RUTHFULLY YOURS

China now has the world’s fastest supercomputer, faster than anything we’ve got by a factor of five. Forget the South China Sea. That’s rope-a-dope, and we’re the dope that’s getting roped. We lost that one. We’re about to lose the next round, too.

China has built the computer with chips that it designed and manufactured in China, after the United States banned Intel from selling its fastest chips to China.

China not only has the world’s fastest individual supercomputer, but it has more total supercomputing capacity than the United States. And its capacity is growing, and getting even faster; China claims it will add a zero to computing speed by 2020, which would make its top-of-the-line box 50 times faster than the Titan supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

This isn’t about virtual reality headsets. Supercomputers are a decisive instrument in economics and war. They break codes (or create hard-to-break codes), for example. They simulate nuclear explosions. They design air frames. They model the molecular properties of new materials. China’s economy, to be sure, is far behind America’s in many key areas–but not in chip-making, or computer architecture. Not any more.

China has surface-to-ship missiles (the DF-21 and its successors) that can sink U.S. carriers. It has satellite-killer missiles that can take out our space-based communications. It has high-speed maneuvering missiles. We know about all this. What should worry us is what we don’t know about yet. China’s super-computing capacity opens up a vast number of possibilities for industrial as well as weapons design. It turbocharges the rate of innovation and drastically reduces developing and testing time and costs. This is an advantage America used to take for granted. We controlled exports of fast computer chips, even the ones embedded in game boxes, because we wanted to maintain our edge. And now it’s gone. Not a single politician to my knowledge has mentioned it.

There can be no ifs and buts about it – the EU is a Dictatorship. How come? How dare I say such a thing? Answer: When the Commission headed by Herr Juncker issues a Regulation it has the force of law for all 28 member States immediately. Let me repeat that one word – immediately.

Nobody has the right to question this Regulation – it is incontestable. It simply arrives from the EU and it is Law! There are no discussions in Parliament, no processes, no debate, absolutely nothing. Once you clearly understand this my friends, and my friends also on the Remain side, I say to you “Think again.”

It is true that both the Lords and the Monarchy are an anachronism, in some ways logically indefensible. So we have a Monarch by whom all laws are promulgated by Royal Assent, but whose Assent is assured. The Monarch actually has almost absolute power, which in practice is never used. The House of Commons is the legislature, where laws are proposed by the majority Party and opposed by the Opposition. The Executive is formed by the leader of the majority Party, who becomes Prime Minister, but still has to report weekly to the Monarch. (Not everybody knows this.)

The Lords were originally landed gentry who had a natural stake in the Kingdom, and the Bishops, both of whom were reckoned to be above being bought and above Party politics, – precisely because they were not elected. Alas too many Prime Ministers have sought to fill the Lords with their cronies. Nevertheless, in spite of the abuses of power, the Lords has proved to be a wonderful brake upon the Commons, and a means of publicising issues to the general public and modifying laws.

Mathias Döpfner is one of Europe’s staunchest defenders of Israel who describes himself as a “non-Jewish Zionist” In his words:” “Israel and Europe should have an understanding of absolutely common interests in the defense of democracy and the values of the free Western world. Israel is the bridgehead of democracy in the Middle East. So it is in the interests of Europe to support it and to strengthen it. We share the same cultural roots and we share the same security interests and foreign policy interests. Let’s bring it closer together.” rsk

BERLIN—Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s efforts to silence what his lawyers have called libelous mockery of his person in Germany suffered a blow on Tuesday when a court rebuffed a complaint he had filed against a prominent German media executive.

The higher court of Cologne ruled on appeal that Mathias Döpfner, chairman and chief executive of media group Axel Springer SE, expressed an opinion when defending a comedian’s vitriolic text about the president. This opinion, it said, was protected by freedom of expression.

The decision, which confirmed a judgment in first instance, marked a win for critics of the Turkish president and advocates of press freedom, who had accused Mr. Erdogan of seeking to extend a domestic crackdown on critics to other countries.

“The decision shows that the state of law functions in Germany,” said Frank Überall, chairman of the German Federation of Journalists DJV. “Maybe the Turkish president Erdogan will now concentrate again on a factual discourse rather than try and abuse of the German legal system to implement his crude censor fantasies.”

The decision is the latest episode in an unfolding dispute that originated in a poem that comedian Jan Böhmermann aired on a late-night comedy show at the end of March. The lengthy string of crude abuse aimed at the president was meant as an ironic response to Turkey’s prior criticism of another piece of satire and a self-avowed attempt to test the limits of free speech in Germany.

Mr. Döpfner, whose stables of publications include Germany’s mass-market Bild tabloid and the broadsheet Die Welt, had come out in defense of the comedian when it emerged that he was being sued by Mr. Erdogan for insulting the Turkish president. CONTINUE AT SITE

BRUSSELS—If the U.K. decides in Thursday’s referendum to leave the European Union, it would shake the continent to its political foundations. Even if it stays, the bloc may never be the same.

A decision to leave, which would be a first by a member nation, would deepen the crisis facing a continent already struggling with economic weakness, debt problems, large-scale migration and growing geopolitical instability to its south and east.

At a minimum, politicians and officials say, a British exit would transform the bloc’s balance of power. Negotiations over a new relationship would consume the EU’s energy at a time when European institutions are struggling to respond to the other problems. A U.K. exit also could disrupt financial markets and fire up anti-EU forces in other countries.

Whether or not the U.K. leaves, change is coming. In February, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron struck a deal with the rest of the EU to restrict migrant benefits and detach Britain from the bloc’s push for an “ever closer union.” Mr. Cameron’s effort to claw back power from Brussels, coupled with the referendum at home, is an approach that other European politicians are promising to follow, potentially fragmenting the bloc further.
Known Unknowns of ‘Brexit’

On June 23 the U.K. votes on whether to stay in or leave the European Union. It’s difficult to know exactly what will happen if voters choose leave, but that hasn’t stopped both sides of the debate predicting the future. So, here are three things we definitely don’t know about Brexit. Photo: Getty Images.

The referendum, at a minimum, has delivered a shock to Europe’s political classes, calling into question what some had once regarded as an inevitable march toward a federal EU.

“Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm,” European Council President Donald Tusk observed in a speech in late May. “The specter of a breakup is haunting Europe, and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me like the best answer to it.”

Some see the U.K. referendum, no matter the outcome, as an opportunity to move toward a new EU treaty with a two-tier structure—core countries that are more integrated and peripheral counties that aren’t. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is seeking a return to office in next year’s presidential elections, advocates reinforcing the eurozone with a finance minister and a European monetary fund. At the same time, he wants to maintain a broader EU, at 28 nations, which focuses on a few areas such as research, energy and agriculture. CONTINUE AT SITE

In a lengthy J-TV interview, former London mayor again refuses to apologize for his ‘historical facts,’ which are refuted by leading Holocaust scholars.— The former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has again refused to apologize for his remarks about Hitler and Zionism, insisting he was “misquoted” after a radio show in the UK in April.

But Livingstone, in an hour-long interview late last week with the Jewish cable channel J-TV, was put on the spot by the interlocutor, historian Dr. Alan Mendoza, who systematically took the Labour politician’s thesis apart, forcing him to admit he had a hazy grasp of facts and that his source, the left-wing journalist Lenni Brenner, had been selective in his interpretation.

In April, Livingstone, a close ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and himself a former MP, was suspended from the Labour Party after going on a BBC radio station and declaring that Hitler had supported Zionism. Livingstone was asked on the show to defend the party after a number of Labour members were suspended for social media posts deemed anti-Semitic.

But Livingstone was ultimately suspended himself after declaring, “Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

The fall-out from Livingstone’s inflammatory remarks led to extraordinary scenes in Westminster as the Labour MP John Mann, who is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, challenged Livingstone outside TV studios and called him “a Nazi apologist.”

Ken Livingstone appears before a parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism in London on June 14, 2016 (screen capture: YouTube)

Last week Livingstone was called before the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee to give evidence. Insisting that he had been right and was only re-stating “historical fact,” Livingstone claimed that London Jews were crossing streets to tell him he was correct.

‘If I had said something that was untrue and caused offense, I would have apologized, but what I said was true’