Democracies are *not* inherently more peace-loving than dictatorships

26th minute

Peter Lavelle:

"The democracy deficit in the European Union is just astounding to me."

Gilbert Doctorow:

"There is nothing particularly surprising in the failure of democracy to control foreign policy or democratic governments, and this is one of the fatal flaws in the whole neocon ideology: the notion that democratic countries are by their structure peace-loving. The voice of the people has no bearing on the conduct of foreign policy and it is carried out by the executive with its own privileges without answerability in many cases to legislature. The notion of democratic countries being peace-loving is shot through. You are confirming the bigger truth which has unfortunately been driving events for the last 20 years."

Dimitry Babich:

"In the late Roman Empire there was no foreign policy. All was internal policy because the whole world was the Empire, and the Empire had no opponents, only aggressors. It had no insurgents, only terrorists. So if we look at the modern United States and the late Roman Empire, we can see some similarities."

Peter Lavelle:

"When the Empire comes to an end, it is the American people who will find out about it last."

Those of you who know what happened to Athens, who exhausted itself through warfare, is that the Athenians kept voting again and again for war ....

It is truly laughable that Britain, who involved itself in two world wars that were really none of its business and lost its world empire as a result, did so because a Liberal Prime Minister thought fighting a short successful war in 1914 would make it more likely for the Liberal Party to win the 1915 General Election. What happened when the war it participated in turned really nasty? Why, the election was cancelled, of course.

It has been said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1. What, then, was WW1 all about? Britain declared war against Germany because of the Belgian neutrality German troops would violate on their way to France. This was the Belgian neutrality guaranteed in the Treaty of London in 1839.  Did Britain lift a finger to help France during the siege of Paris in 1870? Nope. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html

There is nothing peaceable about democracies at all. Voters in democracies don't give a damn whom their politicians murder and whose countries they destroy as long as their taxes are low and public spending high. Many apparently educated Britons are quite convinced that Russia is the more militarily aggressive country even as they themselves are aware that their governments have invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, bombed Libya and Syria. This is what Orwell would have called doublethink.

Do voters in democracies feel well-governed?

The answer can be discerned in how well the anti-establishment Trump is doing in the Presidential primaries and how prepared voters are to believe in conspiracy theories. A significant number of people in the West believe that their governments would actually bomb them and then pretend it was Muslim terrorists who did it, and use that as an excuse to bomb and invade more Muslim countries as well as depriving Western citizens of their liberty and privacy.

Soon, a Caliphate will seem like a sensible replacement for the mess we're in now.

@israel63 Voters don't care about foreign policy and have short memories so politicians can literally get away with murder. @PLCROSSTALK

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) February 29, 2016

Bad parenting and bad blood started WW1?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw7nx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw8ds

Cousins At War was another excuse to go through the family history of the Royals again. Those of us who know, know Britain didn't have to declare war on Germany. Did Britain lift a finger to save the French during the siege of Paris in 1870? Nope.

The German Ambassador in London couldn't believe Britain was entering WW1 "over a scrap of paper" - The Treaty of London 1839 - guaranteeing Belgian neutrality.

WW1 was caused by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination, not George V declaring war on Wilhelm II after he had been naughty and annoyed his relations yet again.

I doubt that even if Wilhelm II had been exposed at birth that would have prevented Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination.

It is breathtakingly dishonest of the British to blame Wilhelm II when it was Liberal Prime Minister Asquith who declared war on Germany in 1914 in the hope increasing the chances of the Liberal Party winning in the General Election of 2015 after a short successful war. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html When the war started to go really badly for Britain, the election was cancelled, as you would expect.

How old was Bismarck when he was sacked by Wilhelm II? 75. How old would he have have been in 1914? 99 years old, but apparently such a super statesman - as these historians seem to believe - that he would have been able to stop Kaiser in his tracks when he declared war on Britain ....

Listen to the British sneering at Wilhelm II in ‪#‎RoyalCousinsAtWar‬, blaming him for their rotten foreign policy which lost them their world empire.

When will the British take responsibility for the loss of their empire instead of forever blaming Germany and the Kaiser? "Look at what you made me do!" says Britain to Germany, for ever and ever ....

Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia (1859-1941), when Prince of Prussia

What was British foreign policy in WW1 & 2? Thwarting the Germans. What do British historians do? Blame the Germans, and never ever take responsibility for their insane foreign policy that lost them their world empire in thirty years.

The British now pretend they sacrificed their world empire to save the Jews. The Jews at least gained Israel, and the biggest loser of WW2 was Britain.

So, if Britain wants to blame the loss of their empire on something or someone they should blame the Liberal Party and Asquith who was Liberal Prime Minister of the time, as well as the operation of democracy.

Remember: British foreign policy is forged on the dunghill that is the indifference, ignorance and arrogance of the average voter on the subject. They are happy to believe any ill of foreigners, as long as they can feel that they or their leaders are not to blame. This policy continues to this day. Having lost their empire, the British are now proceeding to lose their marbles, driven mad by the depth of their folly and the extent of their loss. Their foreign policy seems to be double or quits until they they win or go broke. It is unlikely that they will win.

British establishment more invested in the idea of punishing David Irving than Zionist Jews

The British are even more invested into the idea of punishing Holocaust Denial http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/09/091001.pdf than the Jews, because they have even more to cover up than Zionist Jews who just wanted Israel as a homeland for diaspora Jews, who of course wanted to justify their land grab against the Palestinian Arabs. This is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html The British have to pretend to themselves that they had to enter WW1 or the Germans would have invaded, and they would all be speaking German by now if they had not declared war against Hitler for invading Poland. To make it all seem worth their while losing their empire over, they had to big up Hitler as being evil incarnate when it seems that  he was actually a nicer person than Churchill. Whatever you think of, Hitler at least was not a drunk and a depressive, nor did he ban smoking even when he was dictator. http://strangeherring.com/2009/05/17/hitlers-secretarys-memoirs-to-be-published-in-english-pop-up-book-and-video-game-to-follow/ Imagine - Hitler actually being more liberal and respectful of the liberty of Germans to smoke than PC Libtards everywhere!

Hitler's greatest mistake was in expecting the British to be reasonable about Poland when they were being so manifestly unreasonable about going to war ostensibly over Belgium in 1914 over "a scrap of paper", as the German Ambassador in London called the 1839 Treaty of London.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/why-i-would-be-pleased-to-see-statue-of.html

The British under Asquith entered World War 1 because Asquith, the Liberal Prime Minister thought a short and successful war would give the Liberal Party an electoral advantage in the 1915 General Election. They clearly thought that any war would be a short one and that the boys would be home by Christmas. In the end, they lost Britain her world empire ...

The British political establishment would have a much bigger axe to grind as regards WW2 than Zionist Jews ever would.

At his talk on Saturday I tried interesting David Irving in my little idea. Indeed, I remember someone else in his previous talks trying to interest him in WW1, but he repeated his answer to me "I know nothing about WW1, absolutely nothing, and stick to the subjects I know."

The "Second Thirty Years' War" is a disputed periodization sometimes used by historians to encompass the wars in Europe from 1914–1945.

Claire Khaw‎David Irving Official Fan Page

4 hrs · London ·

It occurs to me that if there were justice in Britain David Irving would be knighted by now for his services to historical research and the quest for historical truth in the face of a malicious and mendacious establishment wishing to avoid the proclaiming and the hearing of it.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Knighthoods.aspx

www.royal.gov.uk

ROYAL.GOV.UK

Claire Khaw

LikeLike ·  · Share · 16

Claire Khaw‎David Irving Official Fan Page

4 hrs · London ·

THE DAVID IRVING PRIZE OF HISTORICAL TRUTH

It is proposed that this prize be awarded to any historian in the world who defy their political establishment in the cause of investigating and proclaiming a Historical Truth that their political establishment does not want to hear or an Unanswered Historical Question that the political establishment cannot answer satisfactorily or convincingly.

Claire Khaw

LikeLike ·  · Share · 6

Claire Khaw‎David Irving Official Fan Page

4 hrs · London ·

Would David Irving say that the British establishment is even more invested in the idea of prosecuting Holocaust Denial than the Jews and Zionists these days, simply because what Britain lost as a result of their insane foreign policy of participating in two ruinous World Wars that led to the loss of the British Empire and the dubious privilege of becoming the 51st state of America?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/…/poppy-mania-da…

The Voice of Reason: Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the...

THE FACTS OF LIFE EXPLAINED AND UGLY TRUTHS TOLD The Scream by Edvard Munch graphically expresses what liberals feel when they hear The Voice of Reason - and that is...

THEVOICEOFREASON-ANN.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY CLAIRE KHAW

Claire Khaw

LikeLike ·  · Share · 111

Claire Khaw‎David Irving Official Fan Page

4 hrs · London ·

What number is Holocaust Denial?

Claire Khaw

LikeLike ·  · Share · 3

Claire Khaw‎David Irving Official Fan Page

4 hrs · London ·

Would David Irving like to define Holocaust Denial in a sentence?

Claire Khaw

LikeLike ·  · Share

Claire Khaw‎David Irving Official Fan Page

4 hrs · London ·

HOLOCAUST DENIAL LEGISLATION IS TOTALITARIAN THOUGHT-CRIME LEGISLATION

A majority of EU countries have long considered that the right to freedom of expression precludes the criminalization of Holocaust denial per se. The full implementation of the 2008 EU Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (hereinafter: the EU FD on racism) will, however, considerably harmonizes the law of Holocaust denial in Europe. While several provisions of the EU FD on racism offer a series of legal options enabling any EU country to limit the scope of national provisions criminalizing “genocide denial,” it remains that all EU Member States are now under the legal obligation to criminalize genocide denial when it is carried out either in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred or in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting. Before offering a critical review of the EU FD on racism and arguing that the political necessity of laws punishing genocide denial and the legal need for an EU-wide prohibition may be seriously questioned, this paper will contend that the legal reasoning developed by national courts in “militant democracies” is far from convincing and that the European Court of Human Rights should have refrained from labeling the Holocaust a clearly established historical fact whose denial constitutes ipso facto an “abuse of right”.

www.jeanmonnetprogram.org

JEANMONNETPROGRAM.ORG

Claire Khaw

LikeLike ·  · Share · 

Poor old David Irving being bullied and brow-beaten by Tim Sebastian. If he doesn't want to hear the answer he shouldn't have asked the question. (Notice how Tim Sebastian's voice was made louder than David Irving's to make him sound more authoritative and David Irving's voice turned down slightly to make him seem weaker and less authoritative.) David Irving also remorsefully apologises for saying "nigger" when he angrily shouted at a black man for running into him and hurting him. Understandable, I would have thought. Every person can think of a derogatory word to describe anyone they want to insult, so I don't see why black people should be protected from this. If Pakistanis can be called Pakis and the Chinese can be called Chinks why not black people niggers? It is actually racially discriminatory to say only black people are protected from being racially insulted while all the other races have to take it on the chin.

Why the Red Poppy is Bad for Britain and Bad for the British Military

Why don't the British ask themselves whether they should have fought WW1 instead of rehashing the usual sentimental sludge again?

If, as A J P Taylor said, WW2 was a continuation of WW1, then what was WW1 about?

What was Belgian neutrality to the British in 1914?

How relevant was the Treaty of London 1839
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/london1839.htm to Britain in the geopolitics of 1914?

Did Britain lose her world empire over a "scrap of paper"?

Was the most militaristic nation in the world looking upon every European war as a party she simply must go to?

Did Britain think she was the biggest party girl of the whole wide world?

Now she is a washed up old woman with an ambivalent attitude towards her past.

 It is of vital importance that the people of this country understand how this country lost its world empire.

Think of the Accumulator Principle, but of it working in reverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulator_(bet)

The Red Poppy is like the British worshiping the thing that brought them low.

It is a bit like Christians worshiping the Cross.

If Jesus was executed by electric chair would Christians be wearing electric chairs round their necks?

It is like watching people with the bubonic plague wearing a rat round their necks.

I despise the mawkish sentimentality and the nauseating hypocrisy every year when everyone wears their poppy and heart on their sleeves.

Only the world's most militaristic and sentimental nation would do it.

At least the Russians and the Chinese do it by marching properly and having rousing military parades displaying their weaponry.

Give a dead soldier a poppy after he dies in yet another stupid war as you sentence a live soldier for "murdering" an enemy combatant!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10436149/Royal-Marine-faces-life-in-jail-for-captive-execution.html

This is how the British respect their military.

Next year, the British will be celebrating the centenary of WW1 - the year of the beginning of their folie de grandeur - when they started to lose their marbles in a big big way.  It was a weak and Liberal Prime Minister who allowed it to happen, and now we have a Conservative Prime Minister who wants the world to adopt gay marriage.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-export-gay-marriage-around-the-world-says-David-Cameron.html

It is hoped that someone will start a Rafflesia Campaign to commemorate the folly of the British.

The Rafflesia Corpse Flower

The Koran v Rawls - the case *against* liberal interventionism

The days of Britain's gunboat diplomacy died with Palmerston and the loss of the British Empire, you would have thought.

The British lost their empire after their pyrrhic victory of WW2.

The historian A J P Taylor said WW2 was a continuation of WW1.  What was WW1 really about?

No one quite knows.  If you told the Modern Briton - even one who has passed his GCSE history or who even has a degree in it - he will not seem to know that the British fought WW1 over the issue of Belgian neutrality.

What had the Treaty of London 1839 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839) to do with the Britain of 1914?  No one really knows.

The awful truth is that the British simply muddled into world war after world war, without pausing once to examine their reasons or really counting the cost.

If Britain were a man, he could be said to be now in a drunken stupor which has lasted decades after he has mortgaged and remortgaged his home, been abandoned by his wife and family, and sold the family silver.

Perhaps the moral of this story is that one must not accept every invitation one receives, else we fall into bad company and are caused needless inconvenience and expense as a result.

Having lost their empire and in hock to the Americans after borrowing heavily to fund their war, the British decided to call this master and servant relationship a "Special Relationship".  It was important to the British to be seen to be dining at the top table with the most powerful nation in the world, though the rest of the world sniggered at them for being America's poodle.

Anyone who has tried to keep up with friends much wealthier than we are would know that it is financially ruinous to do so if you really do not have the wherewithal to do so.

This mania for liberal interventionism seems to come from Rawls, who "claimed, controversially, that violations of human rights can legitimize military intervention in the violating states, though he also expressed the hope that such societies could be induced to reform peacefully by the good example of liberal and decent peoples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Peoples

The Law of Peoples

By 'Law of Peoples’, Rawls means "a particular political conception of right and justice that applies to the principles and norms of international law and practice" . This political conception of justice is arrived at through the device of the 'original position' – a hypothetical arrangement whereby representatives of each of the peoples get together with the aim of determining principles that will govern the terms of their association. The principles yielded by this process make up the content of the Law of Peoples. The eight principles are:

1. "Peoples (as organized by their government) are free and independent, and their freedom and independence is to be respected by other peoples."
2. "Peoples are equal and parties to their own agreements."
3. "Peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to war."
4. "Peoples are to observe a duty of non-intervention."
5. "Peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings."
6. "Peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions on the conduct of war (assumed to be in self-defense)."
7. "Peoples are to honor human rights."
8. "Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#The_Law_of_Peoples


Convoluted, impractical, idiotic and utterly laughable.

Compare his convoluted shit with the Koran, which says, quite simply, that we may not attack another nation unless it attacks us, so that all wars must necessarily be defensive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

The point to note that the British suffer from a collective neurosis about their foreign policy and this neurosis, or even dementia to be more accurate, is long-standing and bone deep.  

Only when they stop worshiping Churchill - the man who lost the British their world empire in one reckless throw of dice - will their dementia lift.   

The proper and rational foreign policy for any self-respecting nation must be Palmerstonian:

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

America is not our Special Friend.  In fact, it is its own worst enemy.