Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (11782)	11/28/2001 3:29:08 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

I like this bit (lol) ...Palmerston dominated the British government from 1830 to 1865, and, was the central figure in efforts to make the British Empire into a new Roman Empire. He directed British strategy in the Opium Wars. He also kept a stable of radicals and terrorists for purposes of destabilizing other nations. (Eleven countries have recently denounced the British government for harboring terrorists, demonstrating that the British have continued this practice to this day.... Those Afghan war lords are good students of history In this link here on "what went wrong" with the British Empire Message 16637972 (1) Ending of slavery. The next 100 yrs proved these cozy liberal ideas were the makings of the end of the Empire. (2) Stoopit idea that human beings were equal. One Englishman was worth at least 10 foreigners. (3) Giving women the vote. (4) Allowing suckers an even break (example..Northern Ireland and uneven division) (5) Some stoopit idea that the working classes in the UK had some sort of "rights". They should have realized they were lucky enough just to be born in the right country. I should add... (6) Failure to propagate drug addiction amongst foreign nations with sufficient vigour.

To: maceng2 who wrote (11782)	11/28/2001 1:08:10 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

PB, Hope there was a stiff upper lip to go with your honest mea culpas: <<drug pushers (The British Empire)>> Kudos! for the admission. Here's how Pynchon, again in Gravity's Rainbow, put it without going quite as far as you in naming names: << This classic hustle is still famous, even today, for the cold purity of its execution: bring opium from India, introduce it into China -- howdy Fong, this here's opium, opium, this is Fong -- ah, so, me eatee! -- no-ho-ho, Fong, you smokee, smokee, see? pretty soon Fong's coming back for more and more, so you create an inelastic demand for the shit, get China to make it illegal, then sucker China into a couple-three disastrous wars over th right of your merchants to sell opium, which by now you are describing as sacred. You win, China loses. Fantastic. >> I know for a fact, and don't need historians or journalists of any stripe to tell me, that in one form or another this same hustle was perpetrated on American soldiers with opium refined into heroin. You see, four years after I left Vietnam my younger brother went there as a USAF medic treating hundreds of heroin addicted troops. Curiously, these men became addicted by smoking, not injecting the drug. I wonder who taught them that? All discussion re the identity of perpetrators of this hustle aside, one thing is certain, it's not likely they'll ever be held accountable. Jerry in Omaha

To: maceng2 who wrote (11782)	12/7/2001 11:56:26 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

(OT) Crime writer 'solves' Jack the Ripper mystery A US crime novelist is claiming she has solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper and named him as an artist who painted images of a murdered prostitute. Patricia Cornwell spent almost £3 million on her hunt for the true identity of the Victorian serial killer. She now says she believes the Ripper was really Walter Richard Sickert, an important Impressionist artist who painted the series of gruesome pictures 20 years later. She told American TV's Primetime: "I do believe 100% that Walter Richard Sickert committed those serial crimes, that he is the Whitechapel murderer." Cornwell, 45, spent part of the fortune her best-selling crime novels have earned her on her hunt, buying Sickert's paintings, then using them in the hunt for clues. She even flew a team of American forensic experts to London to examine the notorious Ripper letters for DNA, and bought 30 of the artist's works, ripping one of them up completely in her hunt for clues. Sickert, who was born in 1860, was an apprentice to Whistler and worked with Degas and is regarded as a key link between British art and the growth of Impressionism. But Cornwell claims he led a secret double life as a serial killer - and the five prostitutes named as Jack the Ripper's victims were not the only women he killed. They were horribly mutilated and all but Kelly were murdered on the street but their killer - who taunted police in letters signed "Jack the Ripper" - was never found, prompting one of history's greatest murder mysteries. Cornwell said she had been led to Sickert by a series of clues and her knowledge of forensic science and the mind of serial killers. Sickert was 28 when the killings started, an age Cornwell said was typical for serial killers to start their sprees between the age of 25 and 30. ananova.com. Oh big deal!!!. Stephen Knights book lists Sickert along with two others. The "ripper" was THREE guys. All the killings were selected carefully, and were "ritual" to scare blackmailers. No only that but he also fingers a possible love child (who also had children) that is actually the direct descendant for the British Throne. A simple DNA test would resolve this "mystery". Yes, in the area of London during that time there were murders galore. Why the big deal about the Ripper? Reason it was a powerful secret society squashing a royal black mail attempt. See book below Gull (Royal Physician) and a Coachman were the other two guys. I wonder if the DNA test will ever be done on the "direct descendant" in question.??? amazon.com. A readers review. When I bought this book several years ago, I thought that it would just be one of the many conspiracy theory novels about the world's first serial killer. Instead it was an interesting tale of a conspiracy among the highest in the land. What I liked about Stephen Knight's book is its focus on research which was extensive and helped build up a picture of these murders, now over a century ago. While I do not know whether this is really true and that facts were properly interpreted, what is certain was there was a cover-up, which means that there was definitely something to hide. This may support Mr Knight's view that it was a cover up by the British Establishment to counter a blackmail attempt that would have had a destabilising effect on the British society of the time.The conclusions of this book are that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.