Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Here's an extract from 'Taking Liberties', which is enough to make any true English man or woman's blood boil - an anthology of violations of our rights by our ever-smiling copper filth. Free country? Yeah, just watch what you say. Back in the distant past, I remember protesting against the Tories' Criminal Justice Bill - fight for your right to party, and all that. Oh, what innocent days! These Labour nazis make the Tories look quite tame.
It's interesting, in a perverse way, to compare the statements made by 'Justice' Sir Henry Hodge, when appearing before a Commons select committee in 2006 and when sitting in judgement over the deportation case against a serial sex offender.
Back in the day he observed that removing people was a "big, big problem", and "an efficient removals system would be great." Now he finds that a man who has attacked 11 women, and has also managed to cram into his short life convictions for robbery, burglary, arson and drugs offences, cannot be sent back to his country of origin because it would breach his 'human rights' to enjoy a family life, in between prison sentences, one imagines. As the Telegraph reports:
'Gabrielle Browne, one of the women he attacked, said she felt "devastated and let down" by the judgement. She believes [the criminal] will attack again.'
That is almost guaranteed, and Hodge knows it as well as anyone, but obviously couldn't care less. His legal company, Hodge Jones & Allen, "was founded in 1977 by 3 young idealistic lawyers" according to its website. It has a section on 'professional negligence,' which is ironic, considering his negligence in this matter, which will most likely condemn more innocent people like Gabrielle Brown to become victims of Justice Hodge's new friend.
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Another favourite movie of mine - the majestic 'Withnail and I', with Paul McGann and Richard E. Grant. If ever anyone wonders if bad language is necessary, this film prove that, yes, sometimes it is. An excellent soundtrack, brilliant performances, truly funny.
It makes me feel my age to see Public Enemy celebrating their 20 years in the biz with a new album. Right from the start Public Enemy were musical pioneers. Their second album 'It takes a nation of millions to hold us back' was truly ground-breaking for hip hop and music in general. The path they took on their next few albums could make for pretty hard listening at times, but they usually managed to sweeten the pot with a couple of more accessible numbers. Many would reject their political message, but at least they always had something to say worth hearing, which stood in contrast to much of the genre that chose to wallow in (often faux-) ghetto degradation.
Keep it up, chaps!
One of satan's little helpers in the neocon deathcult is Norman Podhoretz, who claims the USA must bomb Iran, presumably so he can stick a finger up his arse and jerk himself off over the scenes of mass murder that will result.
He's a better idea, Norman: why don't you fuck off, you evil scumbag.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
The most interesting part for me focuses on the eugenics movement, how it started back in the 19th century in Britain and America, and was developed with chilling efficiency under the Nazis in Germany, and how it threatens us all now that science has advanced so far, that bio-weapons can be tailored at specific ethnic groups. One of the many shocking things is an excerpt from an American pro-eugenics propaganda movie from the 1930s, showing a young, hard-working and upright woman being ordered by a judge to be sterilised, because her father's a criminal and her brother's mentally subnormal - and this shit happened! Although the eugenics movement had to do a bit of name-changing after Hitler had gotten them a bad reputation, they still carried on as before, such as with the widespread sterilisation of native American women up until the 1970s, and who knows what these bastards are perpetrating in places like Africa right now?
As ever Alex Jones tells you stuff you wish wasn't true, but unfortunately it is.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
'This is so well known to every good housewife in the country, that I shall not need to write any description of it.'
So wrote Nicholas Culpepper in his famous encyclopaedia of English herbs, published in 1653, going on to list some of the many medicinal uses of cannabis sativa, commonly known as hemp, arguably the most useful plant known to man. This gift from God can be used to make paper, textiles, fuel, provides medicine, is a great source of protein, and on top of all that, you can smoke it and get high!
It can produce four times as much paper from the same amount of land than can be produced from wood. You want to save the forests? Grow hemp.
The hemp fabric is far stronger than cotton and requires nothing like the amount of pesticides that cotton needs. You want to stop poisoning the ground water? Grow hemp.
Hemp can be converted into ethanol fuel, having a high cellulose content. You want to reduce pollution and reliance on the oil industry? Grow hemp.
At this point, one may begin to wonder why on earth such a manifestly beneficient plant was not more widely cultivated. The answer is of course, as with so much in this world, the evil in men's hearts. Some may believe that hemp was the unintended victim of the criminalisation of marihuana in the USA in 1937. In fact, conversely, marihuana (a Mexican term for hemp) was demonised and then banned IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE HEMP INDUSTRY, to the great benefit of William Randolf Hearst's business interests and those of the du Pont chemical company.
Once the USA had entered WWII, the ban became prohibitively counter-productive, and the government launched a campaign to get farmers to grow hemp for the war effort, hence the film 'Hemp for Victory.'
Once the war was over the plant was again quietly banned, to the relief of a small band of greedy plutocrats, and the great detriment of mankind.
Friday, 5 October 2007
Thursday, 4 October 2007
I have received a second communication from my MP, containing a few crumbs, which she claims are the reasons she doesn't support the referendum, and chooses not to serve the people, but to parrot the party line and serve the government instead. I expect I shall contact her again, to make the following points:
The constitution was agreed at the inter-government level. At that time we were told that it was a good deal, that all HM Government's 'red lines' had been 'preserved'. We were told there was no need for a referendum, there hadn't been a referendum for Maastricht or Nice etcetera, and we have a system of 'representational government'...
However, Mr Blair capitulated to pressure, and the government position changed. The policy was made into an election pledge, as confirmed in the Manifesto under which my MP was elected. The French and Dutch polls necessitated a renegotiation of that document, involving ministers and heads of government from around Europe, a great many of whom are now telling us the 'amending treaty' is essentially the same as the constitution. Some say 90%, some say 95% or even 98%: the sum difference.
The government line now suggests the little that has been removed is of disproportionate significance. My MP's letter states that this treaty 'does not establish a new constitutional basis for the EU', and that 'constitutional symbols', such as the flag, hymn and the title of a certain job have been removed.
As for the flag, we all know what that is, and the hymn is “Ode to Joy”. The job that was to be called foreign minister still exists, only the name has been changed to high commissioner. The differences she cites are indeed symbolic - and no more.
See story here, from New York Times.
From the Google video page:
'This special video report features guest Aaron Dykes in studio to discuss the global eugenics agenda, its history and how the elite plan mass exterminations of the human population over the course of the next century. Topics covered include IBM's link to the Nazis' eugenics program, as well as the involvement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Later in the presentation, Alex and Aaron discuss the population control programs in Africa and China, the Rothschild and Rockefeller connections, as well as Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley's predictions of a scientific dictatorship that is now coming to fruition.'
Monday, 1 October 2007
As with so many of the new powers the state is claiming for itself, it came in on the back of the "terrorist threat" as part of the Anti-terrorism, crime and security Act 2001. So naturally, these powers are for use against terrorists, right? Wrong, any crime actually. But it's only the Police doing it, the good old boys in blue? No. In fact 650 different agencies will have access to the records in one form or another.
Interestingly, according to Metro a Home Office spokesmen said the law followed a directive from the EU, which is rather disingenuous, considering the efforts made by the Blair regime to force through data retention on the rest of Europe when the UK held the presidency, according to Statewatch, who said back in 2005:
"At a time when the UK is using its EU presidency to rush data retention through the legislative process in the name of the investigation and prevention of crime it really is time for reflection."
UK government, EU government, they're just different horns on the same beast.