The EU Fronts German Aggression

March 5, 2008

The EU encourages another round of German aggression on small European nations. That will accelerate the growth of Far Eastern economies and speed Europe’s demise.

Germany’s call for a clampdown on European tax havens won support on Tuesday from a majority of the European Union’s 27 member states, determined to tighten rules on bank secrecy, which they see as encouraging tax evasion.

At an EU finance ministers’ meeting in Brussels, only Austria and Luxembourg, which obtained special arrangements when an EU savings tax directive came into effect in 2005, appeared reluctant to back tougher rules.

The governments of Austria and Luxembourg are answerable only to the people that elected them, and how they run their banks is no business of Germany, or any other nation.

If the Germans want to stop their citizens evading taxes they have (at least) two options:

  1. Reduce German taxes to a level that its people consider fair.
  2. Introduce Red Chinese-style draconian punishments – public execution, for example – for German tax evaders.

Of course Option 1 isn’t available to the tax-and-spend Euro elite, and Option 2 might make the natives question the legitimacy of their governments.

If, as seems likely, banks in Austria and Luxembourg fall to this German aggression, their clients will head for trustworthy nations that are not vulnerable to EU pressure.

Hong Kong fails the “trustworthy” test, since it’s a Communist client, and Switzerland folded to the EU years ago.

Instead, German tax refugees will be moving their funds to Japan or Singapore, both of which are stable and don’t give a fig for the EU.


Germany Goes Nuts (Again)

February 24, 2008

The German government just bribed an employee of a foreign bank to steal details of German account holders. That’s an example of the end (catching tax evaders) justifying the means (theft). The last time Germans used that principle they went on to kill about 40 million people.

Liechtenstein accused Germany yesterday of attacking its sovereignty after Berlin admitted using spies to investigate tax fraud in the principality.

Crown Prince Alois launched his withering tirade after it emerged that German undercover investigators paid up to £3.75 million for bank details of Germans suspected of tax-fraud in the nearby state.

Evading (as opposed to avoiding) tax is a crime, but state sanctioned theft makes state employees and elected officials crooks too.

The level of tax evasion in a nation is a funtion of a) the level of taxes and b) the value taxpayers assign to that taxation. Danes we know happily pay high taxes in return for good social services, whereas no Brits we know think they get value for their taxes.

Germans seem to have the Brit attitude, leading to a poisonous combination – taxpayers who crookedly hide their incomes, governed by crooked pols and officials.

Here’s the last bunch of crooks that ran Germany:

…Hitler’s efforts to persuade Oskar von Hindenburg (the President’s son) included threats to bring criminal charges over estate taxation irregularities at the President’s Neudeck estate (although 5000 extra acres were soon allotted to Hindenburg’s property)…

Hindenburg, despite his misgivings about the Nazis’ goals and about Hitler as a person, reluctantly agreed.. that, with Nazi popular support on the wane, Hitler could now be controlled as chancellor. The date dubbed Machtergreifung (seizure of power) by the Nazi propaganda is commonly seen as the beginning of Nazi Germany.

Fortunately, they don’t have nukes.

Canada, Privacy, and Freedom

January 13, 2008

Nations that make a fetish of protecting the privacy of their citizens are often unfree: there’s a good reason for that.

Here’s the latest report from Privacy International:

  • The lowest ranking countries in the survey continue to be Malaysia, Russia and China.
  • The highest-ranking countries in 2007 are Greece, Romania and Canada.
  • The 2006 leader, Germany, slipped significantly in the 2007 rankings, dropping from 1st to 7th place behind Portugal and Slovenia.
  • In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines and falling into the “black” category, denoting endemic surveillance.
  • The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.

Privacy is a dimension of freedom, so it’s odd to see free nations like the US and UK at the bottom of the table and collectivist states like Germany and Canada at the top.

The Canadian government just charged Mark Steyn with violating the human rights of Muslims for his eloquent analysis of their benighted religion, and is prosecuting another Canadian, Ezra Levant, for publishing the Motoons.

Since free speech is the core of our freedoms, it follows that Canada is not free. So how come they’re so keen on protecting privacy?

The answer is that Privacy International bases its scoring what governments do – if they have lots of laws and agencies protecting privacy, they get high marks. So all the index measures is the intrusiveness of the state.

In fact privacy protection is inversely related to freedom, since free societies trade privacy for freedom. If I walk the streets late at night, I don’t consider a cop asking my business an intrusion on my privacy, but as evidence of the framework that protects my freedom.

Similarly, if I record a Muslim preaching murder and rape I violate his privacy for the greater good of his potential victims.

Finally the freedom of nations is based on their peoples, not governments – here in Italy there’s a proposal to force bloggers to register with the state, but Italians will ignore that, just as they ignore most other laws coming from their despised central government.

So here’s the rule: democratic nations with strong privacy laws are the least free.

I trust Canadians offended by this post will rise up against their collectivist state, not seek to extradite me in chains.

The German Soft Target

November 18, 2007

Germany is currently the EU’s most populous and richest nation and its location makes it key to Europe’s defense against the Mullahs and Putin’s Russia. But, as previously noted, it’s a paper tiger and unlikely to change. That’s the strongest reason for Brits to distance themselves from it.

Mark Helprin of the Claremont Institute has the numbers (my ellipsis):

Whereas in 1989 (the US) kept in Europe 325,000 troops, 5,000 tanks, 25 operating air bases, and 1,000 combat aircraft, we now keep approximately a fifth of that. Whereas the Germans in 1989 could field a half-million men and 5,000 tanks, they now can deploy less than half that number.

As the Soviet Union dissolved, much of its military capacity followed it into oblivion. But as Western Europe dismantles its militaries, Russia builds, encouraged as much by European pacifism as by the Russian view of America’s struggle in Iraq as a parallel to the Soviet’s fatal involvement in Afghanistan.

Like Germany between the wars, Russia is now eager and determined to reconstitute its forces, and with its new-found oil wealth, it is doing so…

So Germany is powerless against the increasingly threateningt Russians. Then there are the Mullahs:

Germany must fascinate the Jihadists, too–not for displacing America as the prime target, but as the richest target least defended…

…in 2003 Germany found a September 11th facilitator guilty of 3,066 counts of accessory to murder and sentenced him to seven years (20 hours per person), he was recently reconvicted and sentenced to 43 hours per person, not counting parole…

But, more importantly, the variations in European attitudes and capabilities vis-à-vis responding to terrorism or nuclear blackmail are what make Germany such an attractive target. Unlike the U.S., France, and Britain, Germany is a major country with no independent expeditionary capability and no nuclear weapons, making it ideal for a terrorist nuclear strike or Iranian extortion if Iran is able to continue a very transparent nuclear policy to its logical conclusion…

Looking at Germany, then, Iran sees a country with nothing to counter the pressure of merely an implied nuclear threat. Jihadists see the lynchpin of Europe, easy of access and inadvertently hospitable to operations, that will hardly punish those who fall into its hands, and that can neither accomplish on its own a flexible expeditionary response against a hostile base or sponsor, nor reply to a nuclear strike in kind.

This is all fixable – Germany could build nukes, and increase its military spend above the current derisory 1.4% of GNP. But it’s not likely to do that until the enemy is at the gates. And that will be too late.

Meantime, the Brits can’t help – they won’t risk (say) Manchester to head off a Russian or Iranian nuke threat to Hamburg. And the Brit military will be tied up for the indefinite future in Afghanistan and Iraq (where German troops are respectively confined to safe areas and AWOL).

The worst outcome for the Brits would to be to get half involved in a German tragedy that can’t be prevented.

So as soon as the Brits get a decent government, it should remove itself promptly from this continental entanglement.

Crocodile Fodder

September 21, 2007

Churchill said ” An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last” and by crocodiles he meant Germans. But now they’re doing the feeeding.

Germany (helped by Switzerland) was the chief enabler of the nuclear arming of Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and now maybe Syria. And they can’t seem to stop:

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said with respect to Iran, “We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst, sir, is war.” He called for “more effective sanctions,” as a follow on to President Nicholas Sarkozy’s warning last month that the alternative is “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.”

The welcome change in French attitudes, moreover, is not being matched by Germany, which in some respects is literally trying to demonstrate a “business as usual” approach.

Germany exported about $5bn. in goods to Iran last year, representing a substantial growth in exports over the last six years.

This year, German exports have reportedly dropped 20 percent, presumably due to the Western sanctions campaign. But Germany is dragging its feet, both economically and diplomatically, with respect to tightening the pressure on Teheran.

As Reuters reported on Friday, “A split has emerged in the coalition of Western powers pressuring Iran to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, as France backs US calls for a new round of sanctions while Germany urges restraint.”

Germany, together with France and the UK (the EU-3) has been negotiating with the Mullahs since early 2003, and claimed success when:

On October 21, 2003, in Tehran, the Iranian government and EU-3 Foreign Ministers issued a statement in which Iran agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, to sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations.

Of course it didn’t happen, and it never will until the Mullahs have a satisfactory inventory of nukes and delivery systems.

The German government knows this, and still feeds the Iranian with advanced technology. They presumably calculate that the 2,200 Km range Shahab 3D is no threat.

But when the North Koreans (Iran’s new best friend) get the bugs out of the 4,000+ Km range Taepodong-2, Berlin is, er, screwed.

It Is Somewhat About Oil

September 17, 2007

Greenspan may have meant that without oil, we’d have no problems with Islam. But that’s only partly true.

The natural state of modern Islamic societies is poverty. Muslim terrorists are limited murdering us retail – with our planes, in our subway trains, and (if they capture us) in their death houses.

This state arises because Islam prohibits the behaviors that underpin scientific progress, and maybe because its adherents are genetically damaged by hundreds of years of cousin marriage.

Oil has changed this poverty, since all but one of the OPEC cartel (Venezuela) are Muslim. And if they ship at Janaury 2007 rates, these nations will export over 100,000,000 barrels of oil this year, worth about $757 billion at $70/barrel.

That’s only a bit less than China’s total exports, obtained at a fraction of the cost of China’s industrial machine. And since Islamic nations are dictatorships, the money gets spent on weapons to keep the elites in power and fripperies to divert them.

And this flood of money has helped Islam to graduate from throat cutting to city busting. Here’s a summary of how this happened taken from this book (the writer has mild BDS, but is mostly sound):

1. It all started in China, which defeated its neighbor India in a border war in 1962 then tested its first nuke in 1964.

2. India is full of smart people, so it promptly built its own nukes, testing a plutonium bomb in 1974, then building an armory that now includes city-busting fusion bombs.

3. Muslim Pakistan had been defeated by India in a series of wars starting with partition, and decided it had to match the Indian program. In the mid 1970s, it commenced a bomb development program.

4. China supplied Pakistan with the warhead designs, so their only problem was to manufacture the necessary bomb material and build a delivery system. They initially planned a plutonium weapon, but abandoned that when the French decided not to deliver a promised plutonium separation plant.

5. That left uranium, and coincidentally, in 1975 a Pakistani by the name of A Q Khan returned home from Holland with the full details of uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He’d worked at a Euro-venture which produced reactor-grade uranium for the Dutch, Germans, and Brits. It’s called Urenco, and when Khan was there had world-class lousy security, so he was able to steal not just blueprints, photos, and supplier lists, but also actual parts.

6. Pakistan lacked the industrial base to build Urenco-designed centrifuge farms and Chinese-designed warheads, but Khan was able to buy almost everything he needed, mostly from Germany and Switzerland. Pakistan is one of the most corrupt nations in the world, but that actually helped Khan since it’s full of people adept at bribery and smuggling.

7. Our security services tracked this, but Pakistan successfully used the Iranian excuse – it was only enriching to 3.5%. The UN was as useless then as now, and may have run top cover for the Pakistanis (again, as it now does for the Mullahs).

8. Pakistan tested its first nuke in 1998. It also tested a medium-range missile developed from a North Korean platform. That turned into a regular trade – missiles from NoKo to Pakistan, centrifuges in return. The NoKos got their rocket technology from the Russian Scud, possibly via China.

9. During and subsequent to its development, Pakistan provided complete starter packs for nuke weapons programs to Iran and Libya – the latter was billed just $100 million!

10. Interestingly, Saddam’s nuke program used a different enrichment process, and got within 3 years of weapon in the 1990s. That plant was supplied by the Germans.

The Pakistani program, although much less costly than the original Manhattan project, must still have consumed an enormous part of Pakistan’s wealth (it’s poorer than tiny Slovenia). All those precision German and Swiss components cost money, and it took well over a decade for the Pakistanis to build their own copies.

So it seems likely that Pakistan was funded by one or more Muslim oil states – it was after all creating the first Islamic nuke. That would also explain the giveaway price to Libya.

But it’s not just about money – the Chinese supplied the warhead design, the Russians (indirectly) the missile, and above all, the Germans and Swiss the machinery. Having worked in weapons businesses in the UK and US, I don’t buy the argument that the European suppliers were duped – the manufacturers and governments will have known exactly what was going on.

So, yes, it is somewhat about oil.

But mainly it’s about the Chinese, Germans, Russians, and Swiss.

Right Back In The USSR

August 26, 2007

The Russians are again imprisoning dissidents in psychiatric institutions, and cutting of oil to Germany. Without the US shield, that makes Europe very vulnerable, and its pols should start rearming pronto.

Natan Sharansky and Andrei Sakharov exposed how the USSR terror state operated. It’s back:

The elderly couple did not hesitate to open the door when they saw Dimitry Mukhin through their spy-hole. Mukhin, a psychiatrist who lived in the neighbouring building, had recently paid a friendly visit to ask if they needed anything. But this was no courtesy call.

As Emilia Tomareva and Albert Uzikov let him into the Moscow flat where they had lived for decades, Mukhin rushed in with two men in white coats and a policeman.

The shocked couple were bundled into an ambulance with their hands tied behind their backs and locked up in separate psychiatric hospital wards, even though neither was mentally ill.

Both were injected with drugs against their will and without a court order that is normally required under Russian law. By the time they were released 10 days later after a judge ruled that they should never have been incarcerated in the first place, both were ill and terrified.

Uzikov, a leukaemia sufferer, was so weakened by the drugs that he had to be carried home.

A few months later he died.


Russia has made significant cuts to oil supplies sent to German refineries recently, rekindling concerns in Germany over the reliability of Russian energy supplies.

Lukoil, Russia’s second largest oil producer, on Friday acknowledged that supplies to Germany had been reduced by about one-third in July and August but refused to explain why the reduction had occurred.

The Germans should rebrand it Out-Of-Lukoil and stop using it, but they won’t.

Europe has time to build its defenses, since the Russian economy is only the size of France’s, and its armed forces are poorly equipped and manned. But, with our help, it now has modern weapons and just needs to mass produce & deploy them, using the money we pay it for oil and gas.

It makes sense for Russia to expand West – its population is tanking, its non-oil economy is a basket case, and China threatens its Eastern provinces. It’s most likely to use economic pressure than a straight invasion, but it’s quite possible one would shade into the other.

If Putin keeps rearming, in 5 years time Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Germany would be very hard put to hold a Russian armored offensive. This would have quantitative air superiority, and use tactical nukes to take out air bases and troop concentrations.

Putin knows how to pacify Muslim states, so he might also go for Belgium, Holland, and Sweden.

To counter that, Europeans need clouds of armed drones, batteries of quick-launch observation satellites, ASATs, layered anti-air defenses, and of course BMD.

That needs them to push military spending as a percentage of GNP from about 1.5% to 4%.

Alternatively they should provide Russian language classes for every citizen.