Monday, March 30, 2015

Patriotism Is No Longer The Preserve Of Racists And The 'Far Right'

With election campaigns gathering speed on both sides of the Atlantic, the long suffering electorates of both countries are being force fed hypocrisy and doublespeak on a massive scale.

Modern day elections are no longer fought on the campaign trail where candidates engage the electorate on their doorsteps or by debating their policies at open public meetings; they are won by the party with the slickest media campaigns where actual policies are replaced by mudslinging and the demonising of political opponents.

Dedicated grass roots party activists have been replaced by expensively recruited PR professionals, advertising executives and image consultants who design media campaigns based on information supplied by political scientists using information from pollsters and focus groups.

Proof of this perversion of democracy is not difficult to highlight. One would think that after a five year Parliament the current representatives would know exactly the issues that are of most concern to their constituents and therefore campaign accordingly.

In Great Britain at least, the days when politicians listened to their constituents and represented them in Parliament are long gone. Expensive foreign PR consultants are deigned to be better equipped to write manifestos and decide what's best for the people.

David Cameron's Conservative Party has hired Australian Lynton Crosby, a professional PR man, as their top election strategist.

Ed Miliband's Labour Party have hired American David Axelrod, President Obama's PR man, as their election strategist.

Nick Clegg's ridiculously named Liberal Democrat Party have engaged, as opposed to hired, a South African PR man named Ryan Coetzee. While the other two parties are paying their PR men out of party funds, the Liberal Democrats are re-charging the taxpayer for the services of Mr. Coetzee.

The idea that an Australian, an American and a South African are best qualified to articulate the hopes and aspirations of the British people is absurd. They are hired as propagandists to convince the electorate by fair means or foul, mainly foul, that the politicians are on their side when they are so obviously not.

As far as the British election is concerned, what should have been a straight forward excersise for the PR men in obfuscation and election bribery has been thrown into confusion by the rise of non-establishment parties, namely the United Kingdom Independent Party, known as UKIP, the Green Party and the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.

The Greens and the Nationalists have their niches of support but it is UKIP that is causing the most consternation in the ivory towers of the establishment party elites.

After decades of sovereignty stripping, oppressive regulations and unrelenting looting of taxpayers money by the European Union bureaucrats, along with their policy of open border mass immigration, has resulted in a trickle of support for UKIP becoming a flood.

The UKIP message is simple: Great Britain should be a self-governing, sovereign nation as opposed to a chattel of the Soviet style EU. The British people should resume control over their borders and adopt a points based managed immigration system as opposed to the current free for all madness. British values should be paramount, with British culture unashamedly celebrated as opposed to being suppressed.

Up until the surge of support for UKIP, the three legacy parties used their long established strategy of insult and smear, accusing UKIP and its supporters of being racist and members of the 'far right'.

David Cameron lowered the tone of the debate, tarnishing the office of Prime Minister in the process, by accusing multitudes of decent British citizens of being "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" because they love their country and prefer it to be sovereign.

As the election campaign progresses and support for UKIP holds firm, it would appear that controlling immigration with a view to reducing the numbers, clamping down on EU regulations, returning some sovereignty to Parliament, teaching British values in schools and celebrating British culture is commendable after all.

The foreign PR men of the three establishment parties have decided that 'multi-culturalism' is not that hot after all and patriotism is no longer the preserve of racists and the 'far right'.

The pollsters and the focus groups confirm that UKIP's pro-British policies are resonating with the electorate and therefore, guided by their PR machines, the politicians have adopted the position that what was thoroughly despicible yesterday can be celebrated as laudable today.

In reality what is thoroughly despicable is the hypocrisy and base behavior of an untrustworthy political class that knows no shame and which is devoid of ethics, principle or any trace of decency.

A pox on all of them.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Segregation - Ethnic Communities Demand The Return Of Apartheid

Warnings that imported ethnic communities in Great Britain and America would eventually demand separate, self governing  areas were not only ignored by the advocates of 'multi-culturalism', they also saw fit to demonise, smear and vilify the messengers.

It's worth noting that the same people who are currently caving in to the demands for segregation in Great Britain and America were the most outspoken when it came to apartheid in Southern Africa.

When one looks back at recent history it's hard to find a political cause that was as widely supported and celebrity patronised than the Anti-Apartheid movement of the sixties, seventies and eighties.

Ignoring his well recorded past as a communist, a terrorist and a wife beater, Princes, politicians and publicity seeking pop stars alike joined the undignified scramble for the ultimate photo opportunity with the adopted symbol of their cause, Nelson Mandela.
(It would appear that the policy of not negotiating with terrorists has its exceptions when one assumes moral superiority with respect to civil conflict but I digress)

In order to understand the scale of the hypocrisy concerning modern day segregation a very brief recap of history would be apt.

Bringing to an end white rule in Africa was the priority for the global elites who committed themselves to re-ordering the post war world. This re-ordered world was to be based on equality of nations and people regardless of ethnicity, culture or religion.

Imposing an integrated, multi-cultural, borderless world, governed by themselves of course, where inequality is removed as a cause of conflict was - and still is - their ultimate goal.

This is all very Utopian but the inconvenient truth is that some nations, religions, ethnic groups and cultures are more advanced than others and as a consequence they will be more prosperous and therefore unequal.

To overcome this and impose equality, a program of de-civilisation was instigated using mass immigration from the third world into the developed world combined with a media campaign to smear anyone who objected. With the connivance of the current leaders of the civilised world, along with the the UN/EU, this process is on-going to this day with visibly disastrous consequences.

To the world leaders of the day, buoyed up by cynical opportunists and unscrupulous celebrities who jumped aboard the anti-apartheid bandwagon, the policy of white imposed separate development was more than abhorrent, it was the epitome of all evil.

Interminable UN resolutions combined with campaigns of civil disobedience, sporting boycotts, sanctions, disinvestment and much more were employed to end segregation and impose a so called "multi-cultural rainbow nation".

To the chagrin of the anti-apartheid movement and the sanctimonious advocates of a mythical integrated 'multi-cultural society', the ending of white rule in South Africa has been a violent, blood drenched disaster for all ethnicities, religions and cultures. This proves beyond doubt that the ideal of ending white rule took priority over the wellbeing of the South African people.

Also, to their chagrin, it is not white people who are refusing to integrate into their 'multi-cultural societies' and who are agitating for segregation, it is the different ethnic groups, religions and cultures that are flooding into the developed world in their millions determined to, encouraged even, to remain culturally isolated.

The high profile ant-apartheid movement that agitated for decades to end segregation in South Africa is conspicuous by its absence as Great Britain and America are carved up along ethnic/religious/cultural lines.

Where once there was a noisy reception for anyone associated with segregation or the South African regime there is only a deafening silence.

In England there are calls for black only schools because cultural incompatibility is causing a disparity in educational achievement.

In some parts of London housing developments have been built for black tenants only.

In Enfield, North London, "whites not welcome" graffiti was sprayed at a Primary school.

In the English midlands a white family moving into a housing development has been threatened on the grounds that its "for black sisters and brothers" only.

The former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, is lamenting the fact that Great Britain is 'sleepwalking into segregation where communities are living parallel lives but he is ignoring the fact that it is at the behest of his own black community.

One journalist is even claiming that "ethnic minorities deserve safe spaces without white people".

There is no bigger example of apartheid and separate development than the hundreds of Muslim only areas administered by shariah law where medieval cultural practices are performed with impunity and where the anti-apartheid zealots remain silent.(See here)

How things change as the years go by; the current British government and its establishment, filled to the gunwales no doubt with anti-apartheid zealots from the past, are too addicted to political correctness to stop segregation and are now actually funding it.

One is bound to ask the question why, if ethnic minorities dislike Great Britain and its people to the extent they want to institute apartheid and live separate lives, why on earth to do they bother making the journey to this damp, windswept island in the north Atlantic often from more desirable locations and why the agitators from the past remain silent?

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Hope And Change Kenya Style - Yes We Can!

Much political capital was made during the 2008 Presidential election campaign about the links between President Obama and Africa on account of his father being Kenyan. His political opponents claim that although they were estranged, and in order to secure the non-white vote, candidate Obama successfully passed himself off as an African-American even though he is of mixed race due to his white mother.

These same detractors also claim that his links to Africa, tenuous as they may have been, were exploited in order to seduce low information voters into believing they were making history by electing the first African-American president.

In other words they are claiming that an upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii followed by a life in Chicago, his links both emotional and cultural to Africa are manufactured for image and electoral purposes, therefore they can be discounted. Any student of post colonial Africa will confirm that this is foolishly incorrect.

To anyone who has any knowledge or experience in East Africa, especially Kenya, the parallels between how these governments operate and the Obama administration are startling. Whether he has consciously used these governments as a template for his own is open to question but it cannot be discounted entirely.

The history of Kenya is well documented elsewhere but briefly for this essay a stable government by the Colonial Office was the hallmark of British colonial rule. The decolonisation process consisted of a transitional government led by the first elected black Prime Minister, Jomo Kenyatta, and a Governor General representing the Queen, working under an agreed Constitution.

Americans should take note that things started to plummet downhill after full independence was granted in December 1963 and the parallels with the current administration began to appear in earnest.

In June 1964 Kenyatta amended the Constitution to make Kenya a republic with himself as President. He gave himself wide executive powers effectively sidelining the legislature becoming not only the Head of State and Commander in Chief of the armed forces but Head of Government as well.

His contempt for the Constitution was further demonstrated when he ignored it again after his re-election in 1966 granting himself all the power he needed to run Kenya entirely by Executive Order. He filled important posts in the government, industry and the military with his own cronies along with family members and fellow tribal members.

During his rule Jomo Kenyatta used government agencies, including the police and the military, to harass political opponents finally banning the only other political party prior to the 1969 elections. Principled opposition politicians fled into exile with the unprincipled former opposition politicians joining with Kenyatta in his Kenya African National Union (KANU).

For fifteen years Kenyatta remained in control of this one party state until he died in 1978 to be succeeded by his deputy, Daniel arap Moi.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" could have been written especially for Moi who continued ignoring the Constitution for the next twenty four years engendering one of the most hopelessly corrupt governments in Africa if not the entire world.

The current President of Kenya is Uhru Kenyatta, son of Jomo who is currently under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for human rights abuses.

The United States of America obviously hasn't reached this condition just yet but it can't be denied that by sidelining its Constitution, bypassing the legislature and allowing a President to govern by Executive Order it is embarking on the same road as Kenya and therefore it is only a matter of time.

With little difference between the ruling Democrat Party and the establishment run Republican Party, America is for all intents and purposes a one party state with no third party on the horizon to halt the visible decline into third world status.

It's a safe bet that whoever wins the next election deficit spending will remain, the national debt will continue to increase, the borders will remain porous, amnesty to illegals will be granted and African levels of corruption in the government and its agencies will remain deeply entrenched.

In conclusion its worth noting that altering the Constitution in order to by-pass legislators thus instituting government by Executive Order is the African way, therefore if President Obama does have emotional and cultural links with East Africa then his current behavior is explainable and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

It is also worth noting the behavior of neighbouring East African countries post independence.

Julius Nyerere, first President of independent Tanganyika/Tanzania from 1962 until 1985. Suspended the Constitution making himself Executive President.

Milton Obote, first President of independent Uganda from 1962 until deposed by a military coup in 1971. Amended the Constitution making himself Executive President.

Kenneth Kaunda, first President of independent Zambia from 1964 until 1991. Banned all political parties except his own in 1968.

Hastings Banda, first President of Malawi from 1966 until 1994.................etc. etc.    

Monday, March 23, 2015

From Baby Names To Steaks, There's No End To Government Intrusion

It is without a doubt that politicians around the world are on a roll, not only are they displaying their overbearing arrogance but also their contempt for the views of the people they are supposed to be representing.

There isn't  a day that goes by without another story of faceless state bureaucrats interfering in the private lives of its citizens with the connivance of elected representatives. Obviously this interference is agenda driven, designed to slowly impose the superiority of the government over the rights of the individual citizen.

Many freedom loving people will be shocked to learn that there are such things as government approved lists for baby names. How and when this Soviet style interference came about is a mystery but if the form book is anything to go by it was sneaked in by stealth before the people had a chance to disagree.

In this case the interference became apparent when an Israeli couple, working in Brussels, wanted to name their newborn baby Alma Jerusalem after their home city only to be told that Jerusalem doesn't appear on the state approved list of baby names.  Along with millions of others, I have never heard of such an outrage.  Naming a baby is one of the most intimate and private things on earth and certainly not within the domain of political low lifes.

It's just as well that the Geldof children weren't born in Belgium or Fifi Trixiebell, Peaches, Pixie and Heavenly Hariana Tigerlily would have state approved names such as Salina, Lorelay, Lydie and Berniss.

It must be said that the babies' father, having spent three years working for the European Union, should have known that Brussels is the home of authoritarian state control fanatics. He should have arranged a trip to Israel so that they could have had their joyous event at home and name their baby without political interference.

One would think that state approved baby lists is a minor matter to be quibbling about but where politicians are involved there is always an ulterior motive; in this case it's the cultural replacement agenda better known as the Islamification of Belgium.

It must be noted that while Jerusalem is not on the state approved list of baby names the Muslim name Mohammed most certainly is; in fact it is in the top ten most popular names in some parts of the country and rising fast.

The belief that this kind of government interference is agenda driven is given credence by the fact that cultural replacement in Belgium is gathering pace and the process of Islamification is well under way. If things proceed at the current rate then Belgium will be the first European country to fall to Islam since Spain in the 8th century.

British freedom lovers will again be dismayed but not surprised that their government via the Food Standards Authority, is issuing 'guidelines' that meat should not be served with any traces of pink. As the British know to their cost, 'guidelines' today are perverted by bureaucrats into rigidly enforced regulations tomorrow. These diktats are imposed by government inspectors bullying and threatening until vendors are intimidated into compliance. Resistance appears to be futile.

Millions of grown up adult diners choose to enjoy eating meat cooked less than well done, myself included, and will continue to do so, at home at least, regardless of government interference. Overcooked pieces of leather are not as appetising as a juicy steak or a plate of sushi.

Personally, together with tens of millions of other happy diners, I prefer my meat cooked rare, my eggs boiled soft and my fried eggs runny. I also enjoy seared Ahi dipped in Wasabi/Soy, plates of sushi and raw oysters on the half shell. It's my taste, my choice and nothing whatsoever to do with government or its bureaucrats.

One of the idiosyncrasies of their perverted creed is that nobody, except the ruling elite, escape the consequences of socialist authoritarianism.  The bureaucrats go for them all until everyone is caught in the net of government superiority.  In the meantime, wealthy socialists of the Tony Blair ilk will continue to enjoy the delights and tastes of the class they demonise and supposedly want to abolish.

The majority of the Scottish people are enthusiastic socialists; conservatives are as numerous north of the border as the Dodo is on Mauritius, but even these socialist diehards are not immune from the impositions of the state bureaucrats.

The Scots are outraged that the iconic pint glass is being banned from Highland pubs for safety reasons. These glasses have been around for ever and are as traditional in Scotland as the kilt, the haggis and a set of bagpipes.

Obviously their socialist masters have decided that the Scottish people are too dumb to be trusted with a glass drinking vessel. Champagne, wine and whiskey drinkers are also targeted and must now drink their favourite tipple out of plastic drink dispensers. Is nothing scared to these Philistines?

It is a racing certainty that this is the usual use of precedence prior to imposition glassless pubs across the rest of Scotland and then the entire country over time. This is a well known tactic used by politicians to get an unpopular policy imposed by stealth. One thing is for sure, the views of the people will be studiously ignored.

The people of Scotland have no room to complain, they brought this on themselves. As ardent socialists they must therefore accept that the nanny government knows what's best for them and they must comply.

From baby names, meat preparation and beer glasses, there is nothing that the government bureaucrats will not interfere with in order to demonstrate their superiority over the citizen. If the people of Scotland, and freedom lovers everywhere for that matter, want to do anything about it then they should wake up and stop their habit of blind tribal voting for remote, agenda driven politicians and replace them with experienced candidates drawn from the real world of real people.
(Re-edited post due topicality)


Friday, March 20, 2015

Netanyahu Joins The Long List Of 'Progressive' Hate Targets

Even to the most casual of observers it should be obvious by now that the ex-leader of the free world, President Barack Obama, has the emotional maturity of a spoiled brat who didn't get his own way in the candy store.

Undoubtedly, despite his best efforts, along with those of his political machine, the re-election of the impressive Binyamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel is a huge setback for his pro-Arab, pro-Iranian, anti-Israel agenda but this is no excuse for the display of petulance that is unbecoming of a President of the United States of America.

Anyone with any knowledge of the socialist/communist/self loathing community - these are the same people that go around calling themselves 'liberals' or 'progressives' - this reaction to an electoral setback is nothing new, in fact it is a perfectly normal response.

People who embrace the democratic process and engage in informed political debate tend to accept any election losses as part of the process as disappointing as they may be. This is because they tend to be intellectually more mature and accept that there are points of view contrary to their own.

Due to their firmly held belief that their world view is absolute and a historical inevitability these so called 'liberals' or 'progressives' are emotionally unable to accept defeat in any shape or form.

They are unable to accept that there are other world views and opinions contrary to their own hence their propensity for hatred toward anything they disagree with. They don't even possess the ability of agreeing to disagree, they must be right all the time.

'Progressives' don't just disagree with capitalism they hate it along with those who promote it. They don't just disagree with individual liberty they hate it along with those that promote it; they don't just disagree with Fox News they hate it and those that promote it; and so the hatred goes on with everything they disapprove of. This ranges from Wall Street to the fossil fuels, from CEO's to CO2.  
It's not just ordinary everyday hatred either, it's a visceral hatred that defies any rational explanation.

Surrounded by enemies that want his country and his people erased from the face of the earth has imbued Prime Minister Netanyahu with the tough qualities necessary to be a leader of his people and it goes without question that a love of country i.e. patriotism, is another prime requirement.

His media appearances warning the world about the danger that a nuclear armed Iran poses for Israel and the civilised world, together with their support for ISIS and the spread of radical Islam, are diametrically opposed to the appeasement policies being pursued by Obama and his besotted followers in the Islamified countries of Europe.

The Prime Minister's growing stature among the more civilised people on the planet, coupled with his tough stance in the face of murderous enemies, is showing up the rather flimsy leadership qualities of Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande for what they really are; weak and cowardly springs to mind, not to mention embarrassing.

Patriotism, democracy, military strength along with the willingness to kill his country's enemies without quarter are an anathema to 'progressives' and along with their inherent and ideological anti-semitism it's little wonder that Prime Minister Netanyahu has attracted their hatred and that of their 'Progressive' in Chief.

I am sure he will take the hatred of his detractors in his stride and time will prove him right to stand up to the Ayatollahs and their murderous offspring who are without doubt a clear and present danger to the civilised world.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is in good company as the target of the lefts visceral hatred, he is joined in part by:

Free enterprise

Individual liberty

The Constitution of the United States (especially the First and Second Amendments)



The Military

White middle class heterosexuals

The aspiring working class

The Fat Controller

Salt, sugar, pop...........................and so on and so forth



Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Hiding The Truth - Nixon's Tapes, Hillary's Emails And Bill's Cigar

The long suffering British taxpayers were legitimately outraged when they learned that their hard earned money was being systematically looted by their elected representatives. What became known as the 'expenses scandal' was exposed despite an official campaign of obfuscation and legal stonewalling by politicians desperate to keep their thievery from the public they were elected to serve.

The outrage of the people turned into incredulity when it was revealed that the files relating to former Prime Minister Tony Blair's expenses were 'accidentally shredded' by a member of his staff.

This scandal, combined with the wholesale corruption and thievery going on the Upper Chamber - a den of iniquity known as the House of Lords - caused the reputation of Parliamentarians to plummet down to unfathomable depths from which it is yet to emerge.

One would have thought that getting caught red handed with their fingers in the public till these crooked politicians would apologise and demonstrate at least a modicum of contrition. One would also have thought that in order to win back the trust of the people they abused they would replace the flawed system which allowed such criminal behaviour.

Instead the new system in the Commons  was declared unworkable with the goalposts in the Lords moved so that they can carry on fiddling without sanction.

It gets worse, much worse. Investigators into the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal - where the local authority facilitated Muslim paedophile gangs to groom, rape and sexually abuse under age white girls before pimping them out - found that official records had been tampered with or 'went missing' to protect guilty council officers.

The upshot of all this unethical, and sometimes illegal, behaviour is threefold:

i) politicians and their attendant bureaucrats are so intoxicated with power they believe they exist at a level way above that of the plebeians they rule over and are not subject to the same standards of ethics.

ii) their bloated egos have given them a sense of self importance and entitlement that leads them to believe they are immune from scrutiny.

iii) they believe the scrutiny of their behaviour by the people, by their representatives or by official inquiries are impertinent, hence their continual stonewalling and displays of contempt.

It's worth looking at some of the more notorious and laughable instances of politicians and their agents going to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth from the people they are paid to serve.

Watching President Richard Nixon wiggle and squirm as he tried to keep the infamous White House Tapes from the public during the Watergate scandal was both hilarious and sad. It also allowed the public a glimpse of the fetid swamp that passed for government of the people, by the people, for the people during the Nixon era.

The American public have been stonewalled by the current Justice Department over the Fast and Furious gun running scandal along with the tragic Benghazi scandal which cost four American lives including that of their Ambassador to Libya.

Who can possibly forget the missing Lois Lerner emails during the IRS scandal? In an operation worthy of third world two penny dictatorship, members of the Obama administration used the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate political opponents.

What became apparent during the testimony of IRS agent Lois Lerner is the way that enemies of the people like herself will run and hide behind the same Constitution they are actively working to destroy when they plead protection under it's Fifth Amendment rights.

The latest scandal involving Hillary Clinton's missing emails is yet another example, not only of the contempt she has for the public, but the hypertrophied sense of entitlement she obviously nurses. Her whole demeanour and obstructive behaviour is indicative of a superiority complex and an unshakeable belief in her own invincibility.

The sad fact is that the Clinton's are treated like royalty by large numbers of the American public whereby nothing they do, no matter how unbecoming of high profile representatives of the United States of America, seems to cause them political damage.

They are a national embarrassment mired in accusations of corruption but it appears that the appalling Clintons will be the next occupants of the White House.

In conclusion it's worth reminding ourselves of Bill Clinton brazenly going before the world's media claiming that he didn't have sex with that intern. This appalling behaviour probably did more to demean the office of President than any other previous instances of bad Clinton behaviour.

His steadfast refusal to release details of his affair led to impeachment hearings in front of a titillated world. While a salacious public were treated to tales of oral sex, his odd shaped member and Monica Lewinsky's stained dress, they were denied the information that they really wanted. What on earth did he do with that cigar?

Monday, March 16, 2015

Election Alert! - Progressives Are Totalitarians In All But Name

With election fever gripping both Great Britain and the USA where spin and word manipulation will be the order of the day, it's worth reminding ourselves of what those who refer to themselves as 'progressives' really are.

Socialist, communist and all other leftist regimes are totalitarian by nature. Like the 'Man Made Global Warming' fanatics their vision is so impaired by the religious nature of their ideologies they are beyond reasonable discourse.

They believe that their vision of the perfect state is historically inevitable therefore all other points of view must be ridiculed, discounted and ultimately banned.

Due to the religious nature of their perverted ideology the socialist/communist/progressive community are incapable of understanding that others may take a different view. In a mature democracy with an informed populace the issues should be debated rationally, decisions should then be made or voted on based on the outcome of the discourse.

'Progressives' hate this discourse, they believe it to be a waste of time that only serves to delay the inevitable. They believe that any alternative view to theirs should not be heard. Censorship, book burning and intolerance are the hallmarks of all socialist/communist/progressive regimes.

Although we are almost there, the socialist/communist state has not been fully established in Great Britain or the USA. There are still pockets of resistance in the form of dissident publications and broadcasters, along with the blogosphere and the Internet in general - all of which 'progressive' governments the world over are desperately trying to regulate and control.

Like the tyrants of old who to tried to ban the printing press, socialist/communist/ progressive governments believe that they must control the message and the means of its delivery.

In the absence of controlling the message and with nothing to contribute to any debate, 'progressives' denigrate anyone with whom they disagree. Hence we see spin, sophistry and outright propaganda used to promote their agenda, while at the same time employing smear and abuse for anyone promoting a different viewpoint.

This is best illustrated by the leftist controlled climate change lobby. In an attempt to silence any alternative views they claim the science is settled, the debate is over and anyone who disagrees is labelled a 'denier'. A word associated with those who deny the Holocaust; this is the ultimate smear and illustrates the depths to which socialists/communists/progressives will sink to abuse anyone with whom they disagree.

Another 'progressive' tactic is the abuse of language. This is an Orwellian concept whereby twisting the meaning of words one can eventually rewrite history to portray it in a light favourable to their ideology.

The word 'gay' is a classic example.

Men attracted to other men have always been known as homosexuals, there's nothing wrong with that word in particular. Like heterosexual its a perfectly functional word which doesn't imply inferior status. The word 'gay' has been hijacked with the intention of changing the perception of homosexuals as sexual deviants to a more benign lighthearted and carefree group.

It has also had the effect of giving homosexuals special status as opposed to equal status with heterosexuals.

In the methodology of 'progressives' special status metamorphosis's into victim status and hence the sympathy vote.

The word 'progressive' itself is another word that has been hijacked by the left with the intention of changing its meaning to promote a softer more benign image for their perverted ideology.

The following is a run down of some of the worst socialist/communist/progressive regimes and their leaders which comprises some of the darkest, most murderous enemies of the human race.

National Socialist German Workers Party - Hitler
USSR - Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin through to Putin today
China - Mao Tse Tung Thro to Xi Jinping today
Cambodia - Pol Pot
North Korea - the Kim family
Cuba - The Castro brothers and Che Guavara
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Serbia - Slobodan Milosovic
Libya - Colonel Ghadaffi
Syria - the Assad family
Venezuela - Hugo Chavez
Zimbabwe - Butcher Bob Mugabe

The entire post war East European socialist bloc with its secret police forces, political prisoners
poverty for the masses but riches for the 'progressive' political elite.

Its no wonder with a reputation for bloodsoaked oppression leftists needed a word to replace socialism/communism in order to hide the true nature of their ideology.

Now referring to themselves as 'progressives' they claim their mission remains the pursuit of fairness, social justice and a more equal society engineered by a benign state. Hundreds of millions who have suffered under the yoke of socialist/communist/progressive tyrannies know differently and tens of millions more dissidents are dead.

In the perverted world of socialist/communist/progressive doublethink, the closer we move toward the totalitarian regimes mentioned above the more 'progress' society has made.

Beware! 'Progressives' may have changed their name but they are still socialists/communists who's ideology was codified by Karl Marx and there's nothing progressive about Marxism.

Progress would be bettered measured by the amount of distance countries move away from the oppressive socialist/communist/progressive collectivist regimes toward the bright, sunlit uplands of freedom and individual liberty.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Welfare Financed Asylum Helps Create Great Britain's Jihadi Johns

To say that the British people are treated with contempt by their elected representatives would be another understatement joining thousands more in the catalogue of idiotic actions that beggar believe in a country awash with self serving politicians and an army of useful idiots.

When the notorious Muslim cold blooded killer known as Jihadi John, real name Mohammed Emwazi, first demonstrated his fondness for beheading innocent journalists and aid workers in the name of Allah, on the command of his prophet Mohammad and as written in his holy book, the Koran, the British people were unaware that he was one of their fellow citizens albeit a naturalised one.

They were also unaware that their government, and some of its agencies, had known about him and his chosen profession of murdering jihadi for some time.

If this wasn't bad enough, and to compound their horror, it has now been revealed that the family that spawned this evil sub-human were Kuwaiti asylum seekers who's patriarch was an Iraqi sympathiser after their brutal invasion of his homeland.

The British people will not be surprised however to learn that the Emwazi family of Jihadi John has spent the last twenty years on taxpayer funded welfare benefits estimated to be four hundred thousand pounds in housing benefit alone. ( That's $640k to our American cousins)

The Emwazi family, described by one landlord as 'parasites' and 'tenants from hell', are one of the millions of welfare colonists invited into Great Britain as part of the government's cultural and demographic replacement agenda.

The government and its establishment were fully aware that this family along with the millions of other welfare colonists would not be integrating into society or be making any contribution to the life or economy of Great Britain.

What is disconcerting about this particular family is that they supported the Iraqi enemy during the Gulf War in which British military personnel were sent to fight and where many lost their lives.

The treatment of this family is a classic example of the suspect loyalties of the British political class and it demonstrates once and for all the contempt with which they and their establishment hold for the very people they are paid to represent.

The Emwazi family were allowed into the country, supposedly in fear for their lives, after the first Gulf War despite the fact that they supported the enemy of the British military.

They were granted refugee status in 1996 and made British citizens in 2001.

With citizenship securely in the bag the fear of their homeland miraculously evaporated and they started travelling back to Kuwait while continuing to collect welfare benefits.

Jihadi John's father, Jasem, is now back working in Kuwait while his family continues to receive welfare benefits in London.

In any sane country where politicians respect and work on behalf of its people, they would have spotted the scam when the family returned to Kuwait immediately after being granted British citizenship.

If the politicians gave priority to the welfare of their people instead of their cultural replacement agenda they would have revoked the citizenship of the Emwazi family, stopped their welfare payments and forbid their re-entry back to Great Britain when they returned to their homeland the first time.

Consequently, Jihadi John would not have been radicalised by the plethora of hate preachers who infest the thousands of mosques and madrassas that are springing up in every village, town and city in Great Britain's once green and pleasant land.

Handing out British citizenship to young Muslim asylum seekers who are nothing other than potential Jihadi Johns is nothing new for self serving politicians who have their own agenda and who hold contempt for the views of its own people.

Most of the 21/7 London Transport bombing gang were young Muslim immigrants who were either granted asylum, leave to remain or citizenship regardless of their past criminal history or their potential for jihad and murder.

London Transport bomber Muktar Ibrahim is a classic example but not alone in being granted citizenship despite being a violent criminal thug who committed indecent assault at fifteen, who was involved in gang violence and sentenced to five years in prison for two armed robberies. After his release from prison he applied for naturalisation and was granted citizenship one year later.
(Cricketer v Muslim Bomber, a previous article on Muktar Ibrahim and the cultural replacement agenda here)

It's worth noting the weasel words of some Members of Parliament who claim to be "horrified" by these revelations but who have done nothing during their five years in office. It's also worth noting that these sudden howls of outrage coincide with a general election which is due this coming May.

In a display of deduction worthy of Sherlock Holmes Conservative MP David Davies thunders thus:

"This is an absolute outrage and a disgrace. We should stop their housing benefit immediately. Mr Emwazi clearly doesn't need asylum in this country".

His fellow Conservative Philip Hollobone states that "They are abusing our hospitality, the rules are quite clear. If there has been any abuse of the system here, money should be paid back."

Can the British people now assume that their enlightened MP's, Messrs Davies and Hollobone, will follow up on their outrage and ensure that they get their hard earned money back?

It's a mystery as to where Mr Hollobone has been storing his head for the past two decades but he believes that  "Mohammed Emzwazi's offences are worse than murder or terrorism. They are an assault on the British way of life".

The 'British way of life' as he puts it has been under continuous assault since the Blair/Brown Labour governments opened the borders to mass immigration in 1997 as part of their demographic and cultural replacement agenda.

An agenda it must be noted that Hollobone and his government have continued to implement with equal, if not more enthusiasm.

With immigration controls, including exit controls abandoned, and with their enthusiasm to impose a so called 'multi-cultural society' undiminished, the production line of Jihadi John's is continuing unabated. The weasel words of MP's Davies and Hollobone are no substitute for action but the British people would be unwise to hold their breath waiting.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

An EU From The Urals To The Atlantic - Fulfilling Hitler's Dream

The bloody conflict currently enveloping Ukraine is being portrayed as a civil war between factions loyal to Vladimir Putin's Russian and those who want to break away and form closer ties with the European Union. In reality its a proxy war being fought between the leaders of an expansionist EU who dream of an empire stretching from the "Urals to the Atlantic" and Vladimir Putin who is attempting to preserve whats left of the Russian empire.

A European empire stretching from the Ural Mountains in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west did not become EU policy overnight dreamt up with foresight by some benign bureaucrats in a smoke filled backroom over brandy and cigars.

Military campaigns to subjugate the nations of Europe and form an empire have been fought by a variety of armies throughout history including those of the Romans and the Moors but none have codified their ambitions in more detail than Hitler and the National Socialists.

It's worth noting at this point that the Ural mountains are considered historically - and geographically - to be the border where Europe ends and Asia begins.

Hitler's plan for a Grossgermanisches Reich or a Greater Germanic Reich is well documented whereby he envisaged a Jew free, German controlled Europe stretching from the "Urals to the Atlantic".

If that quote sounds familiar its because it was uttered by British Prime Minister David Cameron during a visit to the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan albeit from front to back. He told students at the Nazabeyev University in the capital Astana that:

"Our vision of the EU is that it should be a large trading and co-operating organisation that effectively stretches, as it were, from the Atlantic to the Urals".

When Cameron told the students of Kazakhstan that the EU is "a large trading and co-operating organisation" he was doing what he does to the British people as a matter of course - willfully lying through his teeth with malice aforethought about the nature of the EU.

The British people were conned by the very same lies some forty- five years ago when the then Prime Minister Edward Heath sold the Common Market as a benign 'trading and co-operating organisation' knowing full well that it was the fist step on the road to a post democratic federal superstate.

Cameron didn't tell the Kazakh students that they would be required to surrender their sovereignty and consequently their newly won freedom; and in doing so they would be exchanging authoritarian rule from Moscow to that of Brussels.

He also failed to inform them that if they, like the Greeks, the Irish and the Italians, are dumb enough to join the Euro currency they risk debt, bankruptcy and imposed austerity on terms dictated by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Identical to Hitler's foreign policy, Cameron and the EU politburo believe the Urals to be the westernmost border of their European empire and all countries to the west should be absorbed into a Greater European superstate. This is nonsense of course designed to stir up antagonism with the Russian leadership as it contains a huge chunk of western Russia including Moscow.

Like the current EU, Hitler envisioned a Europe where independent nation states cease to exist replaced by vassal regions in thrall to Berlin.

The current EU government appears to be in Brussels but it is widely acknowledged that as far as EU policy is concerned what Angela Merkel says goes with no dissenters allowed. None of the current national leaders, Cameron included, are prepared to confront her even if the interests of their people are in jeopardy.

It doesn't stop with Ukraine and Kazakhstan, the EU and its agents, including former President Herman von Rumpuy and foreign affairs chief Baroness Ashton, are meddling and interfering in other former Soviet republics such as Georgia, Moldovia and Azerbaijan much to the consternation of Vladimir Putin. They have even solicited the expensive services of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair while Prince Andrew is reported to be socialising on a regular basis with Azerbaijani tyrant IIham Aliyev.

Looking at the current expansion plans of the EU, combined with the return of rabid anti-semitism across Europe, Hitler's dream of a Jew free empire from the Atlantic to the Urals is closer now than it was during the height of his power. It may not have reached the Ural mountains yet but unless they are stopped the ambition and the perverted will of the EU is there to make the old dictators dream come true.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Celebrities Won't Burn The Burqa - The Suffragettes Suffered In Vain

One can almost guarantee that any high profile cause, especially the more trendy, progressive causes, will inevitably attract the attention of so called celebrities. If there's a headline that can be used to burnish their 'progressive' credentials they'll be over the media like a rash before disappearing back to their mansions, their money making machines and their million dollar fortunes.

People need reminding that celebrities need publicity as much as they need oxygen because it keeps them in the public eye and the royalties rolling in. Unfortunately that's the way it works in the modern, high tech, celebrity obsessed world in which we live.

Emma Watson, Annie Lennox, Paloma Faith, Gemma Arteton all left the comfort of their usual surroundings to grace the International Women's Day march in London before forgetting about it until next year.

Sadly the reason for the original cause gets lost in the ballyhoo surrounding the involvement of celebrities and in the case of last Sunday's march it gets perverted out of all proportion.

Bearing in mind the appalling trials and tribulations of millions of women around the world, the march in London bore all the hallmarks of a publicity stunt rather than a serious attempt at ending gender based injustice and violence.

The original suffragettes were middle class activists led by the formidable mother and daughter team of Emmaline and Christabel Pankhurst. They risked their personal wellbeing with their campaigns of vandalism, arson, personal sacrifice and persistent picketing of the powerful in pursuit of their goal.

As a consequence they endured arrest and long periods of imprisonment which included force feeding due to their hunger strike protests while inside.

One has to mention at this point the dedication to the cause of suffragette Emily Davidson. In a final act of self sacrifice she threw herself under the Kings horse at the Epsom Derby race as it rounded the final bend dying of her wounds.(See archive newsreel here)

All this death and deprivation was in pursuit of a single issue - votes for women.

By dressing up in period costumes in order to imitate the original suffragettes, the participants, including some descendants of the Pankhurst family, not only tarnished their memory and belittled their cause, they also trivialised the event; and by inviting celebrities they took attention away from the ongoing fight for women's basic rights.

Their rhetoric was laden with the trendy politicspeak that infests public discourse these days and misses the the real issues facing women by a country mile. Income inequality would be taken more seriously if it were universally true and wasn't championed by wealthy actresses who can make millions by pretending to be someone else in front of a camera.

Reproductive rights mean what exactly to the peasant farmer scratching a living from the arid soil in Eritrea or the tribal wife in the lawless areas of Baluchistan? They are still waiting for the right to leave the mud hut without a male relative let alone reproductive rights and the vote.

Closer to home, what do these rights mean to the child bride of a close relative from rural Pakistan or the thousands of young women who's genitals have been mutilated to satisfy some barbaric alien custom.

Looking at the press releases of this auspicious occasion one would be struck by the absence of any burqa clad sisters. If these so called activists really cared about the basic women's rights they would be emulating their illustrious forebears by chaining themselves to the gates of 10 Downing Street, vandalising public buildings, constantly picketing the powerful and risking imprisonment to liberate their Muslim sisters.

Nothing symbolises the oppression of women more the awful burqa. If their excuse for non-action is that this appalling garment is a voluntary display of religious observance and piety then they are either deluding themselves or lying.

They could have risked controversy by holding a burqa burning ceremony along the lines of the bra burners of the sixties and seventies but it's unlikely a celebrity would dare court publicity that went against the perceived wisdom of the 'progressive' establishment.

There is no need for these women activists to feign compassion for women in the developing third world when there are millions of their sisters in Great Britain desperately in need of liberating.

Reproductive rights, income inequality and quotas for Parliament and the City of London boardrooms pale into insignificance compared to the grooming and rape of under age girls in Great Britain's towns and cities. The number of rape victims first thought to be in the tens of thousands has now been re-assessed to be over a million. This has been labelled as a national disaster and it doesn't merit any direct action or even a mention by the women's rights activists?

Female genital mutilation is rife in Great Britain but the authorities and the suffragettes turn a blind eye for reasons of 'cultural sensitivity'. Despite increasing instances of this barbarity against women no one has been prosecuted and not a single activist has chained herself to a gate or been imprisoned in protest.

The number of women in Great Britain who suffer appalling treatment, including domestic violence, rape, disfigurement and murder, and who are conveniently ignored by the modern suffragettes, increases with every female birth and every marriage within our imported third world community.

The accusation that the organisers and participants of these events stem from the remote metropolitan elite is borne out by the fact that they avoided any female abusing hotspots   This march would have been more meaningful, and possibly taken more seriously, if it had been held in a female abusing hotspot such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Luton or Manchester. After all there's plenty to choose from.

In conclusion it must be said that it would be stretching credulity to the limit by imagining any of the above mentioned celebrities chaining themselves to the gates of Buckingham Palace let alone throwing themselves under one of the Queen's race horses in order to liberate their Muslim sisters or to seek justice for the raped young girls of Rotherham.

If the activists that took part in Sundays march want to invoke the spirit of the original suffragettes and not insult their memory they would be taking similar direct action to end the shocking abuse of women in Great Britain and not just preening themselves in front of the media.



Friday, March 6, 2015

Echos Of Churchill - Ignore Netanyahu At Your Peril

Making comparisons between world leaders is controversial and fraught with danger due to the polarised political preferences of their supporters and detractors. Looking at recent events in the middle east the controversy around comparing Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, can be all but removed.

He may not have reached the stature of Sir Winston Churchill but judging by his pragmatic approach to Iran and global Islamic terrorism he is head and shoulders above the current candidates for the leadership of the free world, the aforementioned Obama and Cameron.

The similarities between Netanyahu and Churchill became abundantly clear after his recent prophetic speech to the American Congress while his contrasts with Obama and Cameron became embarrassingly more stark.

Netanyahu warned the world about the danger of a nuclear armed Iran in the same way that Churchill warned the world about German re-armament prior to Word War II. Then as now, the appeasers and collaborators ridiculed the messenger which consequently condemned the world to a prolonged and destructive war resulting in some forty million dead, around half of them civilians.

He warned the world that the ruling despots of Iran are insane enough to use nuclear weapons to precipitate a war with the aim of erasing Israel and the Jews from the face of the earth and setting up a caliphate. This echos Churchill's warning that Hitler's true motive for re-armament was to start a war with the aim of setting up a Jew free, thousand year Reich in Europe.

The administrations in the White House and Downing Street have either learned nothing from history or they are appeasers in the mold of Neville Chamberlain.

These administrations are doing the same thing today with the Ayatollahs that Chamberlain did with Hitler and the Nazis. He came away with the Munich Agreement written on his infamous piece of paper that guaranteed "peace in our time".

The only thing it guaranteed was more time for Hitler to continue building up his forces and acquiring modern weapons before he annexed Austria, invaded the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Poland, exterminating their Jewish populations as he progressed eastward.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's impassioned warning not to trust the Ayatollahs fell on the deaf ears of the appeasers in the White House just as Churchill's warnings about Hitler and the Nazis were ignored by Chamberlain and the appeasers in Westminster.

Churchill's "sinews of peace" speech - perhaps better know as his "iron curtain speech" - delivered at the invitation of President Truman in Fulton, Missouri warned the world about the malign intentions of post war Russia to spread communism around the world.

The reaction to his speech wouldn't go amiss among the naive socialist/communist/progressive community of today. He was denounced as a warmonger and accused of insulting and denigrating a friend and ally. The great man was right, an iron curtain did indeed descend across Europe and fifty million people lost their lives as a result.

 Like Churchill before him, Natanyahu's pronouncements on the enemies of civilisation are dismissed as warmongering and an obstacle to peace in the middle east by the appeasers, the collaborators and the facilitators of Islamification around the world.  

In conclusion: Sir Winston Churchill was right in his day about Hitler and Stalin just as Netanyahu is right today about the Ayatollahs and radical Islam. If history repeats itself then millions of civilian casualties will be the legacy of the appeasers, the collaborators and the facilitators who refuse to learn the lessons of the past.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Cameron v Putin - The British Are Fighting The Wrong Enemy

When British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to interfere in the Ukrainian civil war further antagonising Russian President Vladimir Putin, his priorities and motives are quite rightly called into question.

From now until the general election due in May, every word, action and deed by Cameron will be carefully constructed by his controllers, in tandem with their professional team of PR men, media managers, advertising executives and image consultants, to glean every possible political advantage for their man and their agenda.

Due to a litany of false promises and outright lies over the issues that concern them the most, the British public are finally waking up to the fact that their Prime Minister is nothing more than a media creation who's only skill is delivering PR choreographed public performances in pursuit of a long planned transformational agenda.

Putting some seventy three military personnel into harms way in a vicious civil war involving the Russian hard man, Putin, is not going to affect the outcome one iota, the image this nonsense is intended to create however is highly significant........if the British electorate are fool enough to fall for it that is.

One would think that with ISIS and its affiliates butchering their way across the middle east and Africa manned by thousands of British documented jihadis and with those same battle hardened killers promising to bring their murderous mission to the British mainland, Cameron should have a different set of priorities.

It must be noted that although Putin and his regime are no angels, at time of writing no Russian has bombed a bus or underground train on the London Transport System killing and maiming hundreds of innocent people; no Russian has beheaded a soldier in broad daylight on a London street.

There are no Russian paedophile gangs grooming under age British girls by the tens of thousands then subjecting them to rape and horrific sexual abuse. Russians are not mutilating the genitals of hundreds of young girls every year.

Russian fanatics are not setting up semi-autonomous no-go areas and demanding that the indigenous British people submit to their demands and no Russian gangs are wanting to see their national flag flying high over Buckingham Palace and the Prime Ministers residence at 10 Downing Street.

There are no Russian hate preachers demanding that the British people submit to Russian law.

On the contrary, Cameron welcomes Russian billionaires who appear to be buying up London real estate and businesses including football clubs and newspapers.

The intervention in the Ukrainian civil war is a carefully crafted pre-election publicity stunt designed to deflect attention away from his government's disastrous appeasement of the EU and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in particular. It is also designed to halt the inexorable rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) who oppose the EU agenda.

(There is also a long term project of EU expansion into the former Soviet states, including Ukraine, but this is not Cameron's primary motive for his current behavior.)

Just to recap briefly: Cameron hails from a wealthy elite who attended Eton college, Great Britain's most exclusive private school and one of its most expensive.

After Eton he spent a gap year indulging in party politics before going up to Oxford University where he was apparently spotted as future leadership material. By who is not immediately clear but from then on his political career was managed down to the minutest detail.

After graduation, armed with the now requisite degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, he took the well trodden path into the incestuous world of party politics as a special advisor to some senior leaders of the day.

Consequently he has no experience whatsoever in the real world outside of party politics; he has no experience or empathy with real people or any clue about their hopes or aspirations. He has no experience in the business world or the world of wealth creation. More importantly to this issue, he has little experience outside the British shores and consequently in foreign affairs.

The ever popular, and accurate, impression of David Cameron as weak, craven and in thrall to German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is entirely correct, therefore his controllers needed some high profile action to counter this before it sticks irrevocably.

Bearing in mind that the EU, led by Merkel, were still negotiating a possible deal with Putin over the Ukrainian civil war, the unilateral action announced by Cameron was calculated to achieve three things:

i) to give the impression that he is his own man not beholden to the EU leaders, especially Frau Merkel.

ii) to give the impression that he is unafraid to take tough decisions in order to stand up to the worlds current bogey man, Vladimir Putin.

iii) that he is has the stature required to fill the vacuum left by President Obama as leader of the free world.

The facts speak for themselves, David Cameron is indeed in thrall to Frau Merkel and the other EU leaders and he remains totally committed to the European project. This requires that Great Britain transfer what is left of its sovereignty to Brussels, becoming fully integrated into the post democratic federal superstate currently referred to as the European Union (EU)

On orders of Merkel and the other EU leaders, and despite claiming otherwise, Cameron is absolutely committed to open border mass immigration in order to fundamentally transform Great Britain into a so called 'multi-cultural society' thus ending thousands of years of British history and its unique way of life.

Examples of his subservience abound but his smack down by Merkel over border control remains a classic. Who would have thought that a German Chancellor would tell a British Prime Minister that he will not be allowed to control his own borders as demanded by his own people? Weak and craven doesn't begin to describe David Cameron.

In conclusion it must be noted that with Cameron's election war chest bursting at the seams with EU and hedge fund money, and with the bought-and paid-for MSM, including the BBC, in his pocket, the British electorate can expect many more stunts like this together with an unprecedented campaign of vilification against his opponents including UKIP and its leader Nigel Farage.