Richard North: Unmitigated Dross

Throughout my adult lifetime there has been a Propaganda War raging in the United Kingdom over British involvement in the European Economic Community and it’s subsequent stealthy evolution into the European Community which then morphed into the undemocratic and dysfunctional European Union.

The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation which aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states.

It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957.

Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC).

In 2009 the EC’s institutions were absorbed into the EU’s wider framework and the community ceased to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

This Propaganda War has followed the tenets of the Mushroom School of Management whereby the plebs are kept in the dark and periodically fed a load of bullshit.

Mushroom management, also known as Pseudo-Analysis or Blind Development, is a mocking term used to describe the running of a company where the communication channels between the managers and the employees do not work properly.

The term alludes to the stereotypical (and somewhat inaccurate) view of mushroom cultivation: “Kept in the dark and periodically given a load of manure”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_management

After the United Kingdom joined the European Project a second front quietly open up in the Propaganda War as Brussels barraged Britain with additional misdirection, disinformation, misinformation, obscuration and [most importantly] omission.

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/on-the-road-to-victory/

The Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities (EC) which was the collective term for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) took effect on 1 January 1973, after the ratification of the Accession treaty which was signed in Brussels on 22 January 1972 by the then Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath who had pursued the UK’s application to the EEC since the late 1950s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_European_Communities

Amongst the targets for European re-education were the hallowed halls of academia.

The Jean Monnet Programme, also known as the Jean Monnet Project, is a European Union initiative to encourage teaching, research and reflection in the field of European integration studies in higher education institutions.

The program was originally launched in 1989 and helped to set up 162 Jean Monnet European Centres of Excellence, 875 Jean Monnet Chairs and 1001 Jean Monnet Teaching Modules worldwide in 72 countries in five continents.

These projects bring together 1,500 professors, and reach approximatively 500,000 students every year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet_Programme

Therefore, it’s no surprise that the hallowed halls of academia have entered the fray regarding the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Brexit is the popular term for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU).

In a UK referendum on 23 June 2016, 52% voted to leave the EU.

On 29 March 2017, the British government invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union, putting the UK on course to leave the EU in March 2019.

Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the UK would not seek permanent membership of the single market or of the customs union and promised a Great Repeal Bill that would repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 and incorporate existing European Union law into UK domestic law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

One of the finer examples of “rigorous, high-quality and independent” Brexit research produced by academia has emerged from King’s College London.

Cost of no deal

The ‘Cost of no deal’ report examines the consequences of the UK failing to strike either an Article 50 or a trade deal with the EU – what is termed a ‘chaotic Brexit’.

The report looks at the political, economic, trade and legal costs of no deal also looking at the situation in Northern Ireland, aviation, agriculture and fisheries, energy and environment, pharmaceuticals and immigration.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/cost-of-no-deal/

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Cost-of-No-Deal-The-UK-in-a-Changing-Europe.pdf

One wonders why, when “leading academics” reach out to us mere plebs with their words of wisdom, they feel to need to adopt a report format redolent of a kiddies colouring book, with childish graphics which seem to have no other purpose than to break up the text.

Brexit: The Production of Unmitigated Dross
Richard North – 21 July 2017

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86545

This stunning example of academic excellence is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council which has a stupefying Shaping Society annual budget of [about] £3 billion.

The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is one of the seven Research Councils in the United Kingdom. It receives most of its funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and provides funding and support for research and training work in social and economic issues, such as postgraduate degrees.

The ESRC is based at Polaris House in Swindon, which is also the location of the head offices of several other UK Research Councils and RCUK; together the Research Councils annually budget is in the region of £3 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Social_Research_Council

Economic and Social Research Council
Shaping Society

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/

This astonishing example of academic excellence is clearly a masterpiece.

Unit director Anand Menon seems to be the principal author, although he names no less than 20 co-workers who assisted him in the great enterprise, thus averaging close to one page per person for this 23-page report.

Considering the “no deal” scenario was launched by Theresa May in her January Lancaster House speech, some six months ago, no one could thus accuse this talented group of breaking any productivity records.

They average approximately three words per person per day.

These people set themselves up as “experts” and, funded out of the public purse, take it upon themselves to be our guides though the Brexit labyrinth.

Yet, all they can produce on this vital issue is a tardy, sloppily-written report, patronising in style and language, and criminally shallow in scope.

We are being short-changed.

Brexit: The Production of Unmitigated Dross
Richard North – 21 July 2017

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86545

A masterpiece where the “unpredictable” is predicted to “vary” whilst being “large”.

So, the impact on agriculture and food prices, while unpredictable, is likely to
be large, and will vary by sector.

Cost of No Deal – UK in a Changing Europe

A masterpiece where “uncertainties” are transformed into “certainty”.

Despite the uncertainties, we know enough to say with reasonable certainty that a chaotic Brexit, under either scenario, would be a political mess, a legal morass and an economic disaster.

Cost of No Deal – UK in a Changing Europe

A masterpiece where deep insights are obtained from a “barely scratched” surface.

Nor have we tried to be comprehensive.
Indeed, we’ve barely scratched the surface in some areas.

Cost of No Deal – UK in a Changing Europe

This amazing example of “rigorous, high-quality and independent” research involves “a significant amount” of needless “speculation”.

Yet, when it then comes to explaining what “no deal” might mean, and what its impact might be, we are told that answering these questions requires “a significant amount of speculation”.

Actually, I would dispute the need for speculation – significant or not. The European Union is a treaty organisation, bound by an extensive and well publicised acquis which sets out in very great and precise detail the nature of its relationships with external actors.

Therefore, rather than speculate, all one has to do is read the rule books.

In these, the EU obligingly tells us exactly what a “no deal” scenario looks like.

Brexit: The Production of Unmitigated Dross
Richard North – 21 July 2017

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86545

The “speculation” is articulated by people who “are not prepared to do detail”.

The devil is in the detail and these people are not prepared to do detail.

Bluntly, this is appalling misinformation. The authors should be ashamed of themselves. However, the fact that no less than 21 academics have lent their names to this nonsense warns us of a crisis.

But this one is not in Brexit.

It is in academia.

Brexit: The Production of Unmitigated Dross
Richard North – 21 July 2017

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86545

More cynical observers might wonder: Are these people paid to avoid detail?

When the chips are down, Brexit will involve not only political failure but a collapse in academic standards.

We get the production of unmitigated dross, where quality was desperately needed.

Academia stepped up to the plate, but failed to deliver.

Brexit: The Production of Unmitigated Dross
Richard North – 21 July 2017

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86545

They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.

They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking.

They’re not interested in that.

That doesn’t help them.

That’s against their interests.

That’s right.

They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

George Carlin on the American Dream
http://shoqvalue.com/george-carlin-on-the-american-dream-with-transcript/

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Economics, History. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Richard North: Unmitigated Dross

  1. PeterMG says:

    On Tuesday I attend my youngest daughters graduation from Kings with an upper 2-1 in History. I’m very proud of her not just because she graduated with an excellent grade, but because she stuck to her principles and did her own work, an original piece of work from primary sources. She should have been given a First, but because she refused to write her dissertation from the European perspective and wrote it from the perspective of the country she was studying Kings didn’t like it. Her tutor wanted the work published as it was, as he thought it was the best in class, and one of the best works he had ever seen, but he was over-ruled.

    It was in her first term that she upset the university by asking for a refund when three times in a row the lecturer for a certain subject didn’t turn up. You can get a first in history and many other subjects just by reviewing exactly what previous academics have written, its almost guaranteed. There are no points for doing something new. In fact this is a handicap as my daughter discovered. The public school boys she was there with got the expected Firsts, but then they spent all their time at school learning exactly how to pass the exams and not learning to think. In her words they are all dim and dull, despite being loaded.

    We can be thankful that my wife and I have managed to see 4 through university, one is now a surgeon, one a financial advisor, after getting a degree in Political science, one is doing a Masters in immunology, and the last has as above just finished. That is 4 youngsters who can all think for themselves, and who have in their way had run ins with poor teachers and lecturer’s who don’t like being challenged. But we have had to work hard to ensure that our children have entered the world with their eyes at least partly open.

  2. melitamegalithic says:

    Quoting PeterMG: ” You can get a first in history and many other subjects just by reviewing exactly what previous academics have written, its almost guaranteed.” Add: ‘failure is guaranteed especially if you do not tow to the dean’s own doctoral thesis’. History is littered with such examples.

    In ‘History’ especially with a prolific author, make sure you read what’s written at the end of his/her career, when they dare ‘tell it as they really saw it’, because then it does not matter so much. Eg. JEHarrison; CHGordon; LPalmer—;. Do it earlier and you are ostracized.

    • RdM says:

      ” make sure you read what’s written at the end of his/her career, when they dare ‘tell it as they really saw it’, because then it does not matter so much. [ … ]. Do it earlier and you are ostracized.”

      Especially in Tobacco Control:
      https://www.tctactics.org/index.php?title=Critical_Scientists

      Although there are many more scientists beyond those listed here who disagree with current Tobacco Control methods, practice or science, few dare expose their dissent. The following quotes are very revealing of the reasons dissenting scientists do not speak up:

      – Political correctness and fear of retribution silenced doctors and scientists who knew better. Every lung specialist and cardiologist I questioned across the years scoffed at the story that secondhand smoke caused death. But don’t quote me, or I’ll be dead. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan

      – There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious – the science isn’t there. Dr. Terry Simpson

      – As a civil servant and dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held by my duty to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man. Dr. Philippe Even

      – I compare many aspects of ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat “Lysenko pseudoscience.” Dr. James Enstrom

      – I was driven from my last academic position by a calculated concerted campaign of efforts to censor my THR research and make my life unpleasant – and that of my students (yes, they attacked my students) and supporters. Prof. Carl V. Phillips

      – This is McCarthyism in action. Quelling debate. Stifling opposition. Expelling and blacklisting anyone who dares express dissent. No wonder the tobacco control movement has gone off the deep end in its fanaticism. Anyone who tries to stop it knows that they will be censored or expelled. You have no choice but to go along with the groupthink. Dr. Michael Siegel

      – I am now retired, I feel free to say what I think.(…) I no longer have to worry about my reputation. But I would have probably not written this book if I had continued to practice. Dr. Jean Jacques Bourque

      – It would be very inconvenient for the WHO, should it turn out that their warnings about the health risks of secondhand smoke were based on gross exaggerations. And so one may guess the means and resources they use to fight dissident opinion and critical inquiry. I got to know them all: Deception, concealment, falsification, control of the professional media (and thus of professional interactions), as well as intimidation which goes so far that I’ve ceased to wonder why in the professional world hardly anyone dares to object when it comes to the subject of passive smoke. Prof. Romano Grieshaber

      – Anyone who takes the (passive smoking) science seriously and wants to assess its strengths and weaknesses is viewed as a threat to be neutralized. This situation has given rise to extraordinary attacks on the integrity of established scientists whose only documentable fault is to report findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Dr. Geoffrey Kabat

      More detail at the link.

      • RdM:
        Yes, unfortunately a very common story. Yet it may still go further.

        My ‘usename’ is a link to a site. Points to two books, my retirement past-time/work, and impossible to have published earlier, even as an outsider (there is back-lash). Still in one I intended to have a blank page, named the ‘unwriteable chapter’, a rebel’s bloody-minded final act. But finally I opted to leave even that out — too risky–.

        Research had taken me to sources with curious material where I could notice the author was inviting the reader to notice, to read between lines and to extrapolate, while remaining within the restricting social bounds. I hope others notice too. But it will not be in academia.

  3. malagabay says:

    When it comes to Europe the British press specialises in “weirdly trivialised debate”.

    There is a terrifying vacuum at the heart of our weirdly trivialised debate over Brexit.

    Ministers are completely failing to explain to us the immense practical implications of their decision that Britain will leave not just the single market but also the wider European Economic Area (EEA), to which we send between them £230 billion a year of our exports.

    The facts of what this faces us with are inescapable.

    By choosing to become what the EU calls a “third country”, we will also exclude ourselves from that complex system of “Customs Co-operation” which enables us to move our goods unimpeded to any country in the EU or the EEA.

    Who is worse: Richard III, our Brexit team, or the BBC?
    The Telegrapg – Christopher Booker – 23 July 2017

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/23/worse-richard-iii-brexit-team-bbc/

    While British “academia” specialises in “derivative tosh”.

    From academia we get confusion, muddle and an extraordinary level of ignorance – staggeringly so.

    And what emerges from the quarter is an almost pathological insularity which keeps otherwise intelligent men and women detached from reality.

    Academics are supposed to be the people who have the skills and resources to work things out for themselves and speak the truth to power.

    Instead, we see highly qualified people from prestigious institutions churning out derivative tosh that should have them stripped of their posts.

    Where they are challenged, we find that academic integrity has degraded so substantially that the self-important figures, caught out in multiple errors, deny even the possibility that they could make mistakes.

    Brexit: a terrifying vacuum at the heart of the debate
    EUReferendum.com – Richard North – 23 July 2017

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86548

  4. PeterMG says:

    I should add here that my eldest boy who is now a financial advisor, chose ill advisedly for his dissertation subject; “Is the IPCC fit for purpose” He did this simply because he knew it would annoy his lecturer to the core. I discussed the implications of this with him and he knew what was likely to happen. But he was determined to do this and then hound the said if they marked it down just because they didn’t agree with it.

    He was surprisingly to me able to get several prominent climate scientists(what ever they are) and other who had contributed to the IPCC reports to provide him with real data that supported his case. He was able to attribute the data but they all asked that he not reveal where he got it from.

    Needless to say a third was just what I expected, but the work was worth at least a 2-1 if not a first. Each year he appealed and each year said Lecturer made sure it was rejected, until the said Lecturer was arrested as part of a Greenpeace protest at a Kent power station. This was his chance and whilst the said Lecturer was enjoying some of Her Majesties hospitality he was able to appeal once more and had the mark changed to a first.

    I did say to him it would have been less effort to just write what they wanted to get the degree, be he was determined to prove he could beat what he called a “dumb arse”

    I have met Richard North and attended a number of meetings to do with the Harrogate agenda, and found him impressively sharp, and not prone to suffer fools. I would fully expect him to recognise what fools we have in academia, but when 2 of my children think that academia are fools then academia is in a lot of trouble. The other 2 are in more vocational subjects, medicine and advanced biology, where to get your doctorate requires some 30 plus hours of school work a week plus home study, where as my daughters history degree was lucky if there was 2 hours per day of effort on the part of the University for which they charge £9,000

    • TimE. says:

      We all “chose ill advisedly
      ‘ – for on a limited Planet – with limited resources – we needed to stay LOCAL – and allow nature to take it’s course – which includes keeping human populations in check.

      Let me remind you that a SUSTAINABLE Agrarian Society has no need for “Financial Advisors: – as Banks, Interest, Credit, and Debt would not exist. Food is tangible – and it exists in the here and now – Banks, Interest, Credit, and Debt are figments of your imagination which were developed to CONTROL others and LOOT, or perhaps, STEAL from the productive. i.e. Harness energy – whether it be Human, Animal, Plant or Mineral.

      What is an agrarian society? Link: http://agrariansocieties.weebly.com/what-is-an-agrarian-society.html

      “The society acknowledges other means of livelihood and work habits but stresses the importance of agriculture and farming, and was the most common form of socio-economic organization for most of recorded human history”.

      No Farmers, No Food. Hmmmm…. What’s a Financial Advisor to do? Eat Numbers?

      Industrial Civilization is coming to an end – and Europe can’t supply enough energy – at a price low enough to sustain it’s current population – much less an increase. Of course – it’s armies are engaging in endless Middle East wars to enable it to survive – as Middle East Countries are destroyed and people killed/displaced – the energy flows to energy resource poor Europe.

      As Sir Fred Hoyle stated, and Dr. Richard Duncan noted:

      It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964; emphasis added)

      Link: http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

      So in the end – we will argue about who get what – who is in control or under command – those with the most toys *WIN* – and who needs Farmers!

      Screw the Farmers! i GET MY FOOD AT THE gROCERY STORE!

      gOOD LUCK WITH YOUR DYSTOPIAN FUTURE.

      The Trees – or Nature?
      There is unrest in the forest, there is
      Trouble with the trees,
      For the maples want more sunlight, and
      The oaks ignore their pleas.
      Trouble with the maples, and
      They’re quite convinced they’re right,
      They say the oaks are just too lofty, and they
      Grab up all the light.
      But the oaks can’t help their feelings
      If they like the way they’re made. And they
      Wonder why the maples can’t be
      Happy in their shade.
      There is trouble in the forest, and
      The creatures all have fled, as the
      Maples scream, “Oppression!” and the
      Oaks just shake their heads.
      So the maples formed a union, and
      Demanded equal rights.
      “The oaks are just too greedy;
      We will make them give us light!”
      Now there’s no more oak oppression, for
      They passed a noble law. And
      The trees are all kept equal, by
      Hatchet, Axe, and Saw.

      Trees have no need for Financial Advisors – nor does a Sustainable Community.

      Congratulations Sir – you have trained your children for destruction.

      • melitamegalithic says:

        “SUSTAINABLE Agrarian Society” can be a quite complex society, as long as it is ‘sustainable’. The agrarian society in the link that is dated to pharaohnic times is actually a decadent one, on the way towards collapse.
        See the “Admonitions of Ipuwer’, link: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm
        Quote from the link notes ‘ Corn in the ancient Egyptian context refers to wheat and/or barley. The storage of surplus grain and its redistribution was one of the corner stones of the Egyptian economy. Egypt was not a welfare state, distributing free grain.’ and ‘ the corn of Egypt is common property: Wilson: The grain-sustenance of Egypt is (now) a come-and-get-it.’ While there is shown organisation at the lower levels, the leaders had become a priestly caste full of inane beliefs and rituals.
        The top was worse. Its incestuous hierarchical system seems an attempt to emulate the gods. Osiris (Egyptian Dumuzi) became consort to his mother/sister in a myth that personified metaphorically the cereals, a self fertilising weed (where pollen is the son, and the seed is the sister/daughter). Diodorus says that the cultivation of the cereals arrived in Egypt last of all. It appears so.
        In the last two centuries agriculture has improved tremendously in quality and productivity through mechanisation. The Earth has a great capacity to feed, when treated with respect. However abuse and waste, and most of all, lack of understanding of priorities and essentials, like the Egyptian pharaohs and some modern politicians, only lead to decay and collapse.
        Ironically the richest are usually the worst abusers, when in fact it is they who have the most to lose, as Ipuwer laments. Lamborghinis are never the cause of riots, bread is.

  5. malagabay says:

    Lost Leonardo on the “extent of the deception”…

    There seems to be few who are willing to recognise just what a vast project EU withdrawal really is because that would mean coming face to face with the extent of the deception that was done, when politicians and journalists consented in telling us that EU membership was mainly about trade.

    Expert Opinion
    IndependentBritain.wordpress.com – Lost Leonardo – 17 July

    https://independentbritain.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/expert-opinion/

    Joining the EFTA pillar of the EEA agreement would shortcut many of the complicated technical challenges associated with reversing what was always intended to be irreversible, without doing undue damage to the British economy.

    EU Withdrawal Means EU Withdrawal
    IndependentBritain.wordpress.com – Lost Leonardo – 21 July 2017

    https://independentbritain.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/eu-withdrawal-means-eu-withdrawal/

    Why is leaving the EU here characterised as Britain turning its back on the EU?

    Why not say, “leaving the EU” or “withdrawing from the EU”?

    I doubt whether such a turn of phrase would find its way into any of the author’s academic papers, so why adopt this emotive tone when writing for a general audience?

    Still Searching
    IndependentBritain.wordpress.com – Lost Leonardo – 20 July 2017

    https://independentbritain.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/still-searching/#comments

    • TimE. says:

      ODD – isn’t it? That the British didn’t have any problem imposing rule over others – at one time – the Sun never set on the British Empire. YET – they reject others imposing their rule over them.

      Seems to be Universal –

      From Zero Hedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-22/how-will-empire-end

      How Will The Empire End?

      It was back in the early 1800’s that the Brits left the sodden, miserable shores of their murky island, grabbed their trumpets, tucked their trousers into the socks, and began conquering the world with the cunning use of flags.

      Like all good conquerors, they had a backup plan in the event flags didn’t work – guns, which – as it turned out – work bloody well.

      From about 1815 to 1915, our tea-drinking friends were so successful in this endeavour that the soggy little island in the North Atlantic had turned nearly a quarter of the globe red at its peak.

      In 1960 the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan, delivered a famous speech known as the “Wind of Change” where he discussed this:

      “One of the constant facts of political life in Europe has been the emergence of independent nations… Especially since the end of war, the processes which gave birth to the nation-states of Europe have been repeated all over the world…

      Fifteen years ago this movement spread through Asia. Many countries there, of different races and civilization, pressed their claim to an independent national life. To-day the same thing is happening in Africa…

      In different places it may take different forms, but it is happening everywhere. The wind of change is blowing through the continent… Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact.”

      You may have noticed that all of the power structures mentioned above were centralised structures. Top down – like a pyramid, with the wealth accumulating at the top.

      Even the emergence of individual nation states were and are really just “mini me’s” of an empire structure, which is to say centralised. This all made perfect sense in the industrial age where commandeering and controlling costly infrastructure was critical. Things such as railroads, canals, mines. Today, we live in a different world, which I’ll come to in a bit, but first…

      Brexit wins Britain nothing – it will merely will be a footnote in her collapse and destruction as an Industrial – and formerly conquering – Civilization.

      • PeterMG says:

        “ODD – isn’t it? That the British didn’t have any problem imposing rule over others – at one time – the Sun never set on the British Empire. YET – they reject others imposing their rule over them.”

        Complete bunkum and nonsense. The people of the UK never imposed themselves on anyone. The Government and the Crown did. But the difference is as education and awareness improved that behaviour was frowned upon and those countries were given back.

        Today its our elected representatives wilfully ignoring the will of those who elected them. The have forgotten why they are there, an continuously overstep their remit. We are having own country taken from us by our own Government.

        But fear not, the British people are not a stupid as many think and whilst the last election may have looked confusing the politicians still have not got the message.

  6. TimE. says:

    It is out of order – so I must apologize.

    “See the “Admonitions of Ipuwer’,”

    “Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make. ”

    Yes indeed – Welcome to The Flavian Deception –

    Those Learned Men who COMMANDED:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-713 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

    6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-7

    From your link – Section VI:

    “Would that there were an end of men, without conception, without birth! Then would the land be quiet from noise and tumult be no more”.

    LOL!

    • I’ve always concluded that the New Testament was the Roman Empire’s slave management procedure manual. That thought was mentioned to a colleague during 1997. Interesting to learn 20 years later that my conclusion was not far off.

    • malagabay says:

      BUYER BEWARE
      Like many other religious tracts the “imperfect” works of Josephus [dating back to circa 75 AD] have been augmented and perfected during the last 500 [odd] years…

      For many years, printed editions of the works of Josephus appeared only in an imperfect Latin translation from the original Greek.

      Only in 1544 did a version of the standard Greek text become available in French, edited by the Dutch humanist Arnoldus Arlenius.

      Arnoldus Arlenius Peraxylus, (c. 1510 – 1582), born Arndt or Arnout van Eyndhouts or van Eynthouts, also known as Arnoud de Lens, was a Dutch humanist philosopher and poet.

      In 1542 he travelled to Venice, where he became librarian to the Spanish ambassador, Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, finding new texts and organising the transcription of documents, work which involved him in travelling to Frankfurt and Florence. He also catalogued Mendoza’s collection of Greek manuscripts. Working with manuscripts found in Mendoza’s substantial library, he produced in 1544 the first printed Greek version of the works of Josephus.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnoldus_Arlenius

      Later editions of the Greek text include that of Benedikt Niese, who made a detailed examination of all the available manuscripts, mainly from France and Spain. Henry St. John Thackeray used Niese’s version for the Loeb Classical Library edition widely used today. The standard editio maior of the various Greek manuscripts is that of Benedictus Niese, published 1885–95.

      Jürgen Anton Benedikt Niese (1849-1910), also known as Benedict, Benediktus or Benedictus Niese, was a German classical scholar.

      Niese is best known for his then definitive editio maior of the works of the Jewish historian Josephus (Weidmann, Berlin, 1885–1895), based on a detailed study of the best manuscripts available.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedikt_Niese

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

      The Jewish War or Judean War, also referred to in English as The Wars of the Jews, is a book written by Josephus, a Roman-Jewish historian of the 1st century.

      The text also survives in an Old Slavonic version, as well as Hebrew which contains material not found in the Greek version, and which is lacking other material found in the Greek version.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_War

    • melitamegalithic says:

      Interesting video re the Flavian Dynasty. However I don’t see that line of thinking being borne out in the following century.
      Antoninus Pius’s coins show ‘The awakening child’ on the reverse, indicating the myth of the dying/awakening god very much alive. After him Septimus Severus cannot be said to have been a christian lover. His wife Julia D’s coins (she was the daughter of a pagan high priest) also bore the ‘child in winnowing basket’ on the reverse. The cult of Tammuz was very much alive in the second century, definitely in the near East.
      The Geerks inherited the cult from Thrace. Then, according to JEHarrison, they severed it from its roots and its non-human characteristics and created Dionysos . The Tammuz cult was still alive at the time of St Augustine.

      To change the subject some. Franz Schwanitz in ‘origin of cultivated plants’ says that a hunter or forager needs in general around twenty square kilometres to sustain him. That same land under organized cultivation can support a society of six thousand persons working together; agriculture. That requires organisation, where the better minds lead the poorer. DNA/genes has a lot to do with that. There are natural great leaders; equally there are natural great egos. Choose unwisely and the result is chaos.

      • TimE. says:

        “Choose unwisely and the result is chaos”.

        It is indeed – a dilemma – “Out of Chaos – Order” – or perhaps Hegel’s Dialectic

        “Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the course of the dialogues, Socrates’ interlocutors propose definitions of philosophical concepts or express views that Socrates challenges or opposes. The back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces a kind of linear progression or evolution in philosophical views or positions: as the dialogues go along, Socrates’ interlocutors change or refine their views in response to Socrates’ challenges and come to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors thus becomes Plato’s way of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated views or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later.

        https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

        There are those who believe that the Universe is a product of a “Big Bang” – and is limited – and contracting – while life is limited to Planet Earth

        There are those who believe that the Universe in infinite – and ever expanding – while Life is an intrinsic part of the Universe.

        No doubt – Mankind – in what ever shape or form is not NATURAL to THIS PLANET – clearly the event which fused Humans 2nd and 3rd chromosomes into one was *MIRACULOUS*

        This video segment from NOVA: “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” reveals how genetic evidence helped to confirm an important component of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection: the common ancestry of humans and apes. In particular, it explains that humans have one fewer chromosome pair in their cells than apes, due to a mutation found in chromosome number 2 that caused two chromosomes to fuse into one.

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

        And nothing in this video can possibly be true….. but it is exactly how things are….

        46 plus TWO – is it true?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s