Baiting the Bear

'Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.'

Read the rest here

Russia and the 'Free World'

George Bush has declared that Russia's actions in Georgia has damaged it's relations with the 'Free World', hmmmmm!

The same Free World where it's governments unleash millions of third world savages on their own people?

The same Free World where the indigenous peoples are banned from objecting to this third world invasion, sponsored by it's governments, and threatened with persecution and imprisonment if they do oppose it?

The same Free World where half of our incomes are stolen by those very same states, much of it to pay for the health, lodgings, employment (or more often unemployment) and education of the same third world invaders?

The same Free World where we are told we have the power to 'change things', when in fact all we have is different versions of the same political prostitutes who are selling their peoples down the river?

Well, if that is the Free World, I want nothing to do with it, Although Russia is not perfect, at least their leaders don't sell their people down the river for a quick buck, at least they don't steal half their incomes to pay for a third world invasion of African and Islamic savages, which they then unleash against their people!

We are being lied to, we are being whored out for the benefit of these political pimps, the same ones who now condemn Russia for protecting their own people, I know who I would rather have rule me!

Enoch Powell's 'River of Blood' speach

Note how moderate it really is, and remember how this man was smeared by the establishment who were in fear after he spoke the truth. He was smeared and destroyed, has anyone learned? Apparently not as Nigel Hasitlow has discovered! Much to Cameron's continued shame!



"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendant should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."

The Swiss and the Poles, God love 'em

Both Switzerland and Poland are the new enemies of the left, they have committed the ultimate blasphemy of rejecting the self destructive ideologies of those that hate the white Christian West.

Switzerland has elected a 'right wing' party into government, a party opposed to immigration and multi-culturalism. A party explicitly pro-Swiss. Those lucky Swiss bastards!

The New York Times is horrified; "As part of its platform, the SVP party has begun a campaign seeking the 100,000 signatures necessary to force a referendum to let judges deport foreigners after they serve prison sentences for serious crimes. The measure also calls for the deportation of the entire family if the convicted criminal is a minor.

Human rights advocates warn that the initiative is reminiscent of the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft, or kin liability, under which relatives of criminals were held responsible and punished for their crimes. "

This policy sounds a quite sensible one, I and many I speak to would gladly support it, only those untouched by the feral packs of black men that roam the streets of this once great city, would think the above statement abhorrent.

The New York Times is also in shock at a few posters produced by the SVP (Swiss Peoples Party) one shows a black sheep with some white sheep and the words 'For Security'. the other I managed to find on the net (shown bellow), shows the hands of non-whites trying to grab Swiss passports, which if any of you know what Africans are like will recognise immediately as all too true.

The left, so used to us meekly giving in to threats and bullying are shocked by this insolence from us plebs, how dare we stand up for ourselves, how dare nasty white people do anything that may result in Africans getting deported or getting less benefits, shock horror!!

The Poles, well they are far too Christian to be true 'Europeans' in the Brussels sense of the word, which invariably means, atheist, cynical, effete, promiscuous, contemptuous of our past, our race and our culture.

On Wednesday 10 October 2007 was "European day against the death penalty." The EU wanted to inaugurate the event with a common European declaration against capital punishment. Poland thwarted this by refusing to sign the declaration because the EU did not condemn abortion and euthanasia as well. Last month, during an EU meeting on the death penalty, the Polish justice minister confronted his Danish colleague with Denmark's annual 15,000 abortions and the latter — a member of the Danish Conservative Party — got so angry that she left the room, slamming the door."

I must say, I admire the balls of the Poles, but instead of being ashamed of their double standards, what do the other states do, well Portugal and Belgium accuse Poland of being immoral! Just how did they manage to reason that one out?

"Richard Howitt, a British Labor politician and the vice president of the European Parliament's human rights subcommittee, said that Poland's refusal to reject the death penalty brings into question its commitment to European values."

Again, these values are as stated above, atheism, cynicism, promiscuity and contempt for who we are, seems to me a virtue to lack 'European values'.

"Last April, the European Parliament accused Poland of 'homophobia" because it does not want to include homosexuality in the school curriculum. Last May, the European Court of Human Rights found Poland guilty of violating human rights because it banned a "gay pride" parade in Warsaw. Last year, the European Commission threatened to deprive Warsaw of its voting rights in the European institutions if it remained in "serious breach of its obligations on human rights."

Banning a parade of degenerate perverts from performing sex acts on each other in public is banned, and this is bad? Do you see how inverted morality in this 'Europe' truly is? Not poisoning children's minds with gay porn is somehow wrong? Wrong for whom? Normal people, faggots, perverts, paedophiles?

What is wrong with these people? They seem intent on dismantling all normality, all common sense, all morality and rightness for what? There must be an aim these sodomites have in mind?

The final and complete destruction of the white Christian West seems to be their intent, why import millions of Muslims and Africans otherwise? Why encourage us to breed with 'ethnics' or not to breed at all? Why sponsor and celebrate sodomy as if it were a sacrament of modern socialism?

Those people in charge of this new Europe are evil, and that is not an exaggeration, they are committed to our destruction, to the genocide of the white peoples, to the extermination of Christendom. They have committed themselves to every depravity in the cause of weakening and demoralising the white man and they must be stopped. Democracy is a sham they use to control us, they feign difference between them at election time, one part poses as the right and the other as the left, when in fact both are as committed as each other, to the radical theories of the Jacobins and Bolsheviks.

The Jacobins destroyed France and raped the soul of that great nation, the Bolsheviks ripped out the heart of Holy Russia and stamped on it destroying it in the process, now their heirs unite to finish off Europe and the white race as a whole.

God help us

The limits of Liberty: We are all suspects now!

On new year’s day 1990, three days after becoming president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel looked his people in the eye and spoke to them as no one had done before. It is difficult to read his words without feeling the vibration of history of both the liberation and the horrors of the regime that had just expired, leaving the Czech people blinking in the cold sunlight of that extraordinary winter.

This is what he said. "The previous regime, armed with its arrogance and intolerant ideology, reduced man to a force of production. It reduced gifted and autonomous people to nuts and bolts of some monstrously huge, noisy, stinking machine whose real meaning was not clear to anyone. It could do no more but slowly and inexorably wear itself out, and all the nuts and bolts too."

That perfectly defines the true tyranny, where the state takes all liberty and bends each individual will to its own purpose. And here is the interesting thing that Havel put his finger on: no matter how brutal or ruthless the regime, the act of depriving people of their freedom starts the stopwatch on that regime’s inevitable demise. What he was saying was that in modern times a state can only thrive in the fullest sense when individuals are accorded maximum freedom.

I agree. Individual liberty is not just the precondition for civilisation, not just morally right, not just the only way people can reach their full potential, live responsibly and have fun; it is also a necessity for the health of government. Ten years ago I would have felt silly speaking about liberty and rights in Britain with the very real concern that I have today.

But I am worried. And it’s not just me. Last month Le Monde asked "Is Democracy Dying in the West?".

In the spring of this year Lord Steyn, the distinguished former law lord, made a speech despairing at this Government’s neglect for the Rule of Law, which was followed by Baroness (Helena) Kennedy’s alarm call in the James Cameron Lecture.

The inescapable fact is that we have a Prime Minister who repeatedly makes the point that civil liberties arguments are not so much wrong as made for another age [my italics]. We have a Government that has ignored the Rule of Law, reduced rights and has steadily moved to increase the centralised power of the state at the expense of the individual.

So I don’t feel quite as silly or as alarmist as I might.

The relationship between the state and individual is really at the heart of any discussion about democracy and rights. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union it was the state’s mission not just to prevent people from expressing themselves, from moving about freely and unobserved, from pursuing their chosen careers and acting upon their religious and political convictions, but to stop them from thinking freely. It needed to occupy people’s thoughts - to take up a kind of permanent residency in the mind of the average citizen. And as the many psychological studies published in the Nineties make clear, this led to psychic disrepair on a massive scale - paranoia, clinical depression, chronic internalised anger and learned helplessness.

We fell morally ill, Havel said in that speech, because we became used to saying something different from what we thought. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore one another, to care only about ourselves. Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility or forgiveness lost their depth and dimensions, and for many of us represented only psychological peculiarities.

Why am I harping on about communism? It died and was buried 17 years ago, at least in Europe and Russia. We’re into another century. We’ve got Google and speed-dating and globalisation and melting ice caps and reality TV and al-Qa’ida and al-Jazeera and Al Gore. We’ve moved on.

As a character in Alan Bennett’s The History Boys says, there is no period more remote in history than the recent past. Indeed, but we need to remember that recent past a little more than we do. For one thing, our knowledge of what existed on the other side of the Iron Curtain meant we valued and looked after our own freedoms much more than we do today.

It is perhaps the absence of an obvious confrontation between freedom and tyranny that allows Tony Blair to say that civil liberties arguments are made for another age. I profoundly disagree with this. It is dangerous arrogance to say that the past has nothing to teach us and that all the problems we face now are unique to our time.

During his speech to the Labour Party conference, Tony Blair said: "I don’t want to live in a police state, or a Big Brother society or put any of our essential freedoms in jeopardy. But because our idea of liberty is not keeping pace with change in reality, those freedoms are in jeopardy."

What in heaven’s name did he mean by that? Liberty is liberty. You can’t update it. You can’t divide it. You are either free, or you’re not. A society is either just, or it isn’t. People have rights or they don’t. The rule of law is upheld, or it isn’t.

But Blair believes there is nothing that can’t be modernised, updated, pared down or streamlined to keep pace with change. And liberty is no exception to the modernising fury which serves as New Labour’s only ideological foundation. What the Prime Minister is saying in this cute little Orwellian paradox is that in the particular circumstances of the war on terror and the rash of crime and anti-social behaviour, we must give up freedom to be free.

What an odd idea! Who is to decide which freedoms are essential and which can be sacrificed to make us secure? Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Lord Falconer or the former Stalinist and now Home Secretary John Reid?

"Those who would give up essential liberty," observed Benjamin Franklin, "to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom or safety." That’s exactly right because you can’t barter one for the other even though that has been the tempting deal on offer from the British and American governments since 9/11. The truth of the matter is that relinquishing our rights in exchange for illusory security harms each one of us, and our children and grandchildren. Because once gone, these rights hardly ever return.

But let’s just return to the first part of that statement by Tony Blair - the bit about him not wanting to live in a police state, or a Big Brother society. Don’t get me wrong, we do not live in either a police state or a Big Brother society - yet. But there is no Englishman alive or dead who has done more to bring them about.

The trouble is that it’s happening so very quietly, so very discreetly that few really see it. You have to concentrate very hard to understand what’s going on and put the whole picture together because so much has been buried in obscure corners of legislation.

We used to believe in innocence until guilt was proved by a court. Not any longer. That distinction disappeared when the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force and police started taking innocent people’s DNA and fingerprints and treating them as a convicted criminals.

We used to believe in Habeas Corpus. Not any longer. Under terrorism laws, suspects may be held for 28 days without being charged. Now the Home Secretary wants to make that 90 days, and Gordon Brown seems to share that view.

We used to believe that there should be no punishment without a court deciding the law had been broken, and that every defendant had the right to know the evidence against him. Not any longer. Control orders effectively remove both those rights and John Reid said recently that he wanted stronger powers to detain and control, and stronger powers to deport, which would clearly require the UK to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights.

We used to believe that an Englishman’s home was his castle. Not any longer. A pincer movement by the Courts Act 2003 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 put paid to the 400-year-old principle that entry into your home could not be forced in civil cases.

We used to believe in the right to be tried by jury. Not any longer. The Government plans to remove trial by jury in complicated fraud cases and where there is a likelihood of jury tampering. It would like to go further.

We used to believe there was a good reason not to allow hearsay evidence in court. Not any longer. The anti-social behaviour order legislation introduced hearsay evidence. The maximum penalty for breaking an Asbo can be up to five years in jail. Hearsay can send someone to jail.

We used to believe in free speech, but not any longer. People have been detained under terrorism laws for wearing anti-Blair T-shirts. Walter Wolfgang was removed from the Labour Conference for heckling Jack Straw about the Iraq war. A woman was charged under the Harassment Act for sending two e-mails to a company politely asking them not to conduct animal experiments. Her offence was to send two e-mails, for in that lies the repeated action that is now illegal. A man named Stephen Jago was arrested for displaying a placard quoting Orwell near Downing Street. It read: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." And a mime artist named Neil Goodwin appeared in court recently charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act for what? Well, doing an impersonation of Charlie Chaplin outside Parliament. His hearing was a grim comedy. Mr Goodwin’s statement to the court concluded: "In truth, one of the first things to go under a dictatorship is a good sense of humour."

We used to believe that our private communications were sacrosanct. Not any longer. The Regulatory Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and its subsequent amendments provide such wide terms for the legitimate tapping of phones, the interception of e-mails and monitoring of internet connections that they amount to general warrants, last used in the 18th century under George III.

I could go on because there is much more, but I worry about boring you and I know I am beginning to seem obsessed. There will be many reasonable people among you who will argue that the fight against terrorism or some other compelling problem makes the removal of a fragment of liberty the best option available to us.

A little bit here, a little bit there doesn’t really matter, particularly when it involves somebody else’s rights. Without thinking very deeply, we say to ourselves "if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to fear from these new laws". Not true. There is something to fear - because someone else’s liberty is also your liberty. When it’s removed from them, it’s taken from you even though you may not be able to conceive of the circumstances when you might need it. A system of rights must apply to bank managers, illegal immigrant cockle pickers and every type of defendant otherwise it doesn’t count.

Cumulatively, these small, barely noticed reductions in our rights add up to the greatest attack on liberty in the last hundred years. No wonder the Prime Minister dismisses traditional civil liberties arguments as being made for another age. With his record he can do nothing else.
In an e-mail exchange between him and me in the spring, he suggested a kind of super Asbo for major criminals. This is what the unmediated Blair sounds like. "I would go further. I would widen the powers of police to seize cash of suspected [my italics] drug dealers, the cars they drive round in and require them to prove that they came by them lawfully. I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact I would harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country."

I’m sure that echoes many people’s desire just to be rid of these awful people. But think about it for a moment: Tony Blair is a lawyer, yet nowhere is there any mention of due process or the courts. Apparently it will be enough for the authorities merely to suspect someone of wrongdoing for them to act. And the police won’t be troubled by the tiresome business of courts, defence lawyers or defendants’ rights. I wonder what Vaclav Havel would think of such a suggestion. Certainly, he would be all too familiar with the system of arbitrary arrest and state persecution that Blair seems to be suggesting.

Blair dresses up his views in a vocabulary of modernisation and inclusivity. Yet when he talks about rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, it takes just a few moments to see that this will be achieved by doing away with the priority in our legal system of protecting the accused from miscarriages of justice. He simply wants to reduce defendants’ rights in order to satisfy public demand for more prosecutions.

It is now plain that he intends nothing less than to open the ancient charters of British rights in order to tip acid into them.

The way cabinet ministers think of themselves today and what they do are at odds. They think of themselves as reasonable, tolerant, humane and liberal people, but their actions tell an altogether different story. This brings me to the Big Brother state that Tony Blair says he doesn’t want to live in, but which has nevertheless rapidly come into being during his premiership.

Most people have very little understanding of what the ID card scheme will actually mean for them. They think that it just involves a little plastic identifier. But it is much more than that. Every adult will be required to provide 49 pieces of information about themselves which will include biometric measurements - probably an iris scan and fingerprinting. If you refuse to submit to what is called, without irony, enrolment, you will face repeated fines of up £2,500. The Government is deadly serious about this thing because of a simple truth. They want to know pretty much everything there is to know about you.

Personally, I find the idea of having a card repugnant and I cannot believe it will be long before policemen are stopping us on the street and asking for our papers. But this is by no means the most sinister aspect. Every time your card is swiped when you identify yourself, the National Identity Register will silently make a record of the time and date, your location and the purpose of the ID check. Gradually, a unique picture of your life will be built, to which nearly half-a-million civil servants are apparently going to have access.

But of course you will never be told who is looking at your file, or why. And nor will you be able to find out.

MPs must take responsibility for passing this invasive law but they cannot be blamed for the other half of the Big Brother society that is upon us. I refer to the total surveillance of our roads in a linked-up system of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. These cameras cover every motorway, major dual carriageway, town and city centre and will feed information from billions of journeys into one computer, where the data will remain for two years.

The decision to put British motorists under blanket, round- the-clock surveillance was never taken by Parliament. It just happened. As the cost of processing enormous quantities of data came down, the police and Home Office just simply decided to go ahead. Traffic cameras became surveillance cameras. This, I gather, is known as function creep, and, as always, half the pressure comes from technological innovation.

We are about to become the most observed population in the world outside North Korea, and absolutely no work has been done on how this will affect each one of us and what it will do to our society and political institutions.

I worry that we are not alert to the possibilities of social control. No matter how discreet this surveillance, it increases the spectral presence of the state in the everyday consciousness of each individual. I grant that it is a slow process and that it is nothing like the leaden omnipresence of the Stasi in the GDR. But I think we’re heading for a place from which we will not be able to return: the surveillance society where the state will crowd in on the individual human experience and threaten the unguarded freedoms of privacy, solitude, seclusion and anonymity. We may continue to attest to the feeling of freedom but in reality we will suffer more and more restrictions. Inexorably we are becoming subjects not citizens, units on a database that may be observed and classified by a Government which is taking control in areas where it has never dared in democratic times to trespass before.

Where this will all lead I cannot say, but I do know that it is neither good for us nor for the state. Humans work best when they have the maximum freedom, and so does government. As our Government gains more power in relation to us, confusing itself on the way with the entity and interests of the state, it will become less responsive to our needs and opinions, less transparent and less accountable.

Havel said of the Communist tyranny in that glorious but sombre new year’s day speech: "None of us is just its victim. We are its co-creators." That is true of any society. And I believe we all need now to acknowledge what has happened to British rights and do something about it.

Firstly, there needs to be some kind of formal audit made of the rights which have been already compromised. An exact account. Linked to this should be a commission looking into the effects of mass surveillance. Second, we need a constitution which enshrines a bill of rights and places our rights beyond the reach of an ambitious Executive and Parliament. Third, we should be writing to our constituency MPs or clogging up their surgeries - asking what they are doing about the attack on liberty. And fourth, all schoolchildren should be taught about British rights and freedoms, what they mean and how they were won. History, as the National Trust is fond of saying, matters. Rights and liberties are as much a part of our heritage as St Paul’s Cathedral and Shakespeare’s plays.

This may all sound rather prescriptive but I have become certain over the last two years that we need to do something to save us from our Government and the Government from itself.

This was taken from the Summerfield Lecture given at the Everyman Theatre, Cheltenham, on 12 October as part of the annual literary festival. Research by Emily Butselaar

Source

Men of the West!

Why are you in awe of the state? Why do you defer to it? Why do you trust it so?

The state is the very essence of wickedness, it is an organism which desires to grow, to become more powerful, more potent, wealthier and ever more omnipresent.

This same state extorts half your wage, actively campaigns against you, accusing you of racism, homophobia, sexism, bigotry and theft.

It takes your children from you to inculcate them in the sinister knowledgeless drivel that they want your children to parrot when questioned. This propaganda continues into university, places once famed for their knowledge and research, now they are supplicant to the almighty state.

In your work place there is the ever present threat of dismissal if you say the wrong thing or think the wrong thought, legislated by the state. Every action on the road is legislated against.

Everything you wish to pursue must be licenced, fishing, hunting, driving, marriage, flying, travelling(passport) etc...

The state wishes to know you, to control you and possess you!

The state is your enemy.

Men of the West, it is time to stand up against this growing tyranny.

It is time to destroy it.

Blair is gone!

I will admit it, Gordon Brown, so far, is head and shoulders above Tony Blair and his badly acted expressions of concern for what ever it is that is the front page of that day!

In last weeks attempted attacks Brown held off calling dozens of press conferences, complete with crocodile tears, he held off promises of new 'tough' laws and he avoided turning parliament into a Gordon Brown 'fan club' as Tony Blair did the previous week with all that pathetic and unparliamentary applause given to that buffoon.

That's not to say I like Brown, it is just that in comparison to that prancing actor Blair, anyone can look good!

Thank God Blair is gone, it feels so good to be liberated from a decade of lies, spin, deceit, overweening self importance and self righteousness. It is a relief that I wont have endure another one of his many 'innovations' or destructive 'reforms' in his campaign to make this nation something it is not!

It is also a relief to have that harpie of a woman Cherie (what a stupid name) gone as well, hopefully the spouse of the PM will go back into the background where they belong, unlike the US we do not vote in a couple and do not have a 'First Lady' as some people infuriatingly entitled that meddlesome hack of a QC! The closest thing to a First Lady we have is the Queen, the de jure head of state in case anyone has forgotten over these past 10 years!

I really don't know what people saw in that man, but you voted him in 3 times on the trot, good for you, well I suppose that is 'democracy' in action.

And that creep Cameron giving that criminal and traitor a standing ovation? What the fucks wrong with him? The Tories stood and applauded someone who has degraded this nation, given away its independence, increased taxes like no other government in recent times, plundered private pensions, unleashed the third world upon us, with threats to lock up those who opposed it. Blair is a criminal and a traitor and I hope his treasonous and silly signing of the International Criminal Court back fires on him and he ends up in the Hague on war crimes charges, that would be funny and all to well deserved for a man of his dubious distinction.

Brown, although complicit in the crimes and treason of Blair, is for the moment a breath of fresh air, I have no doubt that I will despise him as well in the not to distant future, although I can't imagine hating him as much as I hate Blair, but until then I will enjoy this Blairless government!

It is also good to see Prescott, Margaret Becket, that daft tart Patricia Hewitt and John Reid gone as well, although now we have to endure that sleazy, amoral, career politician David Milliband as Foreign Secretary!

Ah well, it cant be all good I suppose!

The Democratic State!

An intersting quote I found, if you replace 'Republican' with Conservative and 'Democrat' with Labour, it could be talking about England!

The Republican party is thought to be the party of free enterprise, small government, and family values. It is actually the party of state capitalism.

The Democratic Party is thought to be the party of the common people. It is actually the party of international finance and elitist social engineering.

Federal aid is thought to have improved public education. It has actually made it worse.

Federal expenditures on medical care are thought to have made it more available. They have actually only made it more expensive.

The mass media are thought to be vigilant watchdogs of government abuse. They are actually lackeys of power.

College professors are thought to exemplify bold and independent thinking. Actually, aside from the productive 5 percent, they are timid, conformist, and unoriginal.

Federal judges are thought to be steeped in the wisdom of the Constitution. They actually know less than nothing about the real American Founding.

It is widely believed that, as stated in a recent Congressional resolution, American slavery was among the most brutal systems of servitude in history. Actually it was among the mildest.

It is widely believed that any symptoms of social dysfunction in the black community are a result of slavery. Actually, the problems are worse the farther they are from the time and place of slavery.

Down with the Commons, restore the House of Lords!

Source

Whats so great about democracy?

Blair, Bush, Brown and all the others 'leaders' make a big huh hah over something called 'democracy' or 'democratic rights', it sounds great if you don't think to hard!

What the hell's democracy anyway?

This present government was elected with about a quarter of the national vote, but got well over half the seats. Is that democracy?

This government has signed numerous European Treaties into law without asking the people of this nation. Is that democracy?

They abolished the old pound shillings and pence without consulting the people, they foisted the metric system on us, and prosecute traders who sell in pounds and ounces, even though no one thinks in kilograms! Is that your precious democracy?

This government and previous governments have allowed millions, yes that's right, millions of immigrants and refugees to pour into the nation in what can only be describes as a slow motion government sponsored genocide of the indigenous peoples of these islands. Is this democracy?

Democracy is in fact a weasel word! It is meaningless! Democracy can be anything you want it to be, as proved by this current government and their sleazy ways of doing things.

Democracy is a cover for the criminal and coward, it gives a fig leaf of respectability when they are up to no good. They just claim, 'this is democracy in action', 'this is the will of the people' etc, etc...

The fact that I can scrawl a mark on a piece of paper every 5 years means shit! What a big fucking deal, that really makes a fucking difference! And if you think it does make a difference, you are delusional!

At most it makes minor changes now and then, the real power in this nation is the propaganda, used, harnessed and marketed by amoral prostitutes such as Rupert Murdoch, who is only out to make yet more money( this is the guy who renounced his citizenship, so he could take up American citizenship to own a few rags and Fox)

They could not care less who is in power, as long as they are good for business! It seems strange, in 1997, the press, the entire press was going through some sort of religious experience with regards Tony Blair, I was convinced Labour would annihilate the Tories, and then they did.

What was not told was that Blair got less votes nationwide in 1997 then Major got in 1992. 14,093,007 for Major in 1992 and Blair's 1997 landslide of 13,518,167, not to worry, this story was buried as it would not fit in with the media induced anti-Tory atmosphere!

That would be hard to do now as we have this fine medium to garner news and information from, but back then, the internet was used exclusively for porn.

Remember it is perception that wins out!

Democracy, what a crock of shit, it has abolished capital punishment, legalised abortion, liberalised divorce, decriminalised homosexuality, joined the European Union, signed up to the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights. Democracy resulted in the legalised sodomising of 16 year olds, pot smoking junkies on every corner, tens of thousands of Gypsies begging and thieving in every city centre, Somalian teenaged boys, running around in gangs robbing and raping all around them, Muslims preaching death to the infidel and detonating themselves on public transport.

This is democracy, this is what it is! Every single thing mentioned above was qualified when passed, when capital punishment was abolished, they promised us that 'life would mean life', they lied, life now means 5 years in prison, murder actually pays in this country!

When abortion was passed, they vowed it was a very limited type of abortion, only those women who were physically unable or who were mentally unable would be allowed abort a child, they lied here too. We now effectively have abortion on demand.

When they decriminalised homosexuality, they said it would not be the thin end of the wedge, that this was a humane thing to do, perhaps, but with this they lied and betrayed us too. We now have gay marriage, gay adoption and 40 year old men sodomising 16 year old boys.

Immigration is something we have been lied to by these cynical fucks for the past 40 years. Some parts of this country are no longer British, they have minarets towering over the streets, women walking about in shawls or burqas. We have white women being raped, or just shagged by these ethnics and then left when they fall pregnant. We have whole streets strewn with filth and rubbish like some Algerian casbah. Gypsies, everywhere, with their filthy nasty offspring they beg on the corners and on the underground, they pick pocket and thieve, and when caught they wipe vaginal fluids on the police officers so as to make an allegation of sexual assault latter on. These politicians, these democratically elected politicians lied to us about this too, they assured us that immigration would be controlled.

These democratically elected politicians lied, lied and lied again. This in a democracy!

Perhaps it's time we had a bit more aristocracy or monarchy?

The House of Lords has always been more sensible then that other house, the house of scoundrels and liars and thieves. The house of Lords worked and worked well because they were not elected, they did not have to make vacuous statements, they did not have to make promises that they would break, they did not even have to turn up if they did not have the interest, they went unpaid with no offices. How glorious is that? A house full of people there not through lies and theft and cheating and party hackery, but there because of an accident of birth, some plonkers yes, but they usually did not bother to ever turn up, but the great minds, the decent men who would never have otherwise spoken in Parliament or stood for election as they had lives to live and did not have to temerity to lie so readily.

Well, that house of thieves and scum has chased out the decent house, no more hereditary peers, no more unelected Dukes or Barons or Earls, good men, decent patriotic men who attempted to revise the worst legislation vomited up from the lower house, they also had great and honest debates regarding the great issues of the day, something the rightly entitled lower house would never deign to debate!

What is so great about democracy?

I really can only think of waste, lies and wickedness unbound from their stained and immoral hands.

Democracy, it's an expensive destructive lie!

I wish for my liberty, the freedom to live as I wish, democracy and democratically elected politicians are in direct opposition to this aim.

The best thing for us all would be to abolish the House of Commons, and restore the House of Lords in all its former glory and power!

Then perhaps we can rest and live our lives as we would, knowing their lordships are directing the affairs of state with wisdom and humility not lying to us, not sleezing about for votes not steeling from us!

Let the cry be heard, Abolish the Commons!

War with Iran? Pull the other one!

I've been reading with interest, over the past few days, some fevered speculation that we are near war with Iran!

The Telegraph ran a headline stating "We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb", this was followed up with assessments of Iran's response, and the growing Iranian nuclear threat.

Front Page Magazine, has a report stating that Iran has "Crossed a Red Line", I get the distinct impression that some are thinking that this is the time to go to war, perhaps to introduce 'democracy to Iran'?

Well, even if the Americans, Israelis or someone in coalition with others (which is highly unlikely) attacks Iran, it will not fall as easily as Iraq, for one main reason, the disastrous policies applied to Iraq since 2003!

I was never one to believe in the whole WMD thing, the 45 minute danger that Blair announced in the House of Commons seemed to me at best an exaggeration, I was shocked people fell for that, but never mind!

I did support the invasion of Iraq, for 2 reasons, the status quo was untenable, we had besieged Iraq for over a decade without any noticeable effect on Saddam or the Ba'athists, we could either go in and get rid of him, or rehabilitate him and let him ship the oil and be a 'good boy', we took the war path, mistakenly many would now say! I also supported it for the reason that we need to secure our future supplies of oil, reserves around the world are being depleted, the Middle East offers the only consistently large supply of oil for the foreseeable future.

But instead of kicking Saddam out and securing another friendly man in power, before leaving, or retreating to our military camps allowing the Iraqi armed forces to deal with the newly formed insurgency, we decide to introduce 'democracy' in to the Middle East.

Not that this is an evil thing, I'm sure some of the men in the White House had visions of flowers and dancing children, tidy towns and cities made in the image of America, except with darker people, mosques instead of churches and funny writing.

But, this dream must surely have been smashed by now? The only reason we should go into another nation is for selfish national reasons, hey if it works out well for the nation being invaded, great! If not, tough!

America and the West should not be in the business of 'helping' other peoples and nations for the sake of being 'nice', the truth is, we are not in that business, but to make our realpolitik look nice and friendly in this sentimental, childish age, our political leaders knowing us to be sentimental, ignorant and childish sign on to this lie, it becomes vital in this 'democratic' age! This is one of the joys of 'democracy', that concept we are told that is the panacea for all the ills of the world!

(If only Zimbabwe, Congo, Nigeria and Iran would introduce democracy, the world would be a beautiful place, oh wait, they do have elections...)

Some actually talk themselves into believing it and I'm sure some do actually believe this 'democracy' crock!

Democracy is an ideology that has outlived its usefulness anyway, it does not even work here in the West, how the hell is it going to work in the Middle East?

This disaster in Iraq must not be repeated, all the reasons (except to resolve the untenable situation re: the sanctions) to go to war in 2003 have been missed, no not missed ruined, Iraq is not producing more oil, it is costing America billions every year, this war has backfired to a huge degree, every bad mistake seems to have been made, and now we are being told we need to go to war with Iran?

Well, if someone else were to do so, then yeah sounds great, but what will the American people think? What will Europe think?

No one will fight! If they do, they will lose just as we've done in Iraq.

Any politician that makes a case for war with Iran whether he is genuine or not, will be under huge pressure by the left, he will be smeared and libeled, and will most probably lose power, hounded out by friends of Islam and those lefties who always love to hound out people they disagree with!

War with Iran? yeah right!

Elections 2007

The local English elections have resulted in one gain for the BNP!

That is out if 10,000 local seats throughout the country, not exactly what one would call impressive no matter how the BNP spins it!

What has shocked me, is the amount of people still willing, and seemingly eager to vote for Labour!

I thought everone hated Labour for the 'War'? Or not spending enough on the 'elf service or not allowing in enough immigrants?

But I suppose all those hypocrites always intended to vote Labour anyway. I heard one man on the news say, that he voted Labour, because he has always voted Labour and always will!

What a fucking idiot!

Get an immagination!

So, in brief, nothing much has changed here, except in Scotland, although how much it has changed we shall have to see, as the SNP are chronic lefties themselves.

France has been a bit more interesting, Nicholas Sarkozy is now President elect, who will take over on the 16th May, he has run a good campaign, and a seemingly honest campaign. If he keeps to his word France may be in for a few momentus years ahead!

In America, the whole Presidential race is terminally boring, even the ones I assumed would be of some interest such as Guiliani are conspicious by their invisibility!

What I beleive Britain and America need, is some sort of proportional voting system, it would turn these boring contests into something more exiting, it would also give us more people to vote for without having to waste our votes!

Vote BNP!

There are local elections in England and Wales on May 3rd, there are also assembly elections in Scotland and Wales.

If you want anything to change vote for the BNP!

Even if you are uncomfortable with them as a party, or despise where they came from, the truth is, our political elites will not listen to us if we vote Labour or Conservative or Liberal, or Monster Raving Loony Party!

They will only fear us if we dare to vote BNP!

You see, most of the political class are political prostitutes, they will do almost anything to get into power, they will go on the Jonathan Ross Show, they will play soccer (badly) for all to see, they will feign interest in pop groups, they will say they passionately believe in the environment or Africa to get some votes!

Now, I don't really mind that we have political hookers in Parliament, what I do mind is that they seem intent on dismantling this nation and handing over the remains to Europe and/or the minorities, for their share of the loot!

Well, I say we make them work for it for a change! Vote BNP, scare the shit out of them and we might actually get some people in the Conservatives and Labour deciding to actually do something we want!

Go on, give it a try, if enough of us do it, we could send shivers down the spines of our pompous overfed elites!

Democracy: A red herring

By Andrew C. McCarthy, from the National Review

This is a war of will.

Very true, and we don't seem to have that will!

If we lose it, the historians will marvel at how mulishly we resisted understanding the one thing we needed to understand in order to win. The enemy.

Yes, someone who understands!

In Iraq, we've tried to fight the most civilized light footprint war of all time. We made sure everyone knew our beef was only with Saddam Hussein, as if he were a one-man militia no Sunni Baathists supporting him, no Arab terrorists colluding, and no Shiite jihadists hating us just on principle. No, our war was only with the regime. No need to fight the Iraqis. They, after all, were noble. They would flock to democracy if only they had the chance. And, once they hailed us as conquering heroes, their oil wealth would pay for the whole thing just 400 billion American dollars ago.

Well, lets stop kidding ourselves! Either we throw this away, or we fight it properly, but Ibelieveleive, there is no longer any way for us to win this, not because we can't, but because I can't see that we can stomach the fight ahead! Churchill gassed rebellious Iraqis, would you accept that? Could you?

For (Mohammedans), the president's euphonious rhetoric about democratic empowerment is offensive. They believe, sincerely, that authority to rule comes not from the people but from Allah; that there is no separation of religion and politics; that free people do not have authority to legislate contrary to Islamic law; that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and men to women; and that violent jihad is a duty whenever Muslims deem themselves under attack no matter how speciously. These people are not morons.

I think this is something we should all accept, these people attacking us are not dumb, not Arab versions of 'hicks' or 'country bumpkins', they are for the most part educated men, men with a strong faith in Allah and Mohammeds commanoffensivefensive as that religion may be, this is whabelievebeleive and many prbelievebeleive quite sincerely!

Democratizing such cultures in anything we would recognize as democracy is the work of generations. It is a cultural phenomenon. It is not accomplished by elections and facile constitution writing especially, constitutions that shun Madisonian democracy for the State Department's preferred establishment of Islam and its adhesive sharia law as the state religion. Elections, in fact, play to the strengths of Islamic terrorists. Jihadists are confident, intimidating, and rigorously disciplined. They are thus certain to thrive in the chaos of nascent democracies. Consequently, it should be unsurprising to anyone with a shred of common sense that terrorist organizations are ascendant in the new governments of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

This is the truth, Islam and Islamic culture is incompatable with freedom or democracy, the only relatively stable Islamic nations are authoritarian monarchies, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. They should not see democracy, for when this happens, Islamists gain traction, this is true in Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, etc...

Time to face the truth, Democracy is unpaletable even here in the West, its dead in the water in the Islamic world!

We must continue this fight!

At this moment, all I read and see on the news is the jihad against Israel and Israel's counter-attack, Allied soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, terrorists killing yet more people in Iraq.

The defeatists, appeasers and wanabe dhimmis in the West want us to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to slap sanctions on Israel! We must not allow this or it's all over! The West will become a laughing stock, we must keep our nerve, we must show the pacifist-dhimmis our scorn and we must continue this fight.

I don't know If Afghanistan or Iraq can be won, perhaps not, but Israel can prevail and should prevail, it is now only a matter of will. We could beat the Muslims blindfolded with both hands tied behind our backs, all it takes is will power, do we have it?

If not, then the Muslims will win, if we have it they will lose, and lose big time!

Europe is in danger through reckless immigration policies, welfare socialism and the collapse of morality. Women no longer want to have kids, men just want to fuck sluts, not settle down, no one beleives in right or wrong anymore.

Europe is in danger, our rulers show us only contempt. They fiddle while Europe burns, anger is rising, I hear it, I sense it. Right now many people don't know where to aim this anger, brainwashed as they are into beleiving in multi-culturalism.

I hope they realise soon, the crock of shit that has been fed to them. I hope they rise up and throw out their leaders, reclaim their nations and expell the enemies that live like parasites amoung us!

This fight is existential, it is for the very soul of the West, do we have the will to resist the communist vision of the future? Do we have the will to see this fight through? Do we have the will to call this what it is, a Crusade?

Israel is our front line, Israel is fighting our fight, India is fighting our fight, Thailand and the Phillipines are fighting our fight, will we fight, what is essentially our fight?

Whats so offensive about these cartoons?

United Nations to rule us all!

Aint that something to look forward to?

You know, I've always said, "I wonder what it's like to live in a third world kleptocracy?"

And now, obligingly, the UN have decided to let us all experience the thrill of living under a governement even more incompetent and wasteful then your average European welfare state, how cool is that?

According to the Independent, that bastion of steadiness and cool heads, the UNDP(United Nations Development Programme) has come out with a plan to solve ALL the worlds problems in one swoop! Just like superman!!!

"UN unveils plan to release untapped wealth of...$7 trillion (and solve the world's problems at a stroke) "

Independent 30th January 2006.

The usually reserved Indie then goes on to say,

"The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.
The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world"

So the UN beleives that the nation state is a what? "old fashined concept that has NO role to play in a modern globalised world"

Well there you have it, if the UN says it, its gotta be true!! After all they are right about everything, are they not?

"In a groundbreaking move, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has drawn up a visionary proposal that has been endorsed by a range of figures including Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate"

Well if Gordon Brown supports it, how can anyone be against it? After all he is the best economist in the history of mankind!!

Who's that Joseph guy I hear you call! Well I looked him up on google and found that he is a communist economist, who writes books telling us why capitalism is nasty and wrong! Too right, cant wait till the revolution!! VIVA STALIN!! what, he's dead, oh well viva who ever's still alive, oh yeah Casto is still hanging on aint he, yeah, we can viva him!!!!

So the UN is "visionary"?

WOW!!

Let us read on

"At the heart of the proposal, unveiled at a gathering of world business leaders at the Swiss ski resort of Davos, is a push to get countries to account for the cost of failed policies, and use the money saved "up front" to avert crises before they hit. Top of the list is a challenge to the United States to join an international pollution permit trading system which, the UN claims, could deliver $3.64trn of global wealth."

I don't really understand what they mean by getting countries to account for the cost of failed policies? Do we elect our MPs to be accountable to Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Hamas and 'saint' Kofi, or are they accountable to us?

And there they go again with their demand that the US join Kyoto! Those horrible, nasty, hooting, tooting, poluting, moronic Yanks better listen to those wise and wonderful men at the UN, or else...or else, they will be asked to join Kyoto again, ha ha ha ha! That will teach those stupid Yanks!!


"Inge Kaul, a special adviser at the UNDP, said: "The way we run our economies today is vastly expensive and inefficient because we don't manage risk well and we don't prevent crises." She downplayed concerns over up-front costs and interest payments for the new-fangled financial devices. "The gains in terms of development would outweigh those costs. Money is wasted because we dribble aid, and the costs of not solving the problems are much, much higher than what we would have to pay for getting the financial markets to lend the money."
The UNDP is determined to ensure globalisation, which has generated vast wealth for multinational companies, benefits the poorest in society."

So our economies should be run for the benefit of the people of the third world! Why should we horrible, nasty, racist, imperialistic, white westerners be allowed to keep our money, we don't deserve it!!

The piece then goes on about global warming, poverty etc. Same old boring shit lefties bang on about day after day!!

I had a look at the UNDP web site, these are the Mellenium Development Goals

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
Goal5: Improve maternal health
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

So, basically we brainless, white westerners are going to continue to fund the expoding and unsustainable populations of the third world and Islamic world?

Sounds great count me in!!

Eradicate hunger and poverty? achieve universal primary education?

Why?

We in the West have funded ourselves, why dont these third world bastards fuck off and do it for themselves instead of moaning and complaining about 'racism' and 'imperialism'
We should tell them, "you want universal education? well go on then, lets see you do it"

Promote gender equality? Well how do we do that while excusing Islam?

Reduce child mortality? Again, why? Can't they do that themselves? Why should we support unsustainable population growth? Why fuck up the world for barabrous screaming brats?

Improve maternal health? Again, I can't see why we should fund this, no one helped us when we had high mortality rates

Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases? Why? So that the world can be overrun by people who cant feed themselves or their families?

This is one of the problems inflicting the west at the moment, We happily abort millions of our potential children, whilst supporting the lives of children in the third world who would otherwise die.

We upset the natural balance of the world. In 10 years time, you can bet millions of people will be elbowing their way into the West, raping our women, taking whats our's and trashing our cultures and nations while enslaving our races. It will be poetic justice, because the very barbarians who do this, will be the ones who survived because of our misplaced charity!!

What should we do? End ALL aid, no more medicines, unless full market price is paid, no more debt cancellation, I have to repay my mortgage, they have to pay back their loans, no exception.
No more support for unsustainable population growth. We need to stop being sentimental about kids, they grow up to be adults, and in the third world, that means savages!

Lets take care of our own nations, then perhaps they may begin to take responsibility for themselves. That would be the best thing for all of us!

What to do?

Well now that the question has been answered, what can we do?

Is there anything that can be done to stop the decay, to end the decline?

Well anything is possible!

If you can set up a new political party, one that would radically reform the ecomomy of your respective European nation, one that would end irresponsible immigration, expel many or all of the Muslims, create an atmosphere where Europeans start to breed once again etc, etc.

But how likely is that?

Anything is possible, but not probable.

Europe is facing the end, the combination of economic decline, demographic suicide and the ending of morals is set to intensify. This is how Rome came to its end. In ancient Rome, taxes became crushing, immigration was out of control and infanticide was rife, the population of Rome was falling, all it took was about 50 years for the barbarians to manouvre themselves to end the Roman Empire.

It would not suprise me if in 2050, Europe was a collection of unstable Islamic sultanates.You must leave now, if you cant leave now, you must make a plan and leave in the next 5 years, because this decay we see will only intensify, the fall is not that far away.Where to go?

Australia is a great place to go, with a booming economy, 90% white, few Muslims, and a patriotic people, Australia is a good bet. Pop 20 millions and rising to 43 millions by 2100.

New Zealand is another good bet, 80% white, 15% Maori, virtually no Muslims and a booming economy. Pop 4 millions rising to 8 millions by 2100.

United States, most powerful nation on earth, wealthiest nation on earth, a proud people, healthy booming economy and 80% white with only 1% muslim. Pop 300 millions rising to 500 millions by 2100.

Canada, although more left wing then the rest and with a sizeable Muslim minority, it is still a better bet then Europe, over 90% white. Pop 32 millions rising to 66 millions by 2100.

Europe has a dying economy, dying races and out of control, malign inward migration. Pop 800 millions droping to 650 millions by 2100, projected non white population up to 20%, rising to 40% or even 60% in some countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands.Leave now before the flood to get out.

When even the dim Europeans realise what has happened, millions will try to flee to America or Australia. Those nations will not allow such huge influxes, many will be forced to remain in the war zone and become dhimmi(subdued kafirs who pay the poll tax).

So leave now or very soon, to avoid the rush! Trust me it will come!Already, many instinctivly understand the decline, but can't convey this understanding in words, they know too many Muslims is dangerous, to much welfare is deadening.

I have met many Europeans like this and they all want to go and live in Australia or New Zealand or Canada or the US. Very few Europeans activly want to stay in Europe, excluding the Irish who are quite content.

20,000 Britons are leaving to emigrate to Australia every year, and the numbers are rising, this is the highest rate of British emigration to that nation since the 50s!! Britons now make up the largest group of emigrants in Australia!

So dont dally, get a move on, make a plan, get off of this sinking ship, before you drown on the chaos of the consequences of a century of efete liberalism and soul distroying socialism.

Bill of Rights 2005

Western Governments excepting the United States desperatly need to rethink their attitude towards our rights, the US for all its faults has a long lived and thoughtful Constitution that protects them and their rights.

For too long western governments have trampled our rights for the 'greater good'.

They ban activities they deem dangerous, the
'something must be done' crowd are appeased at every juncture, banning guns, capital punishment, restricting smoking, regulating everything that moves, whilst at the same time legalising cannabis, gay marriage, unrestricted abortion etc, and at all times being suspicious of private property and personal income.

The bellow Bill of Rights is a template for western nations, it could be the way forward, but it needs political backing. It needs brave men to stand up and fight for our rights, they need to fight the reactionary left who rule most of the west at present, the ones who meekly appease Islam and at the same time ridicule Christians and those who beleive in freedom or wish to keep the majority of their income.

Article I

Parliament shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This first one guarentees the freedom of people to exercise their faith or lack of faith, they do not need to be frightened of the hypocritical bureaucrats who happily appease Muslims by permitting them to wear full Islamic gear, whilst sending the girl who wears a cross on chain round her neck, home.
It also guarentees the right to say what you wish, whether that is tastless, racist, stupid, offensive or subversive, race hate and religious hate laws would be unconstitutional
We would also be able to protest where and when we wish as long as it does not involve riot, to appeal to the government for a redress of grievance, whether or not that grievance is real or immagined


Article II

Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. The right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction for a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, except in time of war or public danger.


The second article forbids torture. It also provided for the protection of all life, putting a question on abortion! It also approves capital punishment after a trial and a sentence of death has been passed.


Article III

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, properties, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


This article circemscribes the powers of the police and government against the people


Article V

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Self explainatory


Article VI

No person shall be tried for the same offence twice; nor shall anyone be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived liberty, without due process of law.

This is quite important, given various governments shocking abuse of the courts for their own political ends. One trial per accusation, only one.


Article VII

The right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Realm, than according to the rules of the common law.

Again self explainatory

Article VIII

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, except as proscribed by law.

This is also important, too many governments have used a gun massacre, or have been urged by the 'something must be done' crowd after a massacre to ban guns. This is a ridiculous way to govern. The right to bear arms needs to be protected, with limits in law, such as mad men are not allowed to be issued a licence, or minors etc.

Article IX

Taxation of the people shall be done in a manner which is simple, clear and just. The right of the people to retain a majority of their income will not be infringed. Any raising of revenue shall first be put to the people in a referendum, except in time of war or public danger.

This is probably the most important right I have included, due to the addiction all governments have with other peoples money. Usually taking someones money against their wishes is deemed theft, this carries a prison sentence, yet governments not only steal your money, they imprison you if you refuse to hand over your money to them!!!!
Their insatiable appetite for our money needs to be constrained by a fixed law, if they have to call a referendum to raise tax, they will be a lot more careful with our money in the future!!!

Article X

The enumeration in this bill, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. However the enumeration of rights in this bill and of others retained by the people apply only to citizens of this Realm and not to aliens

This is also important, just because a right is not elaborated on in this bill does not mean that a government can ride roughshod over them. All governments and consciencious men must think seriously before passing a law, any law, they must ask, is this really needed, is it just a repetition of a previous act, will it take freedom from the people. A government must not make any law just to look like it is doing something, a law made for its own sake is probably a bad law!
Also only citizens of the republic or realm to which you belong are beneficiaries of these rights. Third world savages who pour off the boats fled their own countries not bothering to fight for freedom in their own countries, abandoning their people, they too often abuse our rights and claim them for themselves. That is wrong, these rights apply only to the race or races which have a history of fighting for them. We in the west have spent centuries, some would say mellenia fighting for them, we deserve them due to our blood sacrifice in the Cold War, WWII, WWI, the Boer war, the American Civil War, American War of Independence, the French revolutionary and Napoeonic wars, The wars for liberation by the Balkan peoples against Turkey, The wars twixt England it's colonies and France in the 18th centuries, the Glorious Revolution, the English Civil War, the Wars of Religion in northern Europe, the reconquista in Iberia as well as the Crusades.
Savages have never fought for the rights of their people, they are lazy and undeserving of these rights. Some such as Muslims abuse these rights to murder us and dismantle our freedoms.
Aliens and their decendents would be liable to expulsion from the realm or republic in which they reside for the continuing safety and freedom of the true citizens of these realms and republics.

Bill of Rights 2005

Article I

Parliament shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.


Article II

Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. The right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction for a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, except in time of war or public danger.


Article III

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, properties, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Article IV

No one shall be compelled to part with their property without due process of law. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation


Article V

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.


Article VI

No person shall be tried for the same offence twice; nor shall anyone be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived liberty, without due process of law.


Article VII

The right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Realm, than according to the rules of the common law.


Article VIII

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, except as proscribed by law.


Article IX

Taxation of the people shall be done in a manner which is simple, clear and just. The right of the people to retain a majority of their income will not be infringed. Any raising of revenue shall first be put to the people in a referendum, except in time of war or public danger.


Article X

The enumeration in this bill, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. However the enumeration of rights in this bill and of others retained by the people apply only to citizens of this Realm and not to aliens


_______________________________________________________

Therefore we firmly enjoin that the people in our Kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly for themselves and their heirs, in all respects and in all places for ever