Monday, 31 December 2007
The first question on hearing the full interview is 'why doesn't David Frost follow up the comment?' Although there's many that say that Bin Laden's dead, but it's the first I've heard of him being murdered. But the even greater question, is why did the BBC cut the reference? The footage is from Al Jazeera, so it's possible the cut was done before the BBC received it. Nevertheless, the question remains: Why? (Hat Tip: The Existentialist Cowboy)
Elsewhere in the big pharma world, it is becoming increasingly clear that the anti-smoking wonder drug Champix is succeeding in more than one way, i.e. causing death by suicide. Oh well, at least lung cancer didn't get them.
Saturday, 29 December 2007
As is often the way, a blog post by someone else sends my mind down a path it wouldn't otherwise tread. In this case Richard Havers' piece on Ethan Russell and the disasterous Altamont Speedway concert got me thinking of the Stones, here playing (or pretending to at least) 'Gimme Shelter' on the Ed Sullivan show. Thankfully for a change, Mick is not wearing a pink leotard or suchlike and manages to keep the lid on his chickory essence dance style.
It's easy to resign oneself to the incremental advance of total control. History, however, teaches what happens when good men do nothing.
In a sane world, such discussions would concern nobody but the unfortunate children of these particular adults, but in the Prussian factory system of today the morons actually have authority over most of the children in the land. In a sane world, someone would explain to them that boys are supposed to run around, grazing knees, climbing trees and fighting with one another - this is what young mammals do. It's called normal behaviour. Instead, these people seek to geld our youngsters, rob them of their gender, belt them into the straightjacket of enforced conformity and passivity, diagnose them with spurious pseudo-quackery, force ritalin down their throats - and then they wonder why, after years of experimentation, these kids leave school more ignorant than when they arrived and psychologically twisted to boot.
To escape from accusations of negativity, I will propose a few solutions: Firstly, abolish the Department of Education and every state-funded authority above county level: Secondly, institute a voucher system, handing power to the parents and breaking open the state school monopoly. Many further actions would be required, mostly at a local level, as the state's role is minimised and its monopoly power smashed into a multitude of pieces. As with so much else, in education the 'experts' are wrong, and we need to strip them of their commissions and send them scurrying back to their ivory towers. The answer lies not in the poetry of Rousseau but the prosaic commoners taking back responsibility for their children's upbringing and their local schools.
Friday, 28 December 2007
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
If you only ever direct one movie, might as well make it a good one, such as Charles Laughton's 'Night of the Hunter', starring Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters and Lillian Gish. A classic thriller, with Mitcham as a psychopathic and criminally-minded preacher, intent on discovering where Winters' dead husband hid the proceeds of a bank robbery, a secret known only to young John and Pearl... Luckily for them, kind-hearted widow Lillian Gish, whilst leaning on Jesus, is shrewd enough to keep a loaded Winchester handy, when the preacher comes a-calling.
Monday, 24 December 2007
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?
Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?
Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.
If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.
Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."
Sojourner Truth, speaking in 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio
Saturday, 22 December 2007
Thursday, 20 December 2007
As usual with Labour, the problems they are addressing are already amply covered by existing laws, but that's never enough for the Government that has created over 3000 new crimes. In the first instance, it has long been an offence to drive dangerously. In the second, the problem, says Harman, is people trafficking and the sex trade, and again there are numerous laws, if they cared to enforce them.
The Government's open borders policy have exacerbated the problem of people trafficking and, in turn, prostitution. In London, foreign gangs control the lion's share of the vice trade, and I'm sure the police leave it alone partly to avoid accusations of 'discrimination.'
The irony is that, for all the many new crimes they have created, hardly a day goes by without reading of a convicted dangerous criminal being released halfway through a paltry sentence and committing another serious crime. One of Labour's great, fatuous slogans was 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.' Unfortunately, the twits never worked out that the causes of crime are criminals.
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
... and the least I can do is post arguably the greatest Christmas tune: the Pogues and Kirsty MacColl's 'Fairytale of New York', especially given the BBC's pathetic and continuing censorship for 'gratuitous vulgarity' - this from the corporation that gave us 'Jerry Springer - the Opera'. Fuck you, BBC, you hypocrit wankers, and (ahem) ... merry Christmas to you all.
Monday, 17 December 2007
Nevertheless, the MSM does its best to ignore the only candidate that promises change, by keeping him off the list in polls, and elsewhere the shadow world ponders putting a bullet in his head, the way they did Bobby, back in '68.
As scheming neocon devil Karl Rove once said: 'Reality is what we say it is," and as the same forces control the MSM, let's hope the grassroots revolution behind the good doctor can prove them wrong. Only time will tell.
Alex expounds his version of socialist history, where horny handed miners fight for gay liberation and dockers struggle for the right to diversity training. He makes no attempt to defend his chosen ideology on economic grounds, and is happy to concede in these terms it doesn't work, but he needs to find a little clear water between himself and his callow adversary, so he makes the latter a blind dogmatist - unlike dear Alex, who is able to discern that there are limits to everything, including free markets.
At one point Alex wants to physically assault the young chap, but holds back, because its not the done thing at a Westminster schmoozathon. Maybe this is how he thinks the working classes act, but he comes over like a public school bully mistreating a junior.
In the end, stripped of its economic policy, with its history utterly falsified, Alex grasps for emotive idealism - his socialism is 'a refusal to accept there is a human scrapheap'. Now, if Alex was working with abandoned kids, or in prison reeducation, you could understand such a sentiment, but what does he do? He hangs around Westminster drinks parties trying to ingratiate himself with the parasite politicians, hoping to get a leg up onto the gravy train, a bourgeouis, free-loading lounge lizard - the very epitome of who the original Labour party saw as the enemy.
Bringing things to a conclusion, Alex tells us: "Politics is a matter of good and evil. This is why I abhor the oxymoron of Christian conservatism," however, if Alex's views are anything to go by, the oxymoron is modern socialism.
Sunday, 16 December 2007
I was writing something on the false left/right paradigm; how the things I objected to under the Tories are no more palatable when served up by Labour; how unappetizing is the election day choice... which reminded me of a certain restaurant.
Now, I class myself as a libertarian, neither left nor right. I view Labour and Tory with equal disdain. If the Tories at present are slightly less offensive, it is due to their lack of power. Although the Tories do sometimes mouth opinions close to mine, I do not delude myself that they will deliver. At best they will stumble along the same path that Labour strides, but the same path nonetheless. They certainly are not going to deliver the root and branch reforms I think are necessary.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that most of my comments on the political landscape in this country are negative. Whether we take the high road or the low road is irrelevant if both lead to Sparta and I want to go to Athens.
As for my own 'obsession' with the tools of an authoritarian state, I do not want any cyanide with my coffee - not even a little bit. My opposition is grounded on pragmatism as well as fundamental principle, the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the word 'obsession' has been selected for re-definition. Perhaps the new definition is 'strongly-held opinion contrary to Government policy.' Professor Tassano should be told.
I suspect the reason behind the anti-bloggertarian broadside was the low morale in Camp Lefty. Having Labour in power has robbed them of their main motivating force. It's far harder to cling to the moral highground when the policies you call for being tried and are failing before your eyes.
So, much as I represent no one but myself and no doubt hold views quite at variance to the targets of the original attack, if only in getting up the noses of lefty doctrinaires, the bloggertarians can't be all bad.
Jens Peter Bonde, the Danish MEP, explains how the new 'reform treaty' is the same as the 'defunkt' Constitution. With the denizens of our moribund democracy more inclined to pick fluff from their navels than dare to question what our 'leaders' are doing, it looks like the Irish referendum is our only hope.
Saturday, 15 December 2007
Polly's happy to concede a few faults from her fellow travellers on the road to utopia:
"My argument with Jack Straw is against the number of despotic gestures made purely to appease public opinion."
So, even when its a Labour Government doing it, the blame lies elsewhere. Jack plays the despot like Pilate washes his hands, a sign of weakness in the face of a baying mob.
She chides against the "silly anti-protest laws that make rather happy martyrs out of mild protesters." No doubt it helps her to think that these people enjoy having their rights infringed. She also ignores the effect of such 'silly' laws on the great many people who do not relish a night in the cells for their troubles, and instead find themselves slowly cowed into silence, keeping dry what little powder they have for the one big issue they can't dodge, whatever that may be, but in the face of the incremental fabian advance, that day may never come.
Polly's never happier than when she's playing on the heartstrings, for this is ever the justification for the authoritarianism she espouses: The state as father-protector. So she digresses into the misery of an underclass, of exploited immigrants, malnourished asylum rejects and struggling families. This done, she can belittle the subject matter in hand: Porter's critique of the Government's stasi-esque tendencies. Well, indeed. People are starving round the world, so why complain of anything?
"The Porter view has become fashionable because it allows the middle classes to pretend to be victims, too."
Notice her phrasing: The view is 'fashionable' by which she slyly acknowledges it is widespread, but it's an affectation, merely something people repeat, a vogue for the shallow middle classes, (Polly's favourite whipping post) eager to enjoy the fruits of victimhood, now thanks to Labour scattered so abundantly. So, the middle classes 'pretend' to be victims, perhaps by 'pretending' to protest, while the police 'pretend' to arrest them. Whilst it would be ridiculous to equate this Government's record with the tyranny of North Korea or Burma, it is indeed a mistake to allow the state to continually encroach into areas where heretofore they had no business. In fact, rather than being an example of 'obsession' to object to omniscient CCTV cameras, DNA databases and ID cards, it is a civic duty to act as a check and balance to the state's propensity to expand.
Polly's enemies are not just reading the Daily Mail, some are reading the Guardian:
"The Porter view turns the state into public enemy number one. That is the traditional rightwing view, but many on the left are buying into this creed of individualism against the collective."
For Polly, believing in individual rights is a rightwing 'creed'. But she's no mug. She knows there are many who consider themselves on the left who have just as strong an aversion to authoritarianism as any on the right. To them comes the message: the collective is the state.
All that's left to do is fling a few more strawmen from the ring. As before she does not attack an opinion she doesn't hold herself, but a mindset. She steps past the political disagreement, and ploughs straight into the (irrational) psychology of those that think differently to her :
"This is the same mindset that sees taxes as an infringement of liberty and an Englishmen's property as his inalienable untaxed castle to hand down, untaxed, to his children."
This is no 'mindset,' merely a knowledge of the laws and traditions of this country. Our liberty was not a gift from this Labour Government or their 'human rights' laws. Limitations on the power of the state predate Parliament. Private property is just that, and is not to be confiscated or trampled upon at the whim of the state or its agents. 'To the king, his own' contains within it the equal meaning 'and he can leave my stuff alone.'
Such ideas have no place in Polly's Prussian wonderland, where there is no such thing as society, only the state, and a belief in individual rights is seen as a psychological flaw. No matter how prettily she embroiders her velvet glove, the system she supports will always need an iron fist beneath it.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Labour Manifesto, 2005 General Election
Fuck your treaty. Kiss my arse. NO REFERENDUM, NO MANDATE!
The suffocating tedium of EU politics is their best weapon. They know if they just keep inching the monolith into place, no matter what the people think, they can weather any storm, such as the rejection of the Constitution by the people of France and the Netherlands and in this country the refusal to honour a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum at all.
So today in Lisbon, the crooks and charlatans of Barosso's Empire will throw a party to celebrate the latest stage of collective treason, another nail in democracy's coffin, another step down the path to the managed society, run by 'experts', not the representatives of the people, chosen by us, accountable to us.
But the fight goes on, for all their intricate structures could be swept away in an instant, if the people actually took the necessary action. This is what elites have always known and feared, and why they have forever laboured to keep the masses cowed, docile and disunited, (the goal of state education, the product of TV and internet porn) and who can deny their success?
Nevertheless, the fight goes on.
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
Climate alarmists have the habit of getting real cranky when you question the Gospel of St Al. Oops, another group of scientists have just clobbered that dead donkey they keep peddling as a racing cert for the 1.15 at Chepstow, namely the 'consensus'.
I guess it's easy to have a consensus if you refuse to debate with anyone that disagrees, indeed label them as latterday heretics. No doubt, in the days of the Inquisition, there was a pretty broad consensus on Catholic theology.
And then comes a night like the last, with Orion, Taurus, Gemini, Leo, both dogs, Saturn and Mars and countless more besides, all to be seen from my balcony.
Don't tell the Government. If they find out how much pleasure can be derived from staring into space, they'll tax it.
Now we have the sickening prospect of our tax money, taken under duress, being divvied up by the major parties, because they can't live within their means or be trusted to obey the law.
The Guardian reports:
"The 170-page report covers every aspect of children's lives from obesity to how they learn to read. With several main points already released to the press, including the extension of free nursery care to two-year-olds and an overhaul of the national curriculum, schools are bracing themselves for a wave of reforms."
Call me an old cynic, but without reading this document I know that it is a fatuous, useless piece of shit, written by wankers and cunts, who think they're experts, but in fact know less than what an illiterate farmer's wife from the Middle Ages forgot on her way to the barn.
These 'educationalists' took over fifty years to begrudgingly admit that their 'whole word' reading policy had been proven to fail. Virtually any parent is better able to teach their child to read than the teaching profession's finest young pioneer. State-controlled schools are the problem. As Bastiat wrote:
"All monopolies are detestable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education."
Monday, 10 December 2007
"Schools train individuals to respond as a mass. Boys and girls are drilled in being bored, frightened, envious, emotionally needy, generally incomplete. A successful mass production economy requires such a clientele. A small business, small farm economy like that of the Amish requires individual competence, thoughtfulness, compassion, and universal participation; our own requires a managed mass of leveled, spiritless, anxious, familyless, friendless, godless, and obedient people who believe the difference between Cheers and Seinfeld is a subject worth arguing about."
John Taylor Gatto - 'The Underground History of American Education' (from the chapter 'Bad character as a management tool'.)
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
These new cops, they don't have to read you your rights, or tell you why you're being arrested. Why, only a subversive would even ask. Isn't it fun to have power? I'm so happy our own police are tooling up with Tasers. Read more here.
Sunday, 2 December 2007
I remember seeing this film years ago. I think I was off school sick, and in my weakened state I found it very touching. 'Melody' from 1971, reuniting Jack Wild and Mark Lester, the Artful Dodger and Oliver respectively from the hit musical, and Tracey Hyde as the eponymous heroine, together with a host of familiar faces in the supporting cast, and portraying a London and a childhood that produces an almost suffocating nostalgia in me. A bit silly, but an oft-overlooked gem.
Sir Josiah Stamp
(1880-1941, one-time director of the Bank of England)
Saturday, 1 December 2007
In a sweeping move planned for next year, the Government is taking control of every nursery in the country through the imposition of a national curriculum for children under five years old. The evil fabians are ready to tighten their grip over those least able to defend themselves.
Not without some resistance: today a campaign was launched, including many top child psychologists to fight back against the nationalisation of toddlers, claiming the prussian-style framework will adversely affect many children. Dr Richard House, one of the group, told the BBC:
"It's just not appropriate to manage everything - this audit mentality is coming into the early years stage and it is going to be disastrous. If the practitioners have to look over their shoulder to tick boxes and are monitoring children, the quality of relating with children could be severely compromised."
None of this is surprising. Children are all different and develop at different rates, and do not develop uniformly. Any parent with more than one child can tell you that. With this new system, each child will be categorised in a hundred different ways, and a stultifying uniformity will be instilled into them all. Any willful infant will be immediately branded as having 'special educational needs' and, if the parents let them, medicated. All this overseen by an army of inspectors, looking for faults, revelling in their new powers.
This is nothing to do with education. They want your children. They want them in the system, fingerprinted, categorised, regimented, and as young as possible. They are scum. Resist them.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Thursday, 29 November 2007
The BBC refers to Edwards as being 'released early', by which they mean two months early, sentences served being automatically half of whatever the prick in a wig said in court.
According to the BBC, a Ministry of Justice (sic) spokesman said:
"Those given a Detention and Training Order of 18 months or more may be eligible for release one or two months early, subject to behaviour whilst in prison and passing a risk assessment."
Edwards admits manslaughter, but is on trial for murder, and stands alone in the dock. But where are all the others, such as the professionals who did his risk assessment, and decided he passed? Why aren't they alongside him?
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
At this point, people immediately start splitting into two factions: those that say 'how disgraceful that two men died over some paltry material possessions', and the others that say 'the burglars brought it on themselves, and even if we may not have reacted in the same way, the guy did no wrong'. The first group will point at the high number of gun deaths in Texas. The second will say 'yeah, but burglaries are down.'
Few English people will ever face the moral dilemma that this Texan faced, because we have some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, illustrated welll by the ludicrous situation of our multiple medal winning shooting team have to leave the country to train, and the Government having to enact special legislation to allow these events to take place at the 2012 London Olympics. Some would have it that it's a good thing – including a lot of burglars no doubt. Nevertheless many people still do hold firearms, quietly, peacefully and without going on killing sprees.
The anti-gun nuts have the idea that if people had a right to own firearms for self-defence, this would invariably lead to some kind of mass homocidal hysteria, with every minor altercation descending into a Sam Peckenpah style bullet-fest. They can't accept the obvious fact that an ordinary person will treat a gun with the utmost responsibility, in the same way that an ordinary person drives a car and manages to do so without ploughing into the nearest bus stop full of people even though they could.
Of course, to help the anti-gunners there are the rare but terrible occasions when legally-owned guns are used to murder people, and the argument goes that to reduce the chance of this we all must be disarmed, ignoring the counter-charge that a crazy killer could be stopped in their murderous tracks by a gun-owning citizen, before the police have even been called. However, this only looks at what is seen, ignoring what is unseen, namely the crimes that would never happen because, for the criminal, the minor threat of arrest and a judicially-sanctioned slap on the wrist would be superceded by a very real chance of being shot dead in the middle of a crime. What a pleasant change it would be to read in the papers, instead of 'Police hunt vicious rapist', 'Woman shoots attempted rapist.'
None of this touches on the real reason for us being disarmed, the threat an armed populace poses to what the UN calls the state's 'legitimate monopoly on power' (sic) - the very thing the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was written to prevent.
To be continued...
(Find the rest on you tube: type 'Gilda entire movie')
Monday, 26 November 2007
Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't. It's a simple enough concept, and it applies equally to those you agree with and those you don't. On these grounds, those opposed to the Oxford Union's decision have a right to voice that opposition, but if they succeed through violence, real or threatened, to prevent something billed as a discussion of freedom of speech, all they'll do is hand the moral victory to their designated enemies.
Voltaire's attitude, attributed in the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", is a perfect summation of the principle that should govern social discourse.
Friday, 23 November 2007
Monday, 19 November 2007
The wheel of history turns full circle, as we now learn the Feds are following in Dillinger's footsteps and robbing banks themselves, in this case the Liberty Dollar, a private currency bank which mints coins in precious metals and issues reserve notes backed by gold and silver. This is a wholly legal practice, and no different from a shop selling gift vouchers. But the criminals at the Federal Reserve don't like competition to their fiat money, it seems, and for whatever reason the FBI has raided and seized the Liberty Dollar's gold, silver and pretty much everything that wasn't nailed to the floor.
The decision to commit this flagrant crime seems to have been motivated by the Liberty Dollar's issuance of coins with Ron Paul's image on it. Ron Paul is well-known for his desire to close down the unconstitutional Federal Reserve (see Dr Paul versus Fed Chairman Bernanke here).
The US authorities' disregard for the rule of law, as evidenced in this raid, poses a threat out of all proportion to that posed by amateur outlaws like Dillinger. Let's hope there is still some common sense in the legal system and the Feds will be held to account.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
There's no maybe.
What better indication could there be of the peril faced by the Constitutional Republic than the news that Blackwater mercenaries will soon be deployed across America? Using the murderous skills they have honed in Iraq, Blackwater may soon be kicking down doors and terminating Americans with the same extreme prejudice they have expressed elsewhere, in the "war on drugs".
With the safeguards of the Posse Comitatus Act now lying in tatters, and the recent sighting of these hired guns amidst the carnage of post-Katrina New Orleans, let us hope that enough Americans wake up before it's too late.
The EU Referendum blog is usually the place to check on the latest manifestations of the beast of Brussels, but in a recent post entitled "Meet the real boss" the writer seemed to rush past something of great significance, in order to score a point against the Eurodrones.
As the piece explains, new EU regulations regarding coaches and trucks originate not with Barroso's mandarins, but from higher up the chain of command, The United Nations Economic Commission.
EU Ref uses this issue to attack as fallacious the argument that a Britain independent of the EU would have comply with EU regulations just the same as now but, à la Norway, with no seat at the negotiating table. Au contraire, it argues, because Britain has a seat at the UN table above it.
The problem with both situations is that our sovereignty is being destroyed. If you oppose this being done by the EU, I see no reason to celebrate it being done by the UN.
Coming from a Labourite family, it was some years following her departure from office before I was prepared to countenance Thatcher's good points. To my mind, the best she got was "The Bruges Speech", which, together with her famous "no, no, no!" in Parliament (see edited version below), led directly to the pro-EU plot that brought her down, as Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech indicates.
Cringing EU-sycophant blogger Nosemonkey described the original speech thus: "The moment when Maggie Thatcher allowed her (entirely understandable) irritation with the then EEC to bubble over into hyperbole and hysteria back in 1988." Amongst his commenter chums, no one is likely to challenge this characterisation, although I doubt he could point to a single line in the speech to justify a charge of hyperbole or hysteria.
Rather than that, she set out her vision of Britain's place in a Europe which included cities like Prague and Budapest, still separated by the Iron Curtain. She explained what she thought the future direction of 'the project' should be, and why she favoured a Europe of independent nation states working together, rather than the bureaucratic behemoth of Brussels, which sadly has grown ever-larger since then.
With this speech and her stance in Parliament, her fate was sealed in the eyes of Delors and his British conspirators. Reviewing her performance in Parliament in the light of what has since come to pass, it is not difficult to understand why she had to go.
In another step towards the Total Control Grid, our illegitimate masters are imposing internal passports upon us. As with the usual modus operandi, they plan to start in a small way, with travel between the Mainland and Northern Ireland, before extending it to all forms of transport. Parliament will not be consulted, as the plan will be implemented with a 'statutory instrument.'
According to Tony Bunyan, of civil liberties organisation Statewatch: "The Government is using the fear of terrorism to build up an apparatus of far-ranging social control that allows them to build up a complete picture of our lives."
Exactly. These people are fascist scum. They have no conception of the principle of individual liberty or of limiting the power of the state. They will not stop by themselves. We must stop them.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
The Government likes to talk about it's 'red lines' - imaginary areas that it guards valiantly from the encroaching EU superstate, whilst tranferring all the real decision-making ability to EU institutions. One of those red lines is the military, so it's interesting to see the vile David Miliband giving a speech about the need for the EU to be a military block.
According to the Guardian: He will argue the EU faces a choice. It can "focus on internal not external challenges; institutions rather than ideals. Face losing our hard power by not being prepared to intervene".
These interventions would guard against: A risk that instead of European rules shaping the world, "we return to power politics and an age of disorder".
Furthermore: He will say that while nation states are too small to influence worldwide issues, and global governance is too weak, the EU is big enough to meet the new threats.
It's clear from these statements that the future EU is not intended to be a mere economic power but a military one, which is what the pro-independence movement has been telling y'all for a long time, and our political class continue to deny even as they confirm it in such speeches as Miliband's today.
Sunday, 11 November 2007
For me, Remembrance Day is a time for private reflection, to think of those in my family who were called to defend this country, and pay my respects to them. This is not a day, in my calendar, for great patriotic sentiment, especially because of the origins in the 1918 armistice, the end of a war which destroyed the best part of a generation of this country's men, and for what? It is a day to mourn, not celebrate.
Meanwhile the politicians step slowly in dark suits, bow their heads, stand with moist eyes and talk of the bravery of others, while grieving soldiers' widows live in conditions that would shame a prison, and men who gave their health, if not their lives, scarred physically and mentally, sleep in the streets or in dirty hostels, neglected.
Only today, the papers tell of our Ministry of Defense taking every effort to prolong the case of the Christmas Island atomic bomb test veterans, knowing full well how many have died, able to calculate how many more will die before they finally admit what has been clear since the days of Marie Curie, that radiation causes cancer and other health problems besides. Yet, with disregard for the ex-servicemen who their predecessors exposed to deadly radiation, they field their lawyers to obfuscate, without a shred of decency, and is it not ever the way?
So, let us remember the common soldier, sailor and airman, and their quiet heroism, but also curse the masters of war, for whom we are all just pawns on a chessboard and the politicians mere knights and bishops.
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Thursday, 8 November 2007
From the website's synopsis:
Three and a half years in the making, the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA.
American Drug War shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just drug pushers and dope fiends, but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some 'pro-drug' stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Of course, this could be represented as the twisted schadenfreude of a lowly, isolated boonie, ploughing a solitary furrow, whose blog readership would struggle to hit double figures if I counted in binary. So, I better offer some justification.
Firstly, their comments policy states:
"Please don’t be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’. That is most definitely not the case."
No, people, you can't be nasty, because Liberal Conspiracy wants "to foster a culture of constructive comments", which means, essentially they only want to debate with people who identify with their fabian ideology.
Fuck that. Even knowing that it'll sometimes go too far, it's better to argue freely than to pansy around trying to be 'constructive'. If somebody's erecting a monstrosity, tearing it down and stomping it into the dust is constructive! The swift result of such a policy is to curtail free expression, and without that, what's the point of blogging? So, I expect everyone will end up scurrying off to their own blogs and having the real discussions there.
Also, although the idea of getting a load of people together is appealing, there are disadvantages. Firstly, there are limits to how big a blog can be, before it ceases to be a place of discussion. Corporate sites such as the BBC have commenting facilities, but because of the large number of comments, there's not much interaction between the commenters, in my experience, and who can be bothered, or even has the time, to read through hundreds of comments? The best blogs, I think, have a relatively small number of regulars, with their own idiosyncrasies and in-jokes, without becoming too cliquey so as to deter new entrants.
The main problem for the Lib Con site, is that there really isn't much common ground between leftwing people and true liberals, especially under a Labour Government noted for its illiberality. They may agree on particular issues, such as opposing the Iraq invasion - so do I - but you're either one or the other, leftwing or liberal, and leftwingers will always reach for the statist solution to any problem, being control-freaks at heart. They know that freedom can be abused, and it terrifies them. They also fail to understand a distinction between society and the state, and by and large, they'll always fall into line with Labour when push comes to shove.
The fault-line between the two camps that Lib Con wishes to unite is already in evidence over the recent smoking ban, and the intellectual atmosphere is summed up for me by this comment:
"I find it slightly disheartening to find this subject being discussed on this site so soon after its inception. This is a subject where opinion will never divide along left/liberal, right/conservative lines. As such, any site whose objective is to help set a left wing agenda should avoid it like the plague. The smoking ban will always divide rather than unite left/liberal opinion, and cause us to waste time endlessly going round in circles when there are more important issues to discuss. I do have strong views on the subject, but really don’t think this is the place."
A number of things jump out from this statement, such as; that the site's objective is to help set 'a left wing agenda', not a 'left/liberal' agenda; issues which are likely to prompt argument, rather than cozy consensus should not be raised; that the site is not the place for strong views. So, it seems the 'conspiracy' is to be one of silence.
At heart, rather than an intellectual position, my libertarian outlook derives from an irrational, visceral dislike of being told what to do, and likewise I don't want to impose my views on everyone else, so although there'll always be negative things, there'll never be much positive I can agree upon with self-declared leftwingers.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
My favourite part involves an encounter in a bathroom between the masterful Jack Nicholson and a certain gentleman. For the audience and Jack alike, the penny drops about the same moment who he's talking to... but I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone.
Monday, 5 November 2007
And so it comes as no surprise that the Tory candidate who dared mention that man has chosen his right to free speech above his political ambitions and resigned. Indeed the deadly phrase 'Enoch was right' is treated in much the same way as an outbreak of foot and mouth.
At the time of the last laboratory escape I decided to expose myself to the infamous 'rivers of blood' speech, to see what all the fuss was about. The speech was prompted by the Race Relations Act that the Wilson government was pushing through, which Powell saw as undermining the principle of equality before the law, but he focuses on the issue of immigration, or rather the volume of immigration, which he saw would dramatically change the country.
Now of course, those that detest the man are forever telling us that immigration has indeed transformed the nation. The difference between their view and Enoch's is in whether it is a good or a necessary thing. They tell us we should love this transformation - forty years on. Back then they denied it was even happening.
And so, yet again we are subjected to our mainstream politicians pretending to discuss immigration, putting in place all the sub-clauses - the denial of racism, the great benefits to the economy etc, like a drinking game, where if they miss one they'll have to down two fingers of brandy, before even uttering a word on the issue itself, usually ending with the self-justicatory declamation that if they don't talk about it, then others will, and we all know who they are, don't we?
Personally, I think Enoch Powell expressed the feelings (note: feelings) of a great many people. Sitting on a train or bus in your own city surrounded by foreign people speaking foreign languages is an alienating experience. I also think that ten years ago the people of this country of all backgrounds were finally finding some common ground, and that the mass immigration since then has reopened old wounds. As someone once said, about something else, 'you can't make soup if you keep pouring in cold water', and this multicultural broth we are being spoon-fed is very thin indeed.
Friday, 2 November 2007
Labour's out-riders at the Institute of Public Policy Research have produced a report calling for various abominations, such as 'birth ceremonies', where the state and parents agree to 'work in partnership' to bring up children.
I find it hard to imagine anything more chilling. For years, the state has been trying to get hold of children earlier and earlier. With this in place, where will they go next? Do they want to oversee the conception as well, to make sure no 'health and safety' rules are infringed?
If this doesn't start ringing alarm bells in your head, check your pulse - you may be clinically dead.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
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.