Monday, 27 April 2009
Saturday, 25 April 2009
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign.
Submitted by Kalvis Jansons of http://kalvis.com – Deadline to sign up by: 22 October 2009 – Signatures: 4,611 (as of 25th of April 1:17 AM)
Much obliged, and while we are posting links to this and that I might as well post the link to this article which is a remarkably unbiased article on the BNP. If the more astute of my readers have drawn the same conclusion as myself, that the BNP cannot be ignored any longer, then do read the article. It is not your average Guardian article - suffice to say.
Friday, 24 April 2009
It is not a new petition really but it is being run, again, on Nr 10's homepage:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Give the United Kingdom public a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
Find the the petition here - please sign it.
(We all know that Gordon wont do anything but we might as well exercise our right to start petitions against the government before they remove that function as well - based on 'national security' undoubtedly).
Thursday, 23 April 2009
“Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.”
- Sydney J. Harris quotes (American Journalist and Author, He wrote a syndicated column, Strictly Personal, from 1944-86. 1917-1986)
I think this definition of the both types of 'pride' strikes the issue on the head.
Today is St. George's day but as is common in the UK you are not allowed to be proud of your culture for fear of insulting other cultures. That said, I would just like to state some recent polls: 72% identified themselves as Christians when asked what they identified themselves as - another 2% identified themselves as Muslim. The majority is thus not allowed to assert themselves for they might insult a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Jedi, Sikh or why not a Hindu. The problem is though that these groups are also English/British and they live under the English/British flag of government and carry a British passport so why are they raising qualms about English culture? That is precisely it though, most of them do not and are perfectly happy to wave the flag and join in the culture - it is the very vocal minorities however who are given media time and further hyped up and 'sensationalised' by the press which make it seem that the entire grouping has their opinions. In some cases it may be more than just a select minority but in most cases it is not and the government does not have the backbone to stand up to its own people because of religious sensitivities. I have of course not raised the most annoying issue that when minorities seek to celebrate their culture all doors are open regardless of whom they might insult, denying them their celebration is denying them their culture which is awful I completely agree but why is this so vigorously imposed upon Christians (i.e. most people) but not on the minority religions? Another shortcoming of this government, what a surprise.
Further the left is sorely not acknowledging that in other countries not asserting the national culture would be an act of great insult. I am sure you can think of some countries for yourself but just to name a few; USA, China or India are a few examples. Their gratitude for their nation is at times (quite often I should say) rather jingoist or why not say bellicose chauvinism - they often have the problem, as Harris points out, that they cannot comprehend or down right deny the country's deficiencies. But regardless of this, and the elements within, the population which deny the shortcomings are still proud of their nation irrespective of what we might think of them.
This is a typical conversation that often pops up here and there.
1 - "Gosh, I am proud to be English!"
2 - "Why are you proud of something you cannot control?"
1 - "What do you mean?"
2 - "You never chose to be born in England but you are proud to be an Englishmen - it makes no sense to be proud of something which is beyond your control."
The above conversation opens up a very difficult and profound discussion about existentialism. Nr. 2 presumes that Nr. 1 cannot possibly be proud over something, a decision, which is beyond his control - this argument is used a lot, I have heard it myself several times and find it equally ridiculous each time. But here comes the fallacy of Nr. 2's argument he presumes that he knows that we did not have a choice i.e. he is assuming, through his argument, that the choice of birth place is outside of our control. In doing so he assumes knowledge about life before birth. This is precisely as ridiculous as it sounds. How can he possibly know about life before this? He cannot, but he is claiming to do so through his use of argument which makes it a rather dim argument (not to say a rather dim conversationalist).
If one were to get even more drawn into this debate we could for arguments sake say that possibly we did have a choice in choosing our birth place. For example we chose England because in our previous life we led a very poor and monotonous life as a suricate on the steps of Africa, this time we would like to try something more exiting e.g. as a human being on the hills of Shropshire. You might say this is a ridiculous line of thought but then I must remind you that Hinduism (including Yoga, Vaishnavism, and Shaivism) is based upon a similar principle: If they lead bad lives as human beings they will be reincarnated as a lesser creature. It is all based on karma which is literally the sum of one's actions. Bad karma means bad reincarnation, if we for example deem lice as bad then it would be quite sad for the person in question to reincarnated as this. Perceptions also have to be taken into account of course. Good and Bad is not a universal scale but is decided upon by the individual. Just because society teaches us that some actions are bad and others good that does not mean that it really is so, there is no empirical evidence to claim that one action is preferable to another based merely upon human emotional response to the actions.
Going back to St. George's day and if we were to give Nr. 2's argument the benefit of the doubt, then we can and should reply with; if we indeed have no choice of our birth place then we should at least be grateful that we had the good fortune to end up in England - whatever means of power, logic, randomness etcetera got us here. New Labour with much help from the Tories, it must be said, have quite successfully wrecked Britain as a standing nation-she is now on her knees-but there are still far worse places out there into which one could have been born, based upon the predisposition that we indeed have no control as to this plight (if one believes in destiny or is agnostic, then it would be mighty rude to the higher powers that be, to be ungrateful of their actions in placing us in England - they could just as well have dumped us in North Korea and then we would really be in the thick of it).
All in all, be proud to be English even if "society" tells you not to, they are wrong. For all the monologues thrown about in the world, in the blogosphere, in the media, in Whitehall and in the street, we have yet to create a dialogue on this issue. This is England and we are quite adverse to the kind of patriotism advocated by America but we do not like the non-patriotism as exhibited by Finland, somewhere in between lies England but until everyone stops talking and starts listening we will not find 'our' brand of patriotism.
Am I thus to be presumed a BNP supporter for posting a picture of Churchill with a backdrop of the Union Jack? Sod off, history is not the property of a select few and the same goes for the British flag.
Having safely (I hope) ejected the PC brigade, I invite you to read this splendid article.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
We are going to borrow more than £700 billion over the next five years, under New Labour Plans. Civil war anyone, before a cup of chai?
There is a rather interesting parallel to be drawn here, that I think few have yet to realise. The previous President George W. Bush and his administration borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined. This Government will borrow, this year and next, £348 billion which, as David Cameron pointed out, not only doubles the national debt but exceeds the total borrowing of all previous governments put together, over the past 300 years. These are some astonishing figures not in the least because of the money involved but the measure of human inadequacy - it is almost beyond belief that some people are this mentally deficient.
With the rather reactionary opinion of mine above, one thing is for certain: pressure for an early election will grow. Perhaps even larger cracks in the Labour armour? I am not so sure, if there is one thing Brown has shown it is that he puts himself and the Labour party before Britain itself. He opitimizes a leader who has completed a gross violation of allegiance, trust and confidence, mind you he did that a long long time ago but this may just have been the final straw.
Will we thus see mounting pressure for an early election or a motion of no confidence? I sincerely with all my heart, with every inch of my body hope so but I know that this government will contradict me yet again. They will stand fast until next election when Britain has not only gone to the dogs but her carcass, even her shield and her trident, have been devoured by those beastly creatures sanctified by New Labour.
Cameron and Osborne have yet to say anything about dropping the 50p tax ... do not bet on it. If they realise that they by some miracle will keep this rate then, again, I must ask you; what are you conserving? It is not Conservative values. Truly.
To Argentina, if you want those islands back, now is the time to grab them for there is no way in hell that Britain will respond be so sure of it. Just thought you wanted to know.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Nelson Mandela, that ever glowing beacon of light of human altruism (it is hush-hush to mention that Nelson Mandela was the leader for the ANC's armed faction the MK or the Spear of the Nation), said in his opening speech of his trial in April 1964 that he was a great admirer of the parliamentary system of western governments. He went on to expose his even greater admiration for some of the British milestone documents upon which most western democracies' freedoms are derived from: "The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British political institutions and for the country's system of justice."
Poor old Mandela, I fancy that he does not know that the majority of "British political institutions" ceased to deliver anything even remotely democratic a long time ago. But lets not dwell on the present we must go back to the beginning for a tad of freedom (this is paradox in itself but I am sure you spotted that one).
The first pivotal document that came into being was introduced in 1215 and it is, as you all know, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms). In 1215, king John, faced with the possibility of revolt and civil war, agreed to the demands of his Barons and granted the Magna Carta. It was re-issued in 1216, 1217, and again in 1225 with certain revisions. The Magna Carta was the first document of its kind in that it bound not only the king's subjects, but the king and all of his heirs as well, to the laws of the land. Thus, making no man above the law. Most notably though was that the Magna Carta enshrined the writ of habeas corpus - allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. You can be quite sure than Brown and his cretins have made it their goal the unlearn any Latin word they ever stumbled upon (which technically involves large chunks of the English language so they should really not have such a hard time to coming to grips with this writ.)
"Aha" you may think, "now all our human rights have been fulfilled" - far from it. It would take another 434 years before another landmark document was broadcasted by the folks on this tiny spec of land.
The Death Warrant of Charles I was published in 1649. We will have to quick forward a bit to get to the juicy parts (well, 'part' is more correct): the beheading.Civil war broke out in 1642. At first, Charles's Royalist forces had the upper hand, with further promise of support from the Irish Catholic Confederation, which was fighting Parliamentarian forces in Ireland. But then the shit hit then fan and at the battles of Naseby and Langport in June and July 1645, the first showing of the Parliamentarian New Model Army under Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, the Royalists suffered major losses. Charles I's surrender in May 1646 concluded the first phase of the civil war, though he rejected all proposals intended to bring a peace. However, he did reach a secret agreement with the Scots regarding Presbyterianism in England, which incensed the English Parliament.
The sequel is a bit of a bitch though for poor old Charles you see the Civil War reached the end of its next phase with Charles's trial. The charges against him were noted in a special Act of Parliament, namely that he "had a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation", and that he had "levied and maintained a civil war in the land." The latter was the equivalent of treason and of it went chop-chop-chop. No head no more. What is interesting though is that New Labour has been waging a civil war as well, not with weapons, but with acts of parliaments and laws - designed to protect us but are now used against us under aegis of "national security". Brown and Blair should start doing their history for if there is one thing about history it is that it infallibly, invariably and consistently repeats itself.
How about it then, did Chuckle Cromwell the Dashing give us all we need to dive headlong into the 21st century as the Computer age dawned before our eyes? No. The wankers had us wait another 40 years before they came up with something that us, the plebeian, could use for our daily undertaking.
The Bill of Rights. The Act described the abuses of power of King James II that led to his departure, and defined the agreement between Parliament and William of Orange if he was to be king. When William and his wife Mary were crowned in 1689, they took an oath to rule according to the "statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same." Previous coronation oaths had merely said that the new king would adhere to the laws and customs of earlier kings. This is very important, wording.
The EU for example loves wording, they love it so much that they have invented new words to hide the underlying message of their documents. For example they have a clause know as a Passerelle Clause or a Escalator Clause that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas. Well that democratic, innit? But back to the past.
The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic tenets for, at the time, all Englishmen. These rights continue to apply today, not only in England, but in each of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth realms as well. The people, embodied in the parliament, are granted immutable civil and political rights through the act, including:
* Freedom from royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
* Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.
* Freedom to petition the monarch.
* Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace. The agreement of parliament became necessary before the army could be moved against the populace when not at war.
* Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.
* Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
* Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. This means that freedom of speech for all, and the proceedings of parliament can not be questioned in a court of law or any other body outside of parliament itself; this forms the basis of modern parliamentary privilege [1688 Commonwealth Bill of Rights ].
* Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive bail.
* Freedom from fine and forfeiture without a trial.
Certain acts of James II were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of Rights, while James' flight from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution was also declared to be an abdication of the throne.
But surely now we must be able to go to court and not get screwed over by the judges in their fancy wigs? Well, maybe, possibly, perhaps but no. There is a fairly boring act called the Articles of Union, 1707, it basically said that 1+1 = 1. Where the two '1's are England and Scotland. It is a landmark document in itself but it is really quite boring so if you are really interested google it. I shall focus on the last act which is much more interesting.
The Reform Act of 1832
“We must get the suffrage, we must get votes, that we may send the men to Parliament who will do our work for us; …and we must have the country divided so that the little kings of the counties can't do as they like, but must be shaken up in one bag with us.”
said a working class reformist in George Eliot’s novel Felix Holt: the Radical. That is pretty damn well what happened. The quote stated above is an almost criminal simplification of what happened (but that should suit New Labour taste quite well) as a result of the Great Reform Act, it is quite much more detailed.
The critical point is, this is where the final piece of the democracy puzzle is laid, almost anyway. It is not a nice puzzle, it is full of scratches and minor gaps, but if you stand back, not too far away but not too close either, you can see the whole picture quite vividly - it is beautiful picture quite spectacular indeed.
600 years until suffrage was granted (another 100 years or so before universal suffrage was granted), 600 years for liberty, democracy and human rights to get a proper foot hold - you would have thought that our great leaders of Britain today would have some respect for this astonishing history and engulf the time span.
One would have thought...
Blair and Brown have repaid in kind to English, Scottish, Welsh and British history by introducing 60 new powers contained in more than 25 Acts of Parliament. That have whittled away freedoms and broken pledges set out in the Human Rights Act and Magna Carta, according to a an audit of laws introduced since New Labour came to power in 1997.
Three cheers for the anti-British-grooms, they live; hipp-hipp hurray, hipp-hipp hurray, hipp-hipp hurray! May their acts and legacy never be forgotten.
Monday, 20 April 2009
POLL FOR THE BBC'S DAILY POLITICS SHOW
- "Should Britain leave the EU but maintain close trading links?"
Yes – 55% No – 41%
- "Does the current economic crisis make you more keen for Britain to join the euro?"
Yes – 31% No – 64%
- "Should there be a referendum before any further transfers of power to the EU?"
Yes – 84% No – 13%
Hat-tip Brusselswatch for compiling figures (well, rather me copying and pasting but hey at least I gave the source).
I cannot write a proper entry about this issue, even though it has been kicking around for some time, because every time I try I end up in a fit of fury, rip my keyboard out of its socket and crushing it on my knee results in two keyboard(s) - subsequently having to buy a new one. Thus the whole business of this issue is rather costly on my behalf, perhaps I should get anger management or we could just quit the EU suffice to say that the latter would be infinitely cheaper.
UK fishermen are not drug dealers. - This is all I shall say and bid the EU a good day for having effectively, yet again, thwarted detection by the greater populace of Europe. But rest assured, one day they to will wake up. When they do pray that you are on a gravy train far far away from Europe.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
An ad hominem arguments consists of appealing to the character of the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. This trend can be seen very clearly in British media with regards to the BNP-though still vile racist pigs-the media cannot attack their policies for they are wildly popular amongst the electorate or are at least growing exponentially in popularity. We read that the BNP has the most popular political website in the UK. That is a cause for concern. The BNP are growing up. Since they are rising to fame rather quickly one cannot respond with old dead-beat adages about the BNP or their characters, it does not work, it is not popular and quite frankly you look like a right dick when you, a supposedly respected British news paper, cannot come up with anything better than this kind of bollocks for a BNP-blitzkrieg. I do not support the BNP but that is just ridiculous.
If you want to make a grown up attack on the BNP attack their policies and have them defend them. Simple. Crash and Burn is the most likely outcome.
But the issue is not the BNP, it is the Times' foray on the BNP which is quite frankly not acceptable in the manner it is presented and for its journalistic bias - words which are mutually exclusive.
1. The Times refer to a "war book" that was leaked and-horror-internal. The little booklet is freely available to download on the BNP website.
2. Would this kind of journalism ever touch the sacrosanct main parties, would they ever comment upon body parts of the government? Highly unlikely. Jim Diggory of Worcestershire, in the comment section points out that:
It is interesting to compare the thinly veiled hostility towards the BNP enshrined within this article with its uncritical reference to Searchlight, a Marxist organisation having criminal connections both past and present, closely associated with the Labour Party.
3. The more spotlight they get the more attention the get and the more clicks they get... This is clearly brain dead and biased bollocks. They do not seem to comprehend that the more negative criticism they bestow upon the BNP the more angry people are going to get about their journalism for being so utterly and completely partial. At the time of writing there were 19 comments posted on the article. I have read one which was appreciative of its contents.
The BNP are open, even wanting, for criticism and the best a professional news outlet could produce was an article about skinhead-hiding. Pathetic.
This entry will explain why Britain will have an extremely hard future. I truly hope someone will disagree because the picture about to be painted is not one of wonderful grace, but rather a dismal leviathan of horrendous proportions.
The main problem with the UK currently is not that we have ceased to exist as a nation culturally. We have ceased to exist as an independent nation as the EU now controls the island and the people on it, needless to say without their consent. We have the unfortunate situation of having our lebensraum (sorry for paraphrasing Hitler) culturally controlled by ourselves but socially , and more importantly judicially, controlled by someone else. This is rather annoying as I am sure you must have found from time to time.
But when it comes down to it we are living of glories long lost and long past, derived mostly from the British Empire and the people who served it through out its very long history. It did some awful things, certainly, but I am of the opinion that it achieved more virtues than vices and voes. But here we are today and all the great inventions, policies, institutions, histories, landmarks etcetera, they were for the greater part not devised or derived from any of the governments for the last 30 years or - maybe even further back. But rather, as we shall see, they (the previous governments) have done possibly everything in their power to destroy Britain as an industrial nation.
Where did it all go wrong then? Well James Dyson in his Telegraph column tell us that
Where did it go wrong? Consolidation, nationalisation and union unrest suppressed our automotive industry. Soaring interest rates and increasingly complicated employment law stifled small engineering firms. The inventiveness demonstrated in the Second World War was not used to build an industrial future: Vickers, a pioneering and successful exporter (when foreign currency was desperately needed), had a request for £5 million in development funding rejected. Advanced plans for aircraft were scrapped, and instead hundreds of millions were spent on buying inferior American hardware.
I think he is partially wrong and partially right but mostly wrong.
What politicians in general just do not seem to comprehend is the issue of pride. You are proud if you are a civil servant, well at least you used to be before it became politicised, and you wear your "HM ad-hoc industry" -badge with great honour for being able to provide a service to the nation at large. Certainly the girls and boys at Oxbridge used to have their hopes set for a job within the civil service or the legal system. Now only the latter aspiration remains, thanks to amongst other things the Human Rights Act introduced under New Labour. Which has created a judicial conundrum, highly favourable to young budding lawyers wishing to make a quick buck (and lots of them) - not so for the tax payer.
One of the largest societies in Oxford is now the Oxford Entrepreneurs and the trend is the same for Cambridge and Imperial College. This is of course not a bad thing at all, society needs more creative clever people, for they are most definately not in Parliament. But while these young bright people are heading for the industry in their little start-up firms, not so many have their sights set upon the civil service maybe because there is not much left there that honest young people would like to occupy themselves with certainly scientifically inclined people. Consider the industries and government departments that have been privatized over the years (beware this is a long list):
- National Grid UK
- British Airways
- British Coal
- Central Electricity Generating Board
- British Railways
- National Freight Corporation
- British Gas
- British Steel
- National Bus Company
- British Telecommunications
- British Petroleum
- National Enterprise Board
- British Leyland
- British Aerospace
- British Telecom
- Johnson Matthey
- Royal Ordnance Factories
- British Airport Authority
- British Electricity Authority
- British European Airways
- British Overseas Airways Corporation
- British Shipbuilders
- British South American Airways
- British Transport Commission
- British Transport Docks Board
- Central Electricity Authority
- Consett Iron Company
- East Midlands Electricity
- East Yorkshire Motor Services
- Eastern Counties Omnibus Company
- Eastern Electricity Board
- Electricity Council
- Merseyside And North Wales Electricity Board
- Thames Water Authority
- Midland Red
- Midlands Electricity
- North West Electricity Board
- National Bus Company
- National Coal Board
- National Express Coaches
- National Grid
- National Power
- North West Water
- North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
- Northern Electric
- Northumbrian Water Group
- Oxford Bus Company
- Public Electricity Suppliers
- Red Star Parcels
- South Eastern Electricity Board
- Scottish Bus Group
- Scottish Nuclear
- Scottish Power
- Scottish Bus Group
- Severn Trent
- South Wales Electricity
- South West Water
- South Western Electricity Board
- South of Scotland Electricity Board
- Southern Electric
- Southern Water
- State Management Scheme
- Transport Holding Company
- Ulster Transport Authority
- Victoria Coach Station
- Welsh Water
- Wessex Water
- Yorkshire Electricity
- Yorkshire Traction
- Yorkshire Water
- Royal Mail
- British Energy
- London Underground
- Defence Evaluation Research Agency
- Atomic Energy Research Establishment
- National Engineering Laboratory
- Laboratory of the Government Chemist
- Building Research Establishment
- Transport Research Establishment
- Property Services Agency
To put one of the above privitisations further under the microscope consider the DERA, which employed over 9,000 people mainly scientists, engineers and technicians. This agency consisted of the amalgamated (in 1995):
- Royal Aircraft Establishment
- Admirality Research Establishment
- Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment
- Royal Signals and Radar Establishment
- Defence and Test Evaluation Organisation
- Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
- Centre for Defence Analysis
Going back to the future of the UK. With the above in mind we clearly see what kind of vision the government has in future for the British drones: No honour in thy work but solely make a profit. This is the kind of thinking that permeates every single notion of the British governance today "how can we make a profit even though we are the School Board?" they care not for the furtherance of the people and the nation as a whole but how they can make more money for themselves. Management in Britain is notoriously bad but possibly this is why, they can only see so far as their profits go, not the impact of their innovation or how they could build upon it.
But herein lies the main problem where are our innovations going to come from if all the scientific divisions of the government have been privatised. Even the phoenix which was reborn out of the privitaisation of DERA, the dstl (defence science and technology laboratories) are boasting on their website how much cash they have managed to make out of their clever innovations. This is all well and good, but they only employ 1,000 of the initial 9,000 that was under DERA flag which means that all those other great gadgets are going into company pockets, safely locked away with no prospect for furtherance of public good only lining the pockets of the fat cats even more.
Britain has lost faith in governments which insist on selling everything which belongs to Britain and not the government, Britain and government are not synonyms for the same words which the latter would do well in reminding itself of once in a while. But also, one must concur that some nationalisations were not particularly thought out either, see British Leyland for example. Regardless, some fine institutions have been lost to the greedy hands of corporations and along with it the crucial know-how, built up during centuries, and the people behind the organisations who lost their civil service badge which they prided themselves with.
What will come of this? Apparently we are now a service based economy and all those evil manufacturing companies remaining in these forsaken lands are slowly being weeded out by the government as they are under intense pressure to stay alive. We know have to import most of the know-how, Britain the country that gave the world the steam engine amongst other great things, because otherwise the country would go out. Apparently there is no one in the 70 million+ strong population who can figure out how the hell a nuclear plant works. That is amazing.
Unless this is all turned around Britain does not have a future.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
I just had this positively amazing lapse of mind (it must have been a lapse of mind since no one else can have thought of it). What if, and please bear with me on this one it is quite a tough nut to crack, there was a party out there that actually dared to speak? Truly speak not the kind of ad hoc politics they are currently engorged in but rather fundamentally at a grass-roots level talk about the topics that most do not. I say most and the I obviously refer to New Labour, The Conservatives and the party-without-a-purpose Liberal Democrats.
What if they actually did say something (clearly they mention each item briefly, now and again, in some dusty boring policy paper with no real relevance to the issue at hand) about the issues that people really really REALLY want to talk about:
I call them the triangle issues because of the geometrical shape they resemble when typed in the fashion above. Is there a party out there that wants to talk about these things? Well yes it is the BNP but they add an element of race into everything which make them beyond contempt in my opinion but can one really claim that the all the other race associations out there are much better, how about the BPA (Black Police Association) - are they not discriminating as well, clearly they are. The BNP are loonies. But they are loonies with an agenda and they unlike the three despicable main parties actually do enage in the triangle issues which makes them dangerous, regardless of what their opinion of the issues might be, the very fact that they dare to undertake an exegesis of the issues at all, speaks volumes about their courage (despite the fact that they are racists pigs) when taking into account the other parties' stance towards the triangle issues. If it really came down to it, they would all most likely, be more than happy for the EU to assume responsiblity for all those issues - this way they can engulf their clever minds in issues of greater importance. What these issues are I am not sure.
I might just be stark raving mad myself but I thought that if you were a politician, who runs your country would be rather important. When 85% are externally imposed, well possibly that is a bad thing. I do not know I am just musing on like the rest of us. In this ripe old age of "Global Terrorism" where pirates are stealing all our TVs of the coast of Africa and the guilty of the financial crisis are sent on a bonus holiday - ought not Defence be an issue for a politician? I thought that if you were a politician then your duty, first and foremost, was to protect your electorate let the ends justify the means as long as they are safe. That would be a tad altruistic I must admist since the British armed forces have been in steady decline since the 1990s. They must have thought, back in the day, that the Evils of the world would disaper with the bye-bye of the Gulag-socialists in Borstch land. Britain is the the third most populated country in the world, but lets let some more people in before we sort out our domestic problems such as housing, benefts, schooling and all that not-so-important stuff - this makes sense in LibLabCon world.
Well if it makes sense to them them maybe I should not complain since they know what is best for us; the hoi-polloi.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Sweden has the balls to completely ignore the EU yet we, the former empire.., are rubber-stamping it as usual. Well not much change there then.
Ladies and Gentlemen pay more attention to Gerald Warner he is one of growing few who is tackling the harsh reality that something very violent will happen in Britain in the not to distant future as result of the total neglect by the ruling class of the rest of the classes. Worrying, very worrying.
Saturday, 11 April 2009
"Since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the great Age of Reason, we have transformed our world. While we have lurched at times into bloody conflict, we have also excelled in literature, art, science and medicine. We have expanded the rule of law and democratic systems and we have alleviated more physical poverty in our own generation than in the whole of history. The triumph of our political and economic systems has enabled us to see off the threats of Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. Yet despite all this, we are now confronting a crisis of confidence, an uncertainty and a lack of optimism in our society which I believe is profoundly worrying. The Age of Reason is in danger of gradually shifting into reverse, while the culture of “whatever” – that one word so frequently used to dismiss objective reasoning – is on the rise.
There are many factors contributing to this trend. Diminishing social mobility, the cult of celebrity, the decline in serious learning, the increasing disregard for empiricism and social attitudes verging on “valuephobia” all threaten to cast a shadow on the enlightened western Liberalism which has taken us so far.
It takes only a passing glance at any newsstand today to see the influence of celebrity. Society seems obsessed with fame and trivia while serious achievements take second place. Where in previous generations youngsters would aspire to be scientists or astronauts, the answer to the question “what would you like to be?” is now simply: “famous”.
This celebrity culture masks one of the most worrying recent trends. The decline in social mobility in the last decade in Britain should be a prime concern in a country which needs to harness the potential of all its citizens if it is to compete successfully in a cut-throat global economy. While the pages of Hello! and OK may be opened up to reality TV stars and footballers’ girlfriends from any background, the doors of the universities and the law seem to be closed to far too many. And the dangers of a broad, cultural aversion to difficult learning should not be underestimated. While India is producing huge numbers of mathematics, physics and chemistry graduates, their British counterparts are dwindling, as easier subjects such as media studies gain popularity.
Distracted by celebrity, softened up by the education system, we have also succumbed to what you could call intellectual relativism. We have reached a state of affairs whereby people believe that the validity of their views is determined by the strength with which they hold them, not by any reference to empiricism. And so we hear phrases such as “Well that is your truth - it's not mine”, or, increasingly, the word which is doing untold damage to the concept of objectivity: “whatever”. When confronted with evidence which undermines the current fashion or your own prejudices, simply lift your hand and say “whatever”, and you can avoid all the discomforts of the value of truth, or objectivity, or of being plain wrong.
This trend is exacerbated by the culture of political correctness. How often do we hear people say “Of course, you're not allowed to say that are you?” or, “I’m not supposed to think that, am I ?”. This is neither a small nor a trivial matter. Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are essential in the pursuit of reason. It is reason that will lead us to truth, and the pursuit of truth has been the driving force behind progress since the Enlightenment. We cannot afford to abandon these principles now.
People are so afraid of saying the wrong thing that we have blundered into a state of what you could call valuephobia. But modern, tolerant and secular society does not have to be a valueless society. Tolerance is not the same as surrender. Although we tolerate the views and ideas of others, we do not have to accept the creed of moral equivalence. Just because a state does not have a formal affinity to a particular religion does not mean it should avoid a robust system of values. For the most part, our concept of right and wrong is in tune with our basic instincts, and our understanding of the consequences of our actions. These values are codified by religions, not invented by them. There are other, different, non- religious values which are part of our heritage - the concept of looking after those who cannot look after themselves, of hard work, perseverance and saving for a rainy day. States cannot operate without values, and the seemingly all-pervasive fear of causing offence needs to be balanced by the benefits of clear guidance on what is desirable behaviour.
Both politicians and the media need to get away from the bad habit of saying what people want to hear, and tell people what they need to hear, without worrying about offending people or encountering a dismissive “whatever”. As a society we have to find the resilience to deal with the challenges of our generation as previous generations dealt with theirs. We must begin by understanding who we are and what brought us to where we are, before we lose our hard-won gains."
Saturday, 4 April 2009
I will not provide any links or any sources of any sort in this post, well possibly a few we shall see. Rather ponder on the philosophical aspect of the current place in the political space that is apparent in our minds and certainly on the telly. This government must be the worst government Britain has ever had I cannot think of any previous government that was worse. You might say 'well, hey hang on a minute Thatcher did a lot to screw Britain over did she not?' and I concede she did a lot to screw us over. But one has to consider the fashion, manner and purpose of the economical rape she performed upon us back in the 80s. She did it with the belief that Britain would be better of because of it, she even took on the EU and had them hand money back to the UK for having initially overcharged us but refused to give the cash back. Well, she got it back. The difference between BlairBrown's government is that they do not give two hoots about what happens to the people of this country once they are gone.
It is not an issue for them that they have chronically massacred British society in every way possible it seems. It does not seem to be an issue that they slashed troop numbers by 50,000 since 1997 but are now fighting two wars on a peace time budget. It does not seem to bother them at all when selling of public property to greedy corporations who have nothing in mind, people and liberty the last at least, but to make more and more money - even in these times. They don't seem to care that 14,000 laws have been created since they entered office but 10,000 have come from the EU not the UK. I can go on and on and on but I think you are beginning to get the overall trend here; the best interests of the nation is not at their bequest and I am struggling to think what really is. Is it finance? status? power? massive pension? a paragraph in a history book (suffice to say BB and Co. will be remembered as arch traitors not arch saviours as they seem so keen on branding themselves)?
What drives men to so completely abandon their entire people and engorge in utter political madness? This is a tough question that I am not to sure that I can answer. But even more, to add a sub clause, why the hell is Whitehall joining in on the circus? It is if they are trying to make fools out themselves. Whom with their balls in the right place and marbles as well, would even jokingly suggest removing British history from the National Curriculum and in its place insert Wikipedia and Twitter studies? I cannot possibly comprehend anyone so magnificently stupid, yet clearly before my eyes I read that a very senior civil servant has done just that - the fellow has even got a knighthood, not that these mean much these days and we can thank New Labour for that one as well.
Even the MoD, the once so proud institution, is fleeing the battle field and leaving our few soldiers to do their bidding best they can with the shitty equipment they are handed. It is a good thing, at least, that they have more courage and valour in their index than white hall officials have in their entire bodies. Even if your leadership is a Labourite debauchee retard does not mean that you, as a member of the British civil service, have to abandon your good common sense when it stands between you and delivering the orders of Labour HQ. There was a time when good sense prevailed but when military procurement has reached such a ridiculous level of politification I cannot help but think 'where will this lead?' - will our tanks and planes have the next goverment's logo tattoed upon their armour? Or even worse, the logo of the corporation who is currently leasing us their tanks...
Is it really such a surprise that people are looking to the BNP to sooth their anguish, heal their sorrows and for once not have salt poured into their wounds as seems to be the normal response by Labour whenever something goes wrong; they mess it up even further. This may be a cliche lost upon most but it cannot be over stated, the kind of cross roads we are heading for, if Westminster does not shape up its act (and you can be as sure as night follows days that Cameron will be the next Blair, so not much luck there) then they truly will have civil unrest at their hands and what is worse some people want civil unrest, they surely even crave it for anything is better, currently, than a 'democratically' lead nation under 'one' law where we can be 'free' and 'happy' and despair not for we know that the state will put our best interest before any of their own.