Cameron is our time's Chamberlain

Chamberlain was wrong on one issue, one very large issue. He was naive enough to think that his little white paper, stroked by the wind as he fervently shock it at Heston in 1936, actually meant something real. It turned out that the only thing real about it was the underlying realpolitik it represented for the Nazis.

Cameron is appeasing everyone it would seem on every issue and it would appear that he is pissing of his only friends, other than his enemies, that he has left. Join the EIO, let Turkey join the EU, the UK is the "junior" partner etceteras...

War it shall be

And so it begins...

It would be rather tragic and comic at the same time if this blog and others of the same conviction, were vindicated in times to come, times when we are no longer around.

Somehow I doubt it.

We, or rather our grandfathers, one of mine at least, saved Europe from fascists and tyrants. Now that we are playing the part of the antagonist who is going to save us?

How Carbon Trade Works

H/T: WUWT

The Moral Crusade

A typical problem with those who see politics as a moral crusade rather than an ongoing discussion of the best form and function of government. Anything the moral crusader disagrees with is automatically seen as being what the moral crusader is not, because disagreement is 'immoral' and thus must belong to the other side.

Sadly these moral crusaders exist on both the left and right side of the political spectrum.

"Britishness"

That very ambiguous term "Britishness" is being thrown around a lot these days, seemingly because we are so haplessly at loss of what it actually means to be British. It is typical for a nation such as this who is unsure of herself, who is trying to please everyone and be everything for everyone, who does not dare to tramp on anyones toes, does not dare to offend a "minority" and as such we have to be everything to everyone which pleases no one.

Here is what I think Britishness constitutes.

Actually, we could start off by stating what Britishness is not, it is not:

1. Much to do with the welfare state which did not exist before 1945.
2. Being part of the EU because we weren’t before 1972 and many/most of us wish we were not now.
3. Anything to do with the “Multicultural Society” and entirely alien concept until recently.
4. Anything to do with “Social Justice” because no-one can agree what this means.
5. Anything at all to do with football since there is no British football team

So what does this leave? Maybe the facts which are:

1. Britain is a large Island with a number of smaller islands and associated territories.
2. Britain is a democracy with a Protestant Christian Constitutional Monarch as Head of State
3. Everyone is equal under English/Scottish Law everyone (or was before recent equalities legislationand the destruction of Mens Rea by the recent New Labour Government).
4. The British are, in general a relativity tolerant society, sometimes even to the point of complacency.
5. The British people are not particularly welcoming to newcomers and expect the newcomers to accommodate themselves to the pre-existing structures but those that do so will be accepted as individuals.
6. The British have in the past (and will in the future) take advantage of their island geography to maintain their independence and freedom.
7. The ONLY official languages of the UK are English, Scottish Gaelic and Welsh. You have to be reasonably fluent at one of these to be British.
8. Being British implies that one’s primary loyalty is to the United Kingdom, rather than any foreign state, society, religious leader or other entity.

Thank god socialists are so stupid

The media represents that famed tolerance, where you must tolerate everything, which means you stand for nothing, but if anybody descents to this valueless nation then this famed tolerance is found to have little substance, for these dissenters must be denounced in the most forthright terms, and shame of all shames be denounced as a racist. Just like we had the witch finder generals in the 16th centaury, the party activists in Mao's cultural revolution, children in Poll Pots regime, now in the brave New Britain we have the left-wing media seeking out the Multicultural deniers.

Well sorry Guardian, go shove your racist accusation, for just like the boy who cried wolf, the politically correct multiculturalists have devalued the accusation, it might send what ever comrades gathering you frequent into apoplexy, but not for the rest of us. And the rest of are the majority of us.

The Virtues of Meritocracy

I do apologise for having been absent for a lot of time, regular readers will know that I am now the proud subscriber to a bar job, and I am thoroughly enjoying it at that. A lot of heavy keg lifting but nothing that I cannot handle, furthermore a sudden realisation that British people are at large very rude in the pub - something which made me rather sad since the Kiwis and the Aussies are perfectly delightful (the majority) yet the indigenous do not seem to be able to quite handle the pressure of being humble when requesting something as simple as a pint. But alas I digress, I believe what is on the agenda today is meritocracy for the reason that it is slowly seeping back into the roots of Britain again.

'Death of the Fox' is a book by George Garrett, an American poet and novelist. He was the poet laureate of Virginia from 2002 to 2006. His novels include 'The Finished Man', 'Double Vision', and the Elizabethan Trilogy, composed of 'Death of the Fox', 'The Succession', and 'Entered from the Sun'. I am currently reading Death of the Fox and rather enjoying it since it revolves around Walter Raleigh but rather annoyingly all the spelling is american so it is just about readable for any English speaking person. I shall leave the content for the reader himself to google but it centres around Raleigh's life and covers the arrival of the Tudors in England in 1485 to the execution of Raleigh in 1618.

There is a passage which I would like to rip right out of the novel for it is very striking and pertinent in these days as well, even though intended to read of the 14th century.

Great men rise above their peers like the tallest trees of the forrest. Proud, but first to catch the eye, and therefore soonest to be cut down. And down they come with a groan and brief thunder. When they are gone there is only rotten stump and empty space of sky to prove they have ever been there.

Now I ask; is this statement true? Is there such a check to limit the reach of the most ambitious of men? I would say this statement has become largely moot in today's society. We live in an age of celebrities, be they politicians who are famous for the broadside of their jaw or celebrities who are famous for being simply famous but that is just about where their personal agility ends. One must for the sake of society argue that if someone who is reasonably ambitious today would stand up and declare his intentions, people would to all intents and purposes follow that man regardless of the nonsensical ideas that are spewed out of his midst. We do not question what should be and we do not replace dangerous paradigms with our own common sense. I argue that this is down to meritocracy. What is more I take the strongest and most fervent of objections to what we have become: nightingales. We close our eyes when we sing and see nothing and hear nobody but ourselves and it is quite frankly killing the whole foundation of man as we know her and turning our brief stay in this place into a perpetual opprobrium which, no matter how you argue, is detrimental to all of us.

This narrator has had the good fortune to have grown up in more than one country - it gives one perspective and perspective is good for it lets us judge things from two sets of books. "Merit" is a bad word in most of the European continent and Britain today, the best and most suited for a position are not necessarily the most likely final occupants of that post as logic would dictate. Instead rather spurious sets of selectors are used such as sex, skin colour, background, religion and many other very strange denominations which, at least in my view, should be nowhere near the academic process that is selection. This is because of biology and more importantly evolution. I subscribe to evolution and not creationism so if you are expecting an essay on that I bid you farewell for you are not about to get one.

Natural selection is the process of survival: a process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment. You can extrapolate this to the rather mundane task that is everyday life of the hoi polloi, you and me and everyone else in our curious little 16 hour battle period, 365 days a year which we have come to denote as our 'lives'. Regardless of what you might think of the human species we are rather fine example of what natural selection is capable of; there are certainly a lot of deceases but seen in the light of what our species has accomplished it is nothing in comparison. What is more we are able to heal ourselves out of our own means - a mighty feat which few other species can master. Now we think of this in terms of economics and more importantly the private sector and the operators within; namely the companies. The companies that provide the daily bread for million of people around the globe, if not billions. A lot of these organisations are very powerful and are powerful, wealthy, because they work hard and more relevant to us; they select people based on their ability and not their appearance. A single bank interviews thousands of people for maybe just 10 jobs and by doing this they ensure that they will get most profitable person, the person who is willings to work the hardest to deliver most dividends for himself and the company, the sort of person who constitutes and investment in itself. They select the brilliant from the brightest.

If you invest in people you want to make sure that your investment will not go to waste, that said person will come to work for your organisation for at least a couple of years so that all that training is not lost, it is simple quid pro quo economics and is used by most business outfits to reach their combined goal of making more money for such is the marked based economy that we live in today. But, what if you break the system, what if you have a planned jobs market where not only are your employes selected for you but you are obliged, under law, to accept them no matter what whacky nut jobs you end up with. You will loose money, your profits will shrink and your status in the social hierarchy will stumble and fall. Why? Because we are not all equal, we do not have the same motivation, outlook, dreams, background, parents, environments or any other number of factors. We are different and that is what makes us different from any other species. Look at birds; they are homogenous they move the same, look the same and for all intents and purposes act the same. We are omnivorous entities who succeed because of our difference, because it fosters a sense of competition; and urge to be better after the initial failure, an urge to prove to the world that you can do better that you are not part of the dregs that inhabit the lowest pits of this world. Those who refuse to work even though they are perfectly capable, those who betray, those who let others suffer for personal gain etcetera. That list could be made endless of people who have no business in interacting with decent hard working folk but such is the situation in which we perceive; we are different for good and for bad, and if we break that pattern, if we engage in social engineering we are dabbling with powers well beyond our comprehension and understanding. And it is not a matter if something very horrible is going to happen as a result, it is a matter of when.

Moderate Islam - where to be found?

To me at least it is clear that what has become known as Islam is stretching our tolerance to its limit.

Main LINK to article.

Our Supreme Court

We had one of the finest legal systems in the world embodied by Law Lords in the House of Lords who took to English Common Law like a Master Welder takes to wrought steel. They took to the law, handed to them by parliament, with honour, decency and grace. In their last days they never sought to expose their position and act as elected representatives of the people. And in New Labour addiction-like desire for constitutional destruction they were replaced by the fucking Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, a court so monumentally useless even to those sitting on it. They appear to not understand even the most basic of English; 'Supreme' is the highest of linearisation, there is no greater adjective. With that in mind they still keep referring to the fucking ECJ in fucking Europe as if they had the ultimate authority on English fucking Common Law when they use bloody Roman Law! They are fundamentally different systems. But of course this is also due to be changed, as more and more of those fucking directives are handed down, the English System is the one to be changed. But what is even more fundamental to this discussion, The ECJ has no power. It falsely asserts this claim. The EU is a treaty organization of sovereign states. The states transpose EU rules (not laws) into their own national law. Even more paradoxically guess who is taking the fight to the EU? The fucking Germans...

We have to rely on the Germans in order for our tax-money to not be wasted on the loony Greeks. Do you know why? Because we do not have a political class nor a judicial class who have balls big enough to do anything about the tiny issue of breaking the constitutional EU treaties. Now of course if we were to say, not fly their fucking flag then we get handed a £150m fine, which we will of course pay, happy little proles that we are. Instead of saying 'no mate you can shove that fancy little paper of yours, up your arse. Over here it means fuck all' upon which you punch the fucker in the head, kick him in the balls and when he is lying screaming on the floor wondering why he ever became a mandarin, give him some medical attention and then stick him on a one way Ryanair flight back to Brussels.

If the Germans, who are supposedly in love with the EU, can show such resolve in holding them back then why the flying fuck can't the UK? We are the ones who are supposed to be the "sceptical little island" who are demeaningly called "little Englanders" by the eurocrats. Well, do you now what you fucking wankers I would rather be a little Englander any day rather than stray in to your ignominious little fray of the world. But there is the problem, it would appear that people actually think being a little Englander is a bad thing. Few are the nations which can boast of a history great than a 1,000 years, who have been the integral part of the world's largest empire. Of course people today are not allowed to think like this, it is bad you see, it might offend someone.

I am quickly loosing my appetite with this fucking country, there is so much which needs to be put right but there is seemingly a fifth column around every corner which some way or another manages to turn opportunity into disaster. We have a PM who does not know whether he loves his party or his enemies and an opposition who deserves to be symbolically burned in the deepest pits of hell. There is no fighting spirit, people say 'well, lets wait for the right opportunity to take on the EU' - well when is the right opportunity? We are but vassals now in their crazed little hierarchy, not because they said so but because we have lost all sense of self-worth as a nation. I probably wont be around when the EU falls, for it will, but if I am I am going to ‘Get it all on record now – get the films – get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened’

The passing...

As another day passes by it is becoming crystal clear that no Lib Dem should be in charge of anything.

The hand of Fellowship

It would appear that if you lend the right hand of fellowship to the Liberal Democrats, you are bound to loose at least a few fingers. The tail wags the dog and so on, the Liberal Democrats are wielding and awful lot more power than they have the democratic entitlement to. They lost 6 MPs since the last election yet I cannot help but feel that this government feels very fucking 'progressive' and even more left-wing than New Labour.

There are only 646 of them but 60 million of us, I hope they realise whom is supposed to serve who.

Imperialist Education?

We had an education system designed for the empire. Private schools to produce the rulers of the empire, grammar schools to produce the administrators of the empire and secondary moderns to produce the workers and troops of the empire.

Unfortunately we did not produce managers for our industries and they were administered until they collapsed under the weight of this bureaucracy.

We were good at running tea and rubber plantations though.

As the empire imploded the administrators came home and produced bureaucratic nightmares and found happy homes in socialised industries and government departments.

We are now ready to move on. It's been a long haul.

A pathetic tirade of the Right righteous

There is a rather ridiculous thread, doing the rounds over at ConservativeHome. It explains why the 'right' is always right and the 'left' always wrong. It is this kind of monumentally ridiculous arrogance which has left Britain a desolate shadow of her former self. I am as right-wing as they come but never would I stand upon the apex and proclaim myself Lord Protector of the world - omnipotent and omniscient. I thought this kind of breathtaking stupidity was the preserve of the left. Clearly the idiocy has spread to the 'right' as well.

Lets just have a quick recap of why both the 'left' and the 'right' are equally superfluous in the wanting for perspective.

The “Left” (the Labour Party) have got most things wrong but so, at least since the mid 1950s, have the “right” (the Conservative Party). It was the “Right" that took us into the Suez campaign and then lost its nerve when we were within 48 hours of retaking the complete canal.

It was the "Right" who pushed independence upon the African colonies long before they were able to run themselves with disastrous results for the people of those colonies.

It was the "Right" that took us into the “Common Market”, thus wrecking British agriculture, destroying our fishing fleet and costing all of us £billions ever since (net cost now £6bn pa and going on £10bn pa).

It was the “Right” that signed up to the Single European Act and then Maastricht, giving away our democracy to an unelected, self perpetuating, obligingly.

It was the "Right" and "Left" together, with the aim of keeping wage levels of the “workers” low, who pursued policies of flooding the country with unskilled third world and now Eastern European immigrants.

It was the “Right” and “Left” who together decided that we could do without serious industry other than the City and banking.

It is the "Right” and “Left” who have together decided to subsidise uneconomic intermittent wind energy to the tune of several hundreds of £billions; the consequential doubling or tripling in electricity costs which will destroy what remains of our industry.

So I have no hesitation in wishing a plague on both the houses of the "Left" and the "Right".