Follow the money
Those upset about Brexit like to see it as an isolated mistake that came from nowhere.
This is not a random event. Most events are never isolated, and Brexit is no different. It is a symptom of a wider trend.
Our exports to the EU have been falling since 2000 and especially since the financial crash of 2008.
Meanwhile our trade with the 84% of people that are not in the EU has been growing.
You don’t have to be an economic genius to work out why this has been happening, the developing world has been booming, while the EU keeps choosing job destroying policies and then when those jobs are gone, uses the decline as an excuse to double down on nonsense and kill some more jobs.
To pick a country almost at random, lets compare the Euro area to India. The quarterly GDP growth of India is five times higher than the Eurozone.
This is not a recent trend. Lets look at the ten year graph:
India’s growth is always higher than the Eurozone, look at 2011, India can have a battle with Pakistan, risking Nuclear annihilation, and still not go below the Euroarea’s growth.
This is not just a ten year trend, India has beaten European growth my whole lifetime. It is repeated across the developing world. The Eurozone has mostly flat or negative growth, while the developing world keeps doubling its GDP to very surely catches up to our level of wealth.
What these graphs show is that for the UK to maximise its wealth, we have to get out there and be a global trading nation once again.
The 2008 crash showed that the square mile of the city of London cannot pay for 65 million people. Since then we have just been running our country on fumes, currency manipulation and denial. We are going to have to use the whole of the UK and actually make and do things again that people want to pay for.
There is a lot of spare supply side capacity in the Midlands and North, and a lot of the human expertise is still there, grey and soon to leave the workforce but available right now. Luckily, we are waking up just in time.
The remoaners are going to moan for a generation
I ended my post The End of the World is Cancelled saying that Britain and Europe will get beyond Brexit and the relationship will be better than ever.
We won’t have such luck with our domestic malcontents however. The long-term inevitable and unavoidable trends above are totally ignored by Europhiles. It is a zero-sum game where the growing 84% of the world not in the EU don’t exist.
There are a lot of reasons for the professional remoaner class. Here are a few of the most obvious ones:
- People are used to patronage from the EU. However, this was always our money to start with, we can calm the nerves Universities and Museums etc by stuffing their mouths full of gold. There is so much waste and duplication in the EU that we can double the grants of everyone and still be in profit.
- EU salaries are often unbelievably good with endless handy perks. So Brexit has cut off the easy career path for a lot of the establishment who were expecting to upgrade to the European level: judges, politicians, civil servants, policy wonks, etc.
- EU elections happen between UK government elections, so for MPs, it is handy backup option to become an MEP if you are unexpectedly get kicked out by the voters. European elections are based on a list system so it doesn’t matter how personally unpopular you have become. Likewise minsters and high level civil servants can become commissioners and so on.
- Due to the above reduction in insider jobs, the private sector revolving door has never been more powerful. The finance industry has a lot of spare cash (time for more taxes?) and it hasn’t demobilised from the Referendum campaign. MPs like Nick Clegg who seem unlikely to keep their seat at the next election, are gearing up for the next job. Just look how much cash he is already taking from the banks.
I could go on and on, but if you have read my post The Treaty of Losers, you know I just cannot ignore the Occam’s Razor question that is bugging me. Maybe it is nothing to do with these reasons listed above, maybe it is much simpler and more obvious.
Until now, because the UK has been controlled by the EU, it could never agree to anything with its Commonwealth allies, the Commonwealth turned into a bit of a talking shop. However, it is turning back into an important body now.
As I talked about in previous posts, citizens of the Commonwealth countries volunteered in their millions to fight and die for us in World War II. Why wouldn’t everyone want to re-establish links with these great countries?
Looking back at the first part of this post, we have everything to gain. Who wouldn’t want to do trade deals with the massively growing commonwealth economies?
The answer is the remainer politicians and the establishment experts, who won’t even dare to discuss it. They bang on about having access to a (declining) market of “500 million people” (which includes UK so it is actually 435 million) but they never talk about the 2.3 billion people in Commonwealth or the 6.5 billion in the non-EU rest of the world.
Is this because it will just undermine their argument or is there something simpler going on?
Look back at the Commonwealth Heads of State, now look at the EU leaders:
Do you spot the difference?
In my previous posts, I talked about the importance of us as a country getting involved in the Commonwealth countries. Luckily we have an opening. The Commonwealth countries are still there and they want to work with us, with a bit of humility, the former masters can become the servants. There is a lot of goods, services and expertise we can provide to help the continued development of their countries.
My main point throughout my Brexit posts is that I do not believe that having a bilateral trade arrangement with EU rather than being a member is Armageddon.
Indeed, when we are finally free of the stifling customs union, we can really target improved relations with the rest of the world. Especially the Commonwealth which is now 2.3 billion people and most of world growth, as well as the United States and anyone else who wants to come with us in global free but fair trade.
We have all the cards
There is a lot of bluster from the EU, but that is for domestic consumption and deflect from the fact that national leaders in the EU Council of Ministers thought it could ignore British’s demands for reforms and the British people wouldn’t call its bluff. It did and now we have to move on. There is no going back.
On almost every issue, the EU needs UK more than UK needs the EU.
A nation of shopkeepers
European nations and companies rely on finance from the city of London and they sell to us a lot more than we sell to them.
If the EU does not give tariff free access to the EU, the UK will retaliate in kind. The EU has already lost a lot of jobs due to putting sanctions on Russia, many areas of Europe will be equally badly hit if this happens.
Meanwhile, we have a free floating currency, we can win any tariff war by devaluing the pound. The Bank of England can buy back government debt through quantitative easing. Our exports become cheaper, removing the effect of the EU’s tariff, the government has less debt and domestic production becomes more competitive. Triple win.
Meanwhile, outside the customs union, we can substitute almost any EU product with far cheaper global imports. South African or Australian wine might not initially have the same brand power as French wine but it still gets you drunk, and fashion is not a one way street, they can also move to meet the circumstances.
A nation of ships
UK is the main military power of Europe. European leaders know if they anger the British public so much that defending EU countries becomes politically impossible, then how will it defend itself from Putin’s next adventure?
Meanwhile The EU does not have the money to create an equivalent force and it takes a long time to make the martial culture required to be effective. In Afghanistan, the German troops refused to leave base without British guards. Putin’s men have no such scruples.
A nation of immigrants
Ignoring the Irish people who are unaffected by Brexit due to pre-existing and ancient rights, there are three million great and mostly young people working in Britain from other EU countries. It is going up not down since Brexit. Due to the relative economic strength of the UK.
Those from Eastern Europe send remittances back to their families which is spent in local shops, this is quite important to the economy of many Eastern Europe countries.
Whereas the largest proportion of the one million British people in Europe are retired people in the Sun. On the whole, these seniors don’t need working rights, they don’t take the jobs, they just shop, eat and drink, providing essential extra income into otherwise quite fragile seaside areas.
We can offer whatever terms we want or don’t want. It doesn’t matter, the EU will have to accept them.
The EU deals with both trade and immigration so with Brexit it is all mixed up, however normally immigration shouldn’t actually have that much to do with a trade deal.
We haven’t sent people back to Europe since we beat the viking horde, we won’t start again now. We never had much immigration control against Europeans, I doubt anyone will notice that much of a difference after Brexit. Whatever tests we set (getting to that in a just a second), most people who want to come here will pass them.
The UK government always makes a meaningless immigration target, but that is not important. If we engage more with the 84% of the world that we have been mostly ignoring, then the booming economy will need more labour.
What people want is control. Post-Brexit immigration system needs to have the following features:
- Vet and interview people coming from terrorist hotspots so we don’t take in any more terrorists. Throw out existing known terrorists.
- Pick the best and brightest people we can find from the whole world.
- Treat everyone equally, i.e. don’t discriminate based on race, more on that in a future post.
Once immigration has a defensible system, it will stop being a political football and people will stop worrying about it.
It will all be fine
Since we joined the EU, we outsourced most of the important decisions to Brussels but the employee count of Whitehall and the rest of the British government did not get smaller, it just kept increasing. So over 30 years this increasingly pointless, bloated and atrophied class of bureaucrats is used to being told what to do.
Now these bureaucrats are panicking because finally they have to take some responsibility and do some work. Like an unused muscle it is providing resistance and some of it might be dead weight.
If I was a government department I would be showing how useful I am to the process of creating new UK systems. Obstructions might find themselves being worked around and replaced.
Assuming the government can provide leadership and overcome this addiction to sloth, Brexit is going to be fine.
It is interesting how the government created a new department for Brexit and a new department for International Trade. A new broom can clean best.
A full Brexit will finally lance the boil of frustration over Europe and allow us all to get on with things. As I said before in my post “Good fences make good neighbours”, Britain will go from being an unhappy tenant of the EU to Europe’s most supportive neighbour and ally.
We will get a workable free trade deal. The rest of Europe will get over it, indeed Britain never joined the Euro, Schengen, Fiscal Compact and dozens of other things, so in a decade, people in Europe will have forgotten that the UK was ever a member.
No such luck with our own domestic moaners, they will go on for a generation. More on that later.
Part of our failed membership of the European Union involved being in the ‘outer countries’.
Whenever a European Union politician wanted to dismiss the UK’s input from a decision, it would always bring up that it is not one of the “Inner Six” who are the ones who should have the final say. What is common about the Inner Six is that they were either all Axis countries or surrendered at the first major German offensive. They are really the “Inner Losers” of World War II.
|Country||Date of Surrender to Axis|
|Luxembourg||10 May 1940|
|Netherlands||14 May 1940|
|Belgium||28 May 1940|
|France||22 June 1940|
These are the countries that wrote the Treaty of Rome.
Here are the signatures:
And here they are, the signatories, signing the above treaty. Look how diverse are the signatories and the observers.
Who are these identical clone-like guys that get to represent their countries, are they some kind of war heroes? Sadly not, with a couple of exceptions, they managed to quietly shirk out of World War II despite being of fighting age. The war barely interrupted their wining and dining.
|Signatory||Role in World War II|
|Paul-Henri Spaak||Fled to London|
|Jean-Charles Snoy et d’Oppuers||Labour Volunteer in Belgium|
|Konrad Adenauer||In hiding (in his friends’ mansions)|
|Walter Hallstein||Nazi officer (artillery), got captured by Allies, Prisoner of War|
|Christian Pineau||French Resistance, got captured in 1943, rest of war in prison camp|
|Maurice Faure||Professor, joins resistance in 1944 (after Allies already winning)|
|Antonio Segni||Local government politician in Sardinia|
|Gaetano Martino||University lecturer|
|Joseph Bech||Fled to London|
|Lambert Schaus||Town Councillor, arrested in 1941, built motorways for rest of war|
|Joseph Luns||Got a post at the Dutch embassy in London|
|Johannes Linthorst Homan||Chairman of the Dutch Olympic Committee|
In this signing ceremony, they are meeting on the Capitoline Hill, the very centre of the Roman Empire. This symbolism is not to be ignored. They specifically chose to wrap this new Union in the symbolism of the previous attempts to unite the peoples of Europe ( see Rome Vs the Matrix for a lot more on this topic).
This treaty of signed by War dodgers of the Axis countries that just lost World War II, yet in their head they Roman emperors.
Union of Europeans
The EU traces its origin to this Treaty of Rome, the first line is:
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,
On that same first page, we have a resolution “to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe” and to ensure “harmonious development” by “reducing the differences existing between the various regions”. It goes on in much the same way for 80 pages.
The implication of it all is that Europeans are a single people accidentally separated by borders and they should fix it with an ever closer union.
In my post Rome Vs the Matrix, I talked about how from Roman times until today, they have been trying to reunite Continental Europe.
The most immediate pre-brexit example is of course Hitler’s attempt to unify Europe in a Nazi Empire which I talked about in the post Godwin part two.
In short, the all white master race lost to the multi-racial armies of the Allies.
Both the Nazi empire and the EU follow an atheistic secular scientific approach, with religion and Christian culture pushed deep out of public life.
Most importantly they both use Roman era symbolism for their ends. The EU is a Union of White majority countries, with a customs union of external tariffs seeking to partially insulate the European economies from the rest of the world.
If you are from Bulgaria or Finland, you have freedom of movement to work and live into the UK, but if you are from Kenya or India, you do not. The former countries are white European countries, the latter are not. I am not the only one who spotted this.
Mein Kampf is written by a deranged socialist artist who became a dictator. The treaty of Rome is written by lawyers. However, they both have this concept of a United European people, both times they have a white majority, how convenient.
The deep pool of racism that led the Axis populations to condone Hitler didn’t magically disappear when the allied soldiers rolled in.
This concept of a unified European people is the middle-class educated lawyer’s version of a master race. Once you understand this, all the white supremacist euphemisms used knowingly and unknowingly by Europhiles become clear.
For myself, I don’t believe in this concept of a special united European people. I think someone from South Africa or Pakistan is equal to someone from Finland or Slovakia. We should work with everyone and not put up barriers to the 84% of humanity that are not in the EU, we should be equally open to everyone.
I had meant to write a sequel to my 2007 post on Godwin’s law. Over, ten years later, here I am.
The book Mein Kampf is the demented ravings of Hitler. It comes in two parts. The first volume is an autobiography and the second is his manifesto of National Socialism and his plan for a “new order”, which later he had an opportunity to try out.
Hitler’s philosophy was socialist in that he aimed to abolish individualism. He believed this process should begin from birth, and children should be educated in a system of total control, that minimises parental influence in favour of the ideas of the Nazi state.
The book also spends time explaining Hitler’s atheism, and his desire to remove Christianity from all public society. Obviously I don’t need to explain his views toward Jews. Hitler believed in pre-Christian neo-pagan style beliefs with his famous vegetarianism. He believed the pre-Christian Roman Era under Julius Caesar and Emperor Augustus was the high point of humanity.
Hitler believed in allying with certain Christian groups if it suited his strive for power, at least until after he had created his empire then he could totally abolish it.
For Hitler, Christianity is a Jewish plot to keep Europeans from understanding their true ancient “Aryan identity”, their natural superiority from being white and more highly evolved. Everyone else, including Slavic peoples, were Untermensch, subhumans.
Albert Speer, quoted Hitler in his book Inside the Third Reich:
“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
Instead of a heavenly Kingdom, Hitler believed it was his destiny to create a united Europe with himself at the centre. A new Roman Empire, with himself as Emperor. An Empire without meat, smoking or alcohol.
When George Orwell reviewed the book for a magazine, he called Hilter’s vision of a united Europe: “a horrible brainless empire”.
His atheistic secular scientific approach did mean he spent an enormous sum on Universities and research and development. Which is why at the end of World War 2, the allies raced with each other to grab all the Nazi scientists.
However, Nazi Germany couldn’t get many of their innovations into production in time to help prevent the total loss to the Allies. As it turned out, this master race of white Europeans wasn’t as good as it thought it was.
As I talked about in the previous posts, it is important not to forget how diverse the Allied armies were. The white European master race lost to the mixed multi-racial British Empire army, the segregated multi-racial American army and the Slavic Soviet army.
People are just people. There is no white superiority, if there was Hitler would have won the Second World War. There is no need to repeat the monstrous experiment.
How socialist National Socialism actually was is one of those issues to be debated forever.
The ambition to abolish Christianity is always the hallmark of authoritarianism, likewise the desire for the state to indoctrinate children instead of letting parents teach children their own ideas.
More superficially, whenever a vegetarian or teetotaler imposes their policy on the majority, I think of Hitler’s plan for his eventual joyless Empire.
Wikileaks has once again come up with some fantastic insights into how the elite run the world. Reading the different leaks from people associated with Hillary Clinton is fascinating. We are really getting a deep view into the globalist mindset.
The emails showing what Hillary was promising to her wall street donors are particularly enlightening.
If her actions and choices seem incomprehensible, you have understand that Clinton and her friends have a very different view of the world than us normal people. Especially those of us who hold to romantic ideas like God and country and loving your neighbours as yourself.
As always, click to enlarge the images.
If you think that Hillary’s best known house, the house in Chappaqua, is pretty reserved and tasteful for the elite, it is, but you have to remember that this is not a ranch in the middle of the Texan desert, it is at the end of a private road in the suburbs of New York City. It is a mega-great house.
The house is surrounded by a large white wall, and a manned guardhouse stands by the entrance to the property. Yes, the anti-wall Clinton likes her own walls very much.
The red barn at the back is not for chickens, it is where her household staff and armed security are hidden away.
Meanwhile a small fleet of armoured vehicles provide suitable transport for any occasion.
In 2016 figures, the per capita disposable income of an American citizen is $39,190. Chelsea Clinton went to a school where tuition and fees cost $48,160 in 2016/2017. And yes, it has a massive green campus with a giant fence around it. The school campus makes Clinton’s house look like a hovel.
If Hillary doesn’t care about what provision is needed to handle mass immigration to inner cities, it is partly because she doesn’t need to use the overwhelmed schools or local services herself.
If Hillary seems a bit disrespectful towards the police, it is because she doesn’t need them, she has her own armed guards.
We can go on like this forever, so lets zoom out a bit.
Almost every country has at least one thing to be proud of. As the British people, we are proud of our hard won freedoms and the communal institutions that our ancestors left us such as the NHS, our Royal Navy, our Royal family, our state school system, our ancient churches, castles, national parks and so on.
This means nothing to Hillary and their tribe, they are globalists because they are so rich they don’t want or need a nation state to look after them. From the first class cabin and the private jet, every country looks the same, the same hotel chains, the same exclusive shops, etc. The rich already live in a generic border free world.
If we draw a map of world according to Hillary’s email, it will look like this (map credit to Wikipedia, click on the map below to enlarge):
How to run the world
The power structures of the globalist world view are really interesting but also quite basic. There are four levers they have to control the world. I will explain this using the above map.
- Trade policy
To Hillary and her ilk, California is the capital of the world, eventually drawing all of the Americas into a “greater California”.
By combining this Reino de Clintoñia with its two major colonies of Eurabia and Pacifica, we have a giant and generic service economy, ready to serve the elite’s every desire.
All the trade agreements like TTIP, TPP and the EU are there to make sure the servants do not become too uppity and to remove any barriers to the maximisation of profits for Goldman Sachs bankers and the others who fund Clinton and her friends.
As well as unifying the legal and trade systems, patronage is used to keep potentially dangerous alternate power structures such as intellectuals, religion and the media on board. Internal ‘markets’ and competition for grants keep the universities, NGOs and charities as useful idiots spreading the globalist gospel.
It is important to create pseudo-scientific pretences of why this globalist neo-feudal system benefits the population more generally, as opposed to more Occam’s razor like solutions such as lets take the rich’s wealth away and use it to cure cancer.
This is also why the current move towards cultural Marxism and identity politics suits the elite so well. David Cameron and the American democrat/republican one party state are happy to hand out gay marriage because it doesn’t cost them any money. Here have all the pronouns you want, just don’t ask for decent housing for the poor, infrastructure or services.
- Consumer goods and entertainment
2000 years ago, the Roman writer Juvenal coined the phrase ‘panem et circenses’ (bread and circuses) to explain how the elite kept the masses under control.
The classical theory of why the Roman empire fell includes the observation that through insecurity of trade routes and inflation, Rome stopped being able to provide affordable consumer goods to the people.
The global leaders today do not make the same mistake, they keep their servant class in check by exploiting the poor of the world. They keep Chinese goods cheap, and if the Chinese get sick of making plastic crap for the world, they keep plenty of other Asian countries poor as a backup, after that there is Africa, which is currently just used as a giant shop of minerals to be exploited.
[I have talked a lot lately in this blog about how Africa bears the brunt of the current system of world trade, so I don’t want to sound like a broken record, needless to say, every trade deal they make always includes massive tariffs against Sub-Saharan African countries.]
Meanwhile, we are in an entertainment golden age, no end of TV shows, films and sports are provided to keep the minds of the servants busy. While there is an attempt to reclaim costs to pay the cast and crew and so on, unauthorised distribution of media is rampant and tolerated as only thing worse than the people watching unauthorised TV is the people not watching it.
If the mainstream media is rejected by the people, then a major form of control is lost, thus the mad dash to control and censor the Web.
- Useful enemy
Whenever Clinton and other Western politicians get into trouble, Russia and a few other useful enemies are wheeled out as a useful excuse for pretty much anything.
There is a Goldilocks zone for useful enemies, not too big and not too small, Putin was getting too big for his boots so sanctions were used to make Russia’s GDP smaller than Australia, meanwhile Iran was on the verge of total collapse so Obama and Clinton recently removed its sanctions and bailed out the regime with billions of dollars.
We are finally at a level of technology where we can in our lifetimes, foresee a future free of disease, want or waste, where robots do the work and people are free.
After the Attack on Pearl Harbor, when FDR decided to pursue a war across two oceans, the US had no ability to fight a major foreign war on one front, let alone two. Yet he pulled everyone together, rich and poor, black and white, and together they got the job done.
Setting a national goal and putting the resources of the whole society into it can achieve massive things:
“I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”
When JFK said the above quote, they had a general idea of the physical principles but no practical clue how to achieve it. We now know far more about cancer and other diseases than we knew about the moon in 1961.
I want a leader that says we will commit ourselves to curing cancer in ten years, to curing type 1 diabetes, to ending asthma in children.
I want a leader that says we are going to digitise our cars so that in five years time, the number of child deaths on the road is 0.
I want a leader that says we will build a house for every person who needs one, even if we have to take away a little land from wealthy estates.
What is not important
The whole reality TV side of things I don’t really care about. I don’t care if Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t wear a tie or Boris Johnson has made inappropriate jokes about foreign dictators. I don’t care if Labour MPs feel unhappy with Corbyn’s management style or Theresa May is alienating the 48% (which is now more like the 13% according to the latest polling but lets not get off track).
I do think it is somewhat odd that almost all of the Labour shadow cabinet come from London while almost all of the Tory Cabinet come from the home counties, but if they were the best people they could get, then I guess I don’t care.
I don’t care if Trump said something sexist 20 years ago, I don’t care if he makes his staff lose weight, I don’t care what he did when we was a billionaire playboy and a businessman.
I don’t care that the Clintons have a weird open marriage where, to use Hillary’s own terminology, she has to herd around Bill’s discarded ‘bimbos’. I don’t care how much Hillary swears in her emails. I don’t care she called her own party “a bucket of losers.” I don’t care if she coughs constantly for 8 years in a row.
I don’t care about temperament, I don’t care about who is the best manager. I don’t care who is the best husband or wife or mother or father.
I just want them to put these lilliputian tabloid issues aside and have some real policies to do something worthwhile for the actual voters.
Champions not tokens
The lives of the elite and the normal people are divided as never before. However, we don’t need leaders who feign the common touch. We don’t want token leaders, we want champions of the people.
Churchill was born into vast wealth, he was a drunk who gambled away the wealth of two great families and said many outrageous and sexist things, he would have probably been called deplorable and irredeemable by Hillary Clinton.
However, Churchill put all his privileged background and personal contacts into one aim, being the best military leader he could be.
When the time came that Britain was in the existential crisis of World War II, Churchill, being friends or related to much of the elite, knew exactly where their money was. The rich did not get off easy in cash terms and many of the Lordly estates were broken up. According to the national archives:
“a total of 14.5 million acres of land, 25 million square feet of industrial and storage premises and 113,350 holdings of non-industrial premises were requisitioned by the State.”
If we can raid the rich to defeat Hitler, can’t we raid them again to defeat cancer?
The last time I talked about the web browser, I was technically speaking about Iceweasel. For the last decade, Linux users like me have known the default browser that Debian ships under the name of Iceweasel.
In 2006, due to some hysteria over trademark protection and typical West Coast America “we know better than you” attitude, Mozilla told Debian it could not use the name Firefox or the Firefox logo.
Can we even use it here? Well since we don’t want to be told off by Mozilla’s logo police, we can use images of some beautiful people who have made their own dramatic and artistic costume interpretations of the logo. This blog is 90% about cool and silly pictures after all.
After 10 years of Debian using the name Iceweasel and its own logo, eventually, Mozilla gave up and asked Debian to use the normal name and logo. Lets celebrate with another costume:
Thanks Iceweasel for your service, we will miss you. LWM published a longer discussion of this change. Incidentally, Google’s Browser is still called Chromium instead of Chrome on the Debian Linux platform. I could only find one Chrome costume:
He (or she) looks pretty happy.
Meanwhile, this week Firefox 48 has been released which, among other things, has caught up with a feature that Chromium has had for a while, namely multiple processes.
Making the browser render web content or play media in a subprocess is obviously a win for security and performance, especially on Liunx.
Processes are the main native form of efficient resource allocation on Linux, so now Firefox is using multiple processes it is finally working with the grain rather against it.
It is still early days. Nothing has crashed for me yet, but I am keeping the Firefox that Debian distributes (which at time of writing is version 45), around just in case. You might want to consider doing the same, especially if you are using extensions which may not work in the multiprocess mode yet.
Firefox is pretty cautious about turning multiprocess mode on but putting about:status into the browser will tell you if it is on or off. As in the image below:
If you find it is off, you can make a new profile (as I just mentioned) or you can open about:config and toggle the setting called browser.tabs.remote.autostart to true. Then you can go back to about:status and see if it worked.
It still might be off because of whatever reason, i.e. they it might break an extension or whatever. If you want to push on anyway then you have to open about:config again and make a new boolean setting called browser.tabs.remote.force-enable and set that to true. Find more instructions here.
So well done to all the Mozilla developers and volunteers who wrote and shipped that. Just for you, another of those great Firefox costumes:
Those who resort to violence, always lose their claim
After the 18th and 19th centuries, there were many competing territorial claims over former Prussia; Germany had some valid and some not so valid claims, as did other countries. Going to war (twice) over the claims was not valid however.
It is a long standing and basic principle of world order that the belligerent aggressor loses whatever claims they had. Now of course Germany is a peaceful and wonderful country and also makes no claim to any of these areas.
Whatever the right or wrongs of the Falklands issue were before 1982, once Argentina invaded and spilt British blood, they lost any claim to the islands; it is just how it goes.
It is also an issue of basic democracy that as recently as 2013, the Falkland Islanders had a referendum with a turnout of 91.94%, where 99.8% voted not to change the Islands’ status in anyway. The results of referendums must be respected, especially with such a high turnout.
There is also the practical matter that saying anything different will be a sure loser in British election.
Likewise, the question of whether making the state of Israel was the correct response to the evil of the holocaust, became a non-issue after 1967. Israel did not start the war, the Arabs did, but the Israelis won the war and the issue was settled.
Any claims the Arabs had over the land was lost then. You don’t get to claim territory through starting wars, you must only lose by starting wars.
Time to boycott calling for boycotts
Even if you disagree with Israel’s policies, collective punishment against its citizens can have no practical effect on those policies.
Dis-inviting an innocent academic from a conference, will not change policy. A professor of Artificial Intelligence or Manuscript Studies (made up examples for the sake of argument) does not set Israeli security or foreign policy.
If a UK institution chose an Israeli company to provide a product, it did so based on price and quality. Pressuring an institution to boycott the Israeli company will just make innocent workers there poorer and will mean the UK institution will get a higher priced and/or lower quality good. An orange juice producer or a software company does not set Israeli security or foreign policy.
The same principle applies to exports. Pressuring a UK company to not sell products to Israel, tractors for example, will not change a single Israeli policy. It will just mean they buy a tractor from someone else and workers in the UK have less jobs making tractors.
Discretion is the better part of valour
The sad truth is that there is nothing the UK can usefully do to make peace in the middle east. Tony Blair of all people tried to be a peace envoy and yet there is still no peace.
Any politicians that want to pander to either Muslim or Jewish voters by taking a side are just being dishonest with the voters. The UK just has no leverage on either side. The Middle East is just not a part of the world that cares what Britain thinks one way or the other.
Our winning strategy as a country is not to pick sides and just be a friend to everyone, and of course, sell them all our goods and services.
By the way, America has far more clout, expertise and money and still has not made much progress either but that is another story.
Yes there are poor and suffering people in the Middle East, but there are poor and suffering people everywhere so we should focus on areas where we are wanted and we can have a meaningful impact, such as African free trade and development which we have ignored for too long.
It is not our fight
So it total baffles me why Palestinian liberation or Latin American politics are cause celebres on the UK left. There are no votes to be won here.
We talked before about the difference between few hundred thousand people in the UK who have strong political views and the millions who just want cake.
The average British voter does not care a monkeys about Palestine or improving Anglo-Argentinean relations and just wants to hear domestic policies.
It seems like Jeremy Corbyn is wise enough to know that there is a difference in being a backbench MP who can obsess about these obscure issues and a potential Prime Minister who needs to have total clarity and focus to cut through a hostile media. I hope so anyway.
On the 23rd June 2016, the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were asked whether they wanted to leave or remain in the European Union. 52% voted to leave while 48% voted to remain.
On April 10th 2016, ten weeks before the vote, ICM published an opinion poll that gave a four-point lead for Leave (52% vs 48%), which turned out to be the correct result.
One explanation is that with several pollsters covering the referendum, one has to be right; after all, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
However, lets consider an alternative explanation, that the whole EU referendum campaign made absolutely no difference to public opinion at all.
Hundreds of millions of pounds spent by the campaigns, posters, Boris’ bus slogan, acres of newspaper columns, billions and trillions of tweets, all of it, didn’t manage to convince anyone of anything.
People are just not that into politics.
In other words, the day to day minutiae of events doesn’t really matter to the silent majority, they haven’t got the time or the inclination to care and why should they? It would be very conceited to say the people should look up and spend their time listening to their Lords and masters.
The print circulation of Britain’s main broadsheet newspapers has fallen so fat they can barely scrape a million per day combined. What percentage of their remaining readers do more than browse the news before going straight to the crossword or the sport section?
Meanwhile, less than 200,000 people in the UK watch the BBC’s political programmes, but over 15 million people watch ‘The Great British Bake Off’ on the same network, which is a cake baking competition.
As I said on Twitter: Politics is important. However, cakes are 75 times more important.
In fact, I don’t want to ever live in a country where politics is more important than cake, it doesn’t sound like a very benevolent regime.
In the midst of a larger post about the results of the EU referendum, I talked about the echo chamber in the campaign. I want to explore that a tiny bit more.
You also may remember that in a post before the referendum, I talked about myself as an undergraduate and how I was very passionately pro-EU but over time, the doubts set in, especially after the crash in 2008 and the EU’s harsh measures metered out to Greece.
As I started 2016, the doubts and problems with the EU had not yet pushed me into the idea that the UK should ever leave the EU; I started 2016 as a reluctant but firm ‘remanian’.
However, I wanted to make the decision based on all the information and up to date arguments. I turned to other people, both on Twitter and in the real world.
I soon ran into a problem, even discussing my own doubts was beyond the pale with anyone pro-EU, you must support the EU because that is what you do.
On Twitter it was worse, loudly unfollowed by 20-30 people, regularly blocked in the middle of a seemingly civil discussion over a technical EU matter.
I was shocked the first time, saddened the second time, third time it was water off a duck’s back, I stopped noticing or caring when someone threw their toys out of the pram.
I did try to carrying on to discuss with any remainian who wanted to, in the hope they would come up with the magic argument that would put me squarely back in the remain camp. It soon became apparent that everyone else has the same doubts and concerns.
Unlike ten years ago where you could easily encounter British Europhiles who wanted to join the Euro and the Schengen Area and so on, now ardent Europhiles seem a bit thin on the ground.
I met no-one that had a positive view of the EU as a force that will make things better, it was just what you did about the faults, whether you just lived with them in a fatalistic fashion or tried to face up to them by leaving (and potentially making a lot of new issues/opportunities).
A lot of the remain argument was that uneducated and poor people want to leave, so don’t be in that group since they are all racists and bigots. Well I was brought up in very modest circumstances indeed and these are my people and I don’t recognise that description.
Meanwhile, the leavers were just more fun and upbeat people. They were happy to listen, discuss and gently point out their views.
I guess the morals of the story are that if you want to campaign for something, have the most hopeful message. Even if you are against something, have the best plan for fixing or replacing or leaving it behind. Blocking people doesn’t win votes in real elections.
Above all, the moral is Twitter is probably a crap place for discussing politics.
The EEC was not very popular when the government took the UK into it in 1973 and so the government was forced by the voters to have its first leaving referendum only two years later in 1975.
The government and all of the media threw the kitchen sink at remain in and succeeded, but on practical grounds alone, it never even tried to sell the vision of an ever closer union to the people of Britain, and if it had, it would have been rejected.
While governments managed to resist another referendum for the next four decades, the practical nature of the remain argument meant there was no mandate for further integration, indeed the remain argument was won precisely on the basis that Britain would not be pulled in any deeper.
So as the EU project developed in different directions, Europe was not something Britain did, Europe was something done to it; something that had to resisted or opted-out of: Schengen Area, the Eurozone and countless other programmes.
The 2016 EU referendum was the the last moment in history that a pro-EU case could be credibly made but again the establishment decided not to make it. It again decided to focus on the perceived practical shortcomings of an independent UK.
In other countries, there are some people who genuinely believe in a United States of Europe. However, we in the UK never had that tradition, so those arguing for remain are those who benefit most from the patronage that results from laundering our own taxes to and from Brussels give.
Brussels is awash with lobbyists for non-European interests and yesterdays winners struggling with technological change, wanting to game the regulations against new interests.
Remain was a coalition between decent people wanting to keep the status quo but also all these aforementioned parasites and spivs who know they could not justify a policy or an item of government spending to the British electorate so abuse the (still not very democratic) EU to sidestep democracy to push their own special interests and regulations.
The neo-liberal/Thacherite consensus of the last 30 years cracked fatally in the 2008 crash, since then it has been on life support as near infinite supplies of money are printed and dished out to the banks, but brain activity has not returned to the patient. The EU referendum is the British people starting to turn the machine off.
To put it another way, as I said on Twitter, it was Chekhov’s referendum. David Cameron put a gun on stage and the people shot him with it.
After the vote, I talked about the call for the second referendum and why it will not work, Brexit has just sped up the inevitable changes.
Anyway Britain is leaving the EU. If you voted for remain, not only will be much happier if you just accept it and move on with your life, you will be more successful. Escaping to a fantasyland where the vote did not happen will mean you miss the opportunities of the future.
This applies to organisations and sections of the economy too, after all no one is owed a living.
Those that work in harmony with the new independent era will thrive, those that mope around re-fighting yesterday’s narrative will be seen as irrelevant in the post-Brexit era and thus will lose funding accordingly.
The leave supporting public has been gracious in victory, trying to bring everyone on board. However, the good mood will not last long if institutions are seen to be working against the UK. David Cameron and George Osborne doubled-down on Remain and their position was untenable in the new era. Those that don’t learn the lesson might suffer the same fate.
I think in the long term, Brexit will be a benefit to all of Europe, Britain has gone from being an unhappy tenant of the EU to Europe’s most supportive neighbour and ally.
If you are a European, we the British people, voted to take by control and run our country from Westminster and our city councils and regional parliaments in the UK. However, we still love you as people and we love your countries. We can still kiss you from over the fence.