Same as the Old Boss – Alexis Tsipras 178


Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Alexis Tsipras, and we do get fooled again. If you will forgive me I should like to crow a little about the accuracy of my predictions on Greece in the last week or so. Now comes the bit where they stay in the Euro there is another fudge, the bankers get hold of more cash and more state assets, and nothing much changes.

We have to find what enjoyment we can in life, and I was writing yesterday about stuffing a duck. I give you another evocative little snippet from Sikunder Burnes which I rather enjoyed writing.

The next morning Burnes slept in late, hungover. Argoud woke up, and passed Percival Lord, who was sitting in the hall performing taxidermy on a duck. Argoud, still not sober, then crashed into Burnes’ room:

“That officer was not yet dressed, on which M. Argoud called out: “Why sare, the battle of Wagram was fought before this hour, and you are still in deshabille? Will you take wine with me?” “No,” said Captain Burnes, “I never take wine before breakfast.” “Then sare,” said Argoud, “You insult me and I demand satisfaction.” He ran out and soon reappeared with his small sword and asked Burnes to send for his rapier.”


178 thoughts on “Same as the Old Boss – Alexis Tsipras

1 3 4 5 6
  • Resident Dissident

    “Is that your best shot. Putin is a Saint compared to Churchill.”

    He is still a genocide denier and rewriter of history – please stuff your moral relativism where the sun doesn’t shine.

  • Resident Dissident

    Of course this is the same Dave Lawson who defended Putin’s self proclaimed increase and improvement in nuclear weapons as just being a replacement of existing weapons – so I daresay he does think that Putin is a saint.

  • Anon1

    Lwtc247

    “You know the answers already.”

    Sorry but I do not. Can you please answer the three specific questions.

  • Anon1

    Ok, it appears there was a sofa involved. Still doesn’t beat brandishing axes and handing out sweets.

  • Dave Hansell

    Anon,

    Not so. Those three elections cited by Fred were substantiating evidence of his earlier claim that the Scots got a Tory Government in 2015 because that’s the result of them having voted SNP rather than New Labour. To back up that position he he using those three elections as evidence that by voting New Labour instead of SNP ergo you get a New Labour Government rather than a Tory Government.

    The facts in all 4 elections, as laid out, do not support either position. Even if we ignore 2015 the other three election results Fred uses clearly show that the Scottish vote made absolutely no difference to the outcome.

    If someone made the claim that because Scotland only returned 1 Conservative MP and 11 Lib Dems in 2010, compared to 41 New Labour and 6 SNP MP’s, that this made a difference to the resulting Coalition Government you would be justified in pointing out the fact that once again the allocation of seats in Scotland made no difference whatsoever to the outcome.

    In 2010 the seats were

    Conservative – 305, including 1 in Scotland
    New Labour – 258, including 41 in Scotland
    Lib Dem – 57, including 11 in Scotland
    SNP – 6 seats.

    Even if all 59 Scottish seats had gone to New Labour in 2010 the result would have been

    Conservatives 305
    New Labour 276
    Lib Dems 46

    There would therefore still have been a Tory Lib Dem Coalition, along with the 8 DUP seats, because a) New Labour and Lib Dems combined would have fallen 4 seats short of the 326 seats needed for an overall majority and b) the fact that New Labour have been consistent in their position from the day of that election result to the present day that they would rather be in permanent and loyal opposition and never ever gain power until the end of the existence of life itself than work with anyone else. It would mean giving up their self proclaimed exclusivity.

    The inescapable logic and arithmatic are that whichever way the Scots vote makes absolutely no difference to the outcome. Fred’s point that they got what they voted for is therefore factually and in reality not the case.

  • lwtc247

    I shouldn’t really, but *sigh*, I guess I’ve wasted time on even less productive things…

    “they” in regards to those particular Jews Daniel refers to in his 11 Jul, 2015 – 5:37 pm post (not all Jews of course for such a claim would be ridiculous and massively disrespectful for those Jews that call for the end of the “Israeli” Zionist state), and those who to support them in various shades, or ‘outer circles’ as was mentioned earlier.

    They have always worked the long game, because there is nothing more important than man’s relationship to God and when you believe God gave you an unconditional promise (even though it was totally conditional) then the ‘select’, dare I say ‘supremacist’ group in question, will always act to bring man’s relationship with God to it’s ultimate conclusion.

    Hebrew and afterwards, post-calamity Jewish history gives stark lessons on exactly that, punctuated not least by ‘Kosher’ acts in altering the OT achieve the end-game results in dominance over the Goym by way of financial enslavement via usury.

    What Lwtc stands for proves you’re lying when you protest you do not know the answers, as you wouldn’t have asked had you not known what it stands for.

    Ok. That’s the troll quota expended.

  • Daniel

    “… Being Scottish doesn’t have it’s own compulsive codes for living one’s life – as you well know.”

    Indeed.

  • Mary

    Thanks for that link Nevermind. I realize the purpose of course. My comment was copied and pasted by him (as he copies and pastes those of others) and commented on

    a) in an attempt to isolate me

    b) in an attempt to drive a wedge between me and Craig.

    Failed on both!

  • Ba'al Zevul

    The inescapable logic and arithmetic are that whichever way the Scots vote makes absolutely no difference to the outcome. Fred’s point that they got what they voted for is therefore factually and in reality not the case.

    At risk of prolonging this further, Fred’s invariable point is that whatever the subject (umbrellas, giraffes, Tienshan, microbiology) a whinge about the SNP must be recorded. See, Fred didn’t get what he voted for…

    Re, the other recurrent theme, no, there isn’t a Jewish conspiracy. The Jewish tradition is of infinite argumentativeness around a few points of cultural agreement, none of them unique to Jews. Including: in business, if you can get away with it, it’s legal. The work ethic is communicated with the religion, and the religion is never allowed to lapse. And networking is facilitated by the centrality of the religion to everyday life, and the conscious maintenance of the community as separate from its surroundings. Which is of course greatly helped by antisemitism, perceived, invented or actual. The Plymouth Brethren, if they regarded wealth as an objective, could be just as ‘successful’.

    Let’s not forget that the problem is not with Jewish bankers (whose numbers are demonstrably disproportionate, sure). It is with banking in general.

  • fred

    “Not so. Those three elections cited by Fred were substantiating evidence of his earlier claim that the Scots got a Tory Government in 2015 because that’s the result of them having voted SNP rather than New Labour.”

    I didn’t say that.

    Afraid you’ve done all that mathematics for nothing.

  • Resident Dissident

    “Ok. That’s the troll quota expended.”

    But those singing and humming the old Nazi tune just carry on!

  • Resident Dissident

    “What Lwtc stands for proves”

    Google gave me “liquid waste tank car” – seems kind of appropriate.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita e' bella)

    Nevermind

    “Indeed Mary, he is stalking you for his very own reasons, maybe you should ask for some advice.
    I trawled this up for you.
    http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm
    __________________

    Well, Nevermind, firstly I’m not stalking Mary, merely pulling her up on her more egregious comments. If you posted as much as she does you wold be getting the sharp end of my tongue nore often as well. So stop being a crybaby by proxy

    Secondly, I looked at your link and found it starts with the following :

    “Background to stalking and cyberstalking

    A study of 50 stalkers by the Royal Free Hospital and University College Medical School, London, found that women are much more likely to be stalked and attacked by a former sexual partner than by a stranger.”

    In the interests of historical accuracy and in order not to make me jealous I must place it on record that I have never been a sexual partner of Mary’s. I have certain standards, you know.

  • Ben

    As you know, RD, the National Socialist Party was the fascists answer to the Communist Party, so what’s in a name?

    Behaviors trump rhetoric.

  • Daniel

    “Let’s not forget that the problem is not with Jewish bankers (whose numbers are demonstrably disproportionate, sure). It is with banking in general.”

    Not really. The problem is essentially the power elite that comprise the relatively solid inner circle of the power structure. Jewish power is an intrinsic part of this inner circle. Your assertion would only be true if relations of power were not indicative of a shared sociopolitical, cultural and philosophical discourse.

  • Dave Hansell

    I’m afraid you did Fred.

    11:14 PM 11/07/2015 “the people of Scotland got exactly what they voted for. Zero influence at Westminster…”

    Followed up at 01:01 am on 12/07/2015 listing the argument that the 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections resulted in New Labour Governments.

    In the context of the discussion you were having these exchanges clearly imply that in voting for the SNP in 2015 the people of Scotland got a Tory Government, I. E “zero influence”, whereas in 1997, 2001, and 2005, having voted for a majority of New Labour seats in Scotland they got a New Labour Government and ergo influence at Westminster.

    Wriggle all you want. The words are the words.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    The problem is essentially the power elite that comprise the relatively solid inner circle of the power structure. Jewish power is an intrinsic part of this inner circle. Your assertion would only be true if relations of power were not indicative of a shared sociopolitical, cultural and philosophical discourse.

    Tendentious, and hinges on the word ‘inner’. All bankers reinforce their position by ensuring that everyone’s playing the same game. If genuine competition existed, the edifice would fall apart. There is no need for a controlling ‘inner’ circle, still less for an exclusively Jewish one against which the ‘outer’ members would inevitably conspire. It’s an inextricable tangle of interests, not (counterintuitively pehaps) Dante’s circles of Hell. Even if it were not, the shabby practices condoned and practised by financiers are what need to be addressed. By legislation and enforcement. Removing the Jews (or Parsees, or residents of Basingstoke…whatever) would change nothing.

  • Daniel

    “Tendentious, and hinges on the word ‘inner’. All bankers reinforce their position by ensuring that everyone’s playing the same game. If genuine competition existed, the edifice would fall apart. There is no need for a controlling ‘inner’ circle, still less for an exclusively Jewish one against which the ‘outer’ members would inevitably conspire. It’s an inextricable tangle of interests, not (counterintuitively pehaps) Dante’s circles of Hell. Even if it were not, the shabby practices condoned and practised by financiers are what need to be addressed. By legislation and enforcement. Removing the Jews (or Parsees, or residents of Basingstoke…whatever) would change nothing.”

    Clearly you didn’t read the link I posted. Here’s the pertinent point:

    “…In the inner circle, we find the global money trust, the richest individuals, families or clans, all with fortunes well above one billion Euros…”

    So I’m not talking about the run of the mill banker but rather:

    “The inner circle… which is… is not static but relatively solid. It builds on financial and social capital often accumulated by former generations, the steel, banking, weapons, or oil barons. The major source of power is being borne to a family of the inner circle. The Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the DuPonts, the Vanderbilts, the Agnellis, the Thyssens or the Krupps would provide illustrative examples (see, e.g., Holbrook, 1953; or more recently Landes, 2006; Marshall, A.G. 2013).”

    Jewish power is integral to this inner circle. To deny this is plain silly.

  • Resident Dissident

    “The Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the DuPonts, the Vanderbilts, the Agnellis, the Thyssens or the Krupps”

    Of these only the Rothschilds were Jewish – except in the websites which you frequent where even Joe Stalin was a Rothschild as well. Please piss off with your ridiculous anti-Semitism.

  • Daniel

    Try to keep up. The link goes on to say:

    “There are also the nouveaux riches. Names like George Soros, William Gates, Warren Buffet, Marc Zuckerberg, Sheldon Adelson, or the Koch brothers come to mind (Smith, Y. 2013); Russian or Eastern European oligarchs like Alisher Usmanov, Mikhail Chodorkowski, Boris Beresowski, Mikhail Fridman, Rinat Ahmetov, Leonid Mikhelson, Viktor Vekselberg, Andrej Melnichenko, Roman Abramovich; as well as Carlos Slim Helu, Lakshmi Mittal, Mukesh Ambani, Jorge Paulo Lemann, Iris Fontbona or Aliko Dangote from the so-called less developed countries.”

    I’m not claiming that Jewish power is at the centre of everything rather that it’s disproportionate. There are historical reasons for this but it is what it is.

  • Daniel

    “…except in the websites which you frequent”.

    As far as I know information clearing house is not an antisemtio site.

1 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.