it is “Who you know and what you believe that counts” The Semi Establishment Pelagianism of Bremain. #Brexit #Brino #DominicCummings “Cynics saw what people could be and were angered by what they had become; Timonists felt humans were hopelessly stupid & uncaring by nature and so saw no hope for change”. #antiestablishmentarianism


It occurred to me today that politics has become a Business as has Government and everything else, which when I was at school, that which used to come under the Catch all Subject area of “Civics“. Narratives and Branding, Focus groups and Polling and Modelling. Much of the content of what is packaged as the political component is actually exported between markets and the various snake oils and lubricants are shipped under the Political Captains sporting what can only be described as Hollowed out dummy Vessels flying Flags of Convenience.


Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country by a vessel or an aircraft registered in another country. Originally a shipping term, cabotage now also covers aviation, railways, and road transport. Cabotage is “trade or navigation in coastal waters, or, the exclusive right of a country to operate the air traffic within its territory”.
Smith Munt Act, International, Supra National Trade?

It was once considered a noble and daring thing to speak truth to power, the state of affairs presently seems that power is not even advised to speak truth to itself. Tokenism seems to be the Flag of convenience which is flown by all the major players on the stage regardless of their Stage instructions to be Stage Left or Stage Right In the Lime Light or further Back in the Shadows of the stage, back there at the top of the Slope.

The Tokenism Brand it is then for the crop of Pound Shop race to the bottom, “There is no Alternative” ( TINA), Merchants of the Rules based International Order. As it is With all Generic Brands, such as Hoover, The Generic Term for our Flag of convenience morality play should Be “Political Correctness,”
PC an everyday tale of Political Folk.
Professor Bruce Charlton in his Book Thought Prison PC describes the Brand like this.

Note: Why I use the term Political Correctness, instead of Liberalism or Socialism?
The reasons include:
1. The confusion over what ‘liberalism’ means – to some a free marketeer, to others a socialist. My definition of political correctness is broad and includes most mainstream conservatives, libertarians and anarchists; who are nowadays all significantly PC.
2. Differences in usage between the UK and US: in the UK the Liberals are a strange mixture of business- and farming-friendly Centrists with pacifist Leftists of an upper middle class type; in the US Liberals are the furthest Left of mainstream political ideologies.
3. That although PC clearly evolved from (what is in the US) called liberalism, PC is the outcome of a distinctive ‘turn’ in Leftist politics, which became obvious in the mid-1960s. In its striking, explicit, surface features PC is something new under the sun, never before seen in history.
4. Leftist political groups have, over the years, called themselves Communist, Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal Democrat, Democrat and various other names – but none of these have become dominant, and none are fully inclusive of Leftism.
5. The dawning realization that the phenomena collected together under the jokey term ‘political correctness’ was a vastly more robust and malignant thing than I had ever imagined.

This Recent Blog from Bruce Charlton examines a bottom-up approach to Becoming a Christian as opposed to a Top down approach the techniques and pitfalls described can I think to be equally applied to the MetaPhysics of Brexit, The Eu, Globalism and Financialised Neo-Liberal Capitalism

See what you think?

Armed with This Lens, Charlton also has this to say about PC ideology.

From the cover piece blurb.
“Bruce Charlton argues that political correctness is an objectively totalitarian ideology that has created an environment of fear among the intellectual leadership with ranging from social ostracism, through, financial penalties and loss of employment, up to credible threats of violence and imprisonment. Consequently, Western elites have internalized the constraints of political correctness, so that its lies, shabbiness and wickedness now permeate our very thought processes”.
He also goes on to say this about Outcomes under PC regimes.

Professor Bruce Charlton´s Thought prison of PC is an excellent filter through which to sieve the meaning of the establishment´s words to discern their meaning and importantly, in their confusion, their emotion….
´´The moral universe of PC subsists on two distinct realities – good causes and good intentions, but never the twain can stay stuck-together.
(Note the lack of reference to good outcomes. Being wholly abstract, PC is indifferent to outcomes. ‘Outcomes’ are regarded as having no autonomous reality, but are merely seen as part of abstract theory.)´´
In his evidence to the House of Commons Committee on Leaving the EU Dominic Cummings references the Work of Tetlock.

Chris Philp: Does the British Civil Service, which you have worked closely with in the past, have the institutional capability to do that?  Is it of a high enough calibre?
Dominic Cummings: I have written about this extensively.  There are huge problems with how Whitehall operates these days.  There are huge problems with diversion of clever people away from Whitehall.  I certainly would not be confident now with the Foreign Office and the rest of Whitehall negotiating almost anything.  We have seen what an appallingly cack‑handed job they have just done of the last EU negotiations; a lot of these guys cannot negotiate their way out of a paper bag.  In the short term, no; there would have to be a huge amount of work done in order for people to raise their game.

Q1442   Chris Philp: Yes, you made all kinds of comments about them, saying that they want to run the country, but they cannot run their own diaries.  You said that they have the wrong people, with bad education and no training, and that it is a bureaucratic system gone wrong so that duff people are promoted.  To rely on these people to negotiate annual arrangements seems like a bit of a stretch.

Dominic Cummings: When we vote Leave it is only one part of a general process of national renewal that we need.  As I have also written on many occasions, it will be very foolish to think that simply voting to leave the European Union and repealing the 1972 European Communities Act is going to solve all of our problems like a sword of Damocles that comes down and with one chop solves everything.  That is not going to happen.  There are profound problems with the modern Whitehall, and with the training and selection of senior decision-makers.  It is, generally speaking, appalling.

With the Charlton Compass and the PC Flag of Convenience upon the good ship Establishment if we take those to be the Wright Mills pillars of the establishment let’s rattle off some of the Lexicon of Generic socio-Economic Political Terms.

Authoritarian, Libertarian, Conservatism, Social and Fiscal Conservatism, Social and Liberal Liberalism, Left Wing, Right Wing, Whigg, Tory, New Labour, Red Tory, Blue Tory, Blairite, En Marche, Stronger Together, Better In, Austerity, Populism, Democracy, Nationalism, Globalism, Internationalism, Markets. “Yes We Can”


The Bumper Sticker  back in the Day would read.

antiestablishmentarianism, putting the citizen back into Civics”

Cultural Marxism, why not Cultural Liberalism, or Cultural Fascism?
Cultural Political Correctness is the Catch All for that limited manifest of the Ships Stores for these purposes it is a sufficiency.

“There were Rats Rats as Big as Alley Cats in the Quartermasters store, Rats Where, Over there Behind the Door, In the Quartermasters Store, Behind the Door”

My eyes are dim I can not see.
I have not got my specs with me.
I have HEY! Not HO! got my specs with me.

Fortunately, Dominic Cummings Had his Specs with him.

Q1460   Mr Baker: In earlier evidence, you touched on “The process for withdrawing”, so I will not ask you about that unless you want to make any particular observations that you have not covered already.  “Rights and obligations” more or less states the current situation.  If we turn to this HM Treasury analysis, it claims that, in 2015 terms, leaving the EU for a negotiated bilateral agreement would imply long‑term loss of GDP of £4,300 per year for each household in the UK.  Great fanfare was made of that claim.  From your perspective, does this conclusion and, indeed, the other similar conclusions of the document follow from the argument that has been set out?
Dominic Cummings: I do not think they do, but then I think that the whole methodology involved with these documents is intellectually spurious.  These modelling processes are based on ideas of what is known as “general equilibrium”, which has been an idea in economics going back decades.  These are all the same models that constantly fail to predict the world.  This is not the forum to go into it, but anyone inclined to take seriously this kind of modelling should go and read what Nobel Prize-winning physicists say about them.  They are garbage.  These general equilibrium models are not constructed in a way that make accurate forecasts about anything and therefore I would not take them seriously.  Overall, there is a general point about them, which is they are saying, “We think that freer trade and more investment flows are a good thing.”  I agree with the Treasury about that.  That is an uncontroversial view.  They are assuming that over the next 15 years Britain’s trading and investment relationships with the EU will be less free and less liberal than they are now.  In my opinion, that is at least an arguable assumption.  I think it is a wrong assumption.  Therefore, the modelling does not follow, even if you agree with their modelling methodology, which I think is not intellectually serious.

Q1461   Mr Baker: After we have won, I look forward to discussing the flaws in these models with you.  To conclude, are there any particular assumptions lying behind this document that you would specifically want to challenge, bearing in mind we have the Chancellor coming in to discuss it shortly?
Dominic Cummings: No.  I have a personal dislike for studies that produce numbers like £4,318.  It implies spurious precision to predictions where it does not exist and the predictions are bogus.

Q1462   Mr Baker: Variously in the press I have seen suggestions that this report has been constructed to meet the Chancellor’s requirements and his expectations for what it should say.  Do you think there is any justification in that claim?

Dominic Cummings: They are obviously constructed in a political way.  The Chancellor’s future is at stake.  He has the resources of the Treasury.  He has done what lots of people do in his position, which is use those resources for his own political ends.

Elliots Man ? 2 Token sheilas and a Pakistani FIAT Gelt Counterfeiter.

Workspace 1_842.jpg

Quotes Katie Adler?

“Don’t listen to those who say that the EU is dug in, that it won’t shift its position. Listen to what the BBC’s Europe Correspondent Katya Adler said on Wednesday night: “EU leaders want to avoid a no-deal Brexit, so there is a bit of wiggle room”

Banking career[edit] Javid joined Chase Manhattan Bank in New York City immediately after graduation, working mostly in South America. Aged 25,[a] he became vice president.[17][20][b]He returned to London in 1997, and later joined Deutsche Bank as a director in 2000. In 2004, he became a managing director at Deutsche Bank and, the following year, global head of Emerging Markets Structuring.[22] In 2007, he relocated to Singapore as head of Deutsche Bank’s credit trading, equity convertibles, commodities and private equity businesses in Asia,[23] and was appointed a board member of Deutsche Bank International Limited. He left Deutsche Bank in 2009 to pursue a career in politics. His earnings at Deutsche Bank would have been roughly £3,000,000 a year at the time he left [24] and the Evening Standard once estimated his career change would have required him to take a 98% pay cut.[25]

Deutsche Bank To Launch €50 Billion “Bad Bank” Housing Billions In Toxic Derivatives

Of course, it will hardly come as a surprise that the German bank best known for housing €43.5 trillion in gross derivatives notional(something we first pointed out way back in 2013)… … will stuff its “bad bank”, known internally also as “the non-core asset unit”, with – drumroll – long-dated derivatives. According to the FT, the CEO will likely to announce the changes with the bank’s half-year results in late-July.

Sajid needs to be more like Vinnie perhaps.

The tragedy of Kosovo, Twenty years on, NATO’s Kosovo campaign is a testament to the horrors of ‘humanitarian intervention’.

How the Balkans should be? The distance between rhetoric and reality gapes widest in relation to the claim that, as Kosovo’s EU-approved constitution proclaims repeatedly, it is ‘a multi-ethnic society’. This, after all, is supposedly what the war was all about: Blair claimed at the time that ‘it was fought for [the] fundamental principle… that every human being, regardless of race, religion or birth, has the inalienable right to live free from persecution’.

International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP

Is Ought Humes Guillotine ,  David Hume wrote extensively about the Is-Ought problem and the arguments between Monetary reformers seem to fall into the Ought Camp where IS questions are disputed this tends to be where the IS facts do not fit with the Ought convictions/beliefs. The Aspect of the debate which is potentially the most helpful is seeing matters in terms of Resources and allocation of resources to production of wants and needs in this question the pathfinders are somewhat more scarce. Discussion

Caleb Williams , World AS IT IS?

The following narrative is intended to answer a purpose more general and important than immediately appears upon the face of it. The question now afloat in the world respecting THINGS AS THEY ARE is the most interesting that can be presented to the human mind. While one party pleads for reformation and change, the other extols in the warmest terms the existing constitution of society. It seemed as if something would be gained for the decision of this question if that constitution were faithfully developed in its practical effects. What is now presented to the public is no refined and abstract speculation; it is a study and delineation of things passing in the moral world. It is but of late that the inestimable importance of political principles has been adequately apprehended. It is now known to philosophers that the spirit and character of the Government intrudes itself into every rank of society. But this is a truth highly worthy to be communicated to persons whom books of philosophy and science are never likely to reach. Accordingly, it was proposed, in the invention of the following work, to comprehend, as far as the progressive nature of a single story would allow, a general review of the modes of domestic and unrecorded despotism by which man becomes the destroyer of man. If the author shall have taught a valuable lesson, without subtracting from the interest and passion by which a performance of this sort ought to be characterised, he will have reason to congratulate himself upon the vehicle he has chosen.


May 12, 1794.

Workspace 1_843.jpg

#19: Final message from Vote Leave HQ to our supporters Pre-23 June 2016 (I stopped blogging on the referendum in autumn 2015 because so many MPs complained that what I wrote was picked up by journalists and it wasn’t worth arguing about.) September 2015 #18: The ECJ uses the Charter of Fundamental Rights to take more power over the UK, this is just the start

#17: The state of the campaign #16: New ICM poll shows differential turnout could be important, only a third support the failing EU project ”

Workspace 1_844.jpg

The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts. Money and financial institutions provide the command and control system of a modern society. The study of the mechanism, how they are formed, how they are controlled and manipulated and how their influence is measured in terms of social, political, and economic purpose pose questions not in pure economics, not even in a narrow political economy, but in the broad compass of a political economy set in the context of society. ” Martin Shubik


Cestui Que Vie

Cestui que vie is French for he who lives. It is a legal term for an individual who is the beneficiary of a trust or insurance policy, with rights to property and the income and profits that the property provides.

BREAKING DOWN Cestui Que Vie Cestui que vie as a legal concept dates to the medieval period, specifically England. During this time, the owners of farms and other properties could be absent for extended periods of time as they traveled, whether for business or religious purposes.

William N. Grigg said…

What you are describing is not a misunderstanding about the principles of civics, but the vast and perhaps unbridgeable gulf that separates genuinely civilized people from those who subscribe to statist superstition.

I understand, and have written a great deal about, the principle recognized by Augustine in the 5th Century — namely, that a government is a robber band that has achieved territorial mastery and granted itself impunity. It is, in other words, the most successful aggressor.

I reject the proposition that aggression can be moral,or that we should pretend that successful aggression should be ratified. “Limiting” the supposed right to commit aggression is neither morally correct nor practical– as the failure of the constitutional system demonstrates. (Remember how the Constitution “permanently” limited legislative power, and kept it separate from executive and judicial power? How did that arrangement work out?)

The only way out of our predicament is for people to stop validating aggression in any form.


The Conspiracy of Contexts , Political Correctness, Peer review and Peer Pressure.

1. Who ate all the pieties or ´Now is not a time for soundbites´.

”Say I get up on Nightline, I´m given whatever it is , 2 Minutes and I say Gaddafi is a terrorist Khomeini is a murderer. Whatever it is etc.etc. The Russians , you know invaded Afghanistan all this sort of stuff, everyone just nods, you simply don’t need any evidence. But suppose you say something thats not just re-gurgitating ”conventional pieties”, say you say something the least bit unexpected or controversial . Suppose you say …………. ( insert Green Party Policies on Basic Income, reform of debt based money or not renewing Trident here )” (Equally, insert Jeremy Corbyn´s heterodox politics to Blu Labour and Neo liberal austerity )

Quote from Noam Chomsky starts at 1min 48 s or click link

#Regurgitating conventional pieties #Politicians, #Leaders and #Flags of Convenience, #Tory Party Tokenism #Labour Party Tokenism, #Political Correctness #Bruce Charlton. #Authoritarianism, #Libertarianism #Conservatism #Social and Fiscal, #Liberalism ( See PC, Left Liberal , or Right Liberal) #Austerity ( Money Scarcity), #Distributism, (Material Abundance of Necessaries) #Populism. #Democracy #Social Democracy #Democratic Democracy #Localism, #Nationalism, #Internationalism, #Globalism ( #Subsidiarity) #Technocracy, #Cybernetics,#Systems Thinking #Nihilism, #Religion, #Atheism, #Agnosticism , #Moral Relativism #Cultural Marxism, #Cultural Liberalism, #Cultural #Fascism #Propaganda

Tobias Michael Carel Asser (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈtoːbiɑs miˈʃɛl ˈkaːrəl ˈɑsər]; 28 April 1838 – 29 July 1913) was a Dutch lawyer and legal scholar of Jewish background. In 1911, he won the Nobel Prize for Peace (together with Alfred Fried) for his work in the field of private international law, and in particular for his achievements establishing the Hague Conference on Private International Law The Hague Conference on Private International Law[edit] Asser was a leading legal mind in the area of private international law and firmly believed that sound legal frameworks that govern private cross-border relationships would promote peace and stability. In 1893, Asser initiated the convocation of the First Diplomatic Session of the HCCH, the preeminent global organisation in the area of private international law. The participating States were Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, and Switzerland. Asser was elected the Session’s President, and subsequently re-elected at the Second to Fourth Session which took place in 1894, 1900 and 1904 respectively. Under his leadership, the HCCH developed a number of multilateral treaties, the Hague Conventions, that unified the rules of private international law in the areas of Marriage (1902), Divorce (1902), Guardianship (1902), Civil Procedure (1905), Effects of Marriage (1905), and Deprivation of Civil Rights (1905). In 1911, Asser received the Nobel Prize for Peace. In his Award Ceremony Speech on 10 December 1911, Chairman of the Nobel Committee Jørgen Gunnarsson Løvland emphasised specifically Asser’s work in the field of private international law, and his achievements establishing the HCCH, as reasons for receiving the Nobel Piece Price, describing Asser as “a successor to or reviver of The Netherlands’ pioneer work in international law in the seventeenth century”, the Hugo Grotius of his time.[4]

Alfred Hermann Fried

Born in Vienna, Austria-Hungary, Fried left school at the age of 15 and started to work in a bookshop. In 1883 he moved to Berlin, where he opened a bookshop of his own in 1887. Following the publication by Bertha von Suttner of Die Waffen nieder! (Lay Down Your Arms) in 1889, he and von Suttner began in 1892 to print a magazine of the same name. In articles published within Die Waffen nieder! and its successor, Die Friedenswarte (The Peace Watch), he articulated his pacifist philosophy. In 1892 he was a co-founder of the German Peace Society (Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft). He was one of the fathers of the idea of a modern organisation to assure worldwide peace (the principal idea was developed in the League of Nationsand after the Second World War in the UN). Alfred Hermann Fried Fried was a prominent member of the Esperanto-movement. In 1903 he published the book Lehrbuch der internationalen Hilfssprache Esperanto (Textbook of the International Language of Esperanto). In 1909 he collaborated with Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine of the Central Office of International Associations in the preparation of the Annuaire de la Vie Internationale.[1] In 1911 he received the Nobel Peace Prize together with Tobias Asser. During the First World War he lived in Switzerland and died in Vienna in 1921. His ashes are buried at Feuerhalle Simmering.

Herbert Bayard Swope Sr. (January 5, 1882 – June 20, 1958) was a U.S. editor, journalist and intimate of the Algonquin Round Table. Swope spent most of his career at the New York World. He was the first and three-time recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Reporting. Swope was called the greatest reporter of his time by Lord Northcliffe of the London Daily Mail.[1] Swope was the first recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Reporting in 1917 for a series of articles that year entitled “Inside the German Empire”[2] The articles formed the basis for a book released in 1917 entitled Inside the German Empire: In the Third Year of the War (ISBN 9781436646178), which he co-authored with James W. Gerard. Swope was the first recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for Reporting in 1917 for a series of articles that year entitled “Inside the German Empire”[2] The articles formed the basis for a book released in 1917 entitled Inside the German Empire: In the Third Year of the War (ISBN 9781436646178), which he co-authored with James W. Gerard. Although standard editorial pages have been printed by newspapers for many centuries, Swope established the first modern op-ed page in 1921. When he took over as editor in 1920, he realized that the page opposite the editorials, was “a catchall for book reviews, society boilerplate, and obituaries.”[4] He wrote: “It occurred to me that nothing is more interesting than opinion when opinion is interesting, so I devised a method of cleaning off the page opposite the editorial, which became the most important in America… and thereon I decided to print opinions, ignoring facts.”[5]

“The idea that to make a man work you’ve got to hold gold in front of his eyes is a growth, not an axiom. We’ve done that for so long that we’ve forgotten there’s any other way”. —

F. Scott Fitzgerald

The imperialistic nature of current media controls who, when, and where public dialogue is directed. The passion and articulance of an average individual has little chance to be published or acquire public visibility. The inability to publish a thought restricts the search for others with a similar passion. Seclusion breeds bias and ignorance. It influences polarization which feeds anger and hate. Polarization is reduced by sharing points of view. Solution with broader consensus comes through collaboration. The Public Blog and Wiki Warlords Blogs serve a great purpose with informal dialogue. Radio programs such as WBUR’s On Point has a very active blog for each hour program. Though the conversations are typically polarizing, participation can become addicting. Mixed into the mindless chatter are many intellectual comments. The problem with a blog is the inability to channel thought in a productive manner. A blog does not direct the flow of suggestion to solution. When large volume of activity occurs, serious inquiry and suggestion are quickly funnelled to obscurity. An analogy of a blog is taking a shower in a public bathroom. It’s like watching that lone hair swirl until it adds to the other debris clogging the drain.  It’s hard to pick out value in the collection of a public mess. Wikipedia is a very productive system for developing factual based content. As Ward Cunningham describe it, “blogs encourage divergence, perhaps to the point of dysfunction. Wikis encourage convergence, else edit wars produce dysfunction.” Wikipedia fails at being a platform for developing ideas or opinion. As Ward describes, edit wars restrict the development of ideas. Wikipedia succeeds on historical or fact-based concepts where consensus is the norm. Solutions evolve from opinion. Most problems have hundreds of answers. For a democratic method of problem-solving to work, an individual must have control of his or her thought.  A new media should promote civic engagement in helping individuals develop community solutions. It should encourage civic solutions. I am grateful to you as a reader for taking your valuable time to follow this personal journey, which continues. I wish you well in your journey. — Conclusion of Senator Paul Simon’s Autobiography.

Etymology[edit] The term certioriari (pronounced (/ˌsɜːrʃəˈrɛəraɪ/, /-ˈrɛəri/, or /-ˈrɑːrɪ/ [1][2]) comes from the words used at the beginning of these writs when they were written in Latin: certiorārī (volumus) “[we wish] to be made certain”. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin verb certioro, certiorare(“to inform, apprise, show”).[2][3] It is often abbreviated cert. in the United States, particularly in relation to applications to the Supreme Court of the United States for review of a lower court decision.[4]

Conflict of laws (sometimes called private international law) concerns relations across different legal jurisdictions between natural persons, companies, corporations and other legal entities, their legal obligations and the appropriate forum and procedure for resolving disputes between them. Conflict of laws especially affects private international law,[1][2][3] but may also affect domestic legal disputes e.g. determination of which state law applies in the United States, or where a contract makes incompatible reference to more than one legal framework.

European Union law is the system of laws operating within the member states of the European Union. The EU has political institutions and social and economic policies. According to its Court of Justice, the EU represents “a new legal order of international law”.[2] The EU’s legal foundations are the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, unanimously agreed by the governments of 28 member states. New states may join the EU, if they agree to operate by the rules of the organisation, and existing members may leave according to their “own constitutional requirements”.[3] Citizens are able to vote directly in elections to the Parliament, while their national governments operate on behalf of them in the Council of the European Union and the European Council. The Commission is the executive branch. The Council of the European Union represents member state governments, while the Court of Justice is meant to uphold the rule of law and human rights.[4] As the Court of Justice said, the EU is “not merely an economic union” but is intended to “ensure social progress and seek the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples”.[5] Conflict of laws[edit] show • EU law primacy cases Main articles: Primacy of European Union law and Conflict of laws Since its founding, the EU has operated among an increasing plurality of national and globalising legal systems.[90] This has meant both the European Court of Justice and the highest national courts have had to develop principles to resolve conflicts of laws between different systems. Within the EU itself, the Court of Justice’s view is that if EU law conflicts with a provision of national law, then EU law has primacy. In the first major case in 1964, Costa v ENEL, a Milanese lawyer, and former shareholder of an energy company, named Mr Costa refused to pay his electricity bill to Enel, as a protest against the nationalisation of the Italian energy corporations.[91] He claimed the Italian nationalisation law conflicted with the Treaty of Rome,[92] and requested a reference be made to both the Italian Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice under TFEU article 267.[93] The Italian Constitutional Court gave an opinion that because the nationalisation law was from 1962, and the treaty was in force from 1958, Costa had no claim. By contrast, the Court of Justice held that ultimately the Treaty of Rome in no way prevented energy nationalisation, and in any case under the Treaty provisions only the Commission could have brought a claim, not Mr Costa. However, in principle, Mr Costa was entitled to plead that the Treaty conflicted with national law, and the court would have a duty to consider his claim to make a reference if there would be no appeal against its decision. The Court of Justice, repeating its view in Van Gend en Loos,[94] said member states “have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves”[95] on the “basis of reciprocity”.[95] EU law would not “be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed… without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question”. This meant any “subsequent unilateral act” of the member state inapplicable.[96] Similarly, in Amministrazione delle Finanze v Simmenthal SpA, a company, Simmenthal SpA, claimed that a public health inspection fee under an Italian law of 1970 for importing beef from France to Italy was contrary to two Regulations from 1964 and 1968. In “accordance with the principle of the precedence of Community law”, said the Court of Justice, the “directly applicable measures of the institutions” (such as the Regulations in the case) “render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law”. This was necessary to prevent a “corresponding denial” of Treaty “obligations undertaken unconditionally and irrevocably by member states”, that could “imperil the very foundations of the” EU.[97] But despite the views of the Court of Justice, the national courts of member states have not accepted the same analysis. Most member state courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,[98] accept that EU law has primacy over national law in limited fields, unless it would compromise constitutional principles of democracy and human rights.[99]

Hugo Grotius From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia “Hugo de Groot” redirects here. For the crash of the KLM plane known under that name, see KLM Flight 607-E. Hugo Grotius Portrait of Hugo Grotius by Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt, 1631 Born 10 April 1583 Delft, Holland, Dutch Republic Died 28 August 1645 (aged 62) Rostock, Swedish Pomerania Alma mater Leiden University Era Renaissance philosophy Region Western philosophy School Natural law Main interests Philosophy of war, international law, political philosophy Notable ideas Theory of natural rights, grounding just war principles in natural law Influences[show] Influenced[show] Hugo Grotius (/ˈɡroʊʃiəs/; 10 April 1583 – 28 August 1645), also known as Huig de Groot (Dutch: [ˈɦœyɣ də ɣroːt]) or Hugo de Groot (Dutch: [ˈɦyɣoː də ɣroːt]), was a Dutch jurist. Along with the earlier works of Francisco de Vitoria and Alberico Gentili, he laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law. A teenage intellectual prodigy, he was born in Delft and studied at Leiden University. He was imprisoned for his involvement in the intra-Calvinist disputes of the Dutch Republic, but escaped hidden in a chest of books. Grotius wrote most of his major works in exile in France. It is thought that Hugo Grotius was not the first to formulate the international society doctrine, but he was one of the first to define expressly the idea of one society of states, governed not by force or warfare but by actual laws and mutual agreement to enforce those laws. As Hedley Bull declared in 1990: “The idea of international society which Grotius propounded was given concrete expression in the Peace of Westphalia, and Grotius may be considered the intellectual father of this first general peace settlement of modern times.”[1] Additionally, his contributions to Arminian theology helped provide the seeds for later Arminian-based movements, such as Methodism and Pentecostalism; Grotius is acknowledged as a significant figure in the Arminianism–Calvinism debate. Because of his theological underpinning of free trade, he is also considered an “economic theologist”.[2] History of the Calvinist–Arminian debate Theological background[edit]

Augustine and Pelagius[edit] Sixth-century portrait of Augustine of Hippo (354–430) at the Lateran church Pelagius was a British monk who journeyed to Rome around the year 400 A.D. and was appalled at the lax behavior within churches. To combat this lack of holiness, he preached a Gospel that began with justification through faith alone (it was actually Pelagius, not Luther, who first added the word alone to Paul’s phrase)[1] but finished through human effort and morality. He had read Augustine’s Confessions and believed it to be a fatalistic and pessimistic view of human nature. Pelagius’ followers, including Caelestius, went further than their teacher and removed justification through faith, setting up the morality- and works-based salvation known as Pelagianism. It should be mentioned that the only historical evidence of the teachings of Pelagius or his followers is found through the writings of his two strongest opponents — Augustine and Jerome. In response to Pelagius, Augustine adopted a theological system that included not only original sin (which Pelagius denied), but also a form of predestination.[1] Some authors maintain that Augustine taught the doctrines of limited atonement[2] and of irresistible grace,[3] later associated with classic Calvinism; however, others insist that Augustine’s writings conflict with these doctrines.[1][4] Critics maintain that part of Augustine’s philosophy might have stemmed from his expertise in Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Manichaeism, which maintained a very high view of a man’s spirit and very low view of a man’s body.[2] Against the Pelagian notion that man can do everything right, he taught that man could do little right. Thus, he reasoned, man cannot even accept the offer of salvation — it must be God who chooses for himself individuals to bring to salvation. A group of Italian bishops, led by Julian, defended the Pelagian view against the Augustinian concept of predestination but was rejected by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Later a monastic movement in Southern Gaul (modern-day France) also sought to explain predestination in light of God’s foreknowledge, but a flurry of writings from Augustine (Grace and Free Will, Correction and Grace, The Predestination of the Saints and The Gift of Perseverance) helped maintain the papal authority of his doctrines. Semi-Pelagianism and Semi-Augustinianism[edit] After the death of Augustine, a more moderate form of Pelagianism persisted, which claimed that man’s faith was an act of free will unassisted by previous internal grace. The Second Council of Orange (529)[5] was convened to address whether this moderate form of semi-Pelagianism could be affirmed, or if the doctrines of Augustine were to be affirmed. The determination of the Council could be considered “semi-Augustinian”.[6][7] It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief.[8][9][10] However, it also denied strict predestination, stating, “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” The document received papal sanction. Calvinist Reformers used the Council’s canons to demonstrate that their formulations of original sin and depravity had already been taught much earlier in the church. Arminian theologians[11][12] also refer to the Council of Orange as a historical document that strongly affirms man’s depravity and God’s prevenient grace but does not present grace as irresistible or adhere to a strictly Augustinian view of predestination. Middle Ages[edit] Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in a portrait,  1400, by Gentile da Fabriano Augustine’s teaching on divine grace was considered a touchstone of orthodoxy within the western church throughout the Middle Ages.[citation needed] Nevertheless, within an Augustinian context, theologians continued to debate the precise nature of God and man’s participation in salvation, as well as attempting to work out a place for the church’s emerging system of sacraments in the overall scheme of salvation. Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of the Middle Ages, taught that, from man’s fallen state, there were three steps to salvation: 1. Infusion of grace (infusio gratiae)- God infuses grace into the human soul – the Christian now has faith and, with it, the ability to do good – this step is entirely God’s work and is not done by man, and once a man has faith, he can never entirely lose it – however, faith alone is not enough for salvation; 2. Faith formed by charity (fides caritate formata)- with man’s free will restored, man must now do his best to do good works in order to have a faith formed by charity; and then 3. Condign merit (meritum de condigno) – God then judges and awards eternal life on the basis of these good works which Aquinas called man’s condign merit. Aquinas believed that by this system, he had reconciled Ephesians 2:8 (“By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God”) and James 2:20 (“faith without works is dead”) and 2:24 (“by works a man is justified and not by faith only”), and had provided an exposition of the Bible’s teaching on salvation compatible with Augustine’s teachings.

A second stream of medieval thought, commonly referred to as the Ockhamists after William of Ockham and also including Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel rejected Aquinas’ system as destroying man’s free will. The Ockhamists argued that if a man loved God simply because of “infused grace”, then man did not love God freely. They argued that before a man received an infusion of grace, man must do his best in a state of nature (i.e. based on man’s reason and inborn moral sense). They argued that just as God awards eternal life on the basis of man’s condign merit for doing his best to do good works after receiving faith as a gift from God, so too, the original infusion of grace was given to man on the basis of “congruent merit”, a reward for man’s doing his best in a state of nature. (Unlike condign merit, which is fully deserved by man, congruent merit is not fully deserved, and includes a measure of grace on God’s part. Congruent merit is therefore also sometimes called “semimerit”. According to the Ockhamists, a gracious God awards an individual with congruent merit when he or she does the best that he or she is able to do.) Aquinas’ followers, commonly referred to as the Thomists, accused the Ockhamists of Pelagianism for basing the infusion of grace on man’s works. The Ockhamists defended themselves from charges of Pelagianism by arguing that, in the Ockhamist system, God was not bound to award the infusion of grace on the basis of congruent merit; rather, God’s decision to award the infusion of grace on the basis of congruent merit was an entirely gracious act on God’s part. Martin Luther’s condemnation of “justification by works” clearly condemned Ockhamism. Some proponents of ecumenism argue that the Thomist view of salvation is not opposed to Luther’s view of grace, and, since Ockhamism was rejected as Semipelagian by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, theology of salvation need not pose a bar to Protestant-Catholic reunion. (The major streams of modern Catholic thought on the theology of salvation are Thomism and Molinism, a theology developed by Jesuit theologian Luis Molina in the 16th century and also held today by some Protestants such as William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.) However, since the Catholic Church’s rejection of Jansenism in the bull Unigenitus (1713), it has been clear that Calvinism could not be accommodated within Catholicism. Arminianism, on the other hand, while it might not square entirely with Catholic theologies of salvation, probably could be accommodated within the Catholic Church, a fact which Arminianism’s Protestant opponents have often pointed out. (Augustus Toplady, for example, famously claimed that Arminianism was the “Road to Rome.”) Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam[edit] This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Desiderius Erasmus(1466/69–1536) in a 1523 portrait by Hans Holbein the Younger Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk in Erfurt. In his Disputation Against Scholastic Theology of 4 September 1517, Luther entered into the medieval debate between the Thomists and the Ockhamists by attacking the Ockhamist position and arguing that man by nature lacks the ability to do good that the Ockhamists asserted he had (and thus denying that man could do anything to deserve congruent merit). Modern scholars disagree about whether Luther in fact intended to criticize all scholastics in this Disputation or if he was concerned only with the Ockhamists. Arguing in favor of a broader interpretation is the fact that Luther went on to criticize the use of Aristotle in theology (Aristotle was the basis of Thomist as well as Ockhamist theology). If this is the case, it is likely that Luther saw Aquinas’ fides caritate formata as merely a more cautious form of Pelagianism (or as Semipelagianism).[citation needed] Luther continued to defend these views. In 1520, Pope Leo X issued the papal bull Exsurge Domine, which condemned a position which Luther had maintained at the 1518 Heidelberg Disputation, namely that “After the Fall free will is something in name only and when it does what is in it, it sins mortally.” Luther subsequently defended the proposition in his Defense and Explanation of All the Articles Unjustly Condemned by the Roman Bull of Leo X (1520), in the process stating that “free will is really a fiction…with no reality, because it is in no man’s power to plan any evil or good. As the article of Wycliffe, condemned at Constance, correctly teaches: everything takes place by absolute necessity.” Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, though first sympathetic to Luther, reacted negatively to what he saw as Luther’s determinism. In his De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (A Disquisition on Freedom of the Will) (1524),

Erasmus caricatures the limitations of free will that he saw Luther espousing. Though at times in the Diatribe, Erasmus sounded like an Ockhamist, for the most part he attempted to espouse a middle course between grace and free will, attempting to avoid on the one hand the errors of the Pelagians and the Ockhamists, and on the other hand, the “Manichaean” error of Luther and other strict Augustinians. Luther responded with his De Servo Arbitrio (On the Bondage of the Will) (1525) in which he attacked Erasmus vehemently and argued that man was not free to do good. Rather, man’s fallen nature is in bondage to sin and to Satan and man can only do evil. The only way an individual can be saved is if God freely chooses to give that person the gift of faith. Luther’s position in On the Bondage of the Will became the position adopted by the Protestant movement. Seventeenth-century English politics[edit] Further information: Arminianism in the Church of England Early Stuart society was religious, and religion at that time was political. King James I managed religious conflicts for most of the 1610s, but most






Protestants maintained a fear of Catholicism. Though Arminians were Protestant, they were perceived as being less antagonistic to Catholicism than the Calvinists were. James I initially moved to keep them out of his realm, and supported the official position of the Synod of Dort. In 1618, the Thirty Years’ War began. It was a religious war, and many of James’s subjects (particularly in Parliament) wanted his kingdom to go to war on the side of the king’s son-in-law, Frederick V, Elector Palatine. James, however, preferred diplomacy. The loudest of the supporters for war were Puritans, a term presenting difficulties of definition but who doctrinally were in general orthodox Calvinists. Some scholars believe that the Arminians’ support for the king’s efforts to prevent war led to him promoting a number of them in order to balance out the Puritans.[citation needed]Others argue that these promotions were simply the result of meritocratic considerations: ‘James promoted Arminians because they were scholarly, diligent and able men in their diocese.'[13] In 1625, James I died, leaving the throne to his son, Charles I. Charles I supported the Arminians, and continued the trend of promoting them; Charles tended to promote only Arminians.[14] The religious changes which Charles imposed on his subjects, in the form of Laudianism, were identified (rightly or wrongly) with Arminian theology.[citation needed] They brought him into direct conflict with the Scottish Presbyterian Calvinists of the Church of Scotland. The resulting Bishops’ Wars were a trigger for the English Civil War, both of them part of the larger Wars of the Three Kingdoms which had complex roots, among which religious beliefs were a major factor. Four-point Calvinists[edit] Richard Baxter (1615–1691), father of English Presbyterianism and the most well-known advocate of four-point Calvinism The so-called “four-point Calvinists” claim that the doctrine of limited atonement is non-scriptural and that it was never endorsed by Calvin or the Synod of Dort. The four-point Calvinists, like five-point Calvinists,[citation needed] accept a distinction initially made by Peter Lombard and subsequently adopted by Thomas Aquinas that the atonement was sufficient for the whole world but efficient only to the elect. Put another way, Christ’s death atones for the whole world (it is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world), but the benefits of Christ’s death are applied only to the elect (it is efficient only to atone for the sins of the elect). The four-point Calvinists argue that Calvin adopted this position when he wrote that “It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins ‘of the whole world.'” They also believe that the four-point position was endorsed by the Synod of Dort under Article 3 of the Second Main Point of Doctrine where the synod proclaimed that “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” This is the position which the leader of the English Presbyterians, Richard Baxter, asserted in his famous controversy with the leader of the English Congregationalists, John Owen. Roman Catholic views[edit] Post-reformation Roman Catholicism has remained largely outside the debate, although Thomist and Molinist views continue within the church. Augustinian theodicy, including those elements wherein Calvin was influenced by Augustine of Hippo, continues to be the prevalent soteriology in Roman Catholicism. Also, Jansenism has been seen by many as very similar to Calvinist doctrine, and was condemned as such by the Catholic Church in the late 17th century. Eastern Orthodox views[edit] A Synod of Eastern Orthodox Churches was called in Jerusalem in 1672 to refute attempted encroachments of Protestant Calvinism. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) also referred to as The Confession of Dositheus in 1672,[15] strongly rejected Calvinistic formulations and named them heresy. In part, it stated, We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He hath chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He hath rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause….since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.[16] In the same document, the synod renounced Calvin by name and pronounced an anathema upon anyone teaching that God predestined anyone to evil or Hell.

´´Wire Tapping ´´ Technologically Challenged Media´´Schadenfreude, It´s Like German Chocolate Cake for the soul.



Peace activists the new Thought Criminals?

List of peace activists

How many of these people have you heard of, How many peace activists get on the mainstream media any more? Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP)

is a nonpartisan unarmed peacekeeping organization with the goal of protecting civilians and reducing violence in areas affected by armed conflict.[1] NP holds Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations,[2] and has been endorsed by nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including the Dalai Lama and former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.[3] In 2016, Nonviolent Peaceforce was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.[4]


Just one Descent into PC Bed wetting over Brexit?

I like Peter Tatchell and I am intrigued in how he has lapsed into the sort of confirmation bias that ends in the adoption of the same Narratives as Tom Watson. Neither of the Three is really where we should be looking for answers is my thesis. That said, as Tatchell is a Peace Activist who has been in my own opinion and still remains one of the good guys he is an interesting case study for where the boundary limits of the Semi – Establishment lies, In the same sort of way that the Doctrines of Pelagianism and Augustinianism and Semi Pelagianism lie. Another fascinating look at the Rock and Hard place that the good guys on the inside face is the imagined meeting of Spinoza and Leibniz here.
To be an Establishment figure it used to be said “It’s NotWhat but Who you Know that makes all the difference. Actually, it is

Corpus Juris Civilis

The work as planned had three parts: the Code (Codex) is a compilation, by selection and extraction, of imperial enactments to date; the Digest or Pandects (the Latin title contains both Digesta and Pandectae) is an encyclopedia composed of mostly brief extracts from the writings of Roman jurists; and the Institutes (Institutiones) is a student textbook, mainly introducing the Code, although it has important conceptual elements that are less developed in the Code or the Digest. All three parts, even the textbook, were given force of law. They were intended to be, together, the sole source of law; reference to any other source, including the original texts from which the Code and the Digest had been taken, was forbidden. Nonetheless, Justinian found himself having to enact further laws and today these are counted as a fourth part of the Corpus, the Novellae Constitutiones (Novels, literally New Laws).

That it is “Who you know and what you believe that counts”

In 1676 Leibniz found a pretext to visit Spinoza in The Hague, having learned that Spinoza was at work on a philosophical treatise of great importance. Spinoza showed Leibniz the manuscript of the Ethics, and the two men discussed philosophy together over several days. Although there is no written record of their conversation, it seems likely that these discussions were among the most rewarding in the whole history of philosophy.

Nicholas Jolley, Leibniz (New York: Routledge, 2005), p. 18.

While working as a consultant in the Netherlands, I got the idea of writing a philosophical thriller centered on the secret meeting that took place between the philosophers Leibniz and Spinoza in The Hague in 1676. I was sure that my novel/ screenplay would rejuvenate the discussion of modern philosophy in a timely and accessible way. I figured I could pitch the idea to Hollywood as Umberto Eco meets Dangerous Liaisons in Copenhagen. More recently, I realized that the facts of the matter were more interesting and more illuminating than anything I could fabricate, and so I wrote The Courtier and the Heretic.


Labour candidate for Bermondsey[edit] In 1978, Tatchell joined the Labour Party and moved to a council flat in Bermondsey, south-east London. From October 1979, he became a leading member in a group of left-wingers planning to depose the right-wing caucus of Southwark councillors that controlled the Bermondsey Constituency Labour Party (CLP). At the CLP’s AGM in February 1980, the left group won control and Tatchell was elected Secretary.[citation needed] When the sitting Labour MP, Bob Mellish, announced his retirement in 1981, Tatchell was selected as his successor. The selection was a surprise, as Arthur Latham, a former MP and former Chairman of the Tribune Group, was the favourite. Later, the Militant group was cited as the reason for Tatchell’s selection, but he has said that it had only a handful of members at that time in the constituency; he had never been a member and Militant did not support his selection. Tatchell ascribed his selection to the support of the “older, ‘born and bred’ working class; the younger professional and intellectual members swung behind Latham”.[27] Due to Tatchell’s support for direct action in the London Labour Briefing newsletter,[28] Tatchell was denounced by party leader Michael Foot for allegedly supporting extra-parliamentary action against the Thatcher government;[2][3] according to Tony Benn, Foot lied about Tatchell’s alleged extremism in order to allow the Social Democratic Party to rejoin the Labour Party. Neil Kinnock stated that the whole affair was a matter of political judgement, asking “the question is: are we talking of extra-parliamentary or anti-parliamentary behaviour?”[29] The fact that Tatchell was a gay man was also considered by some as a factor as to why Tatchell should not be supported.[29] Labour subsequently allowed him to stand in the Bermondsey by-election, held in February 1983. 2015 Labour Party leadership election[edit] In August 2015, Tatchell endorsed Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign in the Labour Party leadership election. He tweeted: “Jeremy Corbyn is the best hope for a progressive shake-up of UK politics @jeremycorbyn @Corbyn4Leader #SignUp4Corbyn”.


[74] Since then he has criticised Corbyn, tweeting in August 2018 that: “For all of us who support Jeremy Corbyn’s UK social justice policies, his repeated praise for, & collusion with, anti-semites & Islamist fascists is very disturbing. He has NEVER recanted or apologised.” and urging his followers to read a piece on Corbyn’s links to Raed Salah.[75] Foreign politics[edit] Imperialism[edit] While still at school, Tatchell campaigned in favour of better treatment of, and full human rights for, the Aboriginal people of Australia.[14] He believes that Australian cities should be renamed with their original Aboriginal place names, to sever ties with the colonial era. For example, he wants the Tasmanian capital Hobart to be renamed Nibberluna, arguing that this would be a fitting tribute to Australia’s Aboriginal heritage, which he says has been discarded and disrespected for too long.[112] His anti-imperialist activism began in 1968 and involved campaigns against the war in Vietnam. He participated in the mass Vietnam Moratorium protests in his Melbourne in 1970. The same year he founded and was elected secretary of the inter-denominational anti-war movement, Christians for Peace. Later, on moving to London in 1971, he was active in solidarity work with the independence movements in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea Bissau, Namibia, Eritrea, Oman, New Hebrides, Western Sahara, Palestine, East Timor and West Papua.[citation needed] In 2002, he brought an unsuccessful legal action in Bow Street Magistrate’s Court for the arrest of the former U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, on charges of war crimes in Vietnam and Cambodia.[113] Anglican and Catholic churches[edit] Peter Tatchell behind Richard Dawkins, protesting Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United Kingdom Tatchell criticised the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI, whom he described as “the ideological inheritor of Nazi homophobia”.[137] “He’d like to eradicate homosexuality, but since he can’t put LGBT people in physical concentration camps, is doing his best to put them in psychological concentration camps.”[137] Channel 4 indicated in June 2010 that Tatchell would be the presenter of a documentary film examining “the current Pope’s teachings throughout the world”.[138] The announcement sparked criticism from some prominent British Catholics including Conservative politician Ann Widdecombe, who accused Channel 4 of trying to “stir up controversy”. Tatchell stated as part of the announcement that the documentary “will not be an anti-Catholic programme”.[138] With respect to Anglicanism, he stated that “it’s very sad to see a good man like the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, going to such extraordinary lengths to appease homophobes within the Anglican Communion”.[139] On 15 September 2010, Tatchell, along with 54 other public figures, signed an open letter, published in The Guardian, stating their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI’s state visit to the UK.[140] In 2017 Tatchell praised the Church of England’s new ‘Valuing all God’s Children’ scheme for schools, which seeks to stop homophobic and transphobic bullying.[141] Multiculturalism[edit] Tatchell has occasionally been moderately critical of multiculturalism. In 2010 he gave a speech to the Libertarian Alliance at the National Liberal Club[142] arguing that British people are increasingly “fragmented according to their different and sometimes competing identities, values, and traditions. These differences are prioritised over shared experiences and interests. Our common needs and the universalities of human rights are downplayed in favour of religious and racial particularities.” Free speech[edit] In 2006, during the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Tatchell spoke at a 25 March 2006 rally called the Freedom of Expression Rally.[143] At the rally, Tatchell argued for the “disestablishment of the Church of England and the freedom to insult the Queen, Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury.” Tatchell said that the far-left is “Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights. Their support for free speech is now qualified by so many ifs and buts. When push comes to shove, it is more or less worthless.”[144] In 2007, he wrote a Guardian opinion piece, arguing that “The best way to tackle prejudice is by presenting facts and using reasoned arguments, to break down ignorance and ill-will.”[145] In 2016, Tatchell made threats to free speech in Britain the topic of his British Humanist Association annual conference lecture. Speaking with reference to a number of censorship controversies in the 2010s, he said that “the recent trend against freedom of speech means that we must fight the battles of the Enlightenment all over again.”[146] Islam[edit] Tatchell is critical of Islamic fundamentalism, and first wrote about its rise in Britain in 1995.[147] However, Tatchell condemned Islamophobia, saying “Any form of prejudice, hatred, discrimination or violence against Muslims is wrong. Full stop”.[148] He described the Qur’an as “rather mild in its condemnation of homosexuality”.[149]

Most Labour members & voters support Remain & a People’s Vote London, UK – 1 May 2019 When Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, he promised a new kind of politics – listening to and empowering the members and supporters. No more Blair-style top-down policy-making, he said. Now, when the vast majority of Labour members and supporters back Remain and a Peoples Vote, he’s trying to facilitate Brexit with Theresa May. Although he is open to a People’s Vote, he comes across as lukewarm, not enthusiastic. It is not his priority. I want a left-wing Labour government but fear the party leadership is throwing away that opportunity. Various polls show Labour either trailing, level-pegging or only just ahead of the Tories – not enough to win a general election. The party’s de facto support for Brexit and its failure to clearly back a People’s Vote is losing it support when Labour should be 30 points ahead of Theresa May, given the Tory shambles and splits, the damage caused by austerity and continued gross social inequalities. Let’s look at the facts: 72% of Labour members back a People’s Vote on the Brexit deal. 88% support remaining in the EU.

Jeremy Corbyn, who I want to see as PM, is ignoring them by seeking to negotiate a Brexit deal with the Tory leadership. His bid to facilitate Brexit puts him objectively on the same side as Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage, Tommy Robinson and assorted racists, xenophobes and Little Englanders. This is not a left-wing stance. By default, though not by intention, Labour’s position colludes with the far right. They will claim a massive victory if Brexit goes through. Labour voters in previous pro-Leave areas now support Remain by a margin of more than three to one: 69% now back Remain rather than Brexit. Over 1.4m Labour voters that voted Leave in the 2016 referendum have now switched in favour of staying in the EU. A majority of Labour voters now back Remain. Among Labour supporters, a People’s Vote second referendum is massively popular, with 77% in favour and just 23% against. Even most Labour Leave voters back a people’s vote, by 56-44%. YouGov asked people how they would vote if Labour supported going ahead with Brexit. Labour would slump to third place in a general election, with a mere 22% of the vote – the biggest rout for Labour for a century.

June 16, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Monckton is a Lord of the British Realm, he does not sit in the now Re constituted House of Lords, that does not make him an Imposter.
Secondly Regarding Monckton’s paper on the errors in basic Climate modelling his Status as a British Peer of the realm has nothing to do with the mathematics of modelling feedbacks.
FInally, perhaps William Happer or Freeman Dyson will tick more of your boxes for an appropriate expert qualified opinion.

#152: Stuffed
Posted on

John Studzinski’s imminent departure from HSBC for the comparatively tranquil waters of US private-equity firm Blackstone will be keenly felt by the bank. “It is often said that a successful advisory business is built upon personalities,” says Iain Dey in The Sunday Telegraph. Well, enigmatic Renaissance man “Studz” is about “the biggest personality in the business”.
Vivienne Westwood, who often bemoans Britain’s lack of “salon culture”, should have a quiet word with Studz. The American’s gatherings – at his riverside 1771 Robert Adam house in Chelsea – are known for an eclecticism that reflects his polymath interests. A trustee of Tate Modern, patron of the arts and devout Roman Catholic, Studz mixes artists, authors and musicians with clergy, politicians, royalty and captains of industry. Here you will find the Duchess of Kent and Sting; Lord Browne of BP and members of the Gucci family. Perhaps they are admiring Studz’s Man Ray and Picasso collection; perhaps scrutinising the candlesticks in his private chapel that used to belong to Ignatius Loyola. Studz might mix with the jet-set, but he was made a Knight of the Order of St Gregory for a record of good works, including 30 years working with the homeless. The Catholic church in Britain is “so beholden to him”, says Cristina Odone in The Observer, “that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor changes his diary to fit in with Studzinski’s”.
John J. Studzinski
John Joseph Paul Studzinski, CBE (born March 19, 1956) is an American-born British investment banker and philanthropist. Since September 2018 he has been Managing Director and Vice Chairman of the global investment-management firm PIMCO.
Prior to joining PIMCO, he was Vice Chairman of Investor Relations and Business Development, and a Senior Managing Director, at The Blackstone Group. He had joined Blackstone in 2006 as global head of Blackstone Advisory Partners, the company’s mergers and acquisitions advisory arm, and he ran that division for nearly a decade. Prior to joining Blackstone, he was at Morgan Stanley from 1980–2003, and at HSBC from 2003–2006, building mergers-and-acquisitions divisions in both of those institutions.

Additional advisorships[edit]
Since April 2016, Studzinski has been a non-executive director of the Home Office of the UK.[102][103] He was formerly on the Policy Advisory Council of the Institute for Public Policy Research.[85] In international affairs, he is Vice Chair of the Atlantic Council,[104] and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[105]

The Giant Sucking Sound, A Sharp Intake of Breath, A duel to the death. The New United States Republic 1776-2016.
In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A Modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”
a modest enquiry,
”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understands any more than they do each other.
Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, maybe a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
This leads us to the following general Considerations.”
The US fought a Civil War from 1861-1865 with sojourns into the 1st and second world wars and the Nixon shock we might find at these points in US history the analogues to the numbered French Republics.
• French First Republic (1792–1804)
• French Second Republic (1848–1852)
• French Third Republic (1870–1940)
• French Fourth Republic (1946–1958)
• French Fifth Republic (1958–Present)
If we fast Forward to the 2016 Presidential Debate and the Al Smith Memorial Dinner. What we see is a GOP candidate who does not represent the GOP Establishment and Democratic Party candidate who does represent both the GOP and Democratic Party Establishment both having become Federalist, in the old sense of the original two party contextualising of what the Republic was to be .

Giant Sucking Sound, Dont Get fooled again. #MAGA

A strong theme emerges from the 1928, the 1960 and the 1992 elections as they do form the stages of the US republic along with the 3 catastrophic US Wars. Governments rule by consent and ignore the plight of the people at their peril. Now is one of those times.

“The passion for freedom dieth not.”

“ legend has it that after the bloody battle of Thermopylae, the victor Xerxes prepared to spread a purple cloak over the body of his vanquished enemy Leonidas, out of admiration for his valor. But as he was about to lower the cloak, a strange voice out of nowhere called out: “No. Take that cloak from me. I will accept no favor from the Persians.” And Xerxes knew that it was Leonidas, speaking to him from the other world. And he called out into space: “But thou art dead, Leonidas. Why hate the Persians even in death?” And, according to the legend, back came the stirring reply: “The passion for freedom dieth not.”
Al Smith’s passion for freedom did not die with him. It is ours to nurture today. May we all be true to that great legacy.”

Charles Lamb’s grim poem The Three Graves, published in The Poetical Recreations of the Champions in the year of Shelley’s death,
Close by the ever-burning brimstone beds,
Where Bedloe, Oates and Judas, hide their heads,
I saw great Satan like a Sexton stand,
With his intolerable spade in hand,
Digging three graves. Of coffin shape they were,
For those who, coffinless, must enter there
With unblest rites. The shrouds were of that cloth
Which Clotho weaveth in her blackest wrath;
The dismal tinct oppress’d the eye, that dwelt
Upon it long, like darkness to be felt.
The pillows to these baleful beds were toads,
Large, living, livid, melancholy loads,
Whose softness shock’d. Worms of all monstrous size
Crawl’d round; and one upcoil’d, which never dies.
A doleful bell, inculcating despair,
Was always ringing in the heavy air.
And all about the detestable pit
Strange headless ghosts, and quarter’d forms, did flit;
Rivers of blood, from living traitors spilt,
by treachery stung from poverty to guilt.
I ask’d the fiend, for whom these rites were meant?
“These graves,” quoth he, “when life’s brief oil is spent,
When the dark night comes, and they’re sinking bedwards,
—I mean for Castles, Oliver, and Edwards.”

X. On the 7th of November, Brandreth, Turner, and Ludlam ascended the scaffold. We feel for Brandreth the less because it seems he killed a man. But recollect who instigated him to the proceedings which led to murder. On the word of a dying man, Brandreth tells us, that “OLIVER brought him to this”—that, “but for OLIVER, he would not have been there.” See, too, Ludlam and Turner, with their sons and brothers, and sisters, how they kneel together in a dreadful agony of prayer. Hell is before their eyes, and they shudder and feel sick with fear, lest some unrepented or some wilful sin should seal their doom in everlasting fire. With that dreadful penalty before their eyes—with that tremendous sanction for the truth of all he spoke, Turner exclaimed loudly and distinctly, while the executioner was putting the rope around his neck, “THIS IS ALL OLIVER AND THE GOVERNMENT.”

From the Blog Paste The Paper Aristocracy,
All systems of political economy are idealistic constructs which are either, sold to the populace or imposed upon them. At the root again of this question is what are the choices and who is making them. This question is postulated by James Harrington in his Book the Commonwealth of Oceana from 1656
In Our own country, the Debate goes back to William the third and the establishment of the monopoly of the Bank of England.
I have been very deeply engrossed in the Pamphlets surrounding the issues raised by the Dissidents in the English Civil War and the later Luddite rebellion and what is called the last revolution in England the Pentrich Uprising.
I was offended by this statement in Wikipedia.
“” They were lightly armed with pikes, scythes and a few guns, which had been hidden in a quarry in Wingfield Park, and had a set of rather unfocused revolutionary demands, including the wiping out of the National Debt.[1]”
It is true they were lightly armed but it is not true that their grievances were “Unfocused, revolutionary demands”
The Bumper sticker of their demands was the End of the “National Debt and a Larger Loaf of Bread”.

Now that’s some Bumper Sticker, I am now going to bake our family bread for today, Seriously I do bake our own bread.

Erasmus is a poster boy of the EU, we are told the Eu is responsible for peace in Europe and a model of democracy. What drives the Narrative?, Which ideological narratives are in competition?, Religous and Political power structures and their narratives which support an Imperialist and Authoritarian Mercantilism lie beneath the Branding. What used to be called the power behind the throne needs to be flushed out let’s focus on the Puppet Masters and not the puppets.


This From Boney M.

The Political Metaphysics of Stupidity
Consider the intelligence of the average American. Then consider the fact
that half of them aren’t even that smart.

—Mark Twain

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last,
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

—H.L. Mencken
For most of the American liberal intelligentsia, the thing that really left them reeling
from the last election was the sneaking suspicion that all things they most hated about
George Bush was exactly what so many Americans loved about him. It was not that
“red state” Americans voted for Bush despite the fact that he was stupid. They voted
for him because he was stupid. Millions of Americans watched George Bush and John
Kerry, two Yale-educated children of millionaires, lock horns and concluded that Kerry
won the argument. Then they voted for Bush anyway. The horrified suspicion was that
in the end, Kerry’s articulate presentation, his skill with words and arguments, actually
counted against him. Bush’s stupidity, on the other hand, was perceived as a virtue.
And I think this is substantially correct. Many Americans do genuinely admire Bush’s
Let me clarify what I mean by this. First of all, I take it for granted there is really no
such thing as “intelligence”. There are a million ways to be smart and no one’s smart
in all of them; everyone can be slow on the uptake, and most human beings, whether
plumbers or professors, will be remarkably apt at some things and hopeless at others.
But stupid isn’t dumb. Stupidity is different. It involves an element of will. This is why
no one ever talks about “militant dumbness” or “militant cluelessness”, but they do
talk about “militant stupidity”.
The Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem once tried to imagine the stupidest
possible computer. It could only do one problem, 2+2, thought the answer was 5, and
when anyone tried to tell it otherwise, it grew outraged and eventually, tried to kill
them. It is in this sense that we can call Bush stupid. He is a man used to deciding
what he thinks is right, and then sticking to his guns no matter how insane, disastrous,
or simply incorrect his premises turn out to have been. But of course, this is precisely
the core of what his supporters like about him. He’s firm. Decisive. A strong leader. Not
the commoner.


Graeber’s Essay in the Commoner applies to Brexit, President Trump, and the Attitudes of Metropolitan Elitists and their Brown Nosing sycophants in general, They are the Followers and the Hard of Thinking, The Smug and the Ego-Driven RIch of Whom Freire says “they no longer are they only have”

“The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a possessing class, they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are; they merely have.”
― Paulo Freire

There is very little point in Writing about the Tory party Leadership campaign this from the first Labour Hustings challenge to Jeremy Corbyn  in 2016, will suffice,

Even The BBC Quipped the other day Was like an episode of Pop Idol.




When Making the tune your own
just isn´t enough anymore.



What is missing from your analysis if I may say so, is the recognition of a possible paradigm shift in the way that people expect politics and democracy to be done. Roy Madron the author of Gaian Democracies and whose new book I have done some proofreading on and can not wait to read when published ( ‘Super-SmartDemocracies: Dissolving Neoliberalism, Managerialism and Elitism’. ) calls the new kind of democracy super competent here is his Article on Medium at the attached engraving and consider this on paradigm shifts. I venture the Timonists do not see the paradigm shift, they believe the people are stupid. The cynics of the left, however, do believe the People intelligent enough to become angry. Participative Democracy in Cynical with hope for change the Competing elites model is Timonist which believes that things are as they are. Graeber is very good on this dichotomy with Parmenides and Heraclitus (   P.19 They belong, one might say, to the Heraclitean
tradition, which in Western thought has always been somewhat marginal. Western
philosophy, after all, really begins with the quarrel between Heraclitus and
Parmenides; a quarrel that Parmenides won ),
Brush up your Diogenes of Sinope he is one of my favourites. (got the tee shirt)
Now put your Lamp away finding an honest media outlet likely to give any kind of Left, its blessing, remember the engraving “Cynics saw what people could be and were angered by what they had become; Timonists felt humans were hopelessly stupid & uncaring by nature and so saw no hope for change.”

Author: rogerglewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

24 thoughts on “it is “Who you know and what you believe that counts” The Semi Establishment Pelagianism of Bremain. #Brexit #Brino #DominicCummings “Cynics saw what people could be and were angered by what they had become; Timonists felt humans were hopelessly stupid & uncaring by nature and so saw no hope for change”. #antiestablishmentarianism

Leave a Reply