So maybe the top guys will let one of their underlings get burned, but there's a bigger game being played here.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
So maybe the top guys will let one of their underlings get burned, but there's a bigger game being played here.
I might even join the Party, help chisle off those last few rough edges.
1 Are you working class?
2 Are you concerned, in any way, about the state of the nation? (e.g. level of debt, immigration etc)
3 Have you ever voted Labour?
If you have answered yes to any two of these questions, you probably are a bigot, at least as far as the New Labour Party is concerned.
They still want your vote, mind.
Monday, 26 April 2010
"All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.
The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.
According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain publick works and certain publick institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
Sunday, 25 April 2010
As readers may be able to work out, I consider myself a libertarian, a conservative and a nationalist. As such, the ideal political party would incorporate elements of all these things.
(Hat tip: Muffled Vociferation)
Alex Jones on RT, breaking down the IMF offensive against economic sovereignty.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Hence we learn of an atheist convicted of the absurd non-crime of putting anti-Christian and anti-Islam leaflets in a 'prayer room' in Liverpool Airport. We can safely assume that the authorities would have let the anti-Christian stuff pass, especially as 'prayer rooms' are for muslims. This is deemed to be "causing religiously aggravated harassment". Aw, diddums.
The Secular Society is up in arms, for good reason, but as usual they will blame religious people, but it wasn't religious people who brought in all these ludicrous laws, it was your pals the fabians in government. The aim is not to shield the religious, but to stifle free speech.
My only hope is that a few more people will have taken note.
Friday, 23 April 2010
I know there are many living among us who hate the English and all we stand for, who like to tell us what English means, to insult us, call us racist, xenophobes etc just because we love our own country. Keep it up, you scum. Keep prodding the placid English dog, but woe betide you when he finally has had enough.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
"If the British don't decide to put in a government with a working majority, and the markets think that we can't tackle our debt and deficit problems, then the IMF will have to do it for us."
But, seeing as all three main parties have fallen over themselves to welcome the IMF's plans to set itself up as some kind of global central bank, what difference does it make? Is it because Clegg, unlike Brown, Mandelson, Balls, Osborne and your slug-like self, hasn't been given the nod of approval from your controllers? Don't worry, he'll toe the line.
We all know the country's finances are down the shitter. And some of us know that the IMF is run by the very same criminal cartel that made that happen - and own your miserable soul, Ken.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
The problem: a world financial crisis engineered by the banksters.
The solution: "Banks and other financial institutions face paying two new taxes to fund future bail-outs, the BBC has learned."
Under the "radical" (monstrous, diabolical) plans; "all institutions would pay a bank levy - initially at a flat-rate - and also face a further tax on profits and pay."
All institutions, huh? And where are the institutions going to find the extra cash needed? Where do you think? From us. So these plans mean that we are going to pay a tax to the IMF, that they will use to further enslave us. Sure, the low level players will object, and some of the top dogs will play 'please don't throw me in the briar patch', but make no mistake what this signifies: another step on the road to tyranny.
Monday, 19 April 2010
"Today Mr Miliband said that Mr Cameron's comments showed that the Tories were 'trying to overturn 60 years of cooperation with China.'"
60 years? Interesting. According to the son of a red, that period would cover the very worst of Mao's reign of terror, estimated to have killed anything up to 80 million people. Any 'cooperation' given to the worst mass-murderer of the century is hardly something to brag about.
Never mind, I'm sure the year they took dragging it out will have made an innocent man suffer somewhat. The only 'evidence' these legal chumps had was what the other burglar (a serial criminal, despite his tender years) said, whose account they readily believed over the word of Roberts.
The politicians keep telling us that we have a right to defend ourselves and our property - not that we should need to be told something so axiomatic to English liberty - but could somebody tell the CPS, cos this is getting tedious.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Few people I speak to seem to grasp that this may be a problem. I suppose, as the BBC doesn't report it, they will ignore it, and they're certainly not minded to study the manifold scientific papers which discuss geoengineering using aerosols, the patents that attest to the technology required for 'solar radiation management'.
So I shall enjoy these few sunny days until the programme starts up again.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
I write under a nom de plume, and have done so to keep a separation between my blogging views and my working life. Using a pseudonym has a long and honourable tradition in political writing, and there is a certain freedom or licence that the mask of anonymity allows that no doubt influences how I write. I have always been aware that the government/police/SIS could track me down in a matter of seconds if they wished to.
However, there is a big step from the blogging world to actual involvement in political action, and whereas denouncing liberal judges as scat-munching paedo-enablers is run-of-the-mill round these parts, I fear that it may be a barrier to doing what really needs doing, which is engaging in the necessary action to drive such judges from their positions of power and attempting to institute the reforms of the law that this country, which I love, requires.
As 1 Corinthians 13 says;
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Also Matthew 5:30;
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
These quotes remind me that there is a time to move on, and that we can become too attached to things, not in themselves bad, but to the extent that the attachment becomes a barrier to what we really ought be doing, and perhaps DK has made a decision along these lines.
I ask myself; are there things I regret writing in these pages, or perceive could come back to haunt me? I reckon not. Although sometimes my language leaves something to be desired, the targets of my most vociferous outpourings have all deserved it, I think.
So maybe the issue that people such as DK must grapple with is; how to keep hold of this great weapon of ours - the bloggosphere - keep it pointed at the enemy without recoiling in our faces, and how to develop other tools and weapons alongside it that can push forward the political agenda that libertarians believe in. Leg-Iron is right: we must never apologise. Take a step back and compare a little bad language with some of the felonies that have been committed by the political establishment. Suddenly, calling Justice Collins a 'fucking piece of rancid shit' disappears into dust, when you consider the use of depleted uranium, secret torture facilities, the looting of public finances etc.
The political establishment would love to destroy the bloggosphere, because they cannot control it. They want to belittle it and pose on some moral highground, as if they don't have foul-mouthed writers and comedians of their own, to peddle their world view. It is not the language or the passion that they object to, but the underlying message.
If some kind of firewall is needed to separate the franc-tireurs of the blogging world from other political activity, so be it. We need the latter, blogging ain't enough, but this, the bloggosphere, is our manor, and we'd be crazy to throw it away.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Monday, 12 April 2010
The Tories and Labour are the same. Fuck Cameron and his air-brushed message.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Words stolen from Henry North London. N.B. The reality's even worse! (HT Eugenides)
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
"Britain needs a radical and united Labour government elected for a third term. We are the only political party that understands the challenges of globalisation and that Britain's future is part of a reformed Europe. We are the only party that is committed to investing and reforming our public services and which can combine enterprise and social justice with a reformed welfare state."
"And no Labour government has ever had the opportunity we now have. Because every other Labour government at this stage in its history was already grappling with economic crises."
Ed need not have been concerned with regard to his latter point. The inevitable economic crisis arrived during the Labour third term.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
"It is the job of British politicians to convince their population... People are keen to believe in something and hope. Of course, you can always invent 30 arguments to demolish all this, but when I talk to people [and] … speak in the language of hope, stressing not just the problems and challenges but also what we have achieved, then there is relief."
Well, Mr President, firstly it is not the job of British politicians to convince me of anything, and they couldn't if they tried. Their job is to do what we want, or get kicked the fuck out of power. Secondly, I don't have to invent arguments, I just have to hold up a photograph of your face and ask punters 'who is this man?', followed by 'do you realise he's your President?', to establish that you have NO MANDATE to do anything this side of the Channel, and thirdly the only relief I derive from your speeches is when you shut the fuck up at the end of them.
(pic: Geoff Pugh)
And yet, for all his millions, we the taxpayers are still expected to pay his security bill, some £6 Million per year! Here's my suggestion for cutting that bill whilst still keeping him secure - put the fucker in jail. Take your pick of crimes; the lies about weapons of mass destruction, complicity in Dr Kelly's murder, selling peerages etc.
Children are no longer expected to learn even how to add up or subtract without a brain-washing subtext:
"Mainstreaming antidiscrimination in the maths curriculum can address the needs of all pupils by helping them to question values, have a truer understanding of the worldwide sources and application of maths and gain true equality of access to the curriculum."
They can't do PE without the Commissars stamping their mark:
"Gender equality is an important issue in PE. The subject can provide opportunities for pupils to learn about and discuss issues of discrimination in sport both locally and nationally."
Science is fucked:
"Biology as a subject can help pupils explore these rights through the Human Genome Project which was set out to safeguard human rights."
History is reduced to the Holocaust, the slave trade and the suffragettes. Geography is just another platform for the UN;
"Human rights are the rights we all hold in common as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Geography as a subject can encourage investigations on issues relevant to the exploration of human rights issues. Looking at population movements in developing countries is one way of doing this."
It goes on and on. This is not just deluded, left-wing scum in Scotland. The same agenda is to be found throughout the world, and is linked to Unicef and Agenda 21. That is why it should be seen in a global context. The enemies of free humanity are very clear in what they intend to do, and they're doing it. Until further notice, parents must try to get their kids out of these political indoctrination prison stations (or state schools as they're more usually called), and if they can't do that for whatever reason, they must take steps to neutralise the brain-washing. Otherwise, don't be surprised when your kids turn on you and denounce you, because that's what has always happened in the past when the same methods have been employed.
The parties seem all to have realised that using the image of their opponents is safer than using images of their own leaders, due to the inevitable spoofing that will occur, and the lack of appeal all the leaders have. Nevertheless, I reckon Labour will blow a hole in their foot with this one. I don't actually know who the fictional TV character they are using is (apparently some guy from 'Ashes to Ashes'), but they should take stock of the popularity of the show 'Life on Mars', which brought on a wave of nostalgia for the good old days, when coppers knew how to deal with wrong 'uns, and didn't give a flying fuck about political correctness.
Of course, Labour needn't concern itself with winning my vote. They've more chance of raising the Titanic with a fishing rod.