Gordon to curb immigration. What a racist... oh, no. Sorry. He's allowed to talk about it, he's Labour. It's only everyone else who are racists if they talk about it. Unsurprisingly, Brown will be lying through his teeth, as him and his stinking government aren't in control of such matters as immigration, agriculture, trade etc.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Labour's very own Goebbels
'Lord' Mandelson tipped for 'Minister for Information'? Call it what it is: Propaganda Minister. Zieg Heil, you fucking rat.
In three years time...
... a child will probably be abducted and raped, thanks to our paedo-loving judges. Should we be thankful for small mercies? At least this time the judge locked the vile criminal up for a short while, unlike the last time when Judge Adrian Smith patted him on the head and set him free to rape again.
If I let a crocodile or a polar bear loose and it attacked somebody, could I say "I had no idea. The crocodile didn't attack anyone when he was in the cage. I did a risk assessment and everything..."? Naturally, I would be held responsible, on the grounds that such creatures are known to be dangerous, so releasing one would be utterly reckless. Yet our judges do the equivalent every day and are never held to account. A young child was kidnapped and raped because Judge Adrian Smith considered his primary duty to endulge a dangerous predatory child-rapist, rather than to protect the public or give justice to the victim. If he had a shred of decency, he'd have resigned. But he hasn't. He's a judge.
If I let a crocodile or a polar bear loose and it attacked somebody, could I say "I had no idea. The crocodile didn't attack anyone when he was in the cage. I did a risk assessment and everything..."? Naturally, I would be held responsible, on the grounds that such creatures are known to be dangerous, so releasing one would be utterly reckless. Yet our judges do the equivalent every day and are never held to account. A young child was kidnapped and raped because Judge Adrian Smith considered his primary duty to endulge a dangerous predatory child-rapist, rather than to protect the public or give justice to the victim. If he had a shred of decency, he'd have resigned. But he hasn't. He's a judge.
Burning my bridges
Sometimes I write more on other people's blogs than on my own. Below is my final contribution at one of the pro-EU blogs that I have kept a periodic eye on, but since the theft of our referendum, there's very little to say to Europhiles. It seems futile to argue over the game, now they've picked up the ball and gone off home. But as I don't deign to continue the dispute, I will reproduce my parting shot, for the pleasure of my readers (yes, both of you!):
"... killing democracy is not an accusation, but a stone-cold fact. The government was elected on a promise to hold a referendum. They did not hold that referendum, because they feared the result, so I see their original promise as a cynical ploy to deny me my democratic voice, until it was too late to stop their agenda. Now they laugh at the tories for promising to renegotiate what is non-negotiable. This makes me angry, and I cannot possibly see anything that the EU does as legitimate. What could I say, had the referendum been held and the people had voted for the treaty? Very little. As it is, I have a righteous indignation against the EU, which has occasionally manifested itself in the comment threads of this blog, due to its pro-EU stance. But I will not bother you in future. I will voluntarily take myself off.
As for the case in point, I don’t care what the media says either way. It’s inaccurate in both directions, but without any democratic process, what difference does it make? Public opinion may be swayed one way or the other, but so what? The public doesn’t get a chance to express its opinion. The EU is going to have a President representing millions of people and not one of them will have voted for him.
I’m a libertarian and a nationalist, and I’m under no illusion of speaking for a majority of anyone. If I wanted a political party that endorsed my views, I’d have to start it myself. I am only one man, but in a democratic country at least I have a chance to argue the case one way or another, to call for the repeal a law I oppose, or the institution of a law I support, for more taxes or less taxes, for nationalisation or privatisation, to vote for the people I think will represent my views the best. Now, even this modicum of participation is being removed, replaced by something no more accountable than the Byzantine Empire."
To this, comes a response:
"I always find it intriguing that those who are pushing for referenda on the EU always make excuses when it’s suggested referenda are used more in UK politics for other matters, such as the UK becoming a republic, the voting system, our membership of NATO, greater devolution of power to local authorities, directly elected prime ministers, etc.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
What is the matter with these police?
At the risk of offending one of my few readers, what has happened to the police in this country? Bursting into the house of a 67-year-old man at 5.30 in the morning, dragging him off, violating his rights, all because he said the f word to some prick from the local council a few days ago.
As usual, the police defend their actions. They seem to have totally lost sight of what they exist for.
As usual, the police defend their actions. They seem to have totally lost sight of what they exist for.
Another nail driven into the coffin of freedom by the Stasi Labour Scat-munchers
And it's only going to get worse. Is there any limitation that this stinking pit of shit government would accept on their own powers? Answer: No. They want to finger-print you, photograph your naked body, read all your emails, listen to all your conversations, and if you don't like this, you're an extremist.
More secret world government shit
From the Register:
"The negotiations surround the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA). This is a trade treaty being negotiated outside of the usual channels such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO). Countries including the US, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand, as well as the European Union, have got together to hammer out a plan.
"The negotiations surround the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA). This is a trade treaty being negotiated outside of the usual channels such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO). Countries including the US, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand, as well as the European Union, have got together to hammer out a plan.
That the proposal is not a part of an existing structure means that the usual rules of transparency and reporting don't apply. Up to a point that is the right of those doing the negotiating, but it does make people suspicious, and it does allow speculation to grow unchecked."
The Register's take is that the secrecy has allowed speculation to grow to a feverish level. But what really ought to be the issue is that there are these secret negotiations in the first place. Still, I guess I'm one of those old-fashioned democrats, not yet adapted to the tyrannical New World Order of the near future.
Monday, 9 November 2009
More Zieg Heil Labour shit from the enviro-nazi cocksuckers
'Lord' Chris Smith is pimping the Fabian hell of scientific dictatorship over every aspect of everyone's life - all to save the planet. In order to throw the ordinary people off the scent, one of the Enviro-Jugend claims that 'it will probably only be bankers and those on extravagant lifestyles who would lose out.' But this is a complete fucking lie.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Don't ask questions - just get in the cattle truck
Don't be a flu shot lemming like some of these people, especially the prick at the end who thinks the journalist shouldn't ask questions.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Nourishing hope
James Higham is trying to rally the Eurosceptic centre right into a political coalition against Labour and the Tory leadership in time for the coming election.
Anything that attempts to remove the treacherous, rotten politicians and parties that currently dominate us should be considered. It's obviously something of a mountain to climb, but, politically speaking at least, have we got any choice? Have we got anything better to do?
My suggested method would be to put forth a reassertion of national sovereignty and a clear programme of constitutional and legal reform to limit the power of government, reaffirm our individual rights, and return our justice system to repute. This in the form of a Grand Petition, which we demand parliamentary candidates support.
The soft underbelly of the political system is its need to hold General Elections, and for one day everything is up for grabs, not just in theory, but actually in reality. The chance is tiny, but exists no less.
Anything that attempts to remove the treacherous, rotten politicians and parties that currently dominate us should be considered. It's obviously something of a mountain to climb, but, politically speaking at least, have we got any choice? Have we got anything better to do?
My suggested method would be to put forth a reassertion of national sovereignty and a clear programme of constitutional and legal reform to limit the power of government, reaffirm our individual rights, and return our justice system to repute. This in the form of a Grand Petition, which we demand parliamentary candidates support.
The soft underbelly of the political system is its need to hold General Elections, and for one day everything is up for grabs, not just in theory, but actually in reality. The chance is tiny, but exists no less.
The Grand Petition
This Parliament has grown offensive to the people. It serves neither our will nor our interests. Our individual rights have been encroached upon by a government that sees no limitations on its power. Our criminal law no longer delivers justice for victims, punishment to wrong-doers, nor protection for the public. The nation’s sovereignty has been sold, bartered and given away for nothing in a thousand treaties, not least of which the infamous Lisbon Treaty, for which we were promised a referendum by each of the three main parties, and each one in its turn, betrayed that promise.
What does it matter who we elect to a Parliament which has given away its right to change the laws which govern us?
Did they think, these politicians, that we would not notice? Do they also think they are so far above us in judgement, that they need pay no heed to our wishes or views? Which do they claim, that matters like sovereignty and justice are of such importance, the common people’s voice must be excluded, or that these are trifling matters we should leave in their good care? In either case we must protest. What evidence can they produce to justify their superiority in brain power? What examples can they offer of their good stewardship? Can we not assert the contrary with many examples of our own?
This can go on no longer. We don't need them and we gain nothing from having them prance and pontificate on the political stage. We must use this coming General Election to demand of all those seeking our votes that the necessary changes, detailed below, will be made...
To be continued.
What does it matter who we elect to a Parliament which has given away its right to change the laws which govern us?
Did they think, these politicians, that we would not notice? Do they also think they are so far above us in judgement, that they need pay no heed to our wishes or views? Which do they claim, that matters like sovereignty and justice are of such importance, the common people’s voice must be excluded, or that these are trifling matters we should leave in their good care? In either case we must protest. What evidence can they produce to justify their superiority in brain power? What examples can they offer of their good stewardship? Can we not assert the contrary with many examples of our own?
This can go on no longer. We don't need them and we gain nothing from having them prance and pontificate on the political stage. We must use this coming General Election to demand of all those seeking our votes that the necessary changes, detailed below, will be made...
To be continued.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Oh no, I'm an extwemist...
... so says Doktor Liam Mengele, chief PR Officer of the pharmacide industry.
According to the Times, swine flu shot pusher Liam said:
“We have had a lot of unfair public criticism and attacks in an attempt to scare people about a vaccine that’s potentially life-saving”.
Yeah, right. How unfair of the public to read the leaflet that comes with the mercury-laced, squalene-laced, live virus-containing, grown on a monkey's kidney poison that you wish to inject into little children and pregnant women, you sick fucker.
According to the Times, swine flu shot pusher Liam said:
“We have had a lot of unfair public criticism and attacks in an attempt to scare people about a vaccine that’s potentially life-saving”.
Yeah, right. How unfair of the public to read the leaflet that comes with the mercury-laced, squalene-laced, live virus-containing, grown on a monkey's kidney poison that you wish to inject into little children and pregnant women, you sick fucker.
Carbon corporatism
Mark Wallace, writing at Devil's Kitchen, nails the reality of the EU's corporatist 'Emissions Trading Scheme':
"Despite all the rhetoric from politicians and eurocrats alike about helping the poor and the elderly, alleviating fuel poverty and reducing extortionate energy bills, the reality is that through the ETS they are increasing costs for UK consumers alone by £3 billion a year. Across the whole EU, between the scheme starting on 1 January 2005 up to the end of 2008, this monster cost over £67 billion.
This is the reality of the current tranche of flawed emissions policy: in the name of green policymaking, ordinary people who already struggle to heat the homes and make ends meet are being stung for billions of pounds a year. Where does the money end up? Well, a decent chunk is effectively handed straight to wealthy energy companies in windfall profits, kindly provided by Mr and Mrs Joe Public.
Don't think that the powers that be in Westminster and Brussels aren't aware of this, either. Indeed, the Express revealed this week in leaked EU Commission documents that there are plans afoot in Brussels to use the Emissions Trading Scheme as the basis of a pan-European, harmonised tax in order to fund the EU directly.
In short, they know perfectly well how profitable this enterprise can be for them - and they care not a jot that it is those scraping a living in the real world who suffer as a result."
"Despite all the rhetoric from politicians and eurocrats alike about helping the poor and the elderly, alleviating fuel poverty and reducing extortionate energy bills, the reality is that through the ETS they are increasing costs for UK consumers alone by £3 billion a year. Across the whole EU, between the scheme starting on 1 January 2005 up to the end of 2008, this monster cost over £67 billion.
This is the reality of the current tranche of flawed emissions policy: in the name of green policymaking, ordinary people who already struggle to heat the homes and make ends meet are being stung for billions of pounds a year. Where does the money end up? Well, a decent chunk is effectively handed straight to wealthy energy companies in windfall profits, kindly provided by Mr and Mrs Joe Public.
Don't think that the powers that be in Westminster and Brussels aren't aware of this, either. Indeed, the Express revealed this week in leaked EU Commission documents that there are plans afoot in Brussels to use the Emissions Trading Scheme as the basis of a pan-European, harmonised tax in order to fund the EU directly.
In short, they know perfectly well how profitable this enterprise can be for them - and they care not a jot that it is those scraping a living in the real world who suffer as a result."
You're not paid to advise, you're paid to tell the public that the government's right
Back in the days of Nazi Germany, there used to be a thing called 'German Science', a ridiculous concept, seeming to suggest that an experiment carried out in a German laboratory may produce a different result in a laboratory in another country, where foreign scientific laws held dominion.
Here in Fabian England, we have a similar concept . The head of the government's 'Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs' has been sacked, because he's not prepared to twist the scientific evidence to serve his control-freak New Labour masters, who want to strike a tough pose on illegal drugs.
Maybe I'm stretching it a little to find parallels between these two things. Nevertheless, it indicates how weak this government knows that it is, that it must get rid of any dissenting voice, and it makes a joke of the role of an 'Advisory Council', if the only advice it can give is flattery and support.
In sacking Professor Nutt, the control-freak New Labour government draws attention to the fact that all those other experts that they don't sack are kept in place because they tell them, and us, through the media, what they - the control-freak New Labour government - want us to hear.
Here in Fabian England, we have a similar concept . The head of the government's 'Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs' has been sacked, because he's not prepared to twist the scientific evidence to serve his control-freak New Labour masters, who want to strike a tough pose on illegal drugs.
Maybe I'm stretching it a little to find parallels between these two things. Nevertheless, it indicates how weak this government knows that it is, that it must get rid of any dissenting voice, and it makes a joke of the role of an 'Advisory Council', if the only advice it can give is flattery and support.
In sacking Professor Nutt, the control-freak New Labour government draws attention to the fact that all those other experts that they don't sack are kept in place because they tell them, and us, through the media, what they - the control-freak New Labour government - want us to hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
It always seems to be *then* that they bang on about Parliament being the right forum to decide *those* matters rather than consulting the people. Pure hypocrisy."
This from someone who categorised me as 'hysterical' and 'rightwing'. I admitted the charge of hysteria, at least I may come across this way sometimes, but refuted the label of rightwing, which I am not. Nor have I ever made excuses with regard to holding referenda on other issues, such as the ones mentioned here, indeed I would welcome any or all of them. The problem in this country is certainly not one of having too much democracy.
This response bears out my view that there is nothing worth discussing with the pro-EU crowd. They cannot defend their position from the charge of being anti-democratic, because it's true and they know it, so they don't even try. It hurts their delusional self-image to realise how their chosen political system has - by their own professed 'liberal', 'progressive' values - not a shred of legitimacy .