Big Beast Boris's Burqa

You measure a man by what he does rather than what he says. Being completely gender non-specific (rather than fluid, a non-existent type), Theresa May has rather proved that point. Boris has his heart in the right place, but is a bit inept when trying to play political games. Now, whilst that might suggest he is ill suited to politics, this would only be correct if you believe the sole purpose of politics is to corrupt the meaning of words, rather than sometimes manipulating.

As such he has an appeal to the ordinary voter, precisely because he doesn't seem like the machine politician with which our parliament is very much plagued. In that regard, we emulate the US, but perhaps without quite the flamboyance. But isn't it ever this way between us and the USA?

In the extraordinarily closed world of the Westminster bubble this is something that is understood, even if the general workings of the world outside the bubble is magnificently beyond their recognition.

When I was being obliged to sit still, face the front and listen, I was given history as it was instinctively taught within the British culture. When the story of the peasants revolt was told to me, what actually sank into my consciousness was, that the people had become fed up with the way those in charge ran things. Sure there was detail, but it was the overview, the impact at a subconscious level amongst those peasants that was what I understood.

We have the same today with the decision to leave the European Union, a vanity project of shining hubris, too bright for anyone to see. Except the we-own-the-law, different old British. When Ted Heath lied with great passion about how happy he and a bunch of other blithering idiots would be, if only he could be allowed to join and be a part of this lovely edifice, we obliged his whim. A bureaucrats wet dream.

As loving, obliging parents we let him have his way and in an almost patronising way ignored the politicians playing with their tea set, dolls house, train set and cars for decades, in the firm belief that 'Europe' was over there and of no consequence, really, to us. It didn't matter. Nobody knew or cared who 'their' MEP was, what they did or even bothered to vote in Common Market, EEC, EC, EU elections.

And in this way the British were the ideal dupes dreamt of by the founders of the Project; the people had to be kept in the dark, the mission of the Project had to be kept from them. After all, like full blown Communism, who in their right mind ever voted for that? And European history is full enough of revolutions (or in Britain petitions), to suggest care and secrecy were needed.

If you are old enough to have lived some decades under the EU, ask yourself a question; can you remember ever hearing a debate about the EU? You can't, because (as with Man Made Global Warming) you got lots of instructions about how important it was (that was actually propaganda), but no unbiased information and certainly no debate.

The truth is dangerous to any organisation that is really, at root a bunch of international gangsters.Empire builders by the back door. Consider, why are we so afraid of the consequences of leaving the EU? Sure the detail would be messy, like any cancer, it seeks to spread throughout your system, but really it is because we know, we have seen that the EU cannot be trusted. It is not a machine based on logic and it certainly has no intention of allowing International Law to interfere in its malice (Sudetenland, anyone?)

So, the actual objection, the reason why Britain still managed, despite a long time under incessant propaganda, to vote down the EU membership, was because at a visceral level we just knew it was a wrong 'un. Maybe in these deliberately uneducated times, you need to look to the American Constitution to understand the true British character, the way we do government, because it was based on British constructs. Magna Carta means more to them than us, because we have been told that freedom doesn't matter any more.

But the reason we left the burgeoning empire of the EU, was the same as for the Americans. They did not seek to break with Britain and initially the broad feeling was that injustice must be dealt with as a detail, no greater change was required. But, imperial and impervious the upstarts had to be ignored. And so they proved that another course was open to them.

But they still continued to base their lives and laws on what they knew and what worked; British law and custom. 'We the people' is a great start to any sweeping document of state and it cannot be said too often that Britain evolved (through some trial and error) the best system of government in an imperfect world. We own the law and our politicians fear the people. In the EU, the State owns the law and the people need to fear their government.

The biggest mistake? Drawing attention to the EU. Once we started looking at what they were up to, what they stood for, what they did and intended to do it became inevitable that we would revolt (or, send in a petition). And we did. 52 to 48% is a decent difference and remember, for once a lot of people voted. That it was not wider is entirely due to the success of the weakening of our education system, but enough traditional British grit remained.

But then, in all the agonised ranting about how damaging leaving a bureaucrats paradise will be, we forget that the very act of being subsumed by the EU was illegal. Sure we talked of 'joining', but when you are handing political and economic power to a foreign government, it mirrors the way Poland 'joined' Germany in 1939.

No British government has that power, that authority and yet Ted Heath did it. The Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath. And what mocking irony it is that, at the denouement of our dalliance with corruption, we should be under the 'guidance' of such a similar creature, the British Prime Minister Theresa May. Ted Heath lied shamelessly to get us in and Theresa May is lying just the same, to keep us in.

There used to be a fire safety advert that ran 'Get out, stay out and get the Brigade out', which is excellent advice regarding the EU (though here it would be the Brigade of Guards).

So, all the confected outrage about Boris and some misquotes about what he said and intended, is actually about how scared a bunch of ne'er do well politicians are of Boris Johnson and the likelihood that he would do a proper job of Brexiting. The Burqa is peculiar, it's like a bag and it is a symbol of the beginnings of extremist attitudes. We would do well to heed wise words.

Another Killer Muslim

Sorry, a deliberate headline to infuriate. Did you leap to conclusions, based on your own prejudice? Adrian Elms converted to Islam and as a result of the Muslims he came in contact with (who sought to influence him), drew him to kill innocent people indiscriminately.

He wasn't involved in international terrorism as a senior police officer jumped to judge. He was a Muslim when he decided to murder. But, that doesn't mean Islam is our enemy. It is a religion that has held back many countries around the world, being a faith of political control. Particularly here in the UK, Muslims can join a tolerant society and blend with people of all faiths and backgrounds. Where they choose not to, they allow evil people to use the cover of their religion to harm them and us.

Integration works exceptionally well, placing responsibilities on both sides and requiring an acknowledgement that British values must be shared. Ken Livingstone, despite being keen on creating division to further his political ends, said that Muslim Londoners will be horrified by what happened in Westminster. In correctly so doing, he accidentally agreed that integration was crucial.

Let us not be blinded by a tunnel vision towards communities refusing to integrate and speak English etc, to the failings of people paid to look after us. The Left-liberal weaklings, useful idiots to Marxists trying to undermine Western democracy, have for far too long held sway, fearing to act in a balanced and unbiased way, paving the way to extremist violence.

Tony Blair surrendered to the IRA, so why shouldn't political activists, who also happen to be Muslims, use violence to find another weakling to surrender to them? That they have such limited support that the best they can do is get loners and misfits to do their murderous bidding, is all the proof we need that we are not fighting Islam, but murderers who happen to be Muslims.

What success they have had here to date is massively due to the insidious creep of the Left, destroying our society and capitalism in particular. The weak, lying, scared senior policemen. Politicians who keep saying the 'extreme Right' are a significant threat and that their assertion that Muslims are the enemy is unacceptable. Except there is no real 'extreme Right-wing violence'. No-one who has considered what is happening conflates a killer who is a Muslim, into all Muslims being killers.

Yet this accusation is often repeated by normal people gulled into parroting Marxist tosh, and further reinforces the pathetic policeman in refusing to prosecute crimes by 'minorities'. Instead, they need to be rooting out the people who whisper venom into the ears of the easily confused, turning them into murderers.

Find the base, the root cause and deal with it. But so far the 'authorities' remain in thrall to finding spooks everywhere but hiding within Muslim communities. Where the evil men hide.

Finally, whilst deploring the snowflake generation as they continue their virtue-signalling after atrocities, I do actually think the image of Muslim women standing hand-in-hand on Westminster bridge was quite useful. Pathetic that they should feel they have to do that, but powerful in saying 'Adrian Elms is not one of us'. Which of course, he wasn't.

Cameron and War

In a slight twist to the US 'War on Terror' David Cameron has said recently, that he has identified the goings on in Iraq as having the potential to threaten us here in the UK.

He seems to mean that the people currently beheading and murdering their way around the Middle East may decide they don't like us and attack the West, including Britain. This makes me wonder if he saw the attacks on New York on the news. It was a while ago now, perhaps he has forgotten.

Then there have been the odd hopeless attempts to blow people and stuff up here. And the fact that so many of the nutters in this organisation called Islamic State (although that may have changed again by now) are from Britain.

Our country is in danger and has been for some time, from an ideology (not a specific, regional organisation) and that ideology is a branch of Islam. It is a totalitarian order in the mould of the Nazis and Soviet Russia, which is perhaps why it has the backing of the Left here in Britain.

If Cameron or any of the lightweights masquerading as politicians these days, actually wanted to protect this country they would recognise the truth in this and identify, openly the real enemy. Then start dealing with it here, by getting rid of those who live here, but claim to hate us.

We should also stand up for ourselves against the childish rantings of the Left. Their support for the rise in anti-semitism is akin to the early days of Hitler and is being used by the Left to achieve the same things. By acting like nice guys we are letting thugs, murderers and their political acolytes rage around us. We cannot wait until it is too late.

Why exactly the Left think they can use Muslims to help overthrow Western capitalism and then step in to run things as a totalitarian state themselves, I have no idea. Thinking as they do suggests they are thick and/or evil, but do they really think the totalitarian theology will stand aside for them? They hate you too, you idiots!

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'.

Useful Idiots

It strikes me that, whilst much of what the Left does is destructive but hidden behind a plausible gloss, that this is not what the Left is about. You might consider revolution (in the real sense, not the pathetic, adolescent meaning the Left have) the ultimate expression of democracy. The will of the people and all that.

But, although the Left don't want any truck with the tenets of democracy, I believe they are well aware of the power of the people and manipulate it to avoid any 'revolution'. This requires lying and extreme actions to mislead. An example of course is the EU. Its goal is to create a non-democratic single superstate. This has always been its goal and it has always worked towards it, constantly seeking 'ever closer union' by tying together political and financial systems under central control.

That very few people seem to realise this is the goal of the EU is because the EU knew, from the outset that they had to hide their ambitions. Clearly they knew that what they wanted was not what the people wanted.

The Left relies to a very great extent on 'useful idiots'. These are people who go along with all kinds of dangerous notions because they fail to understand what is really going on.

Let me give you an example. Homosexual marriage. This is necessary to cure a terrible evil in society, right? Hardly. It is like a child not getting the sweets it likes. But the sense of victimisation, risen to outrage wherever possible is driven by Left activists. Their goal is to destabilise Western democracy and ultimately overthrow capitalism to be replaced by their pure communist rule.

The homosexual community is being used as useful idiots. Much as also are those who support the racism industry and political correctness. Racism of course, doesn't exist in anything like the manner or scope that you are continually assured it does. It is kept alive by people such as the race relations and equality bodies in government and charities. These organisations endlessly promote 'difference' and insist people remember their 'roots'.

By being divisive in this way they ensure friction. Multiculturalism as a creed is again merely designed to undermine a society; it could hardly do otherwise. It is not about tolerance, that is achieved in completely different ways and is a two way street, but instead creates fear and 'victims'.

Political Correctness is a device to help cover the tracks of Left attacks on society. If there are things you 'cannot say' then debate has been effectively closed down. And it works, both as a weapon and as an infection. If you want to see the proof watch any broadcast of 'Question Time'. Here you will see ranks of well meaning, educated people spouting arrant nonsense that they have been fed by the Left, at school and at college and university. These are places the Left target as the people in them are impressionable and are pathologically inclined to believe in utopian ideals.

It is a very broad subject and affects our society at every level, representing a threat to us of far greater magnitude than ever did Osama bin laden. Radical Islam is a violent arm of an attempt to impose an authoritarian, elite led government, so the Left are trying, via  a different, less obvious route to achieve the same.

I think we have rather forgotten (and probably been helped by the Left infiltrated education system) exactly what the Left proposed when ideas were openly stated and debated. Communism is about a society where the creation of wealth is controlled and the distribution of that wealth is also centrally controlled. Obviously you are supposed to concentrate on the 'fairness' of this system 'to each according to need' rather than the inability of such systems to create wealth and more particularly who, exactly, these people are who will control the system.

It would be reasonable to ask why do the Left need to operate in the shadows. Well, clearly some of their aims are likely to frighten the horses (in an Animal Farm kind of way) but also because they cannot even win a debate. Consider, which would you rather have Roosevelt's America or Stalin's Russia?

Sure capitalism is imperfect but it isn't a system designed to benefit the few. Stepping around the usual Left accusation about the rich and the poor, how many people in America are above subsistence level? And how many people have been forcibly starved to death? How many sent to concentration camps for opposing murders by the state? The authoritarian state of the Left is trying by stealth to subvert Western civilisation and is succeeding.

It is common to understand that Stalin and those like him in the USSR ruled by terrorising the population into obedience. Think where this is happening now, where people need to live in fear of the state. The EU have xenophobia laws that are designed to make objection to the EU itself an offence. And in Britain we have more petty rules that impinge on daily life. Speed cameras are a particular mechanism for this. It is a 'technical' offence only, but is always enforced, even where no suggestion of harm exists. Indeed, local authorities often try to bias the use of these cameras by changing road speed limits for no other reason.

Police like to say, 'it is 30 for a reason'. If a policeman says this to you, ask what the reason is. He won't know. To say that it is an arbitrary speed limit for general safety, completely undermines a machine being able to 'punish' the breach of this rule, because it breaks the basis of good law. That it should meet the need for which it was designed. Sometimes, 34mph just doesn't matter. But the idea is to make you feel helpless. Under the control of authority. Comply at all times.

In fact, if the Left were to have a truthful motto, that they could openly state that reflected their objective, it would be 'resistance is futile'. But it isn't and we must.