Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Oh Go On David, Tell The Truth

David Cameron has found himself painted into a corner. First he didn't want any discussion of the EU whatsoever. It is a non-democratic institution along Marxist lines, who is going to vote for that (while we are allowed)?

Then he had to give a 'cast iron' guarantee that he would give us a referendum, which turned out to be anything but cast iron and failed to materialise. Then, with the eurozone going breasts uppermost, he had to actually promise one, far in the future and only if we elect him again and then finally to have a law requiring it. He could do without this you know.

David Cameron loves the EU. He couldn't explain why to you, as it only causes harm to little people, like you. He wants to be a good EU apparatchik and ignore the people, but we still have some semblance of democracy, so he has to appear to care what you think. Consequently, he tells you he is going to renegotiate our terms of membership with that nasty EU Commission.

And if they won't play ball, we will have an in/out referendum. But they will give in, he assures us. Funny that. There is only one mechanism by which he can possibly negotiate with his EU masters and that is by invoking Article 50. But he hasn't mentioned that, ever.

He hasn't told you about it, he hasn't explained what it is, or threatened 'Europe' with it. He just hasn't brought it up at all. Yet it is the negotiating tool. Why hasn't he mentioned it? Do you think he might be lying again? That he has no intention of negotiating anything, nor leaving the EU under any circumstances? Shirley Knot.

Protecting Britain

Recent events have shown up that Britain is pretty much defended along the hope and trust basis. Planning, resource provision and competence are in question.

Ten minutes out from landing at Manchester airport a Pakistani airliner has two men try to break into the cockpit, possibly muttering threats, according to reports. The pilot needs to take that seriously and what is anyone supposed to do? You have to get the plane down and deal with the men in as a remote a location as possible. Such a facility is available at Stansted.

But why would these man just allow themselves to be arrested because they couldn't hijack the plane if they were terrorists? But what else can you do when the plane lands than go on board? So trapped by the special circumstances of an aeroplane, you have limited options across the whole scenario. Of course the assault team has to be trained in storming an aircraft.

Are Essex police so trained? How many police in the UK are? When de Menedes was killed, grabbed in a bear hug to prevent any bomb activation moves and shot repeatedly in the head it seemed more likely to be the work of special forces, rather than police. But the claim is they were police officers.

What then are the measures we are aware of, to protect the UK from terrorism (we know the Royal Navy is not designed or equipped to protect our shores)?

Well, as we saw, when a 300 ton plus aircraft is considered a danger a quick reaction jet is sent to intercept and escort it. If a real danger becomes apparent our only option is to shoot the airliner down, hopefully over open countryside. After that it is our para military police. If something develops of an on-going nature then the military can be deployed and the SAS have trained for certain eventualities.

Should we not have a more advanced and integrated response prepared though? Military helicopters could be useful and the extra fire power and dedication to killing their targets of soldiers, more appropriate in certain situations. Whilst an Apache might be scary, it is probably too powerful for any domestic problem, but if area containment was important, circling Lynx with pintle mounted machine guns would be a definite deterrent.

It is unfortunate, but any incident which is 'terror' related (eg the assailant is likely to not behave rationally, nor be concerned for his own life) then overwhelming lethal force needs to be available as quickly as possible, to reduce or eliminate the threat and to form a containment. None of this seems to be understood nor in place currently. The government and the police can only brag about operations where they have had time to plan and organise.

Whenever they have to react to fast moving circumstances they are found wanting in some way. They either shoot first and ask questions later (while they cook their stories) or they absent themselves. We have a right to know why training of police firearms officers, which allegedly says that shots are aimed at the bulk of the mass, the torso, leads to the fatal shooting of an innocent man with a chair leg in a bag (hit in the hand and head) when two dangerous, armed murderers were shot in the legs, as at Woolwich. The police say eight rounds were fired and the audio of the shots was very interesting, particularly the gaps.

We wait to hear more, but one thing is plain. The government have no intention of being deviated from its course of supporting terrorism through the ring-fenced foreign aid budget, nor taking any effective action at home. To do so would be contrary to the Left ethos of undermining Western society, to which our political class cleave.

Friday, 24 May 2013


Peter Tatchell was playing his games last night on QT and talking crap, but the Left educated audience lapped it up. Ah, for the days when thinking for yourself was valued. First let us establish that the audience was programmed in its responses. To the violent, barbaric murder of an innocent they asked the question, what do we expect people to do when we have the foreign policies we have?

Well, our foreign policy is a mess and is today an echo of the empty headed government of Blair and his monkeys. But it was intended to oppose the barbarians such as we saw on our streets, in their homelands. We just didn't do it too well. That is what happens when you give a serious job to someone who likes the idea of a job, but not its content.

Interestingly, we are less resolute about dealing with the barbarians here. Anyway, it is clear that the question from the audience member was idiotic and could only really been seen as a support for the murderers. I'm sure that is not what was meant, but when you chant Left mantras that are very much the vogue these days, that is what you end up saying.

So, their keenness to applaud Tatchell was partly due to his artfulness, partly not paying attention and partly indoctrination - going with fashion. It was stated by Ian Paisley that he thinks marriage is for families and so irrelevant to same sex couples who have civil partnerships, which covers the issue of legal relationship. Marriage is for children and their upbringing.

Dimmo of course needed to undermine this entirely sensible and clear view, so quoted comments of Paisley's where he had said that sex between people of the same gender disgusted him and needled him to explain how this fits with what he just said. Well, it fits exactly. I'm sure if you are a man and you 'fancy' women, the idea of sex with a man would 'disgust' you, indeed offend you. This is OK though. Whilst 'causing offence' is currently one of the greatest crimes you can commit, it is OK if you are offending heterosexuals or the Christian faith.

This is a view apparently that is not allowed. You are not allowed to think such thoughts. Tatchell then pulled his master-stroke  he said that by supporting marriage for just heterosexual couples he was living in the past, that was not traditional, it was old fashioned. The audience loved it and applauded so hard their iphones nearly fell out of their pockets. Tatchell of course, was conflating not liking the idea of men having sex with opposing the right for homosexuals to exist. Dimmo helped this view along, but it was not even nearly what Paisley had said. Truth and the Left however, are not frequent bedfellows.

Tatchell had not produced a killer political point, undermined an argument, proved a falsehood in his opponents argument. No he had done something much more important, he had appealed to fashion and who will not pay any price to be seen as 'in fashion'. It is dreary to have to point out that marriage is itself something of an old fashioned idea. Indeed has not the Left used homosexuals to promote the destruction of marriage and families? So Tatchell supports one old fashioned idea but not another. Oh dear, the inconsistency, the hypocrisy. Never mind, its not important, its Left wing political manoeuvring.

Tatchell then went on to talk more self evident crap, when he offered to level the playing field he had himself disturbed by suggesting heterosexuals should not be denied the option of civil partnerships! Clearly, it is not what you say, but the way you say it.

I reserve my greatest outrage with homosexuals though, for the deliberate harm they do to children. They do it solely for the most selfish of reasons. This demand that they should be able to buy the children they cannot naturally procure. I say buy, because they are viewed by the state as eligible not just for political reasons, but through being able to afford to raise them.

Consider the boy given to two men. We will say the adoption was enacted when he was a baby, so he knows nothing else and we will assume that the couple fall in the statistically unlikely group of homosexuals who stay together. (And we will certainly assume that the adults find adults attractive and leave the boy alone, just as heterosexuals can adopt without interfering with the child).

The boy however is not biologically prone to homosexuality. He will be subjected nevertheless, to images at home of homosexual behaviour. How will he relate to other boys at school who are heterosexual? Where does his sense of relationship build from? When he meets a girl, how will she react to being taken home, to an environment she cannot understand? Will the boy attempt to be homosexual to please his 'dads'? Will he feel he has let them down if he dates a girl? Will they project feelings of dejection if he isn't homosexual?

This is also to ignore the simple way kids address blatant, rank stupidity by laughing at it. A family of homosexuals is not like a man and a woman who cannot have children for medical reasons. It is a state of being that they have created intentionally, knowing that children are not possible (though perhaps there should be a law banning only heterosexuals from being able to procreate). Yet the demand to 'have' children to 'normalise' their 'marriage' is paramount. Or political to an outside observer.

Marriage was devised to build a family unit for raising children, love didn't really enter into it, so this modern argument is nice, but if you use it to undermine a working system, you are just stupid. And as for homosexuals who want it all, marriage, kids the whole thing - grow up.

As for the QT audience? Well, the Left have ensured that they are as uneducated as possible and promote issues of fashion instead. A nation that worries about its hair and nails, reads Hello and follows drippy 'love everybody' political notions. So while you pay no attention things are done to destroy the capitalist society that has served you so well, to be replaced by an elite in power for ever. And a key part of that is to destroy marriage and the family unit, the basis of our society.

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Woolwich - The Response

Politicians rush to the airwaves not just to show sympathy but to anxiously call for calm. What they fear you see is that the general public might one day become tired of such attacks as these and demand protection. This the politicians are unwilling to provide as it contradicts the ideology they cleave to.

And the politicians also are quick to say that these people did not represent Islam or the contribution it makes to this country. There of course is the most obvious aspect of their lies. Islam contributes nothing to this country but harm

Fraser Nelson at The Spectator has reproduced tweets from 'Muslims' who say that this is not done in their name and it is not a part of Islam to murder like this. But these are successful, integrated people, decent upstanding and sometimes not even Left wing, so they are Muslims in the same way I am Christian. I kind of hold to the values but in no way am actively involved.

I don't go to church, but for family events. No religious leaders from Islam, no heads of Madrassa's have appeared and said it is against Islam. The reason why is because they collude.The murderers yesterday did it in support of their agenda and objectives. Those objectives are echoed by the theocracy of Islam.

What we in the West don't understand is how different it is. Because we see Islam as a 'religion' and thus in the light of the religion we know, Christianity we completely misunderstand what is going on. Islam is not a religion in reality, it is a political construct and uses a branching of much of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Muslims have the same God and acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet but try to promote their own in the hierarchy by claiming that the Koran was the literal word of God.

Islam relies on the tribal society of the medieval arabs to survive as a totalitarian government, using 'the literal word of God' to keep the people in thrall. Any true modernisation threatens their grip.

If we claim to have invaded countries to support the ordinary people, we were at the same time opposing the political side of Islam. Clearly the politicians don't understand this as helping the little people abroad fits with allowing multiculturalism here, allowing Islam to thrive, whilst it is opposing the state that it sits in.

This is why I say we must act, not against everyone who says they are a Muslim, but those who support the theocracy of Islam. Enormously dangerous people like Yvette Cooper say that we shouldn't let this attack divide us, but what she means is that she will continue to support the right of those who attack us to do so. She says to react to their violence is to give in to their plan. What like fighting Hitler was the wrong thing to do?

As for Cameron, he was talking these sorts of words about 'us' and 'we' but what I actually heard was 'I can assure everyone that No10 is quite well protected with gates and everything. I travel in armoured cars with armed guards. You have nothing to fear if nothing is done'.

Islam Is A Failure

When people were blown up on Tube trains and a bus, it seemed a terrible thing and we were shocked, but there is something fundamentally different about yesterday's attack in Woolwich. The barbarity was beyond belief. For people who, generally live a 'live and let live' existence it is incomprehensible. That human beings feel able to do such things, deliberately and calmly to a complete stranger is outside human experience. Only the insane and animals are capable of such acts, surely? And yet here they are, amongst us.

To confront this, to deal with it we have decided on weakness. We have given in to the mad demands of a foreign cult and asked them not to hurt us. This cowardice is exactly what the enemy despise about Western society and confirms, in their madness their actions.

Our weakness is not only to surrender to violence in the same way Tony Blair did with the IRA, but also to the Left as it uses any and all means to destroy our capitalist society. Multiculturalism was designed specifically to allow this kind of attack. The Left were aware that it would cause great upset and ghettoisation of groups. This was exacerbated by the racial 'equality' laws which were always anti-white and highlighted difference, in case you forgot.

As social workers are trained to only see child protection as a way to use children as a tool against capitalism, so the Left uses every means to destroy the Britain of note, the remarkable country that we love. Now they see that the violence that so often accompanies a tyranny with no popular support, is likely to come from extreme Muslims. This is why civilised Muslims need to stand up to them.

Whilst Christianity has done precisely the same thing in the form of the Crusades, that was in a very different time and over 900 years ago, and even then as a reaction against Muslim invasions that got as far as France and Spain. That Islam has got stuck in that age is ridiculous and holds back those countries in its thrall. Moderate Christian thought has subsequently led to great advances in the West and a peaceable attitude. The objection of the nutters like yesterday is that the West have attacked their 'brothers' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By our own standards these were very poor decisions by some very disreputable people, like Blair and Campbell. However, at root the action was to support the ordinary people against violent bullies; in Afghanistan these are the Taliban. Of course, these bullies are Muslims and so blameless, apparently!

This strange religion, attached as it is to the Christian faith, claims that the Koran is the literal word of God (as the Bible doesn't claim to be), spoken to Mohammed and written down many years after his death. Certainly Mohammed was struggling to get his ideas of religion accepted by any real community and had to go into hiding from his enemies, who wanted to kill him.

When he emerged from the desert he was suddenly able to gain converts and his following swelled. Once powerful enough he used this force to do the religious thing and attacked and killed his enemies. His followers believed that they lived special lives and that life should be frozen in the Middle Ages. Except for anything they want. Like TV, porn, drugs, alcohol, guns, bombs, cars, everything really except that men are in charge, women do what they are told and criticism means death.

More a theological version of communism really.So, we need to treat this seriously at last and require the Muslims and the Left to shape up or ship out. And not let up until it is done.

On a separate note, it was disappointing that the armed police (who took a strangely long time to get to the incident) shot and wounded these men, rather than being able to kill them. A man with a chair leg in a bag is shot dead, but real criminals get wounded. Ending these animals lives would have been so much better too, than the ridiculous trial our Left wing judges will 'subject' them to with prison sentences at the end of it. Or a caution if the Met Commissioner had his way perhaps.

Monday, 20 May 2013

How To Get Out Of The EU

Richard North on his EU Referendum blog says that we need to be careful and stop talking about leaving the EU now and illegal treaties, as this will damage the image with swing voters. This in turn leaves them vulnerable to being influenced by the likes of Peter Mandelson.

Much of this is true of course; if you don't think so, ask yourself how people came to vote for Tony Blair? There is a very well funded (that would be our money) machine that will continue to spout lies and propaganda about the anti-EU people and so influence people to vote for the Marxist gravy train for politicians.

However, it doesn't change the fact that all of the leave now and illegal treaty stuff is true and relevant. If we did leave the EU now, which North says would leave us in a mess, we would still have all the EU laws on our books. We could take our time to sort through what we want and what we don't want and act accordingly.

We could do this without interference from a foreign power, without fines and without paying EU-geld.   The only thing is we need to be clear with the people what is going on and for that we need an honest media (ie not the BBC) and some well thought through policies. Here North is absolutely spot on. Leaving the EU is like giving up drugs, not easy but much better for your health. It cannot be done overnight and Left liberal 'advisor's' will tell you not to.

Thursday, 16 May 2013

Classic QT!

Question Time is really storming along tonight and it has only been on 20 minutes! The first question brought up the EU and off we went. Naturally all the talk was as careful as possible not to say anything of substance. There is a woman who you would love to call a dozy bint from the Financial Times, but she is an intelligent person, though her view is to talk about economic matters in the EU and avoid the fact that it is a political question.

Chris Bryant is there too and he is an idiot. He has no ability to say anything pertinent, he only ever spouts ideological codswallop. A woman from the audience pointed out that UKIP are merely offering what the Conservatives should be and the original questioner pointed out that we don't even know what Cameron is going to renegotiate and so how would we know what success looked like.

Then we moved on to Google not paying enough tax. Well, I'm a little conflicted over what happened today. I think Google should be paying more tax, but I think the chap from Google should have just said to Hodge the Dodge, that he is only doing what she does. And there is something distasteful about a group of politicians talking about how reprehensible companies like Google are and then go back to their offices to see how much they can fiddle on their expenses.

Just one last point. It has now been on half an hour and I haven't heard a single Suffolk accent yet, is it really coming from Ipswich or is the audience shipped in?

Royal Society Own Goal

Oh how deliciously ironic. Prince Andrew, the notorious loafer and user of other people's money has been elected to the Royal Society and scientists are up in arms. They feel that this deeply unserious man should not, can not be associated with such an august body.

This is the society of course who, despite a motto that says 'Nullius in Verba', meaning take nobody's word, have decided that no further research should be permitted into climate change. The science is settled. Which is about the least serious and most unscientific thing anyone could say, let alone repeated Presidents of the Royal Society.

If I was Prince Andrew I would have turned it down as lacking the rigour that I required from clubs I join. And his Mum really ought to insist that the Royal bit be dropped since their standards have sunk so low. It is more a non-working man's club these days, so being called The Society and having a bar installed would be most appropriate (with a barman called Dave).

Isn't life strange, in that for so many years used car salesmen could be rightly considered dodgy characters, whose word was not to be trusted and now it is members of the Royal Society. Oh well, all things must pass.

Who Invented Global Warming?

I know that science often works on a number of issues simultaneously, then finds they are related in some bigger picture, but still. Berners-Lee is credited with inventing the World Wide Web so surely someone must be able to claim they invented Global Warming.

I'm guessing that it must have occurred after science had established that CO2 output by Man was insignificant in regard to affecting global temperatures (which was known in the mid-Sixties) and was probably from a group of political agitators.

But was it from Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or a similar political organisation using charity status as a front? It may have come, I suppose, quite innocently from a real environmental group with honest intentions, but they seem to only last a very short while (boson time?) as they get subsumed by politics.

Where did it come from? Was it really attached to the subject whilst it was still being investigated by scientists (as opposed to promoted by them, which is all they can achieve these days)?

Monday, 13 May 2013

Cameron Angry

The news is claiming that David Cameron is angry because some of his senior Conservative colleagues have publicly said they would vote to leave the EU. I hope he is angry. That would mean he is now sharing an emotion with Tory voters. Except their anger is not at a political construct that a politician quite likes, but at an idiot who has made Conservatives seem unreliable and Left wing.

Leaving the EU is a 'Right wing' idea apparently. I'm not sure when the Left first decided that supporting Britain and British citizens was a Right wing idea. By extension of course, it means that the Left are anti Britain and British law.

Cameron, accepting orders from another part of the communist 'Europe' he loves, enacted laws for homosexual marriage, ignoring the rights and views of the people of the country. He wants, for no discernible reason, to build a high speed rail line, at great cost, to benefit a relatively small number of people. The line he says, will 'open up' the Midlands and make working there easier for many people. How? To be fast the train must not stop very often, so it can only serve a few destinations.

Current railways are no different from any other large commercial concern these days. It runs entirely for the benefit of the company and often uses its contact with government to maximise its benefits. No competitive pressures or proper regulation for them, any more than for renewables scamming companies, energy suppliers, pharmaceutical and construction industries.

There is plenty for Cameron to be angry about, but so far he seems to be a supporter of all of the scams which are destroying the spending power of UK citizens, not forgetting all the tax, naturally.

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Sceptics - The Lies

People who investigate the science surrounding the earth's temperature have found that man made CO2 cannot possibly be affecting the global temperature. They are called sceptics. Another group, mainly with vested interests of one kind or another from companies taking massive subsidies to 'energy efficiency' certificate peddlers to scientists who cannot admit they said something stupid, say that the world is warming up due to the exact same thing.

People who do not see that a Marxist superstate run by an unelected elite who by way of warning came up with the Euro, is a good idea, are again called sceptics. Naturally, it is the conman who decides on the labels.

It's a bit like saying someone who won't put their hand in the fire is a sceptic.

Leave The EU?

Nigel Lawson is being heavily quoted on a recent article of his saying that Britain should leave the EU as the economic case for doing so was now clear. Indeed it is, as it has been since before we joined.

But of course the biggest problem with the EU is a moral one. It is a construct designed to serve an elite against the people, but as ever using their money and labours to ensure their own wealth and status.

In a sane country, powers are given to a government that are essential to the good running of the nation for the good of everyone in that nation. There may not be equality but there should be equality of opportunity. Some checks and balances need to exist to keep the 'executive' on the straight and narrow and to ensure they remember their role.

Our ancestors did a remarkably good job at coming up with some very good balances; Common Law, habeus corpus, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights. Today it is en vogue to say these have been forgotten. They most certainly have not, at least not by the people whom they hold to account. Those people have worked hard to negate the previous good works, to convince you they don't exist or were never a good idea, or even that they needed 'modernising'.

The reason is that they are good government, they serve the people in a society where the people own the law and the state exists to serve them and their law. This does not describe the EU, which is based on the despotic regimes that have caused wars across Europe for centuries. In the situation now taking precedent even here, the state exists as a perfect entity and the people are to serve the state. Everything is illegal unless the state permits it.

For such a system to truly work, the people must have no power and no say, which again is the lines along which the EU is constructed. You may 'elect' MEP's but they don't write the laws and they must keep voting on new laws until they do what the unelected elite wants. At best they only slow things down, they may as well not exist.

In the UK party politics has further eroded any hint of democracy that might have existed. You vote for an MP and when he/she arrives at Westminster they do what the Party leadership tells them. Indeed they could only stand for election because the Party selected them to do so.

Hence Cameron, despite knowing that Wind Farms are a scam, the homosexual marriage laws and his fervour for the corrupt EU are deeply unpopular with most people, he can ignore them to a large extent.  Party based politics is why all the parties have converged in their 'ideas', as getting elected (or conning the public on one particular day, as it should be more correctly called) is all that they are actually interested in.

There is an economic case for leaving the EU, but there is a moral one, a political one, a democratic one, a common sense one, a national sovereignty one and a legal one; it was never in the gift of parliament to join. Under British law, it was illegal for any government to sign the original treaty and it shows how poorly served we have been, over a very long time that no-one has corrected this. This is how long politicians have considered themselves above the law.

When was the last time Cameron told you about some EU law that was coming and there was a public debate about it? No, all we ever hear is that the Daily Mail has 'gone off on one' again, rattling on about some myth about a new EU law. Hoping you won't actually check, as you will find out that, no matter how stupid it might have sounded it will be at least as bad as stated.

Stephen Fry, who has a reputation for being able to understand things, chuckled during a blatant EU supporting QI, that the 'sceptics' even claim there is a law requiring cucumbers to be straight. "No there isn't", he confidently told us. And you know what? There isn't. The law doesn't say they must be straight, it says they mustn't curve much, which presumably on the intellectual plane Stephen inhabits that is entirely different from being straight.

Some of our politicians manage the neat trick of claiming that we are wise in Britain because we didn't join the Euro, but are OK about us being in the EU. So, let me get this straight. The Euro is a crock of shit, as can clearly be seen, but the state controlled political entity of a single European superstate, anti-democratic and Marxist in nature, is a good idea - even though that isn't working either? Did no-one learn anything from the examples of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia?

Friday, 3 May 2013


What to say about the former 'mainstream' parties? Where to start? Calling them names seems to have worked a treat, as did trying to smear UKIP candidates. It merely showed that a win over UKIP on policies was not considered likely.

I think the most obvious problem was highlighted on QT last night. Whilst the politicians on the panel were very careful indeed to sound moderate in their views of UKIP and the predicted swing of votes to them in local elections, they were still missing the point.

All of these politicians spoke of a protest vote and that they must listen to the people more and their concerns. The old 'reconnect' cant. Essentially people inside the bubble think that voters are pretty thick. But I feel that if the general public use local elections, where the voting is less important, to warn national politicians, that it shows the general public to be quite bright.

Anyway, the real problem is, that the panel didn't mean they wanted to address people's concerns, they meant they needed to find a way to gather their votes. There was and is no interest in doing the right thing, just getting into power.

No longer a single policy party, UKIP have latched onto the things that actually matter in this country; immigration, crime, the EU and the climate change scam. Labour and the Conservatives are either supporters of all the preceding list or don't care either way. As ever the Lib Dems are just the slightly batty relation sitting in the corner muttering incredible things.

Actually, the reason the Lib Dems have done so badly is not just they let their supporters down, but that their ideas of what constitutes a policy, long ridiculed have now been thrust into the spotlight as they share power. Something they never envisaged as they thought up strange things to say.

What the politicians need to realise is that it is they, not us who have disengaged from politics. When you let the technocrats of the EU run the country and you just talk amongst yourselves within a bubble,   it should come as no surprise that you lose all credibility.

Refusing to talk about the EU does not make you a world class statesman. Saying that you are a true believer in an obvious scam, to form the 'greenest government ever', just makes you stupid.

UKIP shouldn't ever have presented a threat to anyone. That it does shows how totally useless our 'main' politicians are, how corrupt the party system and how careless politics has become. The 'stupid' man in the street realises what has happened, but will the 'clever' politicians catch up any time soon?

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Prostrate England

It strikes me that a great many things are coming together just now. It is almost as if a whole nation is waking from a long sleep. A sleep during which much evil has been done. That our nation has been much reduced, not by loss of empire, or markets or influence, but by indolence. As we know, for evil to flourish, all that is required is for a good man to do nothing.

We have heard much of the lack of interest in politics of the general public, that there is voter apathy. This is true and it is due to people thinking that things are good enough, life is OK that nothing needs to concern them in the world of politics. But politics is a world of plots and if you are not watching then the worst plots can succeed.

In the seventies people still had something of an education and a sense of personal responsibility. So, having given Labour a chance, as we do from time to time, the country had descended into chaos and financial ruin. It focusses the mind and fed up voters elected Margaret Thatcher, who turned things around and provided that success and stability that let voters doze off.

(Obviously I am talking about the democratic process here, not the communist subversion constantly at work in the background. No-one votes for communists and they have no interest in democracy).

Enter The Chancer. When voter apathy has long set in, a number of possible candidates spring forward to seize power whilst the Watch sleeps, but the key political parties still have an upper hand. Labour were in a wilderness of their own creation and were desperate to find a way back to power. This gave The Chancer his opportunity. That he wasn't a Labour man by conviction is a pointless remark to make as a) traditional Labour policies would get him nowhere and b) The Chancer is not a man of conviction.

Thus, the Labour Party became something completely different; it became a chameleon. Whatever the voter wanted to hear was, coincidently exactly what New Labour were offering. And it wasn't just that Tony Blair, for it was he who was The Chancer, had no intention of fulfilling these promises, he had no interest in politics or implementing policies whatsoever. This can be seen from the enormous number of ridiculous statements he made about new initiatives that never happened.

Blair of course wanted the trappings of power to feed his ego and the opportunities it creates to accrue wealth. He liked ordering people about and being obeyed, he didn't like spending time thinking about things. This lazy, useless group of grasping empty headed vagabonds spent their days selling snake oil, while a now denuded Conservative Party looked for someone to lead them who had the same qualities.

And so came about the final corruption of British politics, under the most venal of men. If ever a soul had been sold to the Devil it was here, then.

All this time of course, unchecked the communists were beavering away in the institutions, undermining the basic fabric of society, whilst rather handily a cabal of cretins, for whom the epithet 'if brains were made of elastic they wouldn't be able to keep their knickers up' was never more apt, was destroying the fabric of democracy.

Now though, as recession brings politics back into focus and people, rather rudely show annoyance at what was done while they decided to pay no attention, many of things are coming to light.

We have fairly regular shootings by the police of people who are either entirely innocent, or where there was no need to shoot, outrage at last, that hospitals are carelessly killing thousands of people, the open discovery of the thieving and corruption of politicians, the extent of paedophile activity within institutions. We see the courts and the police routinely ignoring serious crime and letting off offenders, whilst taking draconian and vindictive measures against the innocent or minor offenders.

Why has all of this, that has been going on for so long, suddenly been brought to light all at once? I think it is because we no longer will allow the 'Establishment' to get away with their cover-ups and lies. Today there must be a reckoning. And not before time. The scale though is shocking. Everywhere a stone is turned we find evil. It seems we may now not let it go. It seems that the communists and their desire to ensure children are as badly educated as possible will not continue.

That the attempts to divide the nation along racial lines will no longer be accepted, as multiculturalism is seen for what it is. The welfare trap to create a class of proles; all of it is coming into bright sunlight. But where do we turn? UKIP may be a funny bunch, but they terrify all the other politicians because they not only have policies that chime with the wants and desires of the population but also that they signal the end of many of the gravy trains on which our current crop ride.

Imagine there is no EU, it's easy if you try. No Global Warming too, above us only sky. All of it, all of it is lies. Lies have little lies upon their backs that bite 'em. And little lies have lesser lies and so on ad infinitum.

The tide is turning.