-plan, essentially the control of raw materials, especially the energy market. Despite sophisticated spin-doctoring and increasing media control, there was sometimes widespread opposition (witness the mass-protests against the invasion of Iraq). But the 'democratic' leaders forced the issue. It is understandable that citizens of bombed-out countries - some previously quite developed in terms of living standards, culture, health, and education - should seek to flee their ruins in search of a better life. The fault is not theirs. Neither is the fault that of the ordinary people of Britain, who bear the brunt of unrestricted immigration. The burden must be laid upon the political class, the civil servants, and above all the media-moghuls and mega-financiers. They must be made to pay. The cost of what they have destroyed. That is karma.

Please make at least a superficial study of the conflict before uttering such nonsense.

There are two principal reasons for illegal immigration: 1. It is encouraged by the welcome offered by the British government. Both short-term welcome on reception and long-term welcome in terms of benefits of residence and acquisition of nationality. What proportion are genuine refugees and how many are economic migrants? 2. Huge on-going profits are made by the traffickers. Britain has in the past accepted, somewhat grudgingly, and at the immigrants' expense, genuine refugees fleeing persecution, of common loyalties and compatible beliefs. Such as Huguenots (who brought many new skills to Britain), American loyalists (an estimated 100,000 rejected the insurrection and suffered accordingly), and more recently German Jews, persecuted for their race. These groups lost substantially both wealth and possessions as result of their displacement from one country to another. Their lives were threatened. And they subsequently served Britain in many diverse capacities. The Royal Navy, if it still has a purpose, exists to protect the country from invasion. An invasion is occurring today, and critical situations call for appropriate measures. This is a suggestion. Intercept the boats in British waters, remove all occupants, sink the boats, then land the occupants by landing-craft, undeclared, upon some French beach. Of course there will be problems of all kinds. But will they be worse than the massive accumulated problem that is building up in Britain today?