The Danny Lake Articles

Danny Lake, signing off...

2011-10-31T16:20:00.005Z

I have posted on this blogsite for the past four years now, and over the past few years, have felt it might be time to move on and do some other things. So, that being said, it is perhaps time that I thanked all of my readers for the thoughts, contributions, and the regular hits on this site.

It could be said that time moves on, and ultimately, all things move with time or wither and die. I'll be spending the next few years travelling about, involving myself in a few worthwhile causes, and getting grips with the issues on the ground of what is quickly becoming a crumbling empire in a world of war and strife.

I may at some point, move onto a new website, where I may or may not share the next few years thoughts and experiences with you. But all being said, this will be my last post on The Danny Lake Articles.

I have spent most of my adult life, up until now, either engaged in nationalist politics, or writing about nationalist issues. And with the rumour mill being what it is, it is perhaps inevitable that until I break with this site and move onto other things, it will always be considered that I have some secret plan to reinvolve myself in nationalism, and at some point in the future challenge for the leadership of the BNP, regardless of the fact that I am no longer a member, and haven't been since December 2007.

For me, the realm of understanding is so much wider than nationalism. And although I will always maintain a grip of those nationalist principles which are quickly becoming so important to the future of our world, it is best for me, and for nationalism, to break with the confines of the old ideology and move on.

Once again, I would like to take the opprtunity to thank you all for taking the time to read through this website, and I wish you all, the very best of luck for the future.

DL

Juice News: Termination of Economy

2011-10-08T16:54:00.003+01:00

The economic crisis, explained, in Rap. Featuring Ron Paul, Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco.

Pure Genius!!! ;-)

DL

RIP Dave Hannam

2011-10-04T18:01:00.007+01:00

It is with the deepest sadness that I write today about the death of Dave Hannam. Unfortunately, I've only just received this tragic news, and although I am at present sat here, getting a bit emotional, it is only right that nationalists everywhere take the time to spare a thought for a man who gave much to the cause he loved.

Dave was an active nationalist for years, but is best known for his work with Great White Records as a singer/songwriter and producer. Something he was very good at, as he proved time and again.

I first met Dave at a Young BNP camp, in Stoke, in 2004. It was then that I first heard him sing, and as much as I have listened to other versions of “I am a Patriot”, for me, nobody ever managed to sing that song with as much feeling as he did.

I got to know Dave a bit better as the years passed. Helping him out on the GWR stall at RWB 2007 after he very generously put the money up for the printing on the Young BNP football kits. But as some have already said, he was a deeply private man and sadly, I never got to know him as well as I would have liked too.

Sadly, I had a bit of a falling out with Dave after the December 2007 split. Not speaking to him for several years following those events. However, I did eventually make things up with him, and perhaps my only regrets are that I never had the time to take him up on his offer to go horse riding, and he never had the chance to finish work on the songs I bombarded him with for near on two years.

Dave, it has to be said was a true gent, an Englishman, and one of the most friendly, and genuine nationalists I have had the pleasure work and laugh with. Life may pass and death may reach us all. But one thing is for sure. Those of us who knew Dave Hannam will never forget him.

Rest in Peace, Comrade.

Recognising the Contradictions: Tolerant nationalism in a world tired of war

2011-08-27T13:21:00.008+01:00

“Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one”
Friedrich Nietzsche

For eight years now I have subscribed to a nationalist ideology. I have taken part in numerous Council, General and European election campaigns, have run the youth wing of a political party, and have spent the past four years as a politically independent nationalist following a political split in December 2007. A split which was not just the result of a movement towards greater openness and democracy in the Party I first become active with at the age of eighteen, but also ended with me coming under fire for advocating the modernisation of a membership policy which until recently, was whites only.

Granted, you could say I got my way in the end. Yet today, even with this change in policy, many nationalists continue to cling to an old and outdated mode of thinking which states that the battle against globalisation is one which involves persecution and discrimination of those groups which are alien to our own.

Since 2001, the rise in nationalist sentiments has resulted in a whole plethora of patriotically minded belief structures, many of which seek to do nothing more than create division and sow the seed of distrust against those who have chosen to make our land, their home. Yet in doing so, many of these people – Pro Zionist lobbyists, anti Islamists and various christian fundementalist groups – quite often forget that in their rush to secure a future for the natural inhabitants of our ancestral homeland, the inevitable result is a decline of intellectual and moral belief structures, and the rise of a totalitarian form of nationalism which whilst condemning the totalitarian nature of liberal democracy, seeks to impose its own totalitarian belief structures on others. In other words, many have started to become the very monster they claim to be fighting against.

Granted, there are many deeply concerning issues in Europe today. Mass immigration and the rise of ideological Islam being two very perfect examples. But as the video above demonstrates (which, by the way, I am posting in response to a request I received to do so), we must be careful to distinguish between those who seek to impose their belief structures on our people, and those who want nothing more than to be part of, and contribute to a society that they have come to make their home.

DL

UK Governments war on moral breakdown: a crackdown on civil liberties and prison sentences for children

2011-08-18T17:10:00.021+01:00

Throughout history, moments of terror have often resulted in the rise of totalitarian powers. The Reichstag fire being one such example. However, now it appears that the riots that swept across England for four nights last week are to be added to the list of draconian power inducing incidents as Theresa May, The British Home Secretary drafts a whole new set of police powers. Up to and including the right to impose blanket curfews.

Naturally, people are angry. Neighbourhoods trashed, homes destroyed, businesses ransacked. It would no doubt be hard to find anybody who wasn’t angry. Yet personally, I can’t help but feel that this whole incident is being used to launch yet another assault on freedom in the land that gave the world the very principle. Over the past ten years we have witnessed an assault on our civil liberties like never before. With such assaults always arriving shortly after a major incident. In 2005 it was the London bombings. Now, it is the riots that have swept England.

It goes without saying that such pointless violence needs tough action to counter any chance of a repeat. But what I can’t help but wonder is how many of these powers will now be used to crack down on perfectly lawful forms of protest.

Take the Student fees demonstration for example, or for that matter any number of the anti-war demonstrations or even any future demonstration which may arise as recession grips the western world and the ordinary man on the street begins to feel the squeeze more and more. Where as before there would have been nothing the police could do other than contain the protestors and arrest any trouble makers. They now have the power to use water cannon and rubber bullets. Not forgetting the power to impose a blanket curfew. A measure which poses some very searching questions as to the very nature of our democracy.

This is of course not forgetting the news that 2,500 arrests have taken place since the riots and the claims that there are far too many examples of too harsh a sentences being doled out.

Granted, nobody would dream of saying that some of these people don't deserve to be imprisoned. Especially where violence and arson are concerned. But when you have single mothers being imprisoned for receiving a pair of looted shorts. Or people being given prison terms for stealing a bottle of water. Or for that matter, somebody who glorified and encouraged riots on Facebook (riots which never actually took place...the individual in questions friends claim it was just a joke) receiving four years for Incitement to Riot; questions do need to be asked about the needless severity, and in all too many cases, kneejerk sentencing decisions being made in our court's. Especially when you take into account the court's choice to imprison so many teenagers.

Personally, to think that we live in a society where it is considered immoral (not to mention illegal) to smack your child (which let's be honest, is all most of these kids need). Yet it is considered perfectly moral to imprison them. Ruining their education, destroying their prospects, criminalising them at a young age and creating all kinds of psychological damage in the process. Is indeed deeply shocking. And if you ask me, not only goes to demonstrate just how sick and twisted the British State has become. But also suggests that the recent riots to have gripped England are only the beginning of a lot more to come.

England Burning: riots, looting and the English underclass.

2011-08-10T15:15:00.006+01:00

Many will by now be aware of the riots to erupt across England over the past four days. What started out in London, has now spread and it is perhaps time some serious questions were asked.

On the surface, this looks like nothing more than wanton criminality. No political statements have been made, no grievance voiced and in many cases this set of events demonstrates the complete lack of respect for the law that has come to typify the modern underclass. But what has created this situation and is there now, anything that society can do to heal the rift that so clearly exists between the looters and The State.

Now nobody would dream of attempting to justify the actions of the past four nights. After all, homes have been smashed, livelihoods destroyed, and communities torn in two. But typically, no riot is without its cause and regardless of the senseless nature of the events of the past few days, I do believe that these events demonstrate the hopeless situation that many of those involved, find themselves living in on a daily basis.

I grew up on a sink estate myself. I guess you could say, that I come from the very underclass which many of these rioters belong too. I grew up in a single parent household, my mother survived on State benefits and all around me, were people who lived a very much similar life to my own.

For many people in these areas, the problems are many. Low aspirations, poverty, a general sense of hopelessness. A belief if you like that they were born into the gutter and in the gutter they shall stay. You could even say that the Society which criticises, and quite often, is all too willing to imprison them for crimes against that Society, is a Society that these people have never been part off.

For many of these people, they speak differently, dress differently, behave differently, and in many ways, come from a completely different background to one that Society at large is familiar with. Yet at the same time they are subjected to the same television programmes and the same adverts which show a Society completely at odds with the one they live in. Essentially the mass media tells them that without the latest trainers, computer game or flat screen TV they’re a nobody. An attitude which is reinforced by a peer group who doesn’t care how you get these things, just that you have them, and as such “fit in.”

Essentially, you could ask, why would a person respect a society that they’re not part off? The people who committed these crimes may live amongst the communities they trashed, but they’re not part of them. They don’t socialise amongst them, they don’t work with them and they certainly can’t associate with a community which all too often views them as hostile. They’re treated with suspicion because of how they dress, they’re searched by police because of where they live, and the problem here is that all of this only serves to reinforce the idea of a community separated from Society at large.

Now I’m not making excuses for these people. But it has to be said, that there are some deep divisions in this country when people feel they can go out and just take what they want. The bottom line is nobody loots their own communities. People don’t rob their friends, and they certainly don’t attack the very people they live with day in and day out.

In some cases this is just blatant opportunism. But in many cases, it’s angry young men, with nothing better to do and nothing to feel part of, who are taking their anger and frustration out on a society which they feel rejects them. Granted, nobody can justify the wanton criminality which has taken place over the past four days. But it has to be said, that if we are to prevent a reoccurrence of these events in the future. Something has to be done to address the very problems which alienates and destroys the very communities that Society has chosen to ignore.

DL

The Great Betrayal.

2011-07-07T20:10:00.005+01:00

It’s been a while since I posted. And some of you may have been wondering just where it is I have gone recently. Well, no need to worry as things will be continuing on here as normal from now on. Having said though, there are a number of changes that you may or may not notice over the coming months.

I won’t say too much at this point, as today’s post is a short one. But suffice to say that the political battle which many of us have been engaged in for the past few years continues apace, with economic strife, global wars and the increasingly worsening energy situation dragging us all towards a situation which those of us who have been politically active for some time now have warned about for a number of years.

The attack on our civil liberties, the abuse of an entire people by a tiny elite has turned a once great country into nothing more than a conduit for corruption. Well, it really is time that this changed. And with increasing civil unrest, both at home and abroad, it is perhaps time that we started to consider which side we are on.

UK Government, the British state, call it what you will, has ceased to represent those who it claims legitimacy from. For far too long now the tendency has been for them to make the right noises once every five years, only to fail those very people who they owe their positions too.

Nobody, certainly not me, wants to accept that the path which we find ourselves walking is one which leads to civil war. Nobody wants to see the breakdown of Western economies. And nobody wants to see our very way of life come to an end. Unfortunately, I can’t help but feel that it has hit a point whereby we need to witness a catastrophic collapse of the prevailing orthodoxy.

Governments need to collapse, people need to rise up, and it is high time that we accepted that the very global economic system which we in The West have become so dependent on, needs to be torn apart piece by piece. Only the other week I found myself considering the future as I looked at my young nephew and niece. And in all honesty, I just couldn’t accept that it would all work out. I could not bring myself to accept that the planet which my generation is to inherit, should be passed on to the next generation, in its current condition. To do so would, after all, be the ultimate failure. To accept the economic and social enslavement of future generations would be a great betrayal in itself.

Personally I have lost count of the number of times I have been told to stop worrying. Life is after all, too short, I am told. But as true as this may be, if we allow ourselves to take an eye off the future to the point whereby we fail to secure a future for our children. Then we are all as guilty as those who abuse power in the name of so called economic prosperity.

Personally, I know which side I am on. The only question is, whose side are you on?

DL

Back soon!!!

2011-07-03T10:55:00.003+01:00

The Danny Lake Articles has been experiencing a temporary shortage of up to date content. However, you'll be pleased to know that things should return to normal in the next few days.

Thank you for your patience.

DL

United We Fall

2011-06-08T11:49:00.002+01:00

A film by Bryan Law and Dan Dicks, United We Fall is a documentary about the North American Union that is being developed right now between Canada, the United States and Mexico. For years this topic has been debated in the news and in political circles as being a possible future for North America. In recent years, the mood has shifted and a rift is developing between those who want a deeply integrated North American community, and those who wish to retain their national sovereignty. This film takes a look at both sides by interviewing both insiders and activists who have been at the heart of this heated debate. The film also looks to the broader agenda of building a world government and its implications.

Problem-Reaction-Solution: Libyan rebels, the CIA, Al Quaeda and the globalist agenda

2011-03-28T16:24:00.008+01:00

Recent news that the head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Abdel-Hakim Al-Hasidi , was captured whilst fighting for the Taliban back in 2002, hit the world after an interview in the Italian Press, with the Rebel Leader, resulted in perhaps one of the most shocking news stories to come out of Libya in recent weeks.

However, besides the fact that this whole episode has added weight to Colonel Gaddafi's claims that rebel forces have strong Islamist links; I can't help but wonder just how, or why, the CIA and various western governments were able to overlook the shocking truth about the rebel leadership when they had been implicit in Al-Hasidi's capture back in 2002.

Now don't be fooled. Very rarely do western security agencies hand over captured Taliban fighters to outside nations. As the detention center in Guantanamo Bay and the imprisonment of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan shows. Yet Al-Hasidi was handed over to the Libyan government. Only to be released six years later by the very man who The West accuses of human rights abuses. Despite the fact that Al-Hasidi had also been implicated in a number of attacks on Gaddaif's Forces in 1995 and 1996.

However, my question is this. Given that Al-Hasidi had been captured whilst fighting for the Taliban, why is it that he, the man formerly held captive by the CIA, is now receiving help from the very people he was caught fighting against? Nobody knows for sure, but on this, I do have a theory.

Ever since the 1980's Colonel Gaddafi has been a bit of a public hate figure. Lockerbie, the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy. Both of these tragic events were used to justify The West's isolation of the Gaddafi regime. That is despite the somewhat serious question marks hanging over the investigations into those events. As well as the somewhat questionable involvement of the Libyan regime in these events.

Fast forward twenty three years however, and all of a sudden, UK Government is seeking to bring Gaddafi in from the cold as Peak Oil begins to hit home and the West finds itself in need of new oil supplies. Yet given the rush to secure energy supplies in the Middle East and Asia (Oil in Iraq, Gas in Afghanistan via the trans-Afghanistan pipeline), the vastly depleting levels of those supplies, and the need to secure further supplies in order to safeguard the gigantic consumer societies which have been built up in The West; very easy it is to see how the west may be left feeling like it has to secure further such supplies if it is to safeguard its future.

However, given the already high death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no way people in The West would support yet more Oil wars. Even if against those who, whether justly or unjustly, have been vilified to the extent that Colonel Gaddafi has. After all, given the mistakes that were made with Iraq, with the false claims that were made about the threat Saddam Hussein posed, it's easy enough to understand why a British and American public may be left feeling skeptical about military action in yet another oil rich nation.

Yet, the vastly approaching negative effects of Peak Oil, and the need to stimulate economic recovery, could easily lead to the need to secure, not only further supplies of oil, but also, the desire to expand the global financial and oil industries into new markets. Libya being one such market,

The problem though, is how to get a skeptical public onside. And it seems, to me anyway, that funding and supporting the likes of Al-Hasidi is one such way. After all, imagine for one second that the hardline Islamist, LIFG were to gain serious political power in the country. A not too unlikely possibility given the role it's played in the rebellion. Then, considering the Daily Telegraph's claims that arms have already been funneled to Al Quaeda, it isn't too difficult to see how Libya could find itself lending state support to Taliban forces and assorted terrorist organisations.

Naturally, in the event this was to happen, there could only be one eventuality. That is to say, working on the need to confront hardline Islamist, state supported terrorism; Western Governments would find themselves in the position whereby they can justify military action/regime change in a nation which could be proven to be actively supporting international terrorism. And as a result, would not only gain unlimited access to one of the worlds largest supplies of oil, but would also guarantee the world financial systems expansion into what is, potentially, an extremely profitable market. An action which would, granted, help delay the inevitable collapse of that financial system, and by extension, the downfall of Western economies. But not before Libya had been dispossessed of its natural resources, and endebted too the international bankers, to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Of course, I could be wrong. And for too many reasons to list, I hope I am. But what concerns me is that if this possibility were to bear some fruit, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that The West launched attacks on sovereign states as the result of what one leading NWO researcher refers to as “problem, reaction, solution” (or as it is also known, the Hegelian Dialectic). The idea being that all too often, the western establishment creates a problem, which results in a public outcry, alongside demands that “something must be done”. At which point the establishment offers up the required solution. A solution which achieves the aim it was working toward all along.

Whether that aim is a crackdown on civil liberties (the Reichstag fire...The NAZI's burn down The Reichstag, a public outcry results alongside demands that “something must be done”, which results in the “solution”...Hitler's Enabling Act), The movement towards global government (WW2...create the problem by treating Germany too harshly at Versailles, have the likes of J. P. Morgan, I. G. Farben/American IG, Ford and Standard Oil; fund and support Hitlers tyranny...resulting in one of the worst massacres in human memory, which in turn resulted in a public outcry, alongside demands that “this mustn't ever happen again”...only for the formation of Supranational government – the EU – to be offered up as the “Solution”). Or, as seems likely in this case, the chance to further expand the global economic empire into previously unchartered territory, and strike a blow against independent sovereign states in what can only be described as a final push toward the inevitable New World Order, One World Government.

DL

The Libyan question: Western hypocrisy and globalist ambitions.

2011-03-11T16:03:00.004Z

As many will by now, no doubt be aware, recent weeks have seen the Middle East explode with an assortment of demonstrations, riots and in the Libyan case, a civil war that has left the world on the edge of its collective seat. Initially, my response was one of surprise. And not wanting to comment too soon, I have held back on commenting on the issue until this moment.

Now far be it for me to question what does appear to be a popular uprising, but it strikes me that recent events are perhaps not as clear cut as they might at first seem. Especially when you consider the alleged involvement of Western security and intelligence agencies in all of this. A British diplomatic team approaching Libyan rebels, international recognition of rebel forces who have yet to win control of Libya, democracy stretching its hand into the very corners of a region known for authoritarian government; all this does perhaps sound a little too good to be true. But what of the motives behind The Wests' willingness to support rebel forces?

Of all the recent “popular” uprisings, Libya is perhaps the biggest surprise of all. Not least of all because of the scale of violence to erupt in the North African country. Yet what I find particularly interesting is the level to which Western Governments have gone in their attempts to vilify a man and a regime, which until recently they were only too happy to work with. Sure, UK Government would argue that its relationship with Gaddafi was one based on necessity, but herein lies the intriguing aspect of all this.

With a massive amount of the Wests' oil emanating from Libyan oil fields, it is perhaps too easy to see why The West would take such an interest in a popular uprising. Yet with Gaddafi making claims that all of this trouble has been instigated and entrenched by western security agencies, it isn't too difficult to see how there may be more at stake here than access to Libyan oil.

Even the media seems to be playing its role in the mass vilification of Colonel Gaddafi as they castigate him for untold crimes against humanity and make claims of a popular uprising against a beleaguered regime no longer capable of governing. Yet somewhat interestingly, the same western media is mysteriously silent over the Saudi Arabian protests, which according to Al Jazeera, resulted in Saudi police opening fire on peaceful demonstrators.

Now personally, this all smacks of hypocrisy to me. Essentially the message that is being sent is that you can do what the hell you like so long as you haven't the temerity to stand up to the globalists. Human rights abuses aren't the problem, authoritarianism isn't the problem, shooting at protesters and jailing political dissidents isn't the problem. It's about a governments willingness to surrender their natural resources (i.e. Oil) to western control, it's about a countries willingness to consume the same over commercialised crap as The West, and its about the the ability of those same countries to live a life independent of the global banking interests. In other words, the Libyans aren't consuming enough, and what with the global economic recovery being so dependent upon growth, how dare these people not contribute to the continuation of a global economic system which is not only inherently unfair, but is dependent on debt as a means to enable the continuation of that very system.

Now I don't doubt that colonel Gaddafi may be a Marmite despot (you love him, or you hate him) but let's look at this honestly. Watch the footage from Libya and consider for one moment that there are two sides to every argument and it becomes only too clear that regardless of how much of a bastard Gaddafi may or may not be, he still maintains a large amount of support. So what of democracy for those very people who do support him?

If The West was so keen on democracy being allowed to prevail then the natural stand here would be to let it all play out and see which side it is that gains the mass appeal. Yet this won't be allowed to happen, and it's safe to say, that once the rebellion does gain the upper hand (with western support) the only outcome is that you'll have a whole new section of the Libyan population being left without a voice in a country that was stolen from them. A segment of the population who will be denied the very voice that, love him or loath him, for his supporters at least, Gaddafi seemed to provide. Yet despite this the insistence is that he go unconditionally and entirely without compromise. Despite Gaddafi's own, publicly declared willingness to take part in internationally supported (although, not Western backed) mediation talks.

Granted, it could be argued that Gaddafi should have gone at the first sign of mass protests. Yet in making such an argument, it might be worth remembering that western governments aren't exactly prone to listening to the voice of democracy either. After all, it was UK Government who banned protests outside their own Parliament, it was UK Government who ignored the million people who marched through London in opposition to the Iraq War. And no doubt, it would be the same UK Government who would quickly justify shooting anybody who dared to take up arms in opposition to what is, for many in modern Britain, an out of touch, treasonous, morally dilapidated government which maintains its grip on power despite the very fact that nobody ever voted for it, and despite the fact that it is that very political establishment who has enabled the circumstances, which created the very crises that paves the way to World War III.

DL

Islamism and demographic change: cause and effect in a zionist world

2011-02-15T12:20:00.003Z

As Islamic immigration into The West continues and the demographic change which sweeps Europe begins to raise concerns amongst the wider public, untold political party's and protest groups whose stated aim is to oppose the Islamification of Europe have sprung up. The English Defence League, SIOE, The BNP; all subscribe to an anti Islamist ideology. This is of course not forgetting individuals such as the Dutch MP, Gert Wilders. Yet despite my own assertion that the Islamist surge presents a very real threat to western culture, I can't help but wonder if many of these groups and individuals are misguided, or as seems more likely, are being used to further the globalist agenda.

I have always been a believer that he who wishes to stop an enemy dead in his tracks must first learn to listen to his enemy. For the key to victory in all things is, as Sun Tzu would say, understanding your enemy. Now I'm not going to beat about the bush and pretend that I am a friend of Islam. I don't like its position on gender equality, I don't like its position on religious tolerance and I think that in all too many ways, Islam is completely incompatible with liberal democracy. Yet despite this, I'm not an extremist myself and I sometimes find myself wondering what it is that drives people to subscribe to extremist ideologies.

It goes without saying that Islam, like all religions, is open to interpretation. True, it could easily be argued that Islam's roots in a period of conquest make it more prone to extremist interpretation. Yet despite this, nobody can really claim that everybody who reads the Koran will succumb to radicalisation. Ultimately, it depends upon the individual, and in many ways radicalisation to Ideological Islam is arguably the result of a wider political situation, as opposed to an inherent extremism in Islam itself.

This isn't to say that Islamic fundamentalism wouldn't exist in a stable world. After all, there will always be extremists and there will always exist in society those downtrodden elements who are particularly prone to radicalisation. Yet viewing the wider issues on both side, it is all too easy to see how the problems surrounding radicalisation and the Islamification of Europe are entrenched as a result of various ill conceived and counter productive political alliances to have sprung up as the twin evils of Ideological Islam and demographic change have begun to sweep their way across the European continent.

One thing I can't help but notice is the sudden growth in pro Israel and anti Islamist lobby groups. For it seems that everywhere I turn to seek out information on the creeping Islamification of the European continent I am confronted with either an article, a book, a website or a film which owes the origins of much of its research to various Zionist and/or American “End Time” Evangelical groups. My concern here though, is that these people are playing to a somewhat different agenda. And although I fully understand the principle which states your enemies enemy is your friend, I can't help but wonder if our own interests would be better served by refusing to jump into bed with the very people whose actions lay behind much of the growth in extremism in the Islamic world.

For many who subscribe to an anti Islamist viewpoint, news stories covering the various incidents of terrorism in the Middle East are all to clear reminders of similar events in New York and London. For many, they hear of a Palestinian suicide bomber or an Afghani who uses this same method as a means of opposing the occupation of his homeland, and immediately, they sympathise with the victim. Understandable as this may be given that the victims are more often than not normal people going about their business, the question that needs to be asked is what it is that lays behind these things.

In the Israeli case, the answer is all too clear. And it is perhaps understandable that a population which finds themselves (i.e. The Palestinians) dispossessed of their homeland, contained, starved and victimised by an intruder state will be left feeling as if there may be no other alternative. Especially when incidents of terrorism are more often than not responded to in a manner that most consider to be vastly disproportionate to the initial act of aggression and only ever really succeeds in meting out death and heartache to those who, once again, are just normal people trying to survive in a war torn region of the world.

What strikes me though is the involvement of various Western Governments in all of this. American arms, UN support despite the untold breaches of UN resolutions, the maintenance of nuclear arms, a blind unwillingness to come to an amicable compromise with their Palestinian opponents; all of these things the Israeli state enjoys despite an almost endless list of crimes against humanity that they themselves (despite their own history of persecution) have inflicted upon the Palestinian people. Little wonder then that the radicalisation of the Islamic world continues when such perfect examples of persecution are held up as a justification for violent Jihad.

Of course, easy it may seem then to see how the Israeli state might have a vested interest in supporting those who oppose the Islamification of Europe. For in doing so they lend support to those who share a perceivably common enemy, and in doing so, whip up support for their attempts to justify the disgusting human rights abuses they continue to inflict upon the Palestinian people. Not forgetting the involvement of various End Time cultists in all this whose hatred of Islam is driven not by any kind of sound reasoning, but their own fundamentalist interpretation of a religion which tells them that Israel belongs to the Jews and that the Temple of Solomon must be rebuilt if Jesus is to return to Earth and the Christians among us are to be raptured into the kingdom of God.

Granted this might be funny if the End of Days cult wasn't gaining so much momentum and attracting so much financial support, but my chief concern here is that those who subscribe to such warped interpretations of Christianity, whilst wholeheartedly supporting the very practices which give rise to Islamic extremism, are influencing the very thought processes of those who buy into some very genuine concerns over the creeping Islamification of Europe.

In effect, its almost as if the only outcome is diversionary. Diversionary in the sense that being so full with hatred for a genuinely growing extremism, western man finds himself focusing not on the cause of such extremism, but the effect. That is to say that instead of chastising Israel and the Zionist influenced US Government for creating the very situation which destabalises the Middle East, increases the desire amongst that population to seek a peaceful life elsewhere, and enables the radicalisation of otherwise peaceful muslims; they instead focus their anger on the very people who are the real victims in all of this and whose only desire is to live a life free from persecution, a life free from the effects of globalisation, and a life which ultimately, is one of peace.

Personally, I will continue to oppose all forms of mass immigration into the nations that make up the European continent. For as far as I am concerned, with the world as it is and with the Islamist ideology gaining ground as it is, to do anything else would not only be deeply irresponsible but would be as good as closing the curtains on Western man.

However, as much as I do and always will oppose the silent genocide being inflicted upon the nations of Europe, I will also continue to oppose the not so silent Genocide being inflicted upon those elements in the Middle East who continue to oppose Zionist oppression and defend their right to live in a safe and secure homeland of their own. I will continue to oppose those who create the very situation which compounds the very demographic crisis that engulfs Europe, destroys our culture and succeeds only in making enemies of those who live within our borders. And I will continue to oppose all those, including Zionist Israel and her Globalist allies, whose only intention, it seems, is to further divide the very people whose nations they seek to control and whose freedoms they hope to destroy.

DL

JFK 2: The Bush Connection

2011-02-04T14:15:00.001Z

“JFK II: The Bush Connection” details the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination and the involvement of the Bush family and the CIA. Highly recommended viewing for anybody who wishes to understand the nature of global politics, and the motives of those who seek to control governments the world over.

DL

ZEITGEIST: Moving Forward.

2011-01-31T22:23:00.002Z

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, by director Peter Joseph, is a feature length documentary work which will present a case for a needed transition out of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire world society.

This subject matter will transcend the issues of cultural relativism and traditional ideology and move to relate the core, empirical "life ground" attributes of human and social survival, extrapolating those immutable natural laws into a new sustainable social paradigm called a "Resource-Based Economy".

Modern politics and the true nature of democracy.

2011-01-28T14:44:00.003Z

Politics, if it was to be described in one single sentence, could be called the means by which societies problems are solved. Meaning that all politics is ultimately, a problem and a solution. However, I can't help but wonder if this definition appropriately explains the politics of the modern era.

Richard Nixon described politics as “the art of compromise”. Yet even this insightful observation is one which struggles to define politics sufficiently. For me, the reality is much more complicated, and I suspect is one which is far removed from such attempts to define as expansive a subject as politics. The politics to which I am referring, is the sort most often associated with politicians and the system in which they practice their particular brand of politics.

When I first became active in politics at the age of eighteen I saw the political system as a vehicle by which societal problems could be solved. Essentially, my belief at the time was that you enter politics because you want to do some good. And whether you agreed or disagreed with your political opponents, all were ultimately guided by the same honourable intentions. Funny now how I look back and laugh at my naivety, but I find myself asking a question. That is to say, if not the means by which societies problems are solved, then what is politics?

Perhaps the honest answer lies in Richard Nixon's suggestion that “politics is the art of compromise”. For to go further, it could be said that if this is accepted as being the case, then by extension, politics is also the end of all hope for a solution. After all, given the nature of the box filled ideological landscape, compromise is impossible given the wide range of boxes and box filled boxes which have come to typify modern political thought.

Essentially, how can a Marxist be expected to compromise with a capitalist when their ideologies are so opposed? How can a nationalist be expected to compromise with a free market globalist? The answer is that there can be no workable compromise, because doing so would mean both ideological groups coming to a mutually agreed conclusion that fails to solve any of the problems or attain any of the ideals as their individual ideologies see them. In effect, my point here is that should we accept this as the case, then politics as it currently exists is, the problem without a solution.

Over the years I have met, worked with, spoken to and debated with political activists and politicians of all kind of persuasions. And if I have learnt anything, it is that those for whom political power becomes a way of life, quite often end up becoming morally compromised by the very system they use as a vehicle for change. The essential point being that all power, not just ultimate power, corrupts.

Clearly the problem is the political system and its tendency to attract the corrupted and corrupt the well intentioned. But in accepting this, then the only conclusion can be that if this is the case, then the electoral process isn't as sufficient a vehicle for change, for the modern political activist, as it once was.

Even revolution is suspect as a political solution. For even in cases where it might be arguably justified, the problem with solving political problems by revolution is that you only ever succeed in replacing the old system with a new one. Sure, you might change the structure of government, or the constitutional pillars on which a State is based. But the eventual outcome will be the same, as the varying ideological and personality groups attempt to solve problems in a way which has less to do with finding solutions than it does furthering their own ideological interpretation of the ideal.

This isn't to say that I envisage a better way. Because the alternatives are just more of the same. Sure there are differences. Authoritarian and Monarchical systems, unlike the democratic, are just honest in what they are. The only difference with democracy is that society believes that it chooses the government. If only because it elects the people who rule over it. Yet the very involvement of various special interest groups and media conglomerates in formulating the very opinions which society votes on, and the government basis its decisions on, does however, only serve to prove the well disguised authoritarian nature of democracy.

Essentially, where as any other system would simply refuse you a choice; democratic systems give you a choice, but not before they've told you what your choice is going to be. Meaning that as things currently stand there can be no hope of rectifying the very system which has caused, and continues to compound the very problems for which we as society continue to hope for solutions.

Despite this though, I can't help but feel optimistic. Not because I see any solutions on the horizon. But because a wider awareness of the issues are growing despite attempts by the mass media and other establishment forces to maintain their grip on the collective consciousness. The 21st century is without a doubt fast becoming the age of information. An age in which the possibilities to learn and explore our potential is quickly changing the politics of the world around us. The only question left is whether this strangely Orwellian growth in proletarian awareness is one which can free us from the old ways of addressing the unavoidably political; and enable us to adapt and change in time to succeed in finding the solutions to the many environmental, social and geopolitical problems, which ultimately, threaten the very future of our society.

DL

Cablegate: Russian arms sales, NATO/CSTO relations and the US drive to secure international investment in Iran.

2011-01-16T18:04:00.017Z

The recent release of 250,000 US diplomatic cables has sent shock waves throughout the world. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this however, the inevitable questions to arise are many and it is arguable that the secrets these cables contain go beyond the immediately visible and in many cases go some way to confirming events and policies that up until now have been the matter of much speculation.

All told, there have been many stories to appear in the press as a result of these leaked cables. Ranging from the Catholic church's policy of covering up cases of underage sexual abuse to concerns about Iranian influence over the Afghani government. But in many cases, these cables are nothing more than individual pieces of a much larger puzzle which once pieced together does more to explain Western policy decisions and globalist ambitions than the global media establishment would have you believe.

What I have discovered though, is that released US diplomatic cables also shed a whole new light on the Russian governments habit of supplying the likes of Iran and Syria with weaponry of various sorts. Of course, this story isn't new in itself, especially given the coverage which has been given to Russian intentions to supply Iran with five S300 surface to air missile systems. But what was interesting - besides the fact that Russia has seen a 56% rise in arms sales since 2003, which all told, has been driven by selling arms to America's enemies – are the activities of US and Israeli diplomats in not only attempting to bring an end to Russian attempts to supply Iran with the S300s, but the West's position on continued globalisation and opposition to US hegemony in the Middle East.

Back in 2005 the news that NATO and Russia had signed a military co-operation deal hit the world and for the first time in many years, it was felt that the tension which existed between these two powers could at last be seen to evaporate as the desire for mutual co-operation between two former enemies became more desirable. However, Russia wasn't exactly playing ball and despite their efforts at presenting an image of a newer, more conciliatory Russia than in previous years, it wasn't long before the Russian government (the worlds second largest arms trader) was sending a wide variety of arms and ammunition to Sudan, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and several other trouble spots and/or countries that had started to arouse US criticism for their refusal to play ball with the globalist agenda.

However, whilst at first released US diplomatic cables show these sales are based more on a Russian desire to influence the individual countries' policy decisions, the desire to give a much needed boost to the Russian arms trade was just as important a factor in determining such sales as anything else.

Now initially, the Russian foreign policy argument was that in supplying Iran with the S300s, Iranian confidence in a region where they are surrounded by enemies would be improved as the defensive nature of these weapons would enable them to feel more secure and potentially, could mean that any alleged desire to develop nuclear weapons (remember, there is as of yet no strong evidence that Iranian ambitions are anything but peaceful) in opposition to their nuclear armed, Israeli enemy (Israel claims that a nuclear Iran could facilitate a nuclear arms race in the region yet gives no thought to the fact that their own possession of nuclear weapons is arguably the very thing that might drive Iran to develop capabilities of their own) would be diminished. However, Israeli concerns that the S300s would be used to defend Iranian nuclear facilities was made all too clear along with the concern that any weapons which were sold to Iran could potentially find their way into the hands of various terrorist groups. As the discovery of Russian anti tank weapons in Lebanon has shown.

Now besides the fact that concerns regarding the use of the S300s say all you need to know about Israeli and US intentions in Iran, the Russian response was that they had made all efforts to ensure that their weapons did not fall into terrorist hands by putting in place an end user agreement with the Iranians and further agreeing upon Russia's right to inspect all stocks of Russian supplied weaponry; despite having in place a “don't ask, don't tell” end user agreement with the Sudanese which US diplomats were nowhere near as concerned about. A position which in itself says that the US government couldn't give a damn who suffers as the result of continued global instability, so long as American interests aren't damaged. Particularly where the African continent is concerned and the continued sale of arms and ammunition to a continent torn apart by war contributes not only to Russian arms sales, but also that of the worlds largest arms trader (i.e. The United States Government).

As a result of the concerns over the use of the S300s however, Israeli Premier, Benjamin Netanyahu informed the Russian President that should they continue with the sale, then Israeli supplies of weaponry to Russia's Georgian neighbour would be stepped up. An undoubtedly powerful stick which along with the American carrot (the chance to offset the loss of Iranian arms sales with an arms deal between Russia and NATO) was to ensure that the supply of the S300s was halted at the earliest diplomatically expedient opportunity. Which in this instance was a UN resolution imposing restrictions on the sale of certain types of weaponry to the Iranians.

Although naturally, not wanting to risk damaging their extensive business interests in the country, Russia did maintain its right to aid the Iranians in the development of the Bushehr nuclear plant despite this very nuclear program being the root cause of US and Israeli concerns.

Now this puts the world in a very interesting position. Because whilst US and Israeli concerns over the supply of weaponry to the next intended victim of their regional ambitions has been addressed, Russia's position in the world and their willingness to work with the West's enemies is becoming all too clear.

In fact, despite the mass media making much noise about Russia's reward of new arms deals with NATO's procurement agency and how this heralds a new era of co-operation. The reality of this much flaunted (and might i say initially surprising) deal has been shown to be nothing more than a dangling carrot intended to pull Russia away from the Iranians. A policy which although successful in the sense that it has prevented the sale of five S300 surface to air missile systems, has been shown up for what it is. Nothing more than a half arsed attempt to drive a wedge between Russian business interests and Iranian policy makers.

Yet whilst this aim is arguably sensible given the US position on Iran, it also suggests that the US/NATO/CSTO/Russian relationship isn't as cozy as some might have you believe. That the increasingly fragile geo-political situation is one which is set to worsen as Russia threatens another cold war (Money for old rope...Russia/US supply each others enemies, who then fight it out on their behalf...netting both sides a tidy increase in arms sales without the need to risk large numbers of their own citizens in a costly war) and the US continues its efforts to further expand its global economic empire by encouraging “Iranian integration into the global economic and political system”.

Not forgetting US attempts to establish large scale investment in the Iranian Gas sector (this is the largest supply of natural gas outside of Russia). A sector which, as the US cables point out, suffers from a massive lack of “international investment”. Thereby increasing the demand for, and as a result, the price of Russian gas in the face of US attempts to secure cheaper supplies of gas in a world troubled by depleting energy supplies.

DL

The war you don't see

2010-12-26T22:25:00.009Z

From the award-winning director of The War on Democracy comes John Pilger's latest work, The War You Don't See. This hard-hitting exposé scrutinizes the effects of the media during wartime, asking what is the role of the media in rapacious wars.

When symbols are separated from facts and the facts don't matter, could the media be accused of conspiring to play down the carnage and of using 'embedded journalism' to amplify the lies? This documentary unveils the war you don't see and allows you to make up your own mind.

Hope or Hate: British Freedom and the rise of Cultural Nationalism

2010-11-02T19:27:00.006Z

Recent weeks have seen the launch of a new nationalist political party onto the British political landscape. British Freedom is the name and cultural nationalism, so it seems anyway, is the game. The interesting part of all this though is what may or may not come in the future as this new party begins its journey down the political runway en route to what it hopes will be a successful assault on the British political establishment.

Perhaps the best aspect of this new party is the choice of so many decent, intelligent and non extreme nationalists to get involved and whose involvement can only enrich the party they're now choosing to stand with. A no doubt desirable outcome that luckily has seen many decent people leave the racially focused BNP in search of a more sensible organisation.

However, the danger with launching this party, especially given its formation is rooted in a political split, is the potential for disgruntled former BNP members who for lack of a cause choose to stand with this new party in an attempt to relaunch their long floundering political careers. Some of these people I speak of have long standing black spots against their reputation. Some because of their actions in going about their political business. Others because of the attitudes to life and society expressed in articles or on websites. Attitudes which although being held up as the torch of a wider organisation, are in reality nothing more than their personal political viewpoint.

What concerns me most about this however isn't so much the involvement of one or two cranks as you would think the sensible majority would easily be able to overcome what is for many in modern Britain nothing more than the politics of criticism and aggravation. Yet the level to which some of these individuals have become involved as British Freedom launched what is effectively a ship full of empty seats, is a deeply worrying aspect.

Now before I continue I should make a few things clear. With regards the presence of British Freedom on the British political scene, I can only be supportive. Partly because of the involvement of so many decent nationalists, but primarily because of its potential in light of what is a sound political philosophy. What is more, as far as I am concerned, other organisations such as the British National Party only serve to damage the nationalist philosophy and their presence on the political landscape only serves to further divide what is very much a changing nation. leaving open the possibility for British Freedom to fill a niche that very much depends on their willingness to play ball with the British public and make a valid attempt at focusing their arguments on solutions. A willingness if you like to define what they stand for, rather than what they stand against.

Furthermore, considering the lack of a genuinely popular, realistic, honest, trustworthy and uncorrupt political organisation on the electoral landscape, I can't help but feel that British Freedom is in the perfect position to take advantage of growing voter apathy and disillusionment. Especially given the baggage that other organisations have. Yet at this crucial point in its development there is an undeniable chance that all could yet disappear down the plughole.

Essentially, the risk at this point in time is that although cultural nationalist philosophically speaking, the potential for its activists and representatives to continue making BNP style arguments is very much something that will be hard, if not impossible to overcome. In fact, considering that many of its activists will be veterans of the nationalist cause with no or very little political savvy beyond the nationalist scene, it is perhaps too likely that the old arguments will be made, and no more solutions arrived at. Either for lack of wider political awareness, or as the result of a ghetto mentality which has made many nationalists unwilling or incapable of compromise.

One such area would be the discussion surrounding cultural Nationalism. Essentially, whilst arguments have been made that do show a level of understanding of the concepts that make up Cultural Nationalist philosophy, the arguments transition into viable political solutions shows what I have come to the conclusion is, either a complete lack of understanding or a blatant unwillingness to move beyond the old methods.

In his article on the British Freedom website, Lee Barnes explains that Cultural Nationalism is integrationist and as such demands cultural integration of all our citizens. However, no attempt is made to explain how this transfers into a political solution. Sure, Mr Barnes does state that anybody who doesn't integrate will face having their citizenship revoked, but again there lacks any clarity.

For example, who is to decide what constitutes integration? Lee Barnes says this will be a citizenship court. Yet all you would really succeed in establishing is a form of state sponsored persecution where anybody can make accusations against anybody and the ability of the state to enforce such Macarthyist legislation is compromised for being far too open to interpretation. Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding and in making such sensationalist statements the only thing he can hope to do is piss people off.

Mr Barnes makes no attempt to explain the role of both The State and society at large in fostering an atmosphere of wider cultural inclusiveness, and he makes no attempt to explain in what way he expects people to integrate. In fact, if I'm completely honest, I can't help but feel that he would be happier should we have windows into our souls. And I also can't help but feel that his whole approach demonstrates a deep seated inability to move beyond the divisive and angry politics of organisations such as the BNP.

To go further, upon further inspection of party policy it becomes all too clear that although British Freedom is distancing itself from organisation such as the BNP by not focusing on race and ethnicity as primary factors in the development of their immigration and nationality policy, the lack of anything significantly different continues to be a concerning factor. And without this, the party's chances of growth and electoral success are likely to be stunted as the potential for achieving nothing more than a split of the nationalist vote grows more likely the further British Freedom goes to establishing the fundamental aspects of its ideology.

This isn't to say that anybody with questionable or intellectually limited views should be shunted out of the party or have their membership revoked. Yet there needs to be a recognition on the party's part that talent in a specific field, or possession of a high level post in previous movements is not in itself a qualification for a seat at the top table. The only determining factor in handing out high level posts (in particular those that include access to the general public) should be understanding of the wider political issues as the risk is that in handing a person a post that is to all intents and purposes a front of house position, they will feel they're more important than they are and as a result will be in the position to damage the wider organisation should their membership ever be called into question. Essentially, it's about being careful that you ensure that those who hold back stage posts remain behind the scenes and don't overlap into the public arena unless they should be filling some other role which requires it.

It is undoubtedly the case however that there exists at this moment the potential for wide spread electoral success. The only question is whether British Freedom can fight its way into the world with air in its lungs and life in its veins, or whether the risk of giving birth to a still born movement is the likelier outcome for lack of understanding not only the wider political and social issues of the day. But the very people whose votes they seek.

DL

Out with the old: British Nationalism in the 21st Century

2010-10-16T17:05:00.002+01:00

As I sit here now, British Nationalism faces a crisis. A crisis which unlike in previous years isn't born out of negative media interest, but several years of political infighting and the resultant fractures to materialise as the result of growing public interest and the lack of will amongst the leadership of party's such as the BNP to forge a direction more in keeping with the increasingly liberal sensibilities of the British public.

As somebody who has seen and worked with both sides of nationalism. That is to say the extreme side of the coin whose roots lay in the prewar Far-Right, as well as the pragmatic and dare I say it, liberal side of the coin whose nationalism isn't so much an ideology, but philosophical direction finding, and whose ideological roots lay not in the far right, but a form of political cynicism to have sprung up in the post war era; I can't help but feel that the crisis is one that exists primarily because the ideological chasm which divides this odd collection of freethinkers and hate mongers has hit a point where consensus between the opposing factions is no longer possible.

Essentially, it could be said that we face at this moment the greatest of questions to have troubled our cause for the past fifty years. That is to say, which way now? Acceptance of the most entrenched and fundamentally unchangeable aspects of society, a compromise if you like for the sake of England. Or, a half hearted attempt to cling onto an intellectually limited and inherently out of touch ideology, regardless of the changing attitudes that have come to typify modern Britain.

Over the past ten years, British Nationalism has witnessed a huge growth in support. Where as previously the nationalist scene was perceived as nothing more than a haven for football hooligans and none too bright Fascists; rising concern over issues such as deeper EU integration and mass immigration has sparked a resurgence in nationalist thought. Whilst some would put this resurgence down to a lack of willingness amongst establishment politicians to deal with issues such as the EU or Immigration. Rather than a growth in political extremism, the result has almost been a renaissance in nationalist thought. Basically, where as previously adherents of nationalism tended to buy into a “we don't like the p**i's” kind of philosophy, the thinking now goes much deeper than prehistoric notions of love and hate.

In fact, it could be argued that the rise in nationalist sympathies coupled with the rise of political and economic globalisation, has spawned a whole new mode of thinking whose foundations may lay in nationalism, but whose future is yet to be decided. Essentially, the argument here is that if those aspects of nationalism all can buy into are to provide the foundation blocks for something new, whether that be political protest groups or parties whose stated aim is to oppose the process of globalisation, then ideologically speaking the cause needs to undergo an overhaul of previously unheard of magnitude.

Where as previously opposition to the changing demographics of post war Britain may have been a vote winner amongst the white working classes, modern Britain has hit a point where demographics are no longer the chief concern, but the economic and social burden mass immigration has placed on western economies. Similarly, although previously the concern over EU integration would have been centered around rising food prices as the result of a grossly unfair Common Agricultural Policy, the democratic deficit and the loss of sovereignty; most in modern Britain who are too young to have any pre-EU point of reference are more likely to buy into the idea of European integration precisely because of its cosmopolitan and more “modern” outlook. Essentially, those who hold nationalist sympathies are more likely to be perceived as belonging to a world that no longer exists. The arguments therefor have to change to incorporate the best of the old with the increasingly popular alternative viewpoint which drives us towards the next age in human thought.

Up and down the country and across the world, what we are coming to witness is the birth of a new consciousness. An undoubtedly noble belief that all life holds equal worth regardless of social, racial or cultural background. However, the danger here is the potential to become misguided. To interpret notions of equality of opportunity and fundamental rights and freedoms as carte blanch permission to tear down international borders and make moves towards a global society.

This new consciousness is interesting precisely because its main argument, that is to say equality, has become a byword for internationalism. That is to say opposition to the nation state and the very concept of human diversity. Where as those who maintain links to the old way of thinking would argue that cultural and national diversity is what has driven mankind to achieve the things it has, those adherents of the new thinking tend to buy into the belief that cultural and national diversity is synonymous with the idea of a global society. A belief that we all are one regardless of our differences and that the only aim can be further and deeper integration, rather than co-operation.

The problem with current nationalist thinking is that it fails to recognise these changes in attitude, and on the odd occasion it does make such recognitions it is all too quick to write it off as the product of institutionally liberal brainwashing. An attitude which does nobody any favours and only serves to reinforce the image of an out of touch ideological group.

The arguments therefor have to change and it is perhaps worthwhile noting that opposition to the idea of a multiracial society is something of which nationalists need to wash their hands. Instead looking to offer up solutions to the problems surrounding integration and continued immigration.

The issue doesn't end here however and it has to be said that if nationalism is going to show that it has a role to play in the modern world, then it also has to make an effort to move beyond nationalism. It needs to show that it can think within the framework of a wider and more socially conscious political reality. For too long now the tendency has been to dictate. To cling onto old notions of right and wrong and stubbornly refuse to budge regardless of changing attitudes.

One such area would be on issues surrounding what is and isn't socially acceptable with many nationalists continuing to stick to preconceived ideas of what constitutes a moral family group or an acceptable lifestyle choice. One example of the latter would be drug policy and the tendency of those on the right to oppose any liberalisation of drugs law regardless of scientific advice and the support for such liberalisation amongst the voting public. In effect, their argument is that it is the people who need changing, not the law. And it is this exact attitude which often leaves nationalists out in the cold whilst the rest of society sits down to dinner.

In effect, the problem is that nationalism is all too often seen as being synonymous with right wing thinking. When in reality it is nothing more than a view on how mankind should organise itself socially. Nationalists would argue for the nation state on the principle that the best people to represent a cultural group are members of that same cultural group. They would defend the rights of indigenous groups to pursue their own destiny free from foreign influence and rule. And far from being the opponents of human diversity, a genuine nationalist would in fact be its strongest supporter; arguing that globalisation and supranationalism only serves to endanger and destroy culturally diverse indigenous groups. A position which puts it in the perfect position to move into the modern world.

As the process of globalisation moves forward, many people are finding themselves questioning the nature of the global society. For whilst many are more global in outlook and more appreciative and tolerant of cultural differences, the rise of globalised governmental institutions has sparked a crisis in conscience. The fear is that we are witnessing the growth of a truly global corporatocracy, a New World Order where the global government is even more detached and even less accountable than the current order. An attempt if you like to create a mono-cultural, easy to target consumer group.

This causes problems precisely because in order to spread the sphere of influence, it requires that national culture be broken down and that non western economies be westernised to fit them into a framework of wider economic inclusiveness. The argument here is that where as previously nationalists would have ignored such issues, there is now a need to wield the baton on behalf of all those national groups who find themselves holding out against the forces of economic imperialism, not just our own. Opposing if you like the forces that seek to destroy our diversity in the name of global economic prosperity.

Essentially, as nationalists, we should be arguing in defence of all those Tibetans who continue to oppose the Chinese occupation of Tibet. We should be defending the Palestinians against the might of Zionist Israel. We should, in effect, be standing with all of those free thinking men and women of the world whose ultimate aim we share. That is to say the return of sovereignty to independent nation states and the ability of those cultural groups to forge their own path in a world where global awareness and co-operation need not become bywords for the culturally destructive process of globalisation.

DL

Scapegoating the Unemployed: a lesson in passing the buck...

2010-08-13T18:34:00.004+01:00

I notice that the rush to bring Britain's nation debt under control has sparked a media frenzy calling for a crackdown on benefits cheats. A form of fraud that enrages many Brits who struggle to survive on low wages. However, I can't help but wonder if the 1.5 Billion they say is lost per year through benefit fraud is the tip of a much larger iceberg that includes the untold Billions lost per year through tax loopholes that the rich and powerful all too often take advantage off in an attempt to ensure they pay a smaller percentage of tax on their earnings, despite the so called higher tax rates, than the many hard up Brits who pay a higher percentage on their earnings because they don't have the ability to take advantage of such loopholes.

Ok, I'm not about to defend the fraudsters in our midst, but let us not forget that this whole economic crises was created in the first place, not by a handful of benefit cheats, but by successive Labour and Tory governments who brought into the lie that debt is good for the economy. Not to mention the involvement in all of this of the various central banks who create money out of thin air, and then charge the nation interest on that cash. An interest that can never be paid back as doing so would mean printing more cash, at yet more interest, which then would have to be paid as well. A vicious circle which ultimately can have only one outcome. That is to say that everything you own, everything you might own ultimately ends up belonging to the bank who leave not just you, but the entire economy in economic ruin.

Personally, it seems to me that all of this complaining, all of these calls for a crackdown on the many people who have lost jobs and/or struggle to find work – whether because they have been out of work a long time, lack of experience or because of a lack of jobs in what has now become an employers market – are being scapegoated. Scapegoated by the very people who created this mess in the first place in what seems to me to be some kind of attempt to seize what wealth the people have from them.

After all, let us not forget that this economic crises has been raging to the sound of government telling us, the people, that we need to tighten our belts, that we need to learn to accept lower wages in a job market controlled by the rich and powerful now that our borders have been filled with cheap foreign labour. Foreign labour which not only contributed to this whole sorry state of affairs by filling up our job surplus prior to the crisis, but also succeeded in driving down wages to the point where it makes more financial sense for a couple with several kids to survive on state benefits rather than take up a job which ultimately, will leave them financially worse off.

Personally, it seems to me that the blame here is misplaced. Fault isn't to be found it the benefits system itself, nor is it to be found where a handful of fraudsters abuse the system to their own advantage. The fault here lies with a collection of governments who destroyed our manufacturing base, which in turn resulted in an export and job nose dive. The fault here lies with a collection of governments who told the British people that we needed mass immigration to fill our job surplus to the point whereby there were no training places for an entire generation of Brits because it was far easier to employ the proverbial fully skilled Polish plumber. Which in turn resulted in a huge number of young Brits being condemned to a life on the dole. Brits who are then shouted at and told by both the media and the government that they're to blame for the whole sorry situation.

But let us not forget that prior to the economic crisis and the ConDem government taking control the unemployment rate stood at 4.6 million. That is if you include the numbers on the sick and those who for whatever reason qualify for benefits other than Job Seekers Allowance. Add to that the rise in unemployment since the economic crisis was unleashed upon the world, an unemployment that in reality now actually stands somewhere around the six million mark (despite fiddled figures showing unemployment as standing around the 2 million mark) in a country where it is reported that there are roughly half a million full time job vacancies; then it is all to easy to see how all of this blame is misplaced.

Now I'm sure I don't need to do the maths for you, but in a market where there are two million unemployed (that is according to official figures anyway...like I said...It's actually higher) 500,000 jobs is quite simply, not enough to go around.

But never mind, we have a new government now and despite the fact that nobody in that government once spoke out against fractional reserve banking. The very thing that created the climate for a debt crisis to flourish. Or for that matter ever spoke out about the disgusting lack of profitable employment in a country where - due to rising rent and property prices, one of the highest costs of living in the western world, and the collapse of what was a healthy job market, partly because of the very mass immigration that none of them bothered to speak out against – we are now told that it is the unemployed who are to blame all along as opposed to the very big business', bankers and politicians who control the economy, destroyed the economy and never tire of telling the British people that they need to tighten their belts despite their own disgusting abuse of tax loopholes and expense accounts. But never mind, in their case the laws that they created and lobbied for account for their abuses so at least they aren't breaking the law.

DL

Wars for profit: The Military Industrial Complex and winning the unwinnable

2010-06-24T15:32:00.009+01:00

I originally wrote this in March, but felt uncomfortable with some of the detail. As such, I have edited and extended it.

I only hope the reader feels it explains my original point more thoroughly.

DL

--------------------

on his last day in office President Eisenhower, a man made famous for the role he played in helping to rid continental Europe of Nazi occupation, gave his final address to the people of the United States. During his address to the nation he warned of the potential for a “disastrous rise in misplaced power” as the result of the huge Military Industrial Complex that had sprung up during two world wars. What Eisenhower never knew however, although he certainly feared it, was just how prophetic his words would came to be.

The birth of a superpower

Following Word War 1 the American people were angry. Essentially their argument was that America had no business involving itself in European affairs and it would be best for the US to maintain a more protectionist foreign policy. Over time this would come to be the cornerstone of American policy making, with high import tariffs being set on foreign made goods. The problem though was that by shutting itself away from the rest of the world and an isolationist economic and foreign policy, the world only responded in kind.

So it was that in 1929 an increasingly worsening trade deficit and a run on the banks saw the US suffer economic meltdown. The great depression had begun and it wasn't until the outbreak of World War Two that the US began to make serious ground towards recovery.

Essentially the US found itself in a very favourable position. Not wanting to involve itself in any more major wars it was inevitable that the US would begin WW2 as a neutral power. However, whilst a denial of military support to Allied Forces was to remain in place until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, there were certainly no objections to support in the form of equipment, arms and ammunition. Even those whose loyalties went elsewhere found they were able to be discreet in their support of the Axis powers, and the first few years of war saw a great deal in the way of a turnaround of Americas economic fortunes.

By the end of WW2 the United States had amassed a huge fortune. The only problem was, what were they to do with the Military Industrial Complex that had sprung up during the war years. As it turned out, America was quick to find out and with the arrival of the Cold War came the biggest arms race in modern history.

The problem was that whilst the production of new weapon and missile systems skyrocketed, what there lacked was a theater in which the latest weaponry could be put to use. After all, without a need to resupply weaponry and without the continued provision of ammunition, the Military Industrial Complex risked stagnation. And so it was that following the assassination of President John F Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as President of the United States. His first act as President was to sign the piece of paper that dramatically increased the US presence in Vietnam and effectively started the Vietnam war; even though Kennedy's intention had been to pull US peace keepers out of the country.

Over the next fifty years America was to see its role on the world stage change. Where as previously it had opted for a protectionist stance, the US Government had realised that it could no longer afford to take such a position. As a result the American presence in the world grew and, maybe not too coincidentally, begun to take on the role of world policeman as movements were made towards creating a New World Order based around globalised governmental institutions.

The war for profit and the Global Jihad

In September 2001 the world changed as two passenger planes flew into the World Trade Centre. To begin with, it all seemed like a rather typical terrorist incident when a Saudi called Osama Bin Laden, claimed responsibility. However, not all was as it seemed.

In no time at all questions were being asked about the events of that day in 2001. Reports of explosions just before the twin towers collapsed, the fact the twin towers collapsed at the rate of free fall, NORAD standing down, the Bin Ladens and George Bush Snr's business connections, along with allegations of CIA and Israeli Mossad involvement were just a few chips taken from a very large iceberg. But it was too late and in no time at all President George W Bush had declared a War on Terror.

As the result of 9/11, with full UN backing, coalition forces marched into Afghanistan. The objective was to remove the ruling Taliban Government from power and to find Osama Bin Laden. But by the time coalition forces had reached Kabul, Osama Bin Laden was nowhere to be seen. Over the next few years peacekeeping efforts were stepped up as Coalition Forces begun reconstructing Afghanistan's broken government and it wasn't until 2003 that events took a turn for the worse.

Initially the invasion of Iraq only lasted seven days, but the subsequent Iraqi insurgency saw to it that coalition forces were to become engaged in a long term conflict in the Middle East. Essentially, whilst there was strong international support for the earlier invasion of Afghanistan, the same could not be said for Iraq which unlike Afghanistan lacked a mandate. In any event, the US and UK governments proceeded with the invasion despite allegations of its illegality

what the world came to witness was a rapid growth in support for fundamentalist Islam. And to make matters worse, the defeated Taliban had returned to Afghanistan with a vengeance. Whilst they had been weakened by the successful US led invasion, they had gained in support as the result of the Iraq War and what the Jihadists called western persecution of the Islamic world. The fact that the US was massively supportive of Zionist Israel didn't exactly help matters either and British Forces who were deployed on Operation Herrick were forced to engage the Talibans Jihadist army in what was soon to become an extremely costly conflict.

All in, the position the world now finds itself in is an awkward one. Whilst the rise in fundamentalist Islam is something that is largely the result of US led operations in the Middle East and Asia, it is something that has now grown to a point whereby a simple conflict with those extremist elements is not going to be enough to control the situation. In effect, the west had hit a point of no return by launching the illegal war in Iraq, and the resultant propaganda coup and the subsequent outbreak of violence in Afghanistan now means that the west is fighting an unwinnable war. The only question then can be how to detalibanise Afghanistan without drawing ourselves into another thirty years of costly conflict that promises defeat at the hands of an enemy constantly growing in size and confidence.

Furthermore, given the current economic climate, along with the American economies dependence upon the military industrial complex, one could even be forgiven for wondering if the west can even afford to pull back. After all, to do so would mean a huge drop in business for the worlds biggest arms trader in a world where growth is the only way to keep a healthy, dynamic and competitive industry from stagnation and eventual collapse.

trampling hearts in search of minds

Ever since the 1947 Malayan Emergency British forces have focused on a policy of 'hearts and minds' when engaged in overseas military operations. The idea being to pollute the water in which your enemies fish swim by using a low number of troops who then infiltrate enemy occupied areas and forge strong links with the local population; who then turn their backs on their oppressors. As opposed to troop surges and large scale use of advanced weaponry which only causes collateral damage and turns the very people you are trying to win over against the “peace keeping” force.

The problem with the current strategy however is that it is all too easy to see how the local population would be left between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they can live under the Taliban and be guaranteed security by people who would offer no less a draconian and extreme form of government than the current incumbents; or they can support western forces who bring with them allegations of freedom, a corrupt government, and an assortment of weaponry that more often than not leaves innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire between coalition troops and Taliban forces.

The choice therefore is over freedom or security, and given the rising insecurity in the region it is very easy to see how freedom would wind up coming second to the promise of peace as the result of a Taliban victory. The west however, can no longer afford to allow this to happen. After all, It seems that the battle has become one that not only seeks the retalibanisation of Afghanistan, but also the talibanisaton of neighboring Pakistan. Meaning that what was a war of resistance has now become full blown Global Jihad.

You could even argue the presence of a profit driven foreign force in Afghanistan, working under the assumption that they're somehow helping to deliver Afghanistan from tyranny, is in itself a complete and utter fallacy. After all, whilst the Afghani government aligns itself with western forces, they risk associating themselves with rising insecurity, which only plays into the hands of the Taliban and breeds resentment of what is seen as a puppet government. In effect the question that might be asked is, if the US backed government is so capable of governing, why do they need Western support to do so?

After all, all these efforts to get electricity to the Afghani people would not have been so possible if it weren't for the west. Leaving me to wonder just what it is that the west may expect in return? A question no doubt being asked by the very same people who have managed to survive without electricity for thousands of years.

The argument here is that these people don't need or want a western way of life, but their own. And it could easily be argued that western attempts to modernise and westernise Afghanistan are not only going to breed resentment of a culturally destructive foreign force, but will increase support for a culturally aware Taliban enemy as the local populations way of life is changed beyond recognition and younger members of the various tribes begin to move away to the cities in search of safety, jobs and a way of life that is anything but the one their ancestors followed, no more superior and anything but the one that the creators of 'hearts and minds' were thinking off when they came up with the policy.

After all, imagine the result if British forces had responded to the Malayan emergency by arrogantly suggesting that the local way of life was insufficient and outmoded by setting up electricity sub stations, cutting down the ulu and throwing up roads all over the place. They would have lost the support of the local population, their efforts at targeting communist insurgents would have been greatly hampered and the emergency would have been one which would not only have continued, but would likely have worsened as the Guerrillas claims of capitalist influence and destruction of culture became ever more visible and undeniable.

Sure, everything would have been modern and the locals would have had coca cola instead of river water. But given they had lived the same way of life, under the same conditions for generations; any suggestion of change would have appeared suspect. Meaning that the designers of 'hearts and minds' would likely have been viewed as a greater threat to their way of life than the insurgents. Leaving open the possibility for a very different outcome.

Instead, they built strong links with the local population, who not only taught them to survive in the jungle, but also helped them to overcome an enemy by providing intelligence and useful local knowledge. More than that though, to this day those very same tribes maintain strong links with the very people who helped maintain their way of life. Suggesting that the result of a good hearts and minds policy is not merely victory, but good personal links which help drive diplomacy and good international relationships for generations.

Avoiding defeat by compromising on victory

Bearing in mind then the vast differences that exist between the Malayan and Afghan conflicts, the argument is not so much over whether improving hearts and minds will win the conflict, but whether it will improve the Afghani governments standing well enough to force the Taliban into peace talks. After all, a clear victory for either side looks so uncertain that the issue of talks will have to be raised at some point. And I suspect it may be prudent to explore this option now whilst the west is in the position to do so. Especially given that western governments will be wanting to avoid losing control of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline that brings gas through to the west. Thus eliminating our dependence on Russian gas.

Essentially the argument is that rather than increase conflict by increasing troop numbers and combat operations, talks with the enemy might go some way to ending the will to fight. For if the Taliban feel they're being engaged by the new government, they may be less willing to engage in a battle which promises no more than perpetual war. Especially given that unlike the Malayan insurgency, the Taliban are not merely a highly politicised insurgent force with their own agenda, but the deposed rulers of Afghanistan.

Not only that, but such talks would also put the west in the very valuable position of peacemaker. Allowing them the chance to show the local population that they're trying to create peace; a position which would also improve the 'hearts and minds' effort by presenting ISAF in more of a conciliatory light than that of the aggressive force claiming to work against terror in a land that they helped to tear apart.

After all, let us not forget that the wests initial reason for invading was not only to find the mastermind behind 9/11, but given that the invasion was the result of the Talibans inability to find and deliver Osama Bin Laden to his western accusers, western backed forces can hardly continue to justify their presence given that they have had no more luck than the former Taliban government in targeting so called terrorists. A failure which not only calls into question the demands the west made of the Taliban government post 9/11, but the very argument for the initial invasion of Afghanistan. Especially given that as a direct result of that invasion Afghanistan now has more terrorists than it did pre 9/11.

The horrible truth though is that insofar as Afghanistan is concerned, not only is pulling out no longer an option for fear of the Islamist cause gaining confidence and spreading throughout Asia; but neither is victory a possibility. Leaving compromise the only option in a war that looks set to continue for lack of any willingness to find a more peaceful, and less profitable alternative. For whilst troop numbers in the region increase and the war spreads to neighboring countries the struggle looks like one that is to become a perpetual war against the Islamist ideology. A war which with the resultant rise of Jihadism in western lands threatens to consume us all and drag us ever closer to the dollar lined abyss created by the western arms establishment.

DL

David Cameron: Change for the better?

2010-06-06T22:06:00.004+01:00

So here we are. A new government is now in power but we still have to live with the same world that existed prior to the change over, although given the way the press has been buzzing you could be forgiven for thinking that things had changed. It's actually quite interesting in that whilst noise is being made about the economy and the need to make so many cut backs – thus giving the impression something is being done – the war in Afghanistan continues and even the new government, it seems, is not completely adverse to the odd political scandal.

For example, there was a story in todays news that Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary and member for Woodspring has hired a former US Army captain with links to US Intelligence as his special advisor. Now leaving aside the fact that this position could just as easily been filled by a former British Army officer, questions need to be asked as to what government is doing hiring people with links to a foreign powers' intelligence services. Especially given the British publics anger at playing of poodle to US Foreign policy.

For starters, I wouldn't mind knowing how this is a useful appointment given the approaching Strategic Defence Review and the potential for Top Secret information to find it's way into the hands of US Intelligence. And I also wouldn't mind being enlightened as to how a former US Army Captain expects to be able to advise UK Government as to methods of best practice in tasks being carried out by UK Forces. Particularly given the difference in the way operations are conducted.

But there you go. I'm not expecting any answers at any point during this term of government, leaving me to a conclusion that I had come to beforehand anyway. That is to say that we're being screwed.

It's all quite simple really. The people get angry, so the establishment offer up an alternative under the slogan “vote for change”. Only they don't make it completely clear just what that change is going to be. Ok, so Gordon Brown is gone. But we now have a government who whilst talking it up on the economy, have held back on Afghanistan and the worsening security situation, choosing instead to ignore the issue whilst creaming in money from people with all to convenient connections to the arms trade. A scenario every man and his dog has been aware off for years now, but one that has only just been confirmed with the Conservative Party stating that the donations were within the rules.

It is widely believed that we're living in what could be called the last days of peace. That is to say, the last days before we get the promised change. Only in the form of more wars, peak oil and unavoidable global economic meltdown; despite the present governments claimed attempts at economic damage limitation. But what are we to expect when we live in a world where apathy reigns and the mass media informs.

Every free thinking man and his dog knows that it is the media who controls public opinion. Leaving the people with no other option than the usual bought and paid for politicians. The kind of people who are photographed on a yaght with Rupert Murdoch, Or entering a well publicised party at which Rupert Murdoch is guest of honour. All very conveniently just before a government changing election.

I've often thought that when the people are demanding the chains that will be offered up as a solution, you will know that the final motions of the New World Order master plan is nearing completion. The only question is, can the intellectually and socially unconscious majority be woken from their slumber in time to stop it?

DL

New Website launch

2010-05-28T11:51:00.004+01:00

I have recently launched a new, non political blog in an attempt to branch out into more entertaining, not mention baffling, mediums. This blog will continue to run, but hopefully those of you who read The Danny Lake Articles will find yourself continuing your fun over at the Crazy World of Danny Lake.

Meanwhile, why not take the time to browse through the videos section on the right hand side of this page. Naturally, updates will continue shortly but should you get bored there is plenty of content on here for you to feast your eyes on.

Happy viewing!!!

DL

Election 2010: a beautifully executed con.

2010-05-06T00:06:00.000+01:00

Written by: AT (itzone)

You have to hand it to the mainstream media. The control it has exerted over the general election coverage these past few weeks is a wonder to behold. A beautifully executed con job that has left nothing to chance.

Certainly what the TV presenters, interviewers, commentators and news anchors have achieved, along with their counterparts in the press, is unethical, immoral, corrosive to democracy and the idea of liberty and wholly harmful to the people of this nation. But it can’t be denied they have managed to massage an angry and vengeful electorate into a compliant and misdirected mass, on the TV screens at least.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/ or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” [Joseph Goebbels]

The media prepared the pre-election ground with a campaign of fear based around the ludicrous prospect of the BNP suddenly gaining mass appeal. The message went forth that rejection of the mainstream parties represented a wasted vote or worse, an open door for extremism and fringe politics.

This was presented with a straight face as if it is possible to conceive a more extreme or crackpot outcome than the thirteen years we have suffered under New Labour.

Which “fringe” party advocated illegal war against helpless civilians and the transferral of power to casino gangsters in the City of London followed by a trillion pound bailout when the inevitable consequences unfolded? Which “extremist” party suggested empowering busybodies on the government payroll to root through rubbish bins or inspect the contents of refrigerators to ensure insane behavioural engineering diktats are obeyed? Who built the surveillance state and wants to go further with a control freak agenda that would delight and impress Adolf Hitler or the old Stalinists but leaves civil rights campaigners and libertarians shuddering and fearful for the future?

Say what you like about the BNP (and most if it is deserved) but nothing is more loony than the loony left. Yet everyone else is the madman according to a media that has played along with barely a whimper of protest, barring your cartoon Littlejohn types who are offered up as confirmation the alternative view is brash and dangerous.

Thirteen years of abuse piled upon abuse is a history vanished down the memory hole, unquestioned by political pundits like Nick Robinson who delight in the statistics of the fast approaching kick-off but never stop to consider what the game is all about. Politics as sport is their business and they come armed with fancy graphics and jarring music to blast away sober observations or awkward questions.

Even Stella Rimington, former MI5 chief, has warned against the remorseless rise of the police state – the police themselves complaining of political excess and agendas that run contrary to the beliefs upon which this nation is supposedly built. We hear nothing of this in the so-called debates sandwiched between the spinning logos and prime time advertisements.

But despite the array of tools at their disposal the “experts” can’t spin away what is obvious to even the most uninformed voter, Labour’s turn at playing government has been a disaster of epic proportions. Neither have the talking heads been able to attach significant appeal to the eternally grey David Cameron who has been engineered too precisely to the extent he evokes memories of the widely hated Tony Blair.

Pumping up the profile of the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg was a master stoke born from necessity and has paid off surely even beyond the mainstream’s wildest expectations. Clegg and his not so secretly fractured party offer nothing but a cosmetic reconfiguration of the traditional two party system and indeed it could be argued their policies are the most detrimental in terms of our liberty and prosperity. You may recall, though the fact has been purged from the discussion, the Liberal Democrats are determined to see us consumed entirely by the anti-democratic and instinctively authoritarian European Union.

Clegg is a lightening conductor for the public rage. The establishment feared a meltdown this election. They fretted at the prospect of the disillusioned and disgusted public rejecting the corruption now clearly exposed in Westminster by turning to genuine alternatives or staying at home.

The solution to rising public resentment has been the packaging and marketing of Nick Clegg, offered for sale as the much demanded change the people yearn for. Yet an examination of his policies on the key issues unmasks him as just another clone tightly bound to the establishment agenda. More government, more control, more taxes, less liberty. This is the “Liberal” Democrat and this is your “alternative” on May 6th.

Certainly on the trivial issues made monumental by media misdirection, such as meaningless proposals for electoral reform, Clegg is singing a different tune. He has big ideas on how to cement beyond removal the utterly crooked and perverted manner in which detached and self-interested puppets for the corporate elite are ushered into bureaucratic prominence.

In reality Clegg has nothing serious to say about bringing the decision making process closer to the man in the street. In an age of technology you might think it is possible to refer to the governed more than once every five years, especially on such huge and far reaching issues as deeper integration with the Europeans.

TV reality shows can organise snap referenda in real time having engaged the audience on a weekly basis thus provoking informed choice. Politicians can’t even honestly inform us through their shady and double-dealing manifestos. The detached “lifer” bureaucrats in parliament and the civil service believe an endorsement every half decade is perfectly sufficient, they go as far as to suggest democracy is threatened when left to the public opinion. You’ve heard them make this remarkable claim every time the idea of genuine public engagement is suggested.

Few, I suppose, would enjoy a parliament run by phone-in vote but this isn’t the point. What matters is the politicians believe the only workable system is a non-representative free hand for them until it comes time to spew a new set of lies and half truths at election time.

The fact the British public was not allowed to voice an opinion when our nation was signed away to the Europeans is staggering. This act alone proves our present form of government is far removed from the democratic principle and more akin to a plutocracy. An important discussion point, you might imagine, but it hasn’t rated a mention during the election campaign with the only party prepared to speak about it, UKIP, thrown to the sidelines and starved of media coverage.

A similar blackout has occurred in relation to the expenses scandal. Of course it has not been possible for the media and politicians to completely ignore the public backlash. Instead the three parties have all agreed to hold their hands up and have promised tighter self-regulation. A handful of the worst offenders have been thrown to the lions, ironically at the public expense. This, all three parties agree, is sufficient recompense for stealing from our wallets at a time when the banks are signing off on our generation spanning poverty.

These politicians all stand in a palace and refer to each other as “honourable” men and women. Even though the evidence indicates the opposite, there are no plans for any of the parties to look deeper into how the whole Westminster bubble operates and maintains itself.

The inescapable but unmentioned conclusion is that politics more and more attracts those most unsuited to public service. It lures dishonest nest featherers who act according to their club affiliation rather than the common good. When caught betraying the public trust they investigate themselves, reprimand themselves, it’s a closed shop.

The expenses scandal informs us beyond argument our politicians are corrupt and our political system is rotten. Now these same miscreants stand before us and tell us they have changed. What do you expect a liar to say when caught red handed? He’ll tell a lie, of course.

These “honourable” men collude with the media and propose criminals and conmen are the best we can hope for come election day. No other options have been granted air time or column inches. This is it, this is your government, this is your media. The overriding issue analysed (to death) is whether one corrupt party will dominate or if they’ll all get a “fair” crack at the trough.

Our politicians are murderers and war criminals too, not that you would know it from the media coverage. Certainly Afghanistan has had plenty of controlled exposure. The debate has been carefully distilled to an unapologetic argument about who will provide the most resources to our imperial forces so they can further destroy a nation far away. Oil and gas contracts for the big corporations is not newsworthy because motive is never considered.

The media rambles about a sham democracy confined to a few square miles in Kabul whilst Afghanistan continues to be the bloodied plaything of profiteers in glass towers in London, Washington and New York.

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is publicly justified by the events of September 11th, 2001. Based on a proclamation rather than a proper investigation it has been decided an ex-CIA operative and his Taliban friends, who were tolerated until they refused to play ball in handing over their nation’s resources to the west, were responsible for 911 and a “just” and “moral” penalty is the death and destruction of the Afghan people and infrastructure respectively.

The hunt for bin Laden has long ceased to be an issue, ever since he was allowed to escape when cornered – so the story goes. The Taliban, once defeated, are the main focus now. Apparently if we don’t keep fighting over there they will all come and fight us over here. The easy interchangeability of manufactured boogie-men provides the ever present threat useful for policy makers at home and the lucrative opportunities for our big brand companies in the war zones.

If it’s not Al-Qaeda it’s the Taliban or Saddam or the “new Hitler” in Iran. Enemies that have no record whatsoever of having targeted our nation prior to us deciding to bomb them and steal their national resources. Yet the mainstream media is happy to confirm the lie, they hate us because we are free.

How many Afghans have paid the price of this lie is unknown because we don’t count the corpses. What we do know is there is no end in sight to the carnage nor the monetary expenditure at a time when we are told we have no money left to spend. Gordon Brown has been boasting about extending expenditure way beyond any estimations offered when we decided to follow along with tail wagging behind the American war machine.

None of the mainstream approved parties suggest reviewing our commitments overseas and the media hasn’t pressed them. It is silently implied the war in Afghanistan will continue without question or exit strategy.

Worse still is the sordid history of our engagement in Iraq. This issue has been airbrushed out of the campaign entirely. Our nation (or the fathers, sons and daughters of a portion of it) went to war based on the lies told by our political leaders and at least hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of human beings have been murdered as a result.

Four million Iraqis have been reduced to refugee status. Our crazed warmongers boasted they would bomb Iraq back to the stone age and they have delivered on that promise. Regime change and nation building are now the norm and International law is only ever applicable to the other guy.

All the parties strain to heap praise on “our boys” over there who do a marvellous job building nations for Johnny Foreigners who, thanks to previous and similarly disastrous imperial interventions, have failed to build viable states of their own accord. History is parcelled up into detached segments which are then switched in and out according to the demands of the imperial agenda. The media sells each new justification for aggression without a blush.

Iraq is a crime of such magnitude it can scarcely be comprehended, the ultimate war crime of the type we determined to hold Germany accountable for at the conclusion of World War II but for which we now throw away our own laws because we are the aggressor. Behind the scenes the resources of Iraq are silently signed away to Shell and Exxon Mobil, the media ignore the dots that beg to be connected and studiously avoids the repeated patterns that scream of a guiding hand behind these “fateful” events.

The war criminal Tony Blair walks free, in this country at least, and lines his pockets explaining to paying audiences how he would commit his crimes again even though his lies about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction have long since been exposed. The war criminal Gordon Brown, who wrote out the cheques, has been rewarded by promotion to the highest office without seeking any endorsement from the electorate. He is so detached from morality or the fundamentals of justice he has the nerve to run for office again and the media plays along by averting their eyes from his blood soaked past.

In eight hours of televised debate Brown remained unchallenged on his criminal past by the other two candidates. Clegg is fond of using the term “illegal” to describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq but he shuns the next obvious step by failing to associate the policy of prominent British politicians with the illegal act. If a crime has been committed is it not usual to ask who committed that crime and attempt to bring them to justice?

For Clegg the word “illegal” is useful as a campaigning device but it’s plain enough he’d rather not push things further. That’s because he sat in the same parliament as the war criminals and is tarnished by association. He may not have voted for war but he observed the criminal behaviour anyway and did nothing other than show his total commitment to our invading forces once the killing spree commenced. At Nuremberg such a defence resulted in hanging. In modern Britain, regardless of the scale of the crime, the greatest threat to our politicians is banishment to a lucrative boardroom safe from public scrutiny.

Of course David Cameron overtly supported the aggression against Iraq, a fact you may (despite the media silence) still recall.

Perhaps the most glaring omission by the mainstream media in the coverage of this election is the unprecedented fraud conducted by the banks against not just the people of Britain but the entire planet.

Much like the expenses scandal the media would have you believe the underlying problems in the banking system lie with corrupt individuals rather than an inherently corrupt model. Gatekeepers like Robert Peston of the BBC will dutifully relay the latest news that Goldman Sachs stands accused of criminal behaviour but they aren’t disposed to laying out the whole laundry list of crimes attributable to these banksters. And there are many on record.

For those who aren’t afraid of digging where journalists never tread it quickly becomes apparent the banks are a cancer that has eaten away at global economies and hence our personal prosperity for centuries. Boom and bust is the tell-tale sign of the real banking function.

Originally designed to safeguard gold deposits the bankers learned they could cheat their customers by issuing paper promises against those deposits but in amounts that far outweighed the physical quantity of gold in the vaults. Eventually the banksters persuaded kings, queens and politicians this fraud was beneficial to the economy and so fractional reserve banking, a euphemism for counterfeiting, was born.

This crime is now so ingrained in modern economic models most observers sing loudly about the overall benefits of allowing a few individuals to prosper by repeatedly diluting the wealth of their victims. It is proposed that capital driven economics (capital being a euphemism for debt) builds long term prosperity and were it not for fractional reserve banking and the fiat currency (money created from thin air and backed by nothing of tangible value) mankind would have progressed at a slower pace.

Never mind that every bubble must burst if it is inflated sufficiently. Set aside that slavery is the underlying price of the bankster economy as well as the horror of war and a world where a third of the population battles obesity whilst the rest of humanity starves to death. Out of sight, out of mind is the real magic formula behind the first world miracle.

The final nail in the coffin of a free and prosperous humanity arrived when control of the money supply was taken from the state and handed to the banksters. This allowed the latter to cyclically inflate the money supply, thereby expanding the public debt, and then reduce it causing defaults and the transfer of tangible assets to the banks in settlement for debts they had written using money pulled from thin air. Thus their risk was cut to zero and their return guaranteed. The very same model persists today but with a few more avaricious twists applied.

Herein lies your eternal boom and bust cycle that politicians laughably claim they seek to eradicate. All three political parties stress an immediate return to debt production by the banks is imperative. The credit must flow again, they declare. The wheel must turn again. You’ll notice how they use positive terminology to describe highly undesirable circumstances. Debt is credit, money is debt. Freedom is slavery but that’s another story never to be told.

Our economy does not have to operate like this, it could cast off the vampire bankers that suck the nation’s blood. The government could easily create money backed by real assets and then regulate the money supply. In fact this is how it used to be before the banksters cornered the market on everything. Now such concepts are laughed at by “experts” who tell us that paying interest on our own money is an essential ingredient to any modern economy. How convenient.

Of course it’s true that our gleaming consumer debt economies could never have grown so large without voodoo banking practices. We have all become richer in paper terms as a result of this grand fraud but, because of the inertia in the system, we have been saved from a final accounting. Until now perhaps.

Certainly we possess a lot of consumer “things” we never owned before but in reality we are worse off than the penniless pauper. He has nothing but we are submerged in debt and the interest on that debt can never be repaid. After all, if the banksters produce all the money in the system then where does the money required to pay interest come from? Think it through.

In light of this, how should we tackle the banks that have extracted a trillion pounds (£1,000,000,000,000) under threat of a global financial collapse? That’s called an extortion racket, a tool much favoured by your average gangster but taken to new extremes by our expensively suited banksters.

Brown, who handed even more control to the banks, calls it an outrage, Cameron wants more freedom for the banks, Clegg is promising “tough” action so that nobody will ever hold the nation hostage again. They all suggest a limit on bonuses and a tax on the illicit spoils. Would you think justice had been served if a bank robber was forced to pay a small percentage of his loot back to the bank and then had the interest on his ill-gotten gains taxed at a couple of percentage points? This is what the frontrunners in this election are suggesting as a fitting punishment for the greatest criminals ever to foul the planet. It’s a joke.

And what do they offer by way of reform? They urge the banks should be broken up at the very same time they suggest huge and unaccountable money lenders be given sweeping global powers. The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the IMF, these are the organisations that will be tasked with building a more robust and stable model. They also happen to be the greatest practitioners of the global counterfeiting and debt scams. You couldn’t make it up but because the media carefully conceals the real nature of banking the electorate can be tricked into believing real action has been taken.

Sorry, but it’s only your money that has been taken and your jobs and houses and land and the future of your children. Don’t be fooled, nothing is changing and if anything the future is bleaker than at any time in history.

I really have wandered off the election track now and I could go on and discuss the third world sweat shops and the permanent war economies and the drugs trade and all the other tin foil hat “conspiracies” that our “honest” politicians and bankers would never be involved in. I’m the madman, remember. It’s the guy who stole your wallet that has your best interests at heart.

It is an understatement to conclude the mainstream media could have done a better job of informing the public during this election build up. That it has decided once again against fulfilling its original role in society is another indicator of how corrupt and attached to the political and corporate elite it has become.

As such the voters will go into the polling booths drenched in spin, shielded from the real issues and bereft of a real choice. Some will see through the conditioning, others are already immune to it. But, I fear, most will fall victim. I get this impression from talking directly to people around me. Their issues are meaningless to me and mine are incomprehensible and outlandish to them. I believe they are well meaning but complacent, they think I’m a lunatic. I resent the majority endorsing more of what I despise and the majority despises me for even questioning the system in which they have so much faith invested.

I am a libertarian, the exact opposite of a Liberal Democrat. Therefore I would never seek to impose my beliefs or will on others. What I object to is others who feel it only right to impose their uninformed decisions on me.

It is painfully evident the mainstream parties and their complicit media have scored a decisive victory in this election. All hint of dissent has been purged, all possibility of choice eradicated.

For those of us who were hopeful the glaring exposure of the criminals in office or the direct impact of their (greedy beyond reason) bankster friends on the lives of normal people would somehow energise real change, May 6th will be a bitter blow.

Nevertheless, anyone committed to justice, a fair and level playing field (which just so happens to be the opposite of wealth distribution by force), peace, equality under the common law and above all liberty must start again and plan for the next five years.

These will be trying times in which the state consolidates its grip and the globalist agenda advances at pace. We will witness more war, more suffering and misery, more inequality, more crimes against humanity and the guilty parties will continue to walk free.

We will see the mainstream media taking big steps to recover a monopoly on information as the Internet is strangled using brute force legislation. We may even be targeted directly as the economic situation worsens and the state seeks out minority victims and “truth criminals” to be thrown to the masses as a distraction.

But I truly believe more people are waking up to the reality of the world in which we are living. I believe more realise we are endlessly repeating the same mistakes and the cycle needs to be broken for genuine progress to occur.

We didn’t get our message across this time, we were trounced by a beautifully executed media con. But nobody can afford to lose heart or give up the fight. Great social change never arrives without protracted struggle. No matter how intimidating or pervasive the enemy, take comfort in recalling that every great tyranny has eventually stumbled then fallen. Rome, the power of the Church, the Soviet empire, these are notable examples.

For all the Twittering and political wheezing that disguises the debauchery of our political system and strives to mislead, I believe most people are decent and honest and ready to do the right thing if so persuaded. We failed to persuade them this time. We must double our efforts then.

Each and every libertarian is now tasked with picking up a brick from the ruins and laying it on another to recommence the building process. Speak no more of May 6th but instead look forward to a brighter time when surely change for the better must arrive. And work to make it happen.

Election 2010: casting the die of inevitability

2010-04-23T22:15:00.011+01:00

This election is one that I have been taking a particular interest in - partly because I had intended to stand for the British National Party in the South Swindon seat (this no longer being the case following the split of December 2007) – but primarily because this election is so important. I knew this to be the case back in 2007 when I was contemplating my political future, but I never at the time saw how this election would become as important as it has done.

At the time I believed that Immigration and European integration were to become primary issues. However, as the past three years have gone by - with the world being stung by an economic crisis of previously unknown magnitude, the west finding itself moving ever closer to self destruction with wars in Afghanistan worsening and the potential for war in Iran becoming ever more likely – this election has become one based around our very way of life.

The problem is that the three main parties no longer present a viable option. On the one hand you have the Labour and Conservative parties continuously trading blows rather than attempting to deal with the issues, and on the other hand you have the Liberal Democrats who granted aren’t playing the same game as the Labour or Conservative Party’s, yet fail to present themselves as a viable option. The sad thing is, in their desperation to rid the UK of Lab/Con dominance, the British people seem increasingly willing to put their trust in the Liberal Democrats purely because and regardless of their unsuitability for government, the Liberal Democrats are boxing clever in refusing to play this years game of political ping pong.

The issues as far as many are concerned are primarily jobs and the economy. But naturally, immigration, especially given the wars in the Middle East and the rise in fundamentalist Islam; The EU; Afghanistan; crime and public services are all hot topics. Even the debate over the renewal of the UK’s “independent” nuclear deterrent is raging with the Conservative party favouring Multi-lateral disarmament and the Liberal democrats promising unilateral action on the assumption that modern warfare has changed and that nothing unexpected – such as the not so unexpected proliferation of nuclear arms by Iran or North Korea – may occur which may leave the UK in need of something to stop the new kids on the block from feeling that they have a chance to knock down the big kid in the playground.

Despite all of this though. The debate over the economy, increasing unemployment, Afghanistan and the very future of our country, what I can’t help but notice is the lack of any real difference on the major issues. All three main parties recognise the so called important of continuing the military effort in Afghanistan and all three main party’s remain completely incapable of bringing the global banking cartels under control. Which tells me that regardless of which of the big three we find ourselves electing, the only real difference that can be expected are national issues such as the NHS and unemployment.Even worsening unemployment looks to me to be an unavoidable reality once the incoming government realise that the UK’s industrial and skills base has been ripped clean out and is in desperate need of renewal.

Even in the event that the lib/lab/con did decide they wanted to do something about the UK's worsening political situation, their unwillingness to withdraw from the EU means that regardless of which one of them we elect, over 80% of our laws are still set to be made in Brussles and our job market open to the whole of Europe. Not forgetting the potential for a load of Turks to jump on the bandwaggon once the EU clears the way for their membership.

Granted, the Conservative party are offering to encourage business to stay in the UK with the offer of tax breaks for big business. However, even if the UK were to witness a rise in foreign investment, that investment is still foreign with the profits making its way overseas and doing nothing much (other than providing a few soul destroying unskilled assembly jobs) to correct our economic situation. The final outcome would remain the same, with a large segment of Britain’s youth being condemned to a life of unskilled, low paid work; regardless of qualification or experience. That is unless you're willing to fight one of the establishments wars

Three years ago, I looked toward what I expected to be a 2010 election and I saw a chance to influence popular opinion and make a stand for what I believe to be right. But now, now I wonder if the British people, not just myself, will ever have that chance. Essentially, I can’t help but feel that this election is our last chance to make right all the bad done by previous establishment parties. Sadly though, I don’t think we will and if anything, I’m now putting my money on civil war within ten years. I only hope I’m wrong.

DL

Youth on the Edge: Epilogue

2009-12-03T14:43:00.010Z

I am Danny Lake and I am 24 years old. Leaving the BNP signalled a major change and in July 2009 I found myself leaving Swindon for the British Army. I joined for two main reasons. A long held desire to be a soldier and a lack of anything better to do saw me choose a path I had considered years earlier but never got round to doing. The problem was that British forces were bogged down in a war I didn’t exactly agree with. What is more, despite an adventurous streak I just didn’t have the stomach for it.

At the end of the first week of training we were being shown a bayonet drill by a Royal Artillery Bombardier and an Infantry Corporal. The Bombardier, possibly the worlds most chilled out man, was stood bolt upright with his SA80 and on the command of the Infantry Corporal went charging at a sandbag. In the space of a few seconds I saw that calm and collected look fade from the man’s eyes and in its place appear the look of a man capable of anything. The next thing I knew the Infantry Corporal was holding up a bayonet and screaming “what is this for?” to which my fellow recruits replied “to kill, kill, kill”.

Two days later we were marched to the armoury where we were issued with our SA80’s for the first time. At first I found myself looking down at this thing in my hands, asking myself if I really wanted to use it. Half an hour later, as we were sat in a semi circle being show how to “make safe”, I decided the safest way to handle a weapon was not to handle it at all. Two hours later, I went to speak to my section Corporal.

The following morning my head was in a mess. I knew my place was not in the army, but at the same time I had nothing to leave for. In any event, that afternoon I spoke to the Troop OC and after attempting to persuade me to change cap badge it was somewhat begrudgingly agreed that maybe the army wasn’t best for me. He agreed to speak to his superiors about me leaving at the earliest available opportunity and within a couple of hours I was told I could go the next day. He was right in what he said; he truly was a miracle worker.

I spent the next day being dragged from place to place as we filled various forms out. It was strange because despite all the excitement I felt at joining the Army, I couldn’t wait to leave. I had a final interview with the Battery Captain before leaving and my guess is that upon being asked why I wanted to leave, my honest answer was a little too uncomfortable for her. As I collected my travel warrant to take me back to Swindon she looked at me and said in a very stern voice “don’t try to join the army again, you have been designated as permanently unsuitable for Army service. Your views and opinions are not in keeping with the aims and objectives of the British Army”.

I said “ok” and just kept smiling whilst the Troop Sergeant stood there looking gobsmacked. As we walked outside he looked at me and asked me to repeat what she had said, which I did. He didn’t respond but through his somewhat obvious surprise he did tell me to go and grab my bag before walking me down to the gate. As we got to the gate we shook hands and parted ways. Personally I had the feeling there was something unsaid left floating in the air. But if nothing else, it had certainly been an eventful nine days. I looked back one last time as I took a few seconds to ask myself what could have been, and then walked into the distance.

Since that day not all that much has happened. I seem to be spending my time either writing or looking for work but if anything looks promising, it’s the chance to travel where I haven’t travelled before. The way I figure it is if the things that led me to the army weren’t enough to keep me there, maybe those things I can do on my own time. And who knows, more time to think and write can only be a good thing.

Britain and the world is in a mess, people are fighting and dying half way around the world and I hope that I may one day be in a position to change some perceptions or even have a go at effecting some real change. Some day in the future maybe I’ll return to uni. I have realised I have an interest in philosophy and would one day like to pursue it. In any event, I’m holding out on saying for certain what path I’m going to walk next.

I am a nationalist. I say I am a nationalist in the belief that it is not a political ideology but rather a philosophical principle. As a species we base our understanding on the world around us, on the knowledge that we are all different. But in doing so, we quite often become misguided and turn our love of these differences into a desire to destroy that which makes us different.

One thing is for sure, and it’s that my leaving the BNP is certainly not the end of my time in politics, but the beginning. I spent four years with the BNP in total and if I am honest not only have I taken quite a bit from it, but I can honestly say that the things I have done will never leave me. One day, when I have asked life a few more questions and found a few more answers, I will return to the madness that is party politics. There can only be one aim as far as I am concerned, and that is real and lasting change. But for now, I have a new path to follow.

If my life has taught me one thing it is that life is for living and death is for dying. I will always strive, I will always look the bad in the eyes with a smile and I will always try to be everything I believe a man should be: principled, courageous, loyal, honest, socially aware and strong in mind, body and spirit. I will always choose peace over war and love over hate. But at the same time I will always understand that a threat to my life is a threat to all life. I will always have a strong belief in justice and my heart will always yearn for freedom; but I will always be willing to accept what justice hands me and would give up my freedom and even my life if I knew it to be for the protection of my own. This is my code and this is what I live by.

Welcome to the New World Order

2009-11-23T03:14:00.008Z

So here we are. Yesterday saw the European Union select a new full time President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Over the past few years many men and women from all over Europe have fought and struggled to prevent this day happening. People who have been ridiculed, laughed at and told time and again that this day would never happen. Well I regret to say, it has.

We were refused a referendum, we were refused a vote on our new political figureheads and from this moment on, Europe is now officially a dictatorship.

Personally, I am at a loss for words. I don’t know what to say to you as this is a day I never in my worst nightmare imagined would actually come to pass. I never once thought that England, the land I love, would actually descend into dictatorship.

To speak to you now knowing that UK Government has done this to the British people without our permission is devastating. And the worst part is that nobody even cares.

My words will have little meaning at this moment in time. But I urge you to remember the lessons taught to us by Guy Fawkes, Oliver Cromwell, Wat Tyler and all those who stood shoulder to shoulder with their brothers in the name of freedom.

We may have lost this battle…but believe me…the war is yet to be won!!!

DL

EU Superstate emerges

2009-11-23T03:00:00.006Z

Available from: The British National Party

Those who believed that the Lisbon Treaty was merely an “improved” version of the old European Union will wake up on Friday morning to find that they have an executive president of Europe with a £45 billion budget and full control over Britain’s foreign affairs and defence policies.

There will even be EU embassies in foreign countries, which are likely to ultimately replace all individual European nation’s embassies. The new authority will also take over all military command structures of member states.

Your new president will also have a civil service staff of at least 7,000 workers at his disposal. This will be the single largest diplomatic corps in the world.

In addition, your new president will be paid £250,000 a year plus all expenses. He will get free luxury travel and a pension for life worth two thirds of his salary.

The size of his staff and the duties they will assume will inevitably lead to the new EU structure taking on full executive powers.

According to think tank Open Europe, even EU officials acknowledge that the organisation “will take on an uncontrollable life of its own.”

Open Europe’s Lorraine Mullally was quoted as saying that whoever gets the job as president “will be in charge of the biggest diplomatic service in the world, without even having to get elected or answer to the public.

“The last thing Europe needs is yet another bloated EU institution, costing billions and with no democratic mandate and yet here we are creating a blueprint for a fully-fledged EU Foreign Office,” she said.

It will also inevitably, through the European Court of Justice, be able to determine financial controls, taxation levels and immigration and criminal justice. Major aspects of these policies are already subject to EU regulations.

Britain’s contributions to the European Union are, along with all member nations, set to increase dramatically to fund the vast new infrastructure. The first major project to be funded is the EU president’s headquarters, which will cost an estimated £280 million.

Possibly the single most pathetic aspect about Britain’s membership of this new state has been the Conservative Party’s deceit and deception over the issue.

David Cameron and some of his colleagues lied to the public for years about wanting to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, in spite of it being obvious that it was not possible to “renegotiate” the treaty once it was implemented.

In a further act of betrayal, the Conservative grouping in the European Parliament contains a party that openly supported the Lisbon Treaty. The Polish Law and Justice Party is one of Mr Cameron’s firm allies, and their very first act was to vote for former Communist Party of Portugal member Jose Barroso to be President of the European Commission.

Britain is about to become part of the EU superstate. And it will have done so with the active connivance of the Labour and Tory parties.

Cannabis: getting it right!!!

2009-11-16T03:11:00.022Z

Perhaps one of the most controversial debates today, the argument over Marijuana and its social effects and medical benefits is one that is making ripples in the public mind. In 1928 the use of cannabis was prohibited as the result of the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control, after Egypt and Turkey requested its inclusion. Since then, recreational use of the drug has grown with it reaching a peak more recently as a result of growing public awareness, and an ever increasing relaxed attitude towards the use of the drug. However, at present the argument over its continued prohibition is one which is only just becoming clear as research into the effects is stepped up, and the effects of cannabis use more widely understood.

Now for many, the medical benefits that cannabis can bring is an argument in itself for its legalisation, if only for medicinal use; with Glaucoma, Arthritis and Multiple Scleroses all being cited as illnesses which cannabis is useful in the treatment of. Its use as a painkiller is widely praised, even finding a use in combating the pain suffered by cancer patients.

However, an often cited illness brought about by the heavy use of cannabis is Schizophrenia, with a rise in psychosis amongst users being evident of the more harmful effects of its use. A link which it has been said is the result of the growing presence of stronger hybrid strains of cannabis. This is, however, where things get interesting.

Since cannabis use was decriminalised in the Netherlands a huge industry has sprung up that is involved in the growing, supply and sale of marijuana; with growers competing to produce the best and most potent strains. These strains, making their way out of the Netherlands and across the globe are typically referred to as hybrid strains. That is to say cross pollinated with other strains to produce new strains.

There are two properties within cannabis that have an effect on the human body. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD) are two such properties and recent research has shown some surprising results.

It seems that whilst THC has been largely cited as a cause of psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia, the link is not so much a link between cannabis and psychosis itself, but a link between psychosis and an imbalance in the levels of THC and CBD amongst hybrid strains of cannabis (in particular high THC Skunks).

Both THC and CBD both have an individual function, and whilst THC has been shown to have an effect on Arthritis, Glaucoma and also prevents the onset of Alzheimer's disease; CBD has been shown to be effective in not only combating anxiety, convulsions, Nausea and Inflammation. But more interesting than this, contrary to the supposed cannabis/psychosis link, CBD is recognised as being as effective as atypical antipsychotics in treating sufferers of Schizophrenia. Even working with and counteracting the THC to prevent the onset of psychosis. Further to this CBD has been said to be useful in combating aggressive cancer cell growth and Parkinson's disease . And, it seems, any risk that is associated with cannabis use is the result of high THC, low CBD strains rather than cannabis itself. Strains which lack the required CBD levels to combat the emergence of psychological illness.

With this in mind, it is perhaps necessary to ask yourself about the social ramifications of cannabis use. Cannabis use produces feeling of euphoria and relaxation, and is likely to increase appetite. However, bearing in mind the proven link between high THC strains and psychosis, nobody can really argue that cannabis is completely harmless. But when assessing the risks, it is perhaps necessary to compare the use of cannabis with alcohol, and to perhaps keep in mind the possibility of the emergence of a legal and regulated market at some point in the future.

At present there are no recorded fatalities as a result of cannabis use and there is no existing link between cannabis use and violent crime. However, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) alcohol accounts for 3.7% of deaths globally, with 8,758 of those deaths occurring in Britain in 2006. Not only that, but the UK recorded 1.2 Million incidents of alcohol related violence in 1999 alone, which begs the question, which is more harmful socially speaking, cannabis or alcohol? Further to this is the comment made by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in a 2008 report which stated that cannabis presents a lesser health risk than tobacco and alcohol.

Even if you accept that lesser risks involved in the use of cannabis, the concerns over the rise of high THC skunks is one which cannot be ignored. But at the same time it is a problem which can be limited, if not eliminated.

The argument surrounding legalisation is a valid one, and it is perhaps worth noting that legalisation would bring with it a new industry, along with the chance to regulate that industry – limiting or preventing the supply of high THC hybrids; thus eliminating the psychosis effect and enabling the manufacture and sale of naturally balanced varieties to flourish. Essentially, if it is to work drug law needs to be responsible. After all, what could be more irresponsible than prohibiting a safe and medically beneficial substance when there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise to support its continued prohibition? And as a result allowing a criminally controlled, unregulated black market to flourish.

DL

Further viewing: The Evil Weed?

The Evil Weed?

2009-11-16T03:05:00.000Z

This is an episode of BBC Horizon that looks into how cannabis has become an ingrained part of human culture and also delves into the arguments surrounding recreational and medicinal use.

Although the presenter clearly has his own view, using the evidence to back up his argument; this is actually quite a balanced programme. And whilst it shows that psychosis can be caused as a result of heavy use amongst teenagers, expert research also shows that this risk can be eliminated and psychosis even treated by using CBD (Cannabidiol) rich cannabis; a property which because of the illegal status and as a result, the lack of regulation, means that high THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol - this is the stuff that gets you stoned), low CBD strains are so readily available. And it could be argued, even encouraged.

DL

Relieved banks now turn screws on us

2009-11-16T03:00:00.000Z

Written by Mat Cooper

Now that the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) has been passed by the Dail and the banks can offload their biggest property loans to the agency at exorbitant prices, lenders will turn their attention to the thousands of other customers who are struggling with their repayments. And that’s where the real problems may begin.

This growing category includes many who bought overpriced houses and apartments in recent years with monster mortgages pushed on them by the same banks now doing business with Nama.

Many of these homeowners face financial ruin because of falling incomes and unemployment. In the worst cases, they will lose their homes. It might not be bad now, but the situation will worsen considerably as interest rates eventually move upwards and the supports on which many depend, such as child benefit, are slashed in the budget.

Even those who don’t lose their homes may suffer. They could find themselves spending up to 40 years stuck in the same property with no prospect of trading up, dedicating their working lives to repaying more money to the bank than their so-called “asset” will ever be worth.

The manner in which the banks treat these people will be telling. Last week, the Irish Banking Federation issued details of a voluntary code of practice to which 10 member institutions have subscribed. It urged borrowers to own up to potential repayment problems quickly and suggested loan restructurings would be offered. It promised at least a six-month window before any legal action was initiated that could result in repossession.

When banks appear to act generously, we should be alarmed. It was the “generosity” of the banks in issuing large loans, sometimes for seven or eight times one’s income and for terms considerably longer than the traditional 20 years, that got many people into trouble in the first place.

The mess we’re in can be put down to the banks suckering their ordinary customers into a giant Ponzi scheme. Crazy sums of money were lent to land speculators who borrowed even more to build properties. To recover their money, the banks lent enormous sums to the people who then bought those properties.

Everything went smoothly for the banks and developers — at least for a time — but then the scheme, as they always do, imploded. At the end, it was the ordinary home purchaser who got caught.

Banks will seek repayment of every last cent from these borrowers, irrespective of the ability to pay as they no longer have to worry about the developers, who will be hunted down by Nama instead.

The banks like hitting on easy marks. The big developers can put up a better fight, some have cash stashed away and access to top lawyers and financial advisers. Many developers haven’t paid interest on their loans for years, but none of them has been turfed out of their homes. Anglo Irish Bank’s decision to go after hotelier Hugh O’Regan for €37m in personal guarantees is an exception, but there are better-known customers of Anglo and other banks with far bigger liabilities who have not been chased with the same determination.

Despite all the promises contained in the advance publicity, it is unlikely that Nama will be able to enforce full repayment of the loans it is acquiring. Settlements will be reached with major borrowers, with part of the debts “written off” as unrecoverable, giving these entrepreneurs another chance to get back on the merry-go-round.

That’s what happened with Larry Goodman in the early 1990s. Bust after his disastrous investments and trading mishaps, the banks did a deal which required him to repay only a fraction of what he owed. Little more than a decade later, he had repurchased all the properties he had surrendered and was in control of the Irish and British beef industry.

The more you owe, the more likely it is that a bank will do a deal to ensure at least partial repayment. Owe a relatively small amount, however, and you will be pursued ruthlessly.

Property mortgages (excluding commercial buildings) totalled €113 billion at the end of June. Excluding the €30.67 billion lent to buy-to-let investors and the €1.25 billion advanced to holiday-home owners, the amount of money lent to owners of principal private residences was €81.73 billion, down from a peak of €89.77 billion in March 2008.

Recent figures from the Central Statistics Office suggest that 60% of homeowners in Ireland have no mortgages. That means that €81.73 billion is spread among less than half the homeowners in the country. I’ll bet that most of these borrowers are relatively young, and most will have families. Many of them also have credit-card debts and personal loans for cars, an absolute necessity in order to commute from their expensive homes in some out-of-the-way place.

These are the same people who are suffering disproportionately from the surge in unemployment and reduced incomes. All they can do is stand and watch as those who never bothered to provide for themselves are handed rent subsidies and other state supports.

Everyone accepts that taking on debt involves personal responsibility, but many of these people were simply seduced by banks and the government with their offer of tax incentives to get into the property game.

Every day, we hear about the state of the public finances, but nothing is being done to sort out the personal-debt crisis that threatens to make this recession far worse than the one experienced in the 1980s. There will be no meaningful recovery unless we do something to bail out people crippled by their mortgages.

The banks may be playing it nice at present, but wait until Nama removes the €77 billion in developers’ loans from their books. It seems only fair that with the banks being paid €54 billion for loans currently valued at €47 billion, there should be something in this for the small borrower too.

No doubt economists and others will reject this idea as unsustainable, but why not require the government to step in and write down all existing mortgages on principal private residences by 10%? The cost to the state would be just over €8 billion, a little more than the known overpayment that the banks are receiving for the dodgy loans being parked in Nama.

The impact on the personal finances of mortgage holders would be enormous. They would have less money to repay, and loans could even be spread over a longer period of time if the banks were to play ball. The measure wouldn’t solve everyone’s problems, but this stimulus would give borrowers some badly needed breathing space.

In the absence of an initiative such as this, personal debt, as with public debt, will continue to choke any hopes of an economic recovery. The gesture would also make it easier to sell the pay reductions that are now deemed essential if we are to restore national competitiveness.

Fall of the Republic

2009-10-28T13:37:00.006Z

This is the latest Alex Jones film covering the Obama administration and the rise of the New World Order along with the fall of the American republic and the creation of the current world economic crisis; showing that whatever the individuals political leanings, the ultimate endgame - the movement towards a One World Government is well and truly underway.

DL

What to do...

2009-10-27T19:19:00.003Z

Over the past few months, events have been bursting into the news that have seriously made me look at the world and question whether our future is one we can allow to come to pass. Mankind has forgotten that at the very heart of its existence is its diversity in a world full of nations, cultures and values. You could even say, in the world today there is a movement attempting to bring about the destruction of these very things. It is attempting to destroy the very nations that make diversity possible.

Britain it self is in a mess. England is on its knees. Our sovereignty has been handed to Europe; that is to say a foreign power. And The Queen is a prisoner in her own land. Scotland are screaming independence in a last ditch attempt to cling onto their country but seem to be unable to realise that they’re being lead toward destruction by a lying and confused bunch of politicians intent on tearing Britain to pieces. The demographic change rocking these islands is a factor we cannot ignore any longer. And to the people of England I’ll even say that we are the victims of what some have termed a “silent genocide” according to the UN definition itself.

Thursday 23rd October saw the BNP Leader, Nick Griffin MEP go head to head with Jack Straw MP. However, all that I could glean from it was that the political system is in a mess and completely void of any political entity worthy of respect. Nick Griffin was creepy, but outspoken. Jack Straw jumped on the usual anti English bandwagon, and the audience was clearly rigged. As for the line of questioning, heaven forbid anybody should talk policy; instead choosing to use it as a killing ground with which to stop the ever growing nationalist revolution.

To even think that they used one man to discredit the whole of nationalism sickens me. To think that our own leaders would deny the existence of the English people, and condemn us to death in our own land makes me angry on a revolutionary level.

There was a time when the people would have decimated the House of Commons if they had dared to step out of line. There was a time when the English people wouldn’t have hesitated to take the heads off the front benches. But now, everybody is living a comatose life, a life spent trying to survive in a fucked up and expensive world; a life spent ignorant of their own demise.

Now naturally, I am not actually suggesting that England’s disgruntled majority raise their axes and take to the floors of parliament, but clearly something needs to be done. The only question is, what?

DL

Light the warning beacons...the EU is coming!!!

2009-10-05T16:00:00.009+01:00

Over the weekend, the Irish people took the historic step of lending their permission to what can only be described as unconditional surrender. The Lisbon Treaty now stands on the verge of being fully ratified. And the freedom of nations, the whole of Europe over, lies at stake.

The EU, an organisation that started out as a mere trade deal has grown into a monstrous superstate, intent on consuming all it can reach.

As things stand, we are staring into the burning flames of defeat.

Now this isn’t much. But as things stand we can do something. I am going to ask anybody who is reading this now, to sign this petition; passing it on once you have done so. It’s not much…but it may just be our only chance:

No single nation will surrender our freedom, save the English. Let them know that Britain lives!!!

DL

"There is a high chance that if we get enough signatures that agree that the Irish Government ran a fraudulent and illegal campaign against the Lisbon treaty and submit it by 9th October, then they won't be able to continue with ratification. Please sign and send on to everyone you can. Remain active, we need everyone doing what they can."

"Please sign the petition and share with everyone you know."

http://www.gopetition.com/online/31224.html

Al Jazeera interview with Congressman Ron Paul

2009-10-02T03:11:00.007+01:00

This is an in depth and extremely interesting interview with US Congressman Ron Paul on Al Jazeera; which goes some way to showing how almost everything we in the western world hold to be true, the very foundation of the established political and economic system is flawed on a fundamental level.

DL

The eye of the storm: G20 and our eventual economic breakdown.

2009-09-26T16:47:00.007+01:00

Today’s news contains the story that Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the man who at present is suffering from severe depression and the BBC reports is one pill away from a secure psychiatric unit, is set to table a motion to the G20 that will see international co-ordination of economic policy.

The argument being put forward is that this is vital in order to ensure we “return to economic growth”. But what strikes me as interesting is the fact that the vast majority of the G20 nations – including all of the western economies - have already seen a growth in their economies; with China and India not being very badly hit by the crisis at all.

What concerns me here is the movement towards further globalisation of our economic system. For whilst those who stand beside this policy would argue that international co-operation would mean if one does well we all do well. As somebody once pointed out, it also means of one goes under, everybody goes under.

There has been some talk for a long while about globalisation and the movement toward a One World Government. And people could be forgiven for thinking that this is nothing more than a step towards that endgame. After all, when the politicians tell blatant lies about the reasoning behind the policy, it’s easy to understand why people would wonder just what their motives are. This new proposal means that individual G20 nations will have to table their economic policy to the G20 for approval before they can proceed.

Now this is not only means that the G20 nations look set to loose full control of their own economic policy, but it also means that something which should be decided by a democratically elected government, is instead influenced by a foreign power. And if anything, goes no way toward solving the financial problem, but will instead serve to entrench it even further.

The UK and US economies are both on the verge of ruin, with a debt mountain like nothing seen in history having been built up. The UK has destroyed its manufacturing base, leaving it with a balance of payments that would disgrace any leading economy. And the solution to this is to do nothing about it, do nothing at all to bring money into the country, and instead to continue doing what we always did. Only this time, we’re going to make sure we drag everybody else down with us.

It has been said that the aim of the New World Order is to create a situation that will leave us begging for a solution, begging for the One World Government which will then be held up as our saviour. Well by the looks of things there is something to this argument. Because whilst the politicians are void of any solutions. Whilst they refuse to come up with anything different, they are only going to make the problem worse. And then when it doesn’t work. They will no doubt turn around and call for more globalisation. They will say that globalisation wasn’t the problem; it’s that we didn’t have enough of it.

This so called economic stimulus is the equivalent to saying that a heroin addiction isn’t the problem, it’s not having any heroin to stop the withdrawal. What the world needs to realise though is that it can spread the heroin around, it can share all the syringes it likes. But it’s only going to make things worse.

We have to accept that we’re addicted to debt. We have to understand that borrowing even more money, finding a way to get lending going again isn’t going to solve the problem. Because when the interest piles up, when we run out of the money needed to pay the banks their interest; there can only be one winner, and that’s the banks.

DL

Fabled Enemies

2009-09-21T03:34:00.005+01:00

Released in 2008, this is a film by Jason Bermas which details the 9/11 hijackers links to the American FBI, CIA, Pakistani ISI and Israeli Mossad. This is certainly a detailed film; which reveals some interesting evidence and very convenient links between the Bush and Bin Laden families'.

The New Humanism.

2009-09-17T22:38:00.006+01:00

By Roger Scruton.

The family in which I was raised was, in the matter of religion, typical of postwar England. There was no objection to the children receiving Christian instruction at school, and performing there a daily act of worship. There was no objection to chapel and Sunday school—indeed, provided these institutions were gloomy enough, my parents thought, their children could only be improved by them. But the home was a religion-free zone: no grace before meals, no prayers at bedtime, and the Bible wedged firmly on the shelf between the Oxford Dictionary and Winston Churchill's History of the Second World War. Our parents called themselves humanists. They had been raised as Christians, but had lived through the Second World War and lost faith in the God who permitted it. They regarded humanism as a residual option, once faith had dissolved. It was not something to make a song and dance about, still less something to impose on others, but simply the best they could manage in the absence of God.

All around me I encountered humanists of my parents' kind. I befriended them at school, and was taught by them at Cambridge. And whenever I lost the Christian faith which had first dawned on me in school assemblies I would be a humanist for a spell, and feel comforted that there existed this other and more tangled path to the goal of moral discipline. Looking back on it, I see the humanism of my parents as a kind of rearguard action on behalf of religious values. They, and their contemporaries, believed that man is the source of his own ideals and also the object of them. There is no need for God, they thought, in order to live with a vision of the higher life. All the values that had been appropriated by the Christian churches are available to the humanist too. Faith, hope, and charity can exist as human causes, and without the need for a heavenly focus; humanists can build their lives on the love of neighbor, can exercise the virtues and discipline their appetites so as to be just, prudent, temperate, and courageous, just as the Greeks had taught, long before the edict of the Church had fallen like a shadow across the human spirit. A humanist can be a patriot; he can believe with Jesus that "greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friend." He is the enemy of false sentiment and lax morals, and all the more vigilant on behalf of morality in that he believes it to be the thing by which humanity is exalted, and the proof that we can be the source of our own ideals.

That noble form of humanism has its roots in the Enlightenment, in Kant's defense of the moral law, and in the progressivism of well-meaning Victorian sages. And the memory of it leads me to take an interest in something that calls itself "humanism," and is now beginning to announce itself in Britain. This humanism is self-consciously "new," like New Labour; it has its own journal, the New Humanist, and its own sages, the most prominent of whom is Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and vice-president of the British Humanist Association. It runs advertising campaigns and letter-writing campaigns and is militant in asserting the truth of its vision and its right to make converts. But the vision is not that of my parents. The new humanism spends little time exalting man as an ideal. It says nothing, or next to nothing, about faith, hope, and charity; is scathing about patriotism; and is dismissive of those rearguard actions in defense of the family, public spirit, and sexual restraint that animated my parents. Instead of idealizing man, the new humanism denigrates God and attacks the belief in God as a human weakness. My parents too thought belief in God to be a weakness. But they were reluctant to deprive other human beings of a moral prop that they seemed to need.

The British Humanist Association is currently running a campaign against religious faith. It has bought advertising space on our city buses, which now patrol the streets declaring that "There probably is no God; so stop worrying and enjoy life." My parents would have been appalled at such a declaration. From a true premise, they would have said, it derives a false and pernicious conclusion. Had they wished to announce their beliefs—and it was part of their humanism to think that you don't announce your beliefs but live them—they would have expressed them thus: "There probably is no God; so start worrying, and remember that self-discipline is up to you." The British Humanist Association sees nothing wrong with the reference to enjoyment; it seems to have no consciousness of what is clearly announced between the lines of the text, namely that there are no ideals higher than pleasure. Its publications imply that there is only one thing that stands between man and his happiness, and that is the belief in God. Take that belief away, and we can run out into the garden of permissions, picking the fruit that we wrongly thought to have been forbidden. The humanists I knew as a young man would have reacted with disgust at this hedonistic message, and at a philosophy that aims to dispense with God without also aiming to replace Him.

But the bus adverts fit the spirit of modern Britain, and not even the Muslims complain about them. One Christian bus driver has refused to drive his bus, and a few hundred people have written to the Advertising Standards Council, which has rejected their complaint, but that is as far as the protests have gone. When, in the light of this advertising campaign, I look back at the humanist movement that I encountered as an adolescent, one thing above all strikes me: that the old humanism was not about deconstructing God; it was about constructing man. It was a positive movement, devoted to seeking things worthy of emulation and sacrifice, even if there is no God to promote them. Its principal fear was that, deprived of religious belief, people would let go of their ideals. Hence it urgently sought a new basis for moral restraint in the idea of human dignity.

The old humanism was not a pleasure-seeking, still less a pleasure-loving philosophy. It took its inspiration from Enlightenment philosophers, from Milton, Blake, and D. H. Lawrence, and from the legacy of Western art. The humanist who most influenced me at Cambridge believed that in no works had humanity been more blessed by true ideals than in the St. Matthew Passion of Bach and the Tristan und Isolde of Wagner, the one a work of Christian devotion, the other a work that makes no mention of God or gods, but simply dwells on the exalted nature of erotic love when tied to mutual sacrifice. Although I was skeptical toward that kind of humanism, I never doubted its nobility of purpose. It was devoted to exalting the human person above the human animal, and moral discipline above random appetite. It saw art, music, and literature not simply as pleasures, but as sources of spiritual strength. And it took the same view of religion. Humanists of the old school were not believers. The ability to question, to doubt, to live in perpetual uncertainty, they thought, is one of the noble endowments of the human intellect. But they respected religion and studied it for the moral and spiritual truths that could outlive the God who once promoted them.

Observing the new humanism from my old perspective I am struck not only by its lack of positive belief, but also by its need to compensate for this lack by antagonism toward an imagined enemy. I say "imagined," since it is obvious that religion is a declining force in Britain. There is no need to consult the pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury: the response to the bus campaign abundantly proves the point. But a weak enemy is precisely what these negative philosophies require. Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular. Ever since the Enlightenment there has been a tendency to adopt this negative approach to the human condition, rather than to live out the exacting demands of the Enlightenment morality, which tells us to take responsibility for ourselves and to cease our snivelling. Having shaken off their shackles and discovered that they have not obtained contentment, human beings have a lamentable tendency to believe that they are victims of some alien force, be it aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, the priesthood, or simply the belief in God. And the feeling arises that they need only destroy this alien force, and happiness will be served up on a plate, in a garden of pleasures. That, in my view, is why the Enlightenment, which promised the reign of freedom and justice, issued in an unending series of wars.

I never thought, when I finally put the old humanism behind me, that I would ever feel nostalgia over its loss. But now I recognize that it was not only noble in itself, but was also a serious attempt to retain the belief in nobility without the theological vision on which that belief had once depended. It was, in effect, a proof of the ideal that it proposed: an example of how human beings can provide themselves with values, and then live up to them.

First step to restoring coherent politics: scrap the misleading labels 'Left' and 'Right' (Daily Telegraph)

2009-09-11T12:58:00.003+01:00

Whilst the following article isn't exactly what could be called groundbreaking, and is saying the same things I have for years now, it is an interesting read that will hopefully make you question our current method of ideological interpretation.

DL

--------------------

By Gerald Warner

George Orwell, with his satirical invention of “Newspeak”, drew attention more effectively than anybody else to the phenomenon whereby it is possible, by policing language, to control thought. If people lack the vocabulary, because it has been proscribed, to express ideas differing from the prevailing orthodoxy, then the public articulation of arguments critical of the ruling order becomes impossible.

We have seen this totalitarian method in operation recently, by the imposition of the mealy-mouthed euphemisms of political correctness on all public expression, a method of social control pioneered by the Frankfurt School Marxists whose system now controls a society that deludes itself it is “free”. Until the vocabulary of discourse is broadened, that freedom will remain illusory.

So, where to start? How do we begin to peel back the corner of the postage stamp that is franked with our verbal enslavement? The best beginning would be to abolish the moronic use of the misleading terms “Left” and “Right” to describe (more accurately, distort) ideological positions. This terminology is now ubiquitous. It is a straitjacket that prevents rational analysis of political realities – and that is how the “Left” likes it.

The terms first came into existence to describe the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly in 1789, at the beginning of the Revolution. The conservative partisans of the ancien régime, the established order, sat on the right of the president’s chair and became known as the Côté Droit (right side), while the revolutionaries, seated on the president’s left, became known as the Côté Gauche (left side). Thomas Carlyle, with his love of picturesque detail, brought the terms into prominence in the English-speaking world through his history of the Revolution.

Even so, they did not enter common political currency until generations later. Some authorities credit the psychologist William James with first popularising the term “left wing”, in its modern sense, in 1897. Certainly by the 1930s – an era of almost as prevailing charlatanry as our own – the insidious terminology had become universal. As a tool of Marxist propaganda, it was ideal. The aim was to fabricate two conflicting ideological labels and to encompass all political thought within this straitjacket.

A spurious moral identity was then imposed, simplistic as the white hats/black hats, goodies/baddies identities in Western films, so that “Right-wing” would become a derogatory term and “Left-wing” a badge of moral superiority. The fact that the “Left”, during the course of the 20th century, murdered 100 million people was not permitted to destabilise this moral ascendancy: you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

From the beginning, it was false. “Left-wing” was not even allowed to describe all socialism: national socialism, in every degree as revolutionary as its imagined antonym international socialism, was arbitrarily labelled “Right-wing”. Then, with the fall of official communism, even as its Frankfurt version triumphed in the West, the labels became downright cretinous. For example, ex-Soviet commanders advancing with armoured columns to overthrow Boris Yeltsin and restore the Marxist Leninist/Stalinist order, were universally described as “Right-wing”.

Recently, critics have complained about the inanity of describing the British National Party, with its socialist agenda, as “Right-wing”. Who ever imagined this terminology was about ideological accuracy? To the progressive establishment “Right-wing” means simply something of which it disapproves. The term “right-wing extremist” is common currency in the media. How often does the BBC employ the term – even of Marxists – “left-wing extremist”?

There are already the first stirrings of a move to brand repudiation of “man-made” climate change fantasies as “right-wing”. It is time we grew up and shook off the shackles of this idiotic and totally misleading terminology.

The European elections and euro nationalism

2009-07-25T20:00:00.000+01:00

By Louis W

Nationalism has been slowly but steadily gaining ground in Europe. Euro-nationalism is based on an opposition to the European Union political project, multiculturalism, mass immigration, globalisation and libertarian laissez-faire policies. Chiefly it builds on the growing alienation that the liberalised modern life has brought; the collapse of local communities, the destruction of traditions, unemployment, the attack on our Christian faith, culturally and spiritually, and the inadequacy of materialism and consumerism to fill the holes in ours lives.

People are fed up. The arrogance of the European establishment can be seen in the failure of many countries to give referendums on the Lisborn Treaty aka. the European Constitution as well as the fact they ignored the Irish and Netherlands ‘No.’ Instead they have called for another referendum to get the answer they wanted, ‘Yes.’ It is clear that the Christian Europe of nations does not want to become a globalised, multicultural Europe under a distant liberal political elite. Additionally the recession and banking crisis has exposed the greed and moral collapse in our societies with the mindless spending of money we don’t have on goods that are not needed coming back to haunt us, whilst the bankers are bailed out by massive government subsidies, subsidies that should have gone into rejuvenating local communities and small businesses.

Today in European politics a mixture of liberal and culturally Marxist (stemming from the Frankfurt school) ideas dominate our institutions, government and establishment and through these the meaningless but almost fascistically dominant abstract ideas of ‘equality’, ‘diversity’, ‘racism’, ‘freedom’ have become the tenants of our new religion that would have us create a heaven here on earth. To many people the cracks in these utopian ideas are becoming more visible as the real ’stuff’ of societies is being abandoned; traditions, ethnicity, the family, spirituality, community, history and experience. Not all have given up on the concept of the nation-state, the concept in which our political traditions, our historical realities, our morals lie; the organic community forged by history, Burke’s contract between the living and the dead.

In addition to ideological threats the nation is also being undermined by the logical conclusion of liberal globalized capitalism. Many so called conservatives will often see libertarian free marketeers as the allies of nationalism. This could not be further from the case. As globalisation has become dominant the need for the free movement of cheap labour and goods as well as the destruction of ‘unprofitable’ national industries and our local commonwealth has meant that big businesses especially have given their utmost support to the liberal classes in their promotion of the individual as a consumer and economic figure without any spiritual or moral dimension. Nationalists and genuine conservatives have sought to offer an alternative which puts the more solid, healthy and long term concepts of thriving and interlocked local and employed communities at the heart of a European national revival with a capitalistic structure which serves the nation rather than nations that bow before the bankers.

In the recent European elections some nationalist parties made their first breakthroughs. In Britain the British National Party managed to gain two seats after a massive smear campaign against them. Like in the rest of Europe political correctness holds sway and no matter how moderated or professional one might be, if you question the holy religion of multiculturalism and equality then the media will use every weapon against you. Despite this, and despite another party, the United Kingdom Independence Party being buffed up as a ‘cul de sac’ alternative after the revelation that British Members of Parliaments from all the main parties had been fiddling and claiming immoral and unnecessary expenses, Nick Griffin’s British National Party still made the breakthrough it was looking for.

In Hungary, Jobbik, or the Movement for a Better Hungary also made a breakthrough securing three seats. In eastern Europe the recession is biting particularly hard and so the cracks are ever more evident. This can also be seen in Bulgaria where the National Attack Union gained two seats and also in Romania where the Greater Romania Party gained two seats. It is hoped that despite the differences between these nations these parties will be able to work together against the far greater threat, their own establishments who took them into the European political project.

The Germanic parties in the lowlands did particularly well. Geert Wilders Freedom Party in the Netherlands gained 17% of the vote with four seats coming second overall. Although in many respects a libertarian party, the Freedom Party is working to protect the Dutch political traditions and liberties against a massively growing Islamic population. This is the nation of course where film producer, Theo van Gogh, was killed by a adherent of ‘the religion of peace’ and Geert Wilders predecessor Pim Fortuyn was murdered. Geert Wilders himself has had several death threats against him after producing and airing a film called Fitna, warning of the dangers inherent in Islam itself. Islam of course means submission and Muslims are set to become majorities in the Netherlands, France and Germany in the next few decades, and the United Kingdom and others a few years later, all within my generation.

Additionally a party that has close links with the Freedom Pary is the Vlam’s Belang of Belgium, or perhaps more correctly put, of the Germanic Flemmish. Unlike many national independence movements Vlam’s Belang is a genuinely conservative and nationalist party not willing to surrender a hard earned sovereignty to Brussels, multiculturalism or global capitalism. This contrasts with the ‘nationalist’ movements in the United Kingdom, for instance in Scotland where the Scottish National Party claims that anyone can be Scottish, wants to join the Euro and encourage mass immigration. Vlam’s Belang wishes for the secession of the Flemish, a national-ethnic group from Belgium, a state that is made up of the Waloons and the Flemish. It gained two seats and ten percent in the European elections and Geert Wilders has pledged to support their cause.

It was good to see in Italy that Silvio Berlusconi openly reject a ‘multi-ethnic’ Italy (despite his Italian style corruption and admiration for young women) as well his taking in of the National Alliance, a national-conservative party. Rather like Japan, Italy has increasingly clamped down on immigration and taken a different line to the rest of the world. It perhaps goes to demonstrate the myth that one would be ‘cut off’ by other states if one was to adopt conservative policies. In the Italian European elections the secessionist Lega Nord did well gaining eight seats and coming third.

In Austria and France the long established and professional nationalist movements did not do so well. It is often said that at this stage nationalist groups can only gain a threshold percentage and no more. The Front National manged to retain three seats and is soon to be led by Jean Marie Le Pen’s daughter Marine Le Pen whilst the recently successful (in the internal Austrian elections) Austrian Freedom Party under the photogenic Heinz-Christian Strache maintained two seats. Jorg Haider’s old party the Alliance for the Future of Austria gained five percent of the vote which combined with the thirteen percent of the Freedom party gave a significant eighteen percent to nationalist groups.

Most nationalists and conservatives will be very much aware of the significance of the new breakthroughs and understand the current leveling off of the older more established parties. Indeed they maintain a large grass roots presence and have the infrastructure in place to make further gains as the systematic crisis of the disastrous liberal experiments in multiculturalism and globalised economics reaches its peak. The small new gains in the other nations are also significant giving publicity and funding to these groups after much grass roots campaigning, indeed they are well on the way to reaching the professionalism of the Front National and the Austrian Freedom Party.

With Jean Marie Le Pen soon to retire his long and successful career in politics it is perhaps fitting to finish with a quote from a speech he made in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

“Your Europe is a drifting vessel, windswept and beaten by the waves. It’s the only region int he world that deliberately dismantled its political and moral structures. Without borders, gradually invaded by mass immigration which is only the beginning, economically ruined by free market fanaticism, socially impoverished, weakened demographically, lacking spirit and defensive strength. It will at best become an American protectorate. At worst, it will fall under the slavery of dhimmitude. It is long overdue to give up on the deadly illusion of federalism, and to build a Europe of nations, united in real alliances, more modest maybe, but more effective. The Constitution and Treaty failures must be considered as warnings. The peoples of Europe do not want the European project. They won’t allow it to be forced upon them, they don’t want to die.”

Terrorstorm

2009-07-07T03:00:00.000+01:00

The Alex Jones Show: Interview with Zeitgeist Producer, Peter Joseph.

2009-06-13T16:44:00.004+01:00

An interesting exchange between Alex Jones and Peter Joseph. Personally I lean toward Alex's thinking. Although interesting and certainly worth watching, Zeitgeist makes the mistake of appearing too utopian.

DL

Snouts in the trough: MP's claim for light bulbs!

2009-05-13T08:20:00.005+01:00

Here we go again. Over the past few days the media have been crowing over the expenses claims made by MP’s that include maintenance of a swimming pool, the cost of repairing a leaking pipe underneath the tennis court at one Conservative MP's Somerset home, “flipping” of registered second homes for the purpose of avoiding Capital Gains Tax, a furniture bill that came to £7,000 and amongst other claims, a bill for the cost of replacing a few light bulbs which the MP in question defended by saying “I needed the attention of an electrician”.

However, let us not forget that Britain’s MP’s are sorry and as the Communities Secretary Hazel Blears put it are repaying the money because the public are “really, really angry” and "What's really important…is what people think about this issue and what people think about me" which can be taken to mean that the expenses swindle itself isn’t so much the issue as the fact she has been caught out and is now in trouble with the electorate.

Further to this though is the claim by Keith Vaz for £75,000 to fund a second home in London when his family home is just twelve miles away, and there are also claims that MP’s have profited from the sale of taxpayer funded second homes; all leading up to and in the middle of a financial crisis. Meanwhile the Speaker of the House has made a statement saying that such details must never be released to the public again, for "security reasons" (wink, wink), and that the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is to be referred to the issue in the hope that the individual responsible for the leak that led to this story going public will be dealt with appropriately.

But of course, our MP’s are sorry – sorry that they got caught – and as a result are going to repay the money at the behest of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Although it might be worth mentioning that this whole scandal and repayment of dodgy claims would not be necessary had the claims not been made in the first place.

BBC: MP's expenses in detail

The European Union and the end of nations.

2009-05-06T04:52:00.048+01:00

The European parliamentary elections are drawing near, and it is perhaps necessary to look towards Europe and ask ourselves what it does and how it benefits us. Now it is true we live in an increasingly globalised world and that today, more than ever, we find ourselves in a position where decisions need to be taken on an international, rather than a national level. But in recognising this fact it is vital that we do not lose sight of our own needs and the needs of our fellow countrymen. This article will aim to address the issue of increased European integration and will ask if a European Union is really the answer.

For those of you who are unsure how the European Union works, please allow me to explain. The European Union is made up of twenty seven member states and each member state is divided into Euro regions. During European Parliamentary elections the citizens of those states vote on a proportional basis, and as a result each euro region has around ten Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s).

The European Parliament is the legislative body of the EU and is responsible for scrutinising policy decisions and directives, which are introduced to the European Parliament by the EU commission who acts as the executive body. In simple terms, the Commission (which it might be worth mentioning is appointed, that is to say unelected and is required to act in the EU’s interests as opposed to the interests of their individual states) creates the laws and directives that the European Parliament scrutinises and are also responsible for setting the EU’s budget. The Council of Ministers (made up of the heads of government), in turn, scrutinises the Commissions decisions and approves or rejects the budget, directives and other policy decisions.

Essentially, the one democratic element of the EU, its parliament, doesn’t have all that much authority – and it could be argued is nothing more that a talking shop which argues amongst itself and only ever has a somewhat minor influence on EU policy making. After all, the laws they are there to amend are written by unelected bureaucrats as opposed to elected representatives and given the wide number of countries involved and as a result, the wide range of cultures, values and interests that are represented, you can hardly expect all members to be singing in one voice.

There have been some claims, and justifiably so, that the EU is creeping toward closer integration and that what we are witnessing is the movement of power towards an ever more centralised Europe, at the expense of the individual states involved. For example, England is divided up into Euro regions, as is France, Germany and every other member state (although England is part of the UK – the worlds only multinational state – and as such includes Scotland and Wales which act as their own Euro regions). The concern here is that as sovereignty is handed to Europe, all memory of national groups and the resultant diverse collection of European cultures and their corresponding nation states, will be lost to a joint European identity. Essentially the aim of the EU is a United States of Europe; a claim which the EU’s attempt to introduce the European constitution via the back door following the French, Dutch and Irish “No” votes backs up. In effect, whilst some English commentators have suggested that the EU is trying to destroy England, they would be more correct in saying that the EU is trying to destroy nations themselves.

One argument regarding the EU that does hold some water is the claim that supranational government enables major global issues to be tackled with one voice. However, the problem with supranationalism is that it ignores the needs of individual states, and as the EU shows, can lead to over centralisation of power in such organisations, as well as continued attempts to strengthen their ability to legislate on national issues in the name of common purpose. What people don’t talk about though is intergovernmentalism, which achieves the aim of common purpose where there exists the will and the need, but enables individual nations to pursue the interests of their citizens, the very people who they are there to represent. The EU however is supranational, and as such nations continue to be denied the right to pursue their own interests.

Further to the issue of supranationalism in government is the issue of supranationalism in economics. For Britain this is not such an issue as at present we still maintain our own independent currency. However, where as crises such as the current financial crisis shows, there is a need on a national level to alter interest rates in the name of controlling inflation. Signing up to the single currency though would mean that any decision taken in British interests, with an awareness of the British economy, would simply put, be impossible. Instead, the European Central Bank would decide on such issues based on the needs of the whole of Europe and would, as opposed to acting on British interests, merely consider British interests. Meaning that whilst a decision would be taken that would affect the UK on a national level, that decision wouldn’t necessarily be in the UK’s best interests.

Furthermore, it has been argued that globalisation of the financial system leads to a situation whereby if one does well, everybody does well. But what is quite often forgotten [and what the current financial crisis shows] it also means if one goes under, everybody goes under. Essentially, the question we need to ask ourselves is if internationally speaking, we would be better off representing our own national interests.

There is also the argument that some EU member states are more equal than others, a prime example being the grossly unfair agricultural subsidies that are given to French farmers which costs the average British family over £300 a year. At present, in return for its membership of the EU, the UK pays £2 Billion a year (£133 Billion if you include regulatory costs...that's 7.1% of our GDP which is higher that the 5% GDP cost of the current financial crisis), and in 2010/11 thats expected to rise to £6.5 Billion. The idea being that membership enables the UK to benefit from trade links and EU subsidies. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Margaret Thatcher, for all her faults in signing the Single European Act, did manage to secure a rebate of our membership fees as recompense for the fact that Britain gains so little from its membership of the European Union. However, Tony Blair surrendered a chunk of our rebate on a mere promise that the French would “review” their agricultural subsidies. The question that needs asking here is if it is worth paying a gross cost of £180 million a day when we don’t even get that back in subsidies and community grants. Essentially, it could be argued that this money would be better spent giving the NHS/Police/Schools etc a much needed cash injection. You could even argue that this money could be redirected towards our cash strapped fishing and agriculrtural industries who have been so damaged by the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.

The reality of all this is that it is not the UK who needs Europe, but Europe that needs Britain. Without the UK’s political clout, especially if you consider the size of the commonwealth and the international influence held by UK government, in particular the UK/US special relationship, Europe would be left in a much weaker position. Especially if you consider the loss of the British consumer in the event they refused to trade with us. Which they wouldn’t anyway as they trade with all the other non members, and as a consumer nation (although I will say that this is something we need to change…but that is a separate issue) we put an awful lot of money into European pockets. Although it might be worth noting that a vast amount of our trade is done outside of Europe anyway.

What you need to remember is that the European Union started as the European Coal and Steel community, the purpose being the maintenance of a joint trade policy – something which nobody would have objected to. However, since then the EU has grown into another layer of government who continuously infringes upon the sovereignty of individual member states, continuously acts in opposition to British interests and has now grown into near on full economic and political union.

Furthermore, the EU shown its true colours when it ignored the Dutch and French “no” votes and proceeded to introduce a European constitution under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. Ushering in a new era of centralised, supranational government. And if that isn’t enough we are now told by EU Commission financed NGO’s that we must accept a European flag, anthem and olympic team as our own; proving that the true intention of the EU is, and always has been the destruction of it’s individual member states, to be replaced with a brand new United States of Europe.

Further Reading

The Danny Lake Articles: The European Union, Globalisation and World Federalism

The Doomsday Code

2009-05-05T16:36:00.007+01:00

The Doomsday code argues that the "end of days", as "prophesised" in the book of revelations, is nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy; brought about by the evangelical "end time" cultists who exert an enormous amount of influence on US policy making. Based in the Neo-Conservative Bible belt, they have missionaries throughout the world and at present are Africa's fastest growing religion.

The Doomsday code is excellent viewing and is guaranteed to leave you with a few questions of your own.

DL

White underachievement: putting class into the classroom

2009-04-30T23:38:00.006+01:00

The following programme shows how the British white working classes are the worst performing in Britain's educational system; and offers a breathtaking and long awaited, informed reason for their underachievment. Without a doubt one to watch. This programme will show you just how little attention is paid to the needs of the indigenous population, whilst also showing just how much of a difference can be made provided the will is there to tackle the relevent issues.

DL

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

The changing face of Europe.

2009-04-30T21:14:00.005+01:00

This is an excellent short film on the demographic change that is taking place right across the European continent.

In Britain the demographic change is staggering. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that out of all births in the UK, Bengali and Pakistani families account for the highest number.

Pakistani Families: 5 children per family
Bengali Families: 3.9 children per couple
Indigenous families: 1.3 children per family.

Due to unchecked Islamic immigration, the indigenous population of Great Britain will be an ethnic minority in their own land within 50 years…a fact which we can ignore no longer.

DL

A thought on England.

2009-04-24T17:03:00.009+01:00

I have been watching the previous 24 hours with some interest. As you may be aware yesterday was St George’s Day; and I must say it was nice to see so many more people celebrating and talking about it. However, what I have noticed is that people are lacking any real appreciation of the day and what it signifies; and instead, with the extremely welcome exception of one or two local councils, choose to use it as another excuse for a gargantuan piss up.

Essentially, how you chose to celebrate this day is your business, but what it does do is raise a question about Englishness and what it means to be English. Over the past few years the ethnic English have started to make a bit of noise as they have begun to notice the grossly unfair treatment of the English people and, as a result, are now searching out their own identity. This has started with people demanding the unfair treatment of the English people be addressed and that we, just like the ethnic welsh, Scots and Irish, are allowed to celebrate our day.

The thing is, I myself have called for St George’s day to be recognised as a bank holiday, but upon reflection I can’t help but feel that whilst this most certainly is desirable, it wouldn’t really do anything to address the continued discrimination/neglect that the English people are experiencing.

Personally I can’t help but think the problem here is our position within the UK and the lack of an English parliament. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to jump on the English independence bandwagon because as much as I love being English, I also take pride in the fact that I am British. But herein lays the problem.

The Welsh and Scots have their representation, but the English don’t. OK, we do have representation in parliament itself, but as the top up fees vote demonstrated the current system allows Scottish MP’s the chance to affect the final outcome of something that essentially, is an English issue. In a way, I can’t help but feel that the establishments’ sudden acceptance of an English national day has more to do with quashing complaints regarding the cultural and political assault against the English people than it does address the issues.

Essentially, the establishment are now able to dismiss any complaints about an English parliament and our lack of an effective voice as silly; we are after all allowed to celebrate St George’s Day now.

However, it doesn’t end here. Upon pondering the question of Englishness I couldn’t help coming to the conclusion that the English people have lost their way in every sense of the term. Since the inception of mass immigration we have been told that the English nation is either built on the suffering of others, or quite simply, doesn’t exist. We have been told instead that we are British, as are all the people who have come to live in Britain within the last fifty years, and as a result we have more in common with them than we do our fellow Englishmen; more in common with them than our ancestors; whose blood, sweat and tears went into building the worlds first industrialised nation, the worlds biggest empire and one of the worlds most rich, diverse and celebrated cultures.

Sadly though, in their search to understand their own equally diverse culture, the ethnic English have lost themselves, neglected England and handed everything they built to UK Government. They have handed everything to a group of people who just don't understand their needs.

This is all rather complex, but what I want is not just a day for England, but England itself. Within England everywhere I go I am reminded of Britain. The decision made that affect England are made by Scotland and Wales. English industry and English jobs are handed to foreign companies and foreign workers by UK Government who remain ignorant of the needs of the English people.

Ultimately, the only people who understand the needs of the Ethnic English, are the Ethnic English. If we are to accept that Britain has become a multicultural state, and that some of the ethnic minority communities have become a part of Britain; then we need to understand that it is vital that Britain adapt itself so that we can make way for the needs of all, first and foremost the neglected England.

DL

David Cameron: budget response

2009-04-22T14:27:00.003+01:00

Pakistans Taliban Generation/Children of the Taliban

2009-04-14T02:10:00.004+01:00

Pakistan - Children Of The Taliban (Part 1 of 4)
Uploaded by Bhikariforever11

Pakistan - Children of The Taliban (Part 2 of 4)
Uploaded by Bhikariforever11

Pakistan - Children Of The Taliban (Part 3 of 4)
Uploaded by Bhikariforever11

Pakistan - Children Of The Taliban (Part 4 of 4)
Uploaded by Bhikariforever11

Named "Pakistans Taliban Generation" on British TV, and "Children of the Taliban" on US TV this film is shocking and goes to show just how strong the Taliban are in Pakistan. Highly recommended, this film is vital viewing for anybody who wishes to understand the War on Global Jihad.

G20 and their global "deal".

2009-04-02T18:13:00.005+01:00

The media is full of stories today about historic deals and the G20 clamping down on rogue bankers which is all rather exciting. After all, who can complain about a clamp down on the bonuses of greedy bankers? What caught my attention however was not said clamp down, but the $500 billion that the G20 are to give to the International Monetary Fund on the condition that they lend said money to struggling economies (i.e. ourselves). Now this is all good and well, I suppose it is nice to know that the nice people of the world are willing to give their money to struggling economies but I have a few questions.

• If I was to ask you to give me £100 on the condition I lent it back to you what would your response be? Because that is exactly what the G20 just did.

• If you were to ask me to lend you £100 and I responded by giving it to my bank manager so that he could lend it to you at interest what would you think? Surely, as a friend and purely so I can keep it uncomplicated it would make sense for me to give you the money directly thus avoiding the expensive and unnecessary third party (the IMF…in other words, a load of rich bankers).

Now clearly something isn’t right here. First of all in clamping down on one group of greedy bankers our governments have gone and given another group of greedy bankers $500 billion to play with; and furthermore, in giving $500 billion to the worlds struggling economies they have actually put themselves in more debt and emptied out what assets we do have.

Now ok, this is all supposed to kick start international trade but I’m curious as to how they think this is going to work when the bankers are the beneficiaries of our governments’ generosity as opposed to struggling businesses who produce the products that people trade. I am confused as to how international trade is even to the British peoples advantage when we have no manufacturing base and are unable to take part in this international trade unless from the position of a consumer; which correct me if I am wrong means that Britain will be spending even more money yet still won’t be bringing any in. Which in turn means that our contribution to this economic recovery package will then have to be borrowed back from the IMF placing us in even more debt and leaving us with the exact same amount of cash we had prior to the G20…the only difference being even more of it won’t actually be ours and will instead be owed straight back to the greedy bankers at the IMF.

In total this global economic jump start is worth $1.1 trillion [of our money] but as far as I can see it is nothing more that an unconvincing attempt to place even more wealth into the hands of a tiny coterie of bankers, the only difference being that this time they have become so greedy they aren’t even willing to share with all the other, smaller bankers out there. In essence, the smaller bankers have been made the scapegoat so that the most powerful among them can steal the smaller bankers’ wealth now that we have nothing left for them to steal from us.

I think it is safe to say that we are without a doubt living in very interesting times.

DL

"Global solutions" and Financial Fools Day

2009-04-01T18:52:00.007+01:00

The protestors are calling it Financial Fools Day, the media are screaming about riots in central London; but as far as I can see it’s nothing more than the British people exercising their democratic right to be ignored. Meanwhile, the media gathers to watch Gordon Brown and Barack Obama call for closer union between the UK and US with a good measure of global solutions for global problems; which says nothing really accept that they (as in the government and their puppet masters) are now at least honest enough to admit that we are to be taken down the road to further globalisation.

Perhaps the funniest aspect of all of this is that the protestors themselves were not really protesting anything in particular. Ok, it was billed as Financial Fools Day by the organisers of the event but in reality the participants were a motley band of communists, anarchists, environmentalists and anti war demonstrators who granted, may be a tad upset by the current economic situation, but in reality are only there because there is a demonstration which presents a worthwhile opportunity to make a bit of a racket alongside loads of other people with the very same intentions – thus giving the impression that more people agree with them than actually do.

Now don’t get me wrong. Without a doubt the monumental failure that is the current economic system needs tearing to pieces. In fact, I would even go as far as to say I would love nothing more than to see our politicians’ heads on pikes. But the reality is that if anybody wants to make a real impact then they need to put down their oh so partisan banners, throw away their I love Karl Marx/stop the war/save the planet/anarchy in the UK badges and start protesting as the people of Britain who despite their differences of opinion agree on enough to throw everything else to one side for the good of the cause and the good of the people.

The Obama Deception

2009-03-12T16:37:00.002Z

‘The Obama Deception’ casts a light on the methods used by private banking cartels to manufacture the current economic crisis, control the governments of the world, and shows how Barack Obama is just another puppet president who has so far broken all of his main election pledges.

Using documented, reputable evidence ‘The Obama Deception’ goes where no documentary has gone before and proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the engines of the New World Order are running at full steam and nearing its journeys end on the long and carefully constructed road to global enslavement.

Undeniably truthful and enlightening this is possibly the most revealing and most stunningly researched documentary on the New World Order to date.

Further Reading: Barack Obama: voice of change or globalist puppet?

Muslim first, British second

2009-03-12T01:20:00.004Z

Exposing the British states support for “non violent” Islamic extremism and the level to which Islamism has a hold of Britain, “Muslim first, British second” is further proof that Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy.

First shown on British television, this programme took the nation by storm. The only question is what do we do about the threat to our way of life that Islam present!?!

Zeitgeist Addendum

2009-02-26T06:30:00.005Z

Zeitgeist Addendum, the sequel to Zeitgeist, exposes the world’s false “monetary” economy; the work carried out by the economic hitman and the resultant destruction of national freedom; and also explains the idea of a resource based economy.

Although in parts Zeitgeist Addendum can appear to be overly utopian in outlook and at points makes the mistake of viewing the war on Islamism (i.e. war on Islamic extremism/ideological islam) and the war on “terror” (i.e. war for profit) as a single unified whole; the ideas expressed and the insights gained into our world are nonetheless worthy of notice.

If we can learn from some of the points made and the lessons taught, if we can peer into our consciousness and explore the endless dreams of our very being , if we can begin to ask ourselves to imagine a better future; then maybe we can look forward to a future where the people are free and the possibilities endless.

DL

Out of work and neglected

2009-02-24T15:44:00.005Z

I recently heard a story in the local press about a vicious attack upon a young girl as she was working her paper round. The story was that she was walking along, minding her own business and was set upon by a gang on fifteen youths; most of whom were girls. The victim was left battered, bruised and incredibly shaken up.

This in itself is not an unusual story; schools lacking any discipline whatsoever, parents who are unable to control their children, children who are left to wander the street with nothing to do, nowhere to go and too much unused and misdirected energy is after all a recipe for disaster

As a country we are constantly hearing stories of out of control teenagers and ever rising knife crime; but what does this tell us? Is this a sign of a rootless nation with a rootless people? A sign of a country once rich in opportunities but now completely void of not only any worthwhile opportunities, but any sense of self respect and decency as well.

The economic crisis has hit the UK with all the force of a force ten gale and we now find ourselves locked in a decline that it looks like we will have a job getting back out of. People the length and breadth of Britain are loosing their jobs and to make matters worse we are about to see another generation of Brits leave school and begin to look for work.

I remember when I first left school it was relatively easy to find work in my hometown. However, over the space of about five years that all changed. What had once been a booming town with a booming economy had simply absorbed more than it could handle. Londoners moved there to escape the ‘multiculturisation’ of London, people from the North of England flooded the South of England in search of work that was non existent up north and to top it all off Swindon was at the centre of Eastern European migration when the EU opened it’s doors to eastern Europe. No more were there any worthwhile job opportunities; all that was left was the odd days work through an employment agency which brought with it the promise of low pay, next to no rights, and barely two day’s work a week. That is unless you were Polish, in which case you could be guaranteed not only plenty of hours, but the pick of the jobs as well.

I could sit here now and tell you stories of young lads the same age as me who were left with nothing. No job, no future and not even the chance of a pint down the pub with their mates on a Friday night because nobody had any money. I could tell you stories of young lads who searched endlessly for work with no luck. I could even tell you how an entire generation began to feel thrown away, neglected and left to rot in the arm pit of the west countries former economic power house.

As a nation we were told that mass immigration was needed to fill the jobs that we didn’t want to do. But here is the truth of the matter. Most young people, upon leaving school and deciding it was work they wanted, not the classroom; went to look for a full time job. However, in Swindon this is rare indeed. With a large number of local companies employing staff through local employment agencies the only options were low paid, temporary agency work or a job in a supermarket/bar. That is unless you were able to get onto the production line somewhere like Honda, which although boring at least paid well. There were a few jobs in the construction industry, but where as previously training opportunities had been all the rage, my generation were left with nothing bar a few training spots with one or two local family run businesses.

Apprentiships were no longer available unless done through a local college, and even then places were severely limited and the allocation of a place was very much down to what pieces of paper you had, not what hand skills you had; and the best bit is those who had the paperwork didn’t want to go into the construction trades. In short, it wasn’t long before local business decided that the few tradesmen coming out of the classroom were nowhere near as good as the eastern European tradesman flooding the country. So realising they could have a cheaper, yet highly skilled individual working for them; they stopped giving young people “on the job” training, declared a skills shortage and gave all of their jobs to Polish workers.

The next thing to happen did so five years later. All of a sudden another five years had gone by and thousands more youngsters had left school and were looking for work. But the problem was that Britain had “needed” workers five years previously and all the remaining jobs had been given to eastern Europeans. To top it all of newly arrived Polish workers aren’t even hanging around because they were starting to realise that there was no work even for them. Ultimately everybody brought into the lie that we had jobs to fill, we needed people to work for us and contribute to our GDP; but they were wrong. We gave the last of our jobs to another group of people and ignored the needs of our own; we allowed employment agencies to monopolise the British job market and cut the British worker out of the picture; and we allowed our job surplus (vital for any healthy economy) to become a job deficit.

You only have to look around now to see what the result is. Millions of young people up and down Great Britain have been left with no work and no opportunities. In short their future looks bleak. They spend their days wandering around the streets, drinking cheap lager and when they have drunk enough, they drink some more and kick the shit out of some innocent bystander who is just going about their daily business. They swear at police officers, have no understanding of respect and have never had to learn to live in the big bad world. Most of them still live at home with their parents, most have never worked in the adult world so have never learnt to keep their mouth shut and get on with their work and as a result they have no respect for anybody and the only thing they know is violence.

Personally it saddens me. It saddens me to think that we live in a country where the needs of the native population count for nothing. It saddens me to think that we live in a nation where the needs of the native population are ignored in the pursuit of profit that has now come a halt because of greed. It saddens me to think that young British men and women are left wandering the streets with nothing to do, nowhere to go and nothing to call their own.

Personally I saw all of this coming. I was talking about these problems six years ago, but nobody wanted to listen. The older generation had jobs, couldn’t see past the day when they would have work and all they done was moan about young people not wanting to do anything, all they done was say that immigration was needed. In short, this is a problem that the older generation created; a problem that they were blind enough and foolish enough to walk right into. My generation never asked for mass immigration, my generation never asked for a rootless country with no jobs and my generation never asked for their country to be sold to the lowest bidder; but that’s exactly what we got.

I can honestly say that I know of untold young people who would have gladly taken training opportunities, I know of countless people who would gladly have taken up full time jobs and I know of countless people who would have done anything except spend their day searching for work with no luck – young people who just wanted something to do. As a generation we have been cheapened, made to feel worthless and thrown away. We have been yelled at, criticised and told that the ills of society are our fault. But the truth is, if you want blame, if you want answers, and if you want to know how this all started; look no further than the generation that preceded ours, look no further than a generation that sold their country down the river, and look no further than a generation who brought into greed and neglected their children’s future. In short, we now have to clean the mess our parents made; a mess that they have only noticed now that they are loosing their jobs as well.

DL

Terrorists in Office: A hypocritical man for a hypocritical nation

2009-02-17T03:53:00.011Z

The following article was written by a recent graduate of Philosophy and Religion. He is a 22 year old American patriot and describes himself as a constitutionalist with a philosophical interest in ethics and consciousness.

The following article originally started it's life as a university essay but resulted in his professor telling him he should keep his opinions to himself; should be labelled a traitor for his treasonous writings against the government and also ended with him being told that he was lucky his professor didn’t report him to the Dean and recommend him for expulsion.

Isn’t it nice to know that the American educational system still values free speech!?!

Submitted by Seth Urffer:

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

-US Federal Bureau of Investigation-

Read this definition carefully. We are told that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein fit the definition of terrorists as we launched our “War on Terror” against them. The definition fits these two men perfectly. However we are not told that this definition also fits another high profile man, George W. Bush.

• George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter’s core principles contained in Article 2 (4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the UN. In effect, George W. Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons or property.

• The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded as the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. The shock and awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.

• The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.
(Michael A. Schiller)

Is there any question now that the Bush Administration has openly committed acts of terrorism by unlawfully attacking the country of Iraq to intimidate its people and government?

If this isn’t enough to prove George W. Bush is by definition a terrorist, let us look at the civilian body counts from 2001-2004. ‘According to an NBC report at the beginning of September 2004, there were roughly 2,929 terrorism related deaths around the world since the 9/11 attacks” (Michael A. Schiller) Let us add on the rough estimate of 3,000 civilians who died in the 9/11 attack and we get roughly 6,000 civilians dead around the world from terrorist attacks from 2001-2004. “The US government ordered the Iraqi Ministry of Health to stop counting civilian deaths, and forbade them from releasing any totals previously gathered” (Michael A. Schiller) Because of this we can safely say that the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq is significantly lower then what it actually is. When war began on March 19, 2003 until September 2004, the death count of Iraqi civilians is at a guess between 11,793 and 13, 802, though the lowest estimate is at 8,789. If we go with the lowest estimate possible, that still puts George W. Bush and his Administration at a total of almost 3,000 civilian deaths higher then the rest of the worlds terrorists combined, and this doesn’t include the estimated deaths of civilians in Afghanistan (Michael A. Schiller)

Even if you refuse to admit that George W. Bush did not commit unlawful acts of force or violence against the Iraqi people, you have to admit that the civilian death toll of his “War on Terror” is much higher then world terrorists achieved in twice the amount of time.

On September 24, 2002, the Bush Administration received intelligence that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government was buying “yellow-cake” or a form of uranium ore from Niger. Both Iraq and Niger denied the charge. Afterwards, George Bush commented: “Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.” Less then two weeks before the Iraq war began, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, announced that the documents involving the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq were fake! One lettered dated October 10, 2000 was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger prime minister, who had been out of office since 1989. Also in these letters many textual inaccuracies were found. When asked how such huge mistakes could go unnoticed by the US intelligence agency, the US government had nothing to say on the matter and dropped the issue. (Seymour M. Hersh)

This “War on Terror” is being fought on unlawful ground for unlawful reasons. George W. Bush and his Administration used the publics’ trust in their government to coerce them into following his ideals in this unlawful campaign against Iraq. (Mark C. Miller) We have been told that Saddam Hussein worked along with Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks, that he has an arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and many other things the like. Our government told us that during the 9/11 attacks, the people on flight 93 took over the plane from their captives and crashed it, saving many others lives. The Bush Administration played on the people ability to rally behind martyrs for their own personal gain, just like terrorists rally around their martyrs. An important fact here is that the black box from flight 93 was recovered by the FBI and impounded. (Mark C. Miller) The FBI never released the tapes of published transcripts from the recordings of that flight. The story we were told about our own people, for the most part, could have been a fabrication to have us rally around George W. Bush. He knowingly used his own people, through lies and deceit, to fight a “War on Terror” that is not only unlawful, but completely immoral.

Disclaimer: The above article represents the views and opinions of Seth Urffer and is in no way linked to or the result of, the views, opinions or beliefs of Danny Lake.

Norman and Saxon: Rudyard Kipling

2009-02-13T23:42:00.008Z

The site of the Battle of Hastings, 1066

A.D. 1100

"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will
be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for
share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little
handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:--

"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice
right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow--with his sullen set eyes
on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon
alone.

"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your
Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole
brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained
serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise,
you will yield.

"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs
and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale
of their own wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they are saying; let them feel
that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes
you all day.

They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour
of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game
in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well
as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man-
at-arms you can find.

"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and
funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish
priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you
fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em
a lie!"

The English Flag: Rudyard Kipling

2009-02-10T18:38:00.009Z

The following poem was written by Rudyard Kipling and it sends a very clear message. As a people we must not look to the negative aspects of our history to find out who and what we are, but to the tales of adventure, brave deeds, sacrifice, honour, freedom, hope and glory that follows St George's "star in the mist" everywhere.

I have decided to post it in the hope that it will reignite the hot coal that glows in the heart of all Englishmen...but has sadly been lacking a burning flame in the past few years.

Winds of the World, give answer! They are whimpering to and fro
And what should they know of England who only England know?
The poor little street-bred people that vapour and fume and brag,
They are lifting their heads in the stillness to yelp at the English Flag!

Must we borrow a clout from the Boer to plaster anew with dirt?
An Irish liar's bandage, or an English coward's shirt?
We may not speak of England; her Flag's to sell or share.
What is the Flag of England? Winds of the World, declare!

The North Wind blew: "From Bergen my steel-shod vanguards go;
I chase your lazy whalers home from the Disko floe;
By the great North Lights above me I work the will of God,
And the liner splits on the ice-field or the Dogger fills with cod.

"I barred my gates with iron, I shuttered my doors with flame,
Because to force my ramparts your nutshell navies came;
I took the sun from their presence, I cut them down with my blast,
And they died, but the Flag of England blew free ere the spirit passed.

"The lean white bear hath seen it in the long, long Arctic night,
The musk-ox knows the standard that flouts the Northern Light:
What is the Flag of England? Ye have but my bergs to dare,
Ye have but my drifts to conquer. Go forth, for it is there!"

The South Wind sighed: "From the Virgins my mid-sea course was ta'en
Over a thousand islands lost in an idle main,
Where the sea-egg flames on the coral and the long-backed breakers croon
Their endless ocean legends to the lazy, locked lagoon.

"Strayed amid lonely islets, mazed amid outer keys,
I waked the palms to laughter I tossed the scud in the breeze
Never was isle so little, never was sea so lone,
But over the scud and the palm-trees an English flag was flown.

"I have wrenched it free from the halliard to hang for a wisp on the Horn;
I have chased it north to the Lizard ribboned and rolled and torn;
I have spread its fold o'er the dying, adrift in a hopeless sea;
I have hurled it swift on the slaver, and seen the slave set free.

"My basking sunfish know it, and wheeling albatross,
Where the lone wave fills with fire beneath the Southern Cross.
What is the Flag of England? Ye have but my reefs to dare,
Ye have but my seas to furrow. Go forth, for it is there!"

The East Wind roared: "From the Kuriles, the Bitter Seas, I come,
And me men call the Home-Wind, for I bring the English home.
Look look well to your shipping! By the breath of my mad typhoon
I swept your close-packed Praya and beached your best at Kowloon!

"The reeling junks behind me and the racing seas before,
I raped your richest roadstead I plundered Singapore!
I set my hand on the Hoogli; as a hooded snake she rose,
And I flung your stoutest steamers to roost with the startled crows.

"Never the lotus closes, never the wild-fowl wake,
But a soul goes out on the East Wind that died for England's sake
Man or woman or suckling, mother or bride or maid
Because on the bones of the English the English Flag is stayed.

"The desert-dust hath dimmed it, the flying wild-ass knows,
The scared white leopard winds it across the taintless snows.
What is the Flag of England? Ye have but my sun to dare,
Ye have but my sands to travel. Go forth, for it is there!"

The West Wind called: "In squadrons the thoughtless galleons fly
That bear the wheat and cattle lest street-bred people die.
They make my might their porter, they make my house their path,
Till I loose my neck from their rudder and whelm them all in my wrath.

"I draw the gliding fog-bank as a snake is drawn from the hole,
They bellow one to the other, the frighted ship-bells toll,
For day is a drifting terror till I raise the shroud with my breath,
And they see strange bows above them and the two go locked to death.

"But whether in calm or wrack-wreath, whether by dark or day,
I heave them whole to the conger or rip their plates away,
First of the scattered legions, under a shrieking sky,
Dipping between the rollers, the English Flag goes by.

"The dead dumb fog hath wrapped it the frozen dews have kissed
The naked stars have seen it, a fellow-star in the mist.
What is the Flag of England? Ye have but my breath to dare,
Ye have but my waves to conquer. Go forth, for it is there!"

The economic crises…in simple language!

2009-01-24T15:02:00.003Z

So here we are, we are officially in recession. What makes me laugh though is that the news media, the government and the worlds economists are still failing to explain the current economic crises in terms that the normal man and woman are able to understand. Now personally, I like words, so I have no problem understanding their technical jargon. But the masses? Not a chance! Purely because the explanations are worded so that the average man and woman can’t understand, and if anything, it could be said that understanding is the last thing our masters want. So here you go…..

Britain has stopped working. You see, if you or I had no job and no income, we would still need to live. Now let’s assume that you had plenty of money in the bank account. After all, like Britain, you have worked most of your life so it stands to reason that you will have some savings of some kind.

Well, this is exactly what has happened with the UK. In the past we had a big industrial economy. We sold goods to the world, which brought in lots of money and as a result we were big and powerful. But there was a problem, the unions – realising how much money Britain was making – decided that they wanted a larger slice of the pie, so they went on strike, nearly crippled the economy and Thatcher had to knock them down to size. Sadly though, in doing so, she also destroyed what was left of Britain’s industrial power house.

So there Britain was; out of work, but luckily enough, out of work with a healthy bank balance. Over the next few years however Britain brought everything from the world. We stopped making stuff ourselves, stopped selling stuff to the world and stopped earning money…we just spent. But never mind, our people still had jobs…albeit jobs with foreign companies who sent all of their profits back to their families. And so, when the money ran out, we raided the overdraft.

Don’t worry though; we have Gordon Brown, the UK’s most successful Chancellor of the Exchequer in years. Thankfully, we have had him balancing the check book and as a result things aren’t as bad as they could be…What a load of bollocks!

You see some very searching questions need to be asked at this point. I come from Swindon, and it just so happens that Honda, Swindon’s biggest local employer, has had to get rid of 1000 members of staff who they can’t afford to keep paying. After all, with the banks not lending as much money anymore people can’t afford to buy as many new cars. The result? They’re all off down the jobcentre in two weeks time for a special Honda sign up for state benefits day. So here we have another problem…those who those foreign companies can’t afford to pay anymore, now have to be paid by our government…or Britain!

So not only is Britain not working, the overdraft is maxed out and to top it all off Mrs Britain has 1000 new children to look after.

The problem is that all of those unemployed people are going to have trouble finding work. Over the past ten years the Labour government have allowed the biggest immigration influx in British history to take place, and just like our people, they needed to work. So they went out and took up the last of the jobs. So now, we are left in a position whereby the job market is maxed out. There are no (or very few) surplus jobs. And as I am sure any good economist will tell you, a healthy economy needs surplus jobs…if only to ensure that the people don’t become a burden on the public purse and to make sure that we don’t end up working in an employers market…i.e. big business, realising that they can have their pick of the workforce, lower wages!

But never mind…at least somebody is going to do well out of this financial crises…even if it isn’t the British public!

You see, big business and big time bankers, they all donate money to the campaign funds of certain politicians and supposedly, don’t expect anything in return. A million here, a few million there, it all adds up. But let’s be honest, the current economic system only serves big business. Let us not forget that we live in a trickle down economy.

The idea is that if you give money to those at the top it will trickle down to those at the bottom. So basically, we give money to the man at the top, who takes his cut first. He then passes it down to another person who takes their cut who then passes it to another person who takes their cut…and we divide what’s left over between us. The problem though is that we no longer have enough to share between us. It seems that we weren’t actually getting enough money, so the men at the top lent us some money…which we then couldn’t pay back….so not only did they take most of the money to begin with, but they then offered us the world, debted us out and now we owe them what money we do have.

Luckily though the interest rates were lowered…after all…we want to make sure the big time bankers get their money back…but never mind, at least it shows our politicians are taking care of us!

DL

cultural-nationalism: the philosophy of the future?

2009-01-15T01:12:00.015Z

I first wrote the following article back in June 2006, however it has since been edited and I am republishing this in the hope that nationalism can begin to move forward. Hopefully, many of you will come to see why cultural nationalism must be the philosophy of the future.

Danny Lake

---------------------------------

Cultural Nationalism

British culture attacked from within

Most people have seen in the media the images of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett on trial, as well as the constant barrage of mainstream propaganda that appears to put forward the image of a nationalism locked in the pits of some kind of Neo-fascist Nazism; and it is sometime easy to see how a great many – rather ordinary Brits refuse to vote for or even acknowledge any kind of sympathy towards nationalism.

Within the above paragraph is a hidden question; the question I am talking about is what can we [as a philosophical group] do to change peoples fears and concerns with regards to nationalism? The answer to this can only be nationalisms permanent disassociation with far right politics. Since Nick Griffin won the BNP’s leadership election in 1999, he has led the party down the route of modernisation; a route that has seen the BNP thrown into a circus of media publicity, a route that has led to one hundred plus council seats and the party becoming the official opposition in Barking and Dagenham. Given the results of the past nine years no one would be foolish enough to argue against the growth in support for nationalism. But it is undoubtedly true – as I said earlier – that Britain’s nationalists needs to make a break with those whom they have traditionally called their allies; if not for practical power winning reasons, then at the very least because of philosophical differences that exist between the BNP’s leadership (and other assorted far right politicians/political groups) and their quite normal and decent membership.

In order to discover the path to further political successes we need to address not only the concerns of the people, but the fears of the people. From what I can gather through talking to people from all walks of British life, the main concern is racism. Now naturally people do not want to see the mistakes of the past repeated, but at the same time people do not want to see fresh mistakes made. Multiculturalism as I am sure most who read this article will agree – has failed to work; but multiracialism has not.

Now ok, I can already hear nationalisms old hands screaming blue murder at the very thought of what I have just written, but please take the time to read further. Our task in our quest for political power is not to tell the people how we want them to live their lives, but for the people to tell us how they want to live their lives. To fail in this task is to fail Britain and its citizens. Some may disagree, but I see multiculturalism and multiracialism as two separate things altogether. Multiculturalism is the false idea that peoples of completely opposing cultures can live and work together in harmony, and this as we know is untrue and has failed; as can be seen in the way in which Islam has largely failed to integrate into British society. Multiracialism however, is the idea that people of different races can live together providing that there is an acceptance of minor cultural differences or a similar culture in existence. History has proven this to be true in more ways than one; the Celtic tribes that came to Britain integrated with the native Britons, just as the Anglo Saxons eventually integrated with the Celts. To go even further it is also true that the Norman conquest of 1066 also resulted in the integration of another European people – in this case the Normans themselves.

Now if I were to contrast modern Britain with 11th century Britain, it could be argued the same thing is happening. In modern Britain we have many black people (a people with a shared history i.e. empire and commonwealth) who have integrated themselves into, and accepted British culture and the British way of life as their own. Our task must not be to alienate these people or their friends, but to take them on board and allow them to help build a Britain that we all desire – a Britain that [economically] their ancestors helped to build. One thing that nationalists have to realise is that by alienating Britain’s black population, we are also alienating their white friends; and in doing so we alienate a huge section of the population which results in our loosing votes as well as the opening up of ourselves to an ever increasingly hostile media. This is not to say that Britain should open it’s doors to the entire commonwealth, but is rather a recognition of the fact that those who Britain’s racists look down on are the descendents of people who contributed just as much to our nation as the ancestors of Britain’s native population; both economically and industrially speaking.

I am fairly confident that I am not alone in having spoken to people whilst on the campaign trail who have said that their concern is not the many friendly black citizens, but the Islamic extremists. I am also confident in believing that I am not the only person to have been told by those self same people that although they agree with the BNP on many an issue, they will not be voting BNP because they have black friends and they believe that they will deport them if they gained serious political power. What is more I further believe that I am not alone in being unable to shatter their misplaced fears because of their awareness that the BNP is open to whites only; and what is more as a decent human being I would not want to lie to them anyway.

What I am talking about is not the opening of the floodgates in order to allow every cultural or ethnic group into Britain, but the maintenance of individuals rights as people who are culturally British, even if they aren’t ethnically British. I say that if a person thinks like Brit, acts like a Brit and is British in everything they do – from the holidays they celebrate to the language that they speak – then they are culturally British, even if not ethnically British.

What I am saying here is that ethno-nationalism – whilst technically correct in that the British people (i.e. the ethnic English, Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Ulstermen) share a common ethnic ancestry – needs to realise that Britain has changed since the days when those groups were the only inhabitants of these islands in the North Atlantic. This is not to say that I want Britain and its people to go coffee coloured; because as someone once said to me – there will always be white people who will only procreate with white people, just as there will always be black people who will only procreate with black people. What the British people need to realise is that the old adage that your enemy’s enemy is your friends could never be more correct. If we are to eliminate the crux of our nation’s social and political ills, then we must find unity in our similarities instead of divisions in our differences. Ultimately it is all Brits (in this instance I am referring to the cultural group) who are faced with having their heads placed on fundamentalist Islam’s firing block – not just the ethnic Brits. For that reason I would say it is a sound argument to state that British nationalism needs to modernise and extend the hand of friendship to other would be victims of Islamic extremism; because to do otherwise risks not only our safety and well-being, but the safety and well-being of future generations.

Ultimately white and black Brits live in search of the same thing – liberty and justice, freedom of thought as well as freedom of expression, not to mention a very real sense of security and identity. Furthermore, to deny others the rights and freedoms that we ourselves live in search of is to join the ranks of the same people that we accuse of withholding or wishing to withhold even further, these basic rights and freedoms; and one thing I can say for sure is that I for one do not want to stand accused of doing so.

If you look at the French FN – who for a number of years has had its membership open to non whites – then it is easy to see how an awareness of culture over ethnicity, can have hugely positive results. The fact that Le Pen came second in the French presidential election – with a black running partner – more than proves this statement to be correct; and what is more the French FN has proven that it is possible to have a patriotic political movement that protects white’s rights as well as having an open door policy on party membership. As I am sure most will be aware the FN has several officials who are of non white heritage; and not only do they work just as hard as their white FN counterparts, but they also help secure the patriotic black vote.

Furthermore, to say that nationalist party’s such as the BNP should be open to whites only means that such party’s would have to stay true to that statement and ensure that all of their elected representatives are Caucasian. That statement does however have an air of ridiculousness about it. Anyone who wishes to stand behind such a policy would do well to bear in mind the hard work carried out by two of the BNP’s own elected councillors – Pat Richardson, who is Jewish; and Lawrence Rustem, who is half Turkish. Now both of these people have done a lot for both the BNP and nationalism as a whole, and in doing so have come under fire from many a different quarter; not least because of the party memberships firm stance on ethnicity being the primary factor in determining a persons ability to join the BNP.

I firmly believe that if nationalism [as a philosophy] is to move beyond the fringes then it needs to cut ties with the racism and bigotry associated with far right politics, and make a play for greater cultural and political understanding. To do so would not only bring the benefit of preventing the growth in hostile media coverage, but would also help the British people understand that nationalism and fascism/Nazism/racism are not mutually exclusive.

To stifle growth now, when we have the ability to go so far is akin to signing Britain’s death warrant. If we are to continue to see a rise in nationalisms electoral successes, then we have to make changes now; because to back away from the example set by the French FN, will only result in the death of nationalism and with that, the British peoples last chance of cultural, ethnic and national preservation.

Nutrition and obesity: a crises!

2009-01-12T17:34:00.007Z

It seems to me that there is a crises facing Britain (this may extend into other countries as well, I know it does in the US) and that is the lack of nutritional awareness and the extremely concerning growth in obesity…in particular childhood obesity.

Today I went shopping and as usual this meant visiting Iceland (for my fresh meat: i.e. minced meat, chicken and fish…great prices) and Sainsbury’s (everything else: bread, veg, flour, herbs, tinned tomatoes, pasta, porage oats etc). As I was walking through Iceland I took the chance to look at the ingredients that goes into the pre-packaged processed foods and “just add water” sauces that a disgustingly large number of Brits are coming to depend on, and found myself pondering what I believe to be one of the great questions of our time.

What if – as looks likely – the world was to be plunged into another global war? What if the current world food shortage was to begin to affect those of us living in the western world (which considering the rise in bio-fuel production and resultant cut back in food production isn’t unlikely)? And what if, given mankind’s rush to use up the last of the worlds natural energy resources, we in the west found ourselves unable to power the cooker/microwave/fridge freezer? To put it simply, how the hell would people survive?

Finding themselves incapable of cooking their oven chips and unable to buy/cook their pre-packaged, processed crap; the inevitable result would be mass starvation. With a vast majority of the microwave/processed food “fresh veg and meat isn’t real food” generation unable to feed themselves or their genetically modified offspring, you can’t help but wonder how long it would be before the “New Orleans scenario” began to hit people on a national level and mass rioting began to hit the streets.

Personally, I am/would be ok. I can cook a decent meal from the most basic of real ingredients and as a result I have a nicely toned stomach and not an ounce of excess fat. But society? They are/would be screwed!

If you want to loose weight and/or give yourself a better chance at surviving in the event such a scenario hits us (which hopefully it won’t do)…learn to cook some real fucking food!!!

I once was a little overweight, now I’m not. I once would have been fucked in the event my gas cooker/microwave/fridge freezer wasn’t working; now I would just kill an animal, find some veg’ and get a good sauce/gravy/soup going.

Luckily though, I still have Sainsbury’s and the nice man who kills my food for me…..

DL

Show of Hands: Country Life

2009-01-09T07:09:00.000Z

Israel/Palestine: is the solution a sovereign Jerusalem?

2009-01-06T19:59:00.005Z

Well the news media is raging with the story of Israel’s invasion of Gaza. Personally, I am not going to give too much of an opinion on the matter today. I have said what I think, and that’s that as far as I am concerned Israel’s invasion is vastly disproportionate. If you want to know more about the background, please read the following two posts of mine:

Decolonisation and the Middle East

Israel: the modern day Goliath

For now, what is needed is not blame. To be fair I have my opinions as to who I think is in the wrong over what particular issues are involved – but that isn’t going to solve anything. What is needed is a solution. So let’s look at things this way.

Considering that “ownership” of Jerusalem is such a hotly contested issue; with the Al Aqsa mosque (Islam’s third holiest site), the church of the Holy Sepulchre (supposed location of jesus’ crucifiction) as well as the temple mount and the western wall (significant in both the jewish and islamic religions) – it would be fair to say that no one religion or national group has any right to claim it as their own. In effect, it belongs to the world. So how about this? Make Jerusalem an independent city state (just like the vatican). The bottom line is if no one people can have it without another group of people wanting to take it off them, then give it to everybody.

As for Israel and Palestine itself, well that could be solved with a simple two state solution. Ultimately what is needed is a sovereign palestine for the palestinian people, a sovereign Israel for the Israeli people and a sovereign Jerusalem for the world….who knows, maybe it could actually work!

Post-partisan Politics

2009-01-06T04:30:00.006Z

"We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats."
-Thomas Jefferson-

It could be said that politics is the means by which societies problems are solved; and in effect, all politics is a problem and a solution.

It has been argued that the 20th century was the time of partisan politics, but the 21st century, that is to be the time of post partisan politics. Mark Satin, the editor of the radical middle newsletter attributes this thinking to Barack Obama and labels post-partisanship as the “first uniquely American ideology”. However, it could be argued that this could not be further from the truth. Whilst the academic argument surrounding post-partisanship may originate in the US, if post-partisanship is taken to be solution focused politics, then essentially, given the fact that problems vary depending upon the surrounding circumstances, there can be no pre-ordained ideal solution – just an individually tailored response to a given political problem. Meaning that there can be no ideology. In effect, ideology itself is surplus to requirements.

Essentially, post partisanship implies that there can be no left or right wing politics, no “one size fits all” approach to politics, no quick fix and in effect, no complete ideology – but rather a solution tailored to the individual policy or political problem. In an age where these is no black or white, in an age where there is an ever increasing number of grey areas; is post partisanship the “grey area” focused politics that the world has been waiting for? And furthermore, is post-partisanship the way forward?

If we are to accept that post-partisanship takes the bits that work from various ideologies and applies them to any given problem as a solution, then what of ideology itself? Does that man that ideas such as nationalism and libertarianism become void? I would argue not. Present in the academic world are a number of ideas, such as nationalism and libertarianism, which focus on specific areas of thought rather than having an approach to all problems. Nationalism focuses on issues surrounding national sovereignty and opposition to supra-nationalism, and libertarianism focuses on issues of liberty and freedom of choice. In effect, it could be argued that post-partisanship, unlike bi-partisanship, is the ideal approach to take when looking at issues of national sovereignty and civil liberties; if only because they both arguably have a philosophical twist and as such allow all sides to be kept happy.

If man is to accept that the world is made up of different groups and as such those groups have different, and in some cases competing viewpoints based upon their social group and/or their ethnic/cultural background; then in effect it could be argued that post-partisanship accepts these differences in opinion by allowing a dialogue between these groups to exist – or as it has been described “relationship focused politics”. However, being realistic it is perhaps necessary to understand that a solution for the American people would not be the same as a solution for the British, the Russian or the Chinese people – and as such political problem solving needs to occur as locally as possible if national politics is not to conflict with the international. Essentially, if post partisan politics is to work, then potential for disagreement has to be limited – meaning that breaking down big, centralised governments can be the only way forward. In effect, if there are less people to please, then the potential for disagreement is decreased.

Furthermore, political libertarianism (not economic), the idea of individual liberty and the right to choose is fundamental in understanding post-partisan politics. One of the principles of post-partisan politics is that “there must be an overriding commitment to diversity of opinions and perspectives” – an idea that, it could be argued, is libertarian by it’s very nature. In effect, everybody has the right to be satisfied, everybody has the right to have some input into the solution – regardless of whether they are from the left or the right of the political spectrum. The fundementle aim is compromise and/or acceptance of other belief systems, an understanding that within anothers ideology there may be the answer that you seek yourself. An understanding that we are not always right and that sometimes, with a little help from those we do not ordinarily agree with, it is possible to complete the bigger picture. If there is no liberty, if there is no freedom to choose, then there can be no post-partisanship – because if anything, post partisanship is the ability to choose. Post-partisanship is the understanding that there is no wrong idea, there is no false thought – all can contribute to the overal solution.

As it is, so far as academically accepted political approaches go, post-partisanship is very much a new idea; even if it is argued that post-partisanship is the academic worlds answer to grey area politics. The only question is as to whether it has a place in the future. Personally, so long as the world continues to argue over limited resources, and so long as different national groups compete and disagree with each other, post-partisanship and dialogue between opposing factions can be the only way forward. Essentially, the solution is all that matters.

DL

Further reading: A new blog, a new direction

White working class feeling neglected says government report

2009-01-04T05:25:00.007Z

Hazel Blears, the Labour governments ‘communities secretary’ (whatever that is) has been kind enough to inform the people of Britain that the white working class are feeling as if they have become second class citizens in their own country, and are feeling neglected by the government that they elected. Well…no shit Sherlock!

The reason for today’s post however is not to poke fun at the obvious aspect of Mrs Blears statement, but to bring attention to her clearly displayed ignorance. Mrs Blears has informed us that our concerns are misplaced and that the truth is we just don’t understand. She said – in the typical “it’s not what you say, but what you don’t say” Westminster manner "There are an awful lot of myths about that people can come into this country, they can get a council house, they get grants for thousands of pounds - a lot of that is simply not true."

Well said Hazel, there are a lot of rumours floating about, but you forgot one thing. Whilst it is true that they may not get grants for thousands of pounds, this is because the houses that the Revised Tenancy Agreement (a document that was protected by the official secrets act until released into the public domain by a whistleblower) provides them with already contain everything they need. But it doesn’t stop here. She also informs us that "The vast majority of people who come to this country have to go into the private rented sector, they don't get council housing”

A few questions though…who pays the rent? And with limited social housing, huge waiting lists and a housing shortage, why aren’t Brits living in these houses?...especially when you consider that we have thousends of homeless people living on our streets

But never mind…the labour government have mentioned that the native British are pissed off so maybe we will keep off their back for a while now that we have been told we just don’t understand.

Just in case you’re interested, a copy of the Revised Tenancy Agreement can be found here (if you have any trouble opening the individual adobe files, I found right clicking on the file and selecting "open with...adobe" worked)

Israel...the modern day Goliath

2009-01-03T08:57:00.007Z

So the latest news from Washington DC is that Hamas are to blame for the rise in violence on the Gaza strip – logic that you just have to love. Now don’t get me wrong, I am by no stretch of the imagination a friend of Islam, but philosophically I am a nationalist and I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that Israel’s response was not only vastly disproportionate, but their presence on the Gaza strip is decidedly questionable…especially given that their only evidence of their right to that land is a 2000 year old story book….but never mind, since when did the truth get in the way of a nice spot of nation wrecking!?!

In the interest of balance though, let’s look at this another way. The Palestinians are terrorists…just like Jerry Adams and Nelson Mandella…oh no…hang on…they were freedom fighters…ok…let’s try this another way…

If you put my family name into google (Lake) you will see that there was once a Sir Thomas Lake who lived in a big manor house in London. As it was though the house was sold to the ministry of defence in order to pay some bills or something to that effect. Anyway, lets say that several hundred years down the line I was to find that Sir Thomas Lake was in fact a distant relative (which in case anybody is wondering…he isn’t…at least not to my knowledge) and I made a claim for my estate and all it’s belongings to be returned, what would happen? That’s right, I would be told to bog off. So why should Israel be any different?...oh no...done it again...hmmm...well anyway.............

Even assuming that the current location of Israel is their historical homeland, they were absent for quite a while and certainly didn’t mount what could be called an effective defence…so tough…the Palestinians have been there for two thousand years or so and can justifiably claim to have more right to that land than the “Israelis” can.

But sorry, Israel has been attacked; or so the story goes anyway. The truth of the matter is that Israel, the country that has broken over a hundred UN resolutions in their persecution of the Palestinian people, is anything but a victim. An overly aggressive bully, yes; a victim, most certainly not. Let’s not forget that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was invaded for much less than this, yet Israel’s flouting of international law and continued persecution of a national group goes unquestioned.

Is it just me or does this all seem a little iffy?

2009: a new year, a new beginning

2009-01-03T07:29:00.005Z

So here we are, 2009. For many of you this year will be very much similar to any other, but for me it is to be the beginning of a new chapter in my life…the beginning if you like of all the future has to hold.

Last year was one of many changes for me; not least of all my exit from the world of organised political activism. However, upon much reflection I’m walking a new path and hopefully you, my readers, will be right beside me throughout 2009.

As well as a new career path this year will see an increase in activity and hopefully will lead to a growing public awareness of the ideas espoused within these pages. Remember people, real change has to occur in our lifetime, if not then it is simply too late and the foundations of destruction that our parents generation laid will grow into a full blown cathedral of self destruction.

As usual, please be sure to keep visiting and don’t forget to pass this address on. If there is any way in which you would like to help me with this blog, or if you have any ideas – whether an article, a video you think needs to reach a wider audience…anything! Then you can contact me by emailing me at:

voiceofyouth@hotmail.co.uk

Happy New Year everybody!

DL

Show of Hands: Roots.

2008-12-29T02:32:00.002Z

Roots (Lyrics)

Now it's been 25 years or more
I've roamed this land from shore to shore
From Tyne to Teign, or Severn to Thames
From moor to vale, from peak to fen

Played in cafes, pubs and bars
I've stood in the street with my own guitar
But I'd be richer than all the rest
If I had a pound for each request

For 'Duelling Banjos', 'American Pie'
It's enough to make you cry
'Rule Britannia', or 'Swing low...'
Are they the only songs we English know?

Seed, bark, flower, fruit
They're never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoot
They need roots

After the speeches, when the cake's been cut
The disco's over and the bar is shut
At christening, birthday, wedding or wake
What can we sing 'til the morning breaks

When the Indians, Asians, Afro-Celts
It's in their blood, below their belt
They're playing and dancing all night long
So what have they got right that we've got wrong?

Seed, bark, flower, fruit
They're never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoot
They need roots and

Haul away boys, let them go
Out in the wind and the rain and snow
We've lost more than we'll ever know
'Round the rocky shores of England
We need roots

And a minister said his vision of hell
Is three folk singers in a pub near Wales
Well, I've got a vision of urban sprawl
There's pubs where no-one ever sings at all

And everyone stares at a great big screen
Overpaid soccer stars, prancing teens
Australian soap, American rap
Estuary English, baseball caps

And we oughta be ashamed of all we walk
Of the way we look, at the way we talk
Without our stories or our songs

How will we know where we come from?
I've lost St. George and the Union Jack
That's my flag too and I want it back

Seed, bark, flower, fruit
Never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoot
We need roots

Haul away boys, let them go
Out in the wind and the rain and snow
We've lost more than we'll ever know
'Round the rocky shores of England
We need roots...

British nationalism: workable philosophy or outdated ideology

2008-12-22T22:40:00.010Z

Nationalism can be defined as “an ideology whose affective driving force is the sense of belonging to and serving a perceived national community” (Eatwell and Wright 1999) however what this article will look at is the growth of British nationalism and whether nationalism deserves to be classified as a political ideology in it’s own right, or whether it would make more sense as a philosophy with a suitable political ideology to work in conjunction with.

Since the dawn of time man has lived together in small family units and over time these small family units grew into villages, then towns and then cities. Throughout this time man changed and adapted to the environment around him and slowly developed what was to become a national culture. This was dependent upon many things; the weather, food, natural environment – whatever it was that shaped their particular national culture mankind grew into a world full of different national and cultural groups. Some were small, some were big, some were powerful and some were weak – but all shared one thing, their long held attachment, awareness and understanding of that which immediately surrounded them.

“British Fascism” as an ideology

It has been said that British nationalism first began in 1923 when Rotha Linton placed an add in a right wing journal appealing for help to fight a perceived communist threat. However, having no real understand of Fascism Linton’s British Fascists were seen as nothing more than an anti communist form of conservatism and it eventually imploded. British Fascism however was not completely dead and 1932 saw Sir Oswald Mosley break away from the Labour Party in order to form the British Union of Fascists. Perhaps the most striking aspect of these two organisations is that they both use the term fascist, however their roots could not be further from each other. Rotha Linton’s BF owed their support to the British right, however Mosley formed the BUF after serving as a Labour MP since 1926 and was a member of the Labour Cabinet in 1929. Whilst it is true he had been a Conservative member and parliamentary candidate for harrow, essentially he was a man of the “have not’s” and as such the first of many questions as to whether Fascism belonged on the left or the right of the political spectrum came into being.

You need only to look at BUF policy to see that they were arguably void of any real fascist credentials, especially when you consider Mosley’s choice to take up anti-semitism as a tactical choice rather than a politically sensible option. Essentially Mosley’s fascism believed that people were different and as such it could be argued that his fascist philosophy was more in keeping with Nietzsche’s existentialism than any real sense of political ideology. In fact, it could even be argued that Nietzsche, having had his “thus spake Zarathrutra” classically misinterpreted by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi’s meant that such views were in themselves what became popular, and that the term fascist, and as a result the associated opposition towards Jews, was merely a political ideology that was attached to Nietzsche’s philosophy in order to add a little weight. Essentially, fascism was nothing more than an economic principle that was attached to xenophobia with a bit of anti Semitism alongside a warped interpretation of Nietzschean existentialism. It could even be argued that nationalism - being a “sense of belonging to and serving a perceived national community” – fitted in nicely alongside the backdrop of World War One when xenophobia and national pride were at an all time high.

In any event British Fascism began to break down and eventually, after various similar political groups came and went, the National Front was formed. Interestingly, this was the first time a moderately successful fascist organisation overtly attached themselves to an apparent nationalist ideology as opposed to a fascist ideology, but once again it could be argued that nationalism was in fact just one of many different pieces to the NF’s ideological puzzle and was in fact to be found alongside the usual anti Semitic overtones and general xenophobia that always seemed to attach itself to such organisations. Even if this was only ever done in the NF’s case out of a warped sense of British far right tradition than any real ideological sense; the fact remains that the NF then began to attract all manner of social misfits and hateful individuals who knew nothing of the ideology itself, just that the NF “don’t like the ‘Pakis’”. Essentially, the NF attracted more xenophobes and anti-Semites than it ever did genuine philosophically driven nationalists and it was this that ultimately led to the fascist/national socialist interpretation of nationalism that is often associated with the nationalist philosophy.

The BNP: Philosophical nationalists or old style boot boys

The BNP was formed in the early 1980’s out of a split in the National Front. John Tyndall was the man in charge and essentially he was nothing more than a powerful orator. The BNP struggled to go anywhere politically, although in 1993 Derek Beacon was elected to Tower Hamlets Council. The BNP had struck political gold, news of elected office. The fun didn’t last and the BNP, along with their councillor, faded into obscurity. And then in 1999 Nick Griffin won a leadership election and was officially announced the party chairman.

The BNP have had a large amount of success, achieving over a hundred councillors up and down England. However, this distinctly English party does subscribe to a British identity and as a result Wales, Ulster and Scotland are individual branches alongside the euro regions that make up England. Interestingly enough, the BNP has had reasonable successes in both Scotland and Wales, gaining some good results in the Scottish parliament and welsh assembly elections. It does however gain much of its support on the issue of immigration and is widely thought to be a racist organisation because of its links to the National Front. John Tyndall had been a member; Nick Griffin had been a member; many of its officials had been members – so why would anybody reasonably think any different.

Nick Griffin has modernised the BNP’s image to quite a large extent, bringing in people who can produce quality website design, propoganda material and merchendise at low cost, and better still, he’s great at raking in the money. The Electoral Commission were even reported to have been massively surprised to see how much money the BNP received in individual donations from its membership.

The BNP has had some rocky stages; including a split in December of 2007. However many of it’s members do consider it to be a nationalist party with great potential. But to what extent is it likely to succeed? And if not then what is likely to replace it?

To a large extent the BNP is plagued by it’s past, and one could be forgiven for wondering if it will ever escape the stain of it’s past. However, opposition to mass immigration is rising and the BNP is in a very good position to gain from the potential result – anger on the streets. Nationalistic sentiments are rising throughout Great Britain as the demographic change begins to hit the host population, but even then the divide isn’t clear cut.

Finding the cracks

If you got to some areas of London young black men and women will identify themselves as black British. However, if you go to Birmingham the answer is Black English. Even with that in mind, you continue to have variations between geographical locations in other parts of England with both shades of opinion popping up quite often. It is true however that amongst young white English men and women the general consensus is that whilst the black population can call themselves English on account of the fact they were raised here and share the same culture as them, they will never be truly English because they aren’t white. One thing that is worth mentioning is that this doesn’t imply some kind of xenophobia or racism, just an acceptance of the fact that white English people tend to eat certain foods and do certain things that black people do not.

In general the black population has integrated quite well and if there are any minor upsets amongst the white population they are that political correctness has reached a ridiculous level. The real problem exists between the Pakistani Muslim community and the native English community and if anything is to be learned it’s that you cannot throw a huge number of people into the middle of a country and expect the national groups therein to accept it.

England’s roots go back over a thousand years and even when the Normans invaded they only ever affected the aristocracy. To ask the host population to tolerate a large number of ideologically driven Muslims is considerably unjust and to ask it’s people to then turn their back on their national sovereignty and become part of an ever increasingly integrated Europe is bordering on something that could be called the perfect invasion. Sentiments are strong in this area and an increasing number if white English people are beginning to feel threatened. It doesn’t stop with the English though, and white Welsh people are beginning to feel the same. But even so this is largely confined to the south. In any event it could be said that whether white English, white welsh or white Scottish the real divisions exist between the Pakistani Muslim community and the White British community. And if anything, the Gavin Hopley and Kris Donald murders should serve as a permanent reminder of this very fact.

Any nationalist movement that has ever existed has claimed to be driven by their nationalism, but the truth is that this has been the very thing that has stained all of nationalism. Essentially any nationalistic movement that has ever existed has attached itself to xenophobia and/or anti-Semitism. The only modern exceptions to that rule are Plaid and the SNP who seem to have forgotten what nationalism means anyway. Even the BNP isn’t immune and sadly many of its older members continue to stick to a xenophobic and racist line of thought even though it’s not the official party line. Even the upper echelons of the party contain a few individuals who have been known to hold racist and anti-Semitic views. Yet despite this the BNP, because of it’s anti immigration stance and association with nationalism, is growing in support and as a result is attracting a newer, more modern voter. Rather ironically it’s downfall is it’s one saving grace.

Britain and Nationalism

In general it could be argued that there is a strong feeling of nationalism in England, Wales and Scotland. In Scotland people are falsely fixed on the SNP’s vision of independence and in Wales the people are quite happy to stick with the state: Great Britain, if only because of the cultural and historical ties to their fellow Britons, the English and Scots. If we accept that this is true then we come to understand how complex Great Britain is as a state.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is the world’s only Multi-national country. It is made up of five nations; England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Cornish would even argue that they are a nation in their own right, something which their status as a Celtic nation supports. All of these nations exist in the British Isles, a geographical landmass in the North Atlantic that includes the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man.

The British people have had their differences, but ultimately all have fought for their right to settle in their historical homeland free from fear and free from foreign rule. And it is this shared history and culture that binds them together. Granted there have been divisions between the Celtic peoples of Ireland, Scotland and Wales; and the Anglo Saxon, Viking and Huguenot people of England, but even so that right to live in their historic homeland free from fear is accepted and understood by all.

Some would argue that their diversity makes the English a nation of immigrants, and on a point of definition they would be right. But at the same time we populated this land as the French populated France and the Aboriginal populated Australia. Peoples come and peoples go just as the Anglo Saxon, Viking and Huguenot people became the English people. And essentially, if we are not careful we will soon see the fall of the ethnic groups that make up England, Scotland and Wales; and will also witness the destruction of the cultural and historic ties which bind these ethnic groups together as the British people. Only a fraction of the cultures that have ever existed are around today and if we are not careful we will destroy the very diversity that makes the world so interesting.

British Nationalism as a philosophical acceptance

As stated various political ideologies have been associated with nationalism. National Socialism, Fascism, and British Fascism have all held the torch of anti Semitism, xenophobia and racism in their hands; but what of a political organisation that is nationalist, but rejects from the outset the ideas that fascism and National Socialism represent? It can only be said that in modern Britain, were such an organisation to exist that properly understood British nationalism and the complexity of the way in which Great Britain is constructed, whilst at the same time following a rational political ideology; then that party would without a doubt experience huge success.

It could be argued that the British National Party is in an ideal position to take advantage of this general growth in feeling towards nationalism, but at this present moment in time it would be fair to say that it is incapable of doing so. Until the BNP can shake off the ghost of it’s past it will never be accepted as being ready for government; meaning that the only other possible options can be something completely new, or in the unlikely event that it was a possible, nationalist reformers reform one of Britain’s main political party’s. It is a valid argument that you can be a socialist and a nationalist as well as a conservative and a nationalist, and some would even argue that the British National Party does in fact have socialist leanings on economic issues.

To conclude it can only be said that British Nationalism, and indeed nationalism in general, is a philosophical principle that varies depending upon the national groups involved. However, as a philosophy nationalism has a habit of ignoring the politics of the world that surrounds it and as a result, any organisation seeking to advance their country, and indeed the world, on nationalist lines needs a sound political ideology with which to run with.

references

Contemporary political ideologies. Edited by Eatwell and Wright 1999. Continuum,.

Fascism, a history, Written by Roger Eatwell. First published 1995. Pimlico

Young People and British identit: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/polls/2006/pdf/young-people-and-british-identity.pdf

DL

Youth on the Edge: Chapter Ten

2008-11-13T07:32:00.006Z

A tale of Turmoil

www.enoughisenoughnick.blogspot.com

It was Saturday 8th December 2007, I had spent the previous four weekends working non stop to ensure the website went to launch before Christmas, its launch was set for the next day and I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Sadie Graham, East Midlands Regional Organiser and Director for Group Development; and Kenny Smith, Scotland Regional Organiser and Head of Administration, had been sacked from their official positions and suspended from membership of the British National Party for alleged “treasonous acts”. I was incredibly confused, seriously disappointed but knew that something definitely wasn’t right. The party’s official line was that they had set up a “treasonous blog” with the intention of ousting and ruining the reputations of respected nationalists but from what I knew of Sadie there was no way her intentions would have been malicious.

I told Charlie and gave him a link to the article, he was gob-smacked and after looking at the “enough is enough nick” website and checking out the BNP’s accusations I discovered that the “treasonous acts” had more to do with two fed up party officials trying to bring attention to numerous party failings because the correct channels had failed to work. There was no attempt to overthrow the leadership and in any event had they wished to do so they needed only to launch a leadership challenge. What Sadie and Kenny’s – two hard working, dedicated and sensible nationalists – approach told me was that they were hoping to bring some serious concerns to the attention of the party membership out of sheer desperation and frustration, an act that was ultimately intended to save the party, not destroy it.

The content of the EIE website was hardly shocking and contained nothing that wasn’t already public knowledge, but what it did do was attack several key party officials. Mark Collett received a roasting for a documentary he done several years previously in which he said some not too clever things and they also had a go at Nick Griffin for failing to sack him after he and Dave Hannam were allegedly caught doing something with one or two under age girls at the previous years party conference. Then on top of that after being given a written warning Nick failed to discipline them following their breaking of party rules at the more recent conference.

The party management committee had ruled that they should be expelled as the terms of the written warning they received for the incident the previous year said that any breaches of the party constitution would result in expulsion, but as it was Nick Griffin overturned their decision and Mark Collett and Dave Hannam maintained their positions as party officials. Other victims of Enough is Enough were John Walker, who was criticised for his fight at RWB and his poor performance as National Treasurer; and Nick Griffin, who was criticised more because of his failure to act against several failing party officials who had all brought the party into dispute at various points yet had never done about them. All in, I didn’t really care who done what, but one thing I did notice was that the concerns EIE were raising were very much existent.

Basically the party’s organisation, structure and thus its ability to manage itself were declining as the party moved away from the fringes and began to gain more votes and more elected representatives. In many ways Nick Griffin was running the BNP as if it were only a pressure group, but with a growth in membership and the possibility that the party could gain several MP’s and MEP’s, the worry was that such successes would be unsustainable and the party would collapse under the weight of such success. Not only that, but the party’s reputation was built on the reputation of it’s officials, and given that there were so many accusations and skeletons floating around the advisory councils table, it was hardly surprising that the media and the left found it so easy to slate the party.

What Sadie and Kenny were asking is that Mark Collett, Dave Hannam and John Walker be sacked, and that Nick Griffin democratise the party and a set of strict rules be put in place as to the governing of party leadership elections. Nick Griffin had decided on the rules for the last leadership election and had banned campaigning. The BNP was vastly becoming the Nick Griffin Party and anybody who disagreed was not only refused their right to contest the man in an open and fair election, but was then victimised along with their supporters. Ultimately, Sadie and Kenny wanted to ensure that the party constitution be re-written and set in stone, only to be amended if a set of strict conditions were met. As it was however, this was the last thing Nick wanted and upon using the security team to break into Sadie’s house and steal her personal computer, he set about purging the party of any potential dissenters.

I decided to throw my support behind Sadie and Kenny and I told Charlie to put the YBNP website on hold and take down the content that was online. As far as I was concerned Nick Griffin wasn’t getting the fruits of my labour and in any event, I was likely to be sacked within twenty four hours if I went through with my plans. My next step was to contact Sadie and listen to her version of events and after trying several times to get through I did so. As it was she sounded pleased to hear from me, but you could tell she wasn’t happy. Within a few minuets we agreed that I would speak to as many people as I could and I hung up promising to let her know what was going on.

My mind went into overdrive. I had been with the party for four years, had backed Nick Griffin all that time and to top it all off was friends with Mark Collett and Dave Hannam. However, I knew that Sadie’s concerns were genuine, and leaving aside the accusations made against him regarding the previous year’s conference, I knew myself the problems Mark Collett had caused; running around as if he owned the party and saying or doing things that repeatedly brought the party into disrepute.

Not only that, but my experience with the people the party called traitors was that they had in fact been the only ones out of those involved in the split – with the exception of Dave Hannam – who were prepared to go out of their way to help the YBNP make a success of itself. And then it hit me, everybody had been praising Nick Griffin for all the party’s successes, but the truth was that it wasn’t him.

It was the people Nick was sacking and the membership that improved the party’s image, made it more successful and went out contesting elections and knocking on people’s doors. Essentially the BNP’s successes had been in spite of Nick Griffin, not because of him; and if the party was to fulfil its potential then without a doubt Nick had to go as well. Any organisation is the product of its leadership, and as far as I was concerned Nick and his bad man management were stunting the party’s growth and keeping it on the fringes.

I sat up all night in the end talking to people and writing the article that was to be posted on my blog the next day. In the end I wrote what was probably the most vicious attack Nick Griffin had ever been on the receiving end of. I didn’t pull any punches and everything came flowing out. I had a go at his refusal to take action against people who had continuously generated bad publicity, I attacked his management skills and I demanded that he reinstate all those expelled and resign his position as BNP leader – turning control over to the advisory council pending a leadership election. I also explained that the YBNP website would be withheld until matters were put right and I included a screen shot of the final designs for good measure. I read what I had written, read it again and then my phone began to ring.

It was Arthur Kemp, a South African who was the party’s ideological officer. He didn’t sound too happy and it turned out that Gavin had called Arthur to tell him I was backing Sadie and Kenny following a conversation I had had with him. Arthur literally begged me to reconsider my position and told me that I didn’t understand fully what was going on. As it was I was more aware of events than he thought I was and after putting my point across I told him I would hold back putting my article online until the morning and would use the time to reconsider my position.

As it was I stayed up the rest of the night drinking tea and reading more about the day’s events and at seven AM I decided to put my article online. Once I had done so I sent an email with a link to my article to every activist on my contact list with a request that it be passed on. In total I must have sent it to about a hundred activists and before I knew it organisers were resigning all over the place.

All of Scotland’s local organisers had walked in support of Kenny; The Ulster Regional Organiser had resigned; Wales was singing in one voice but was undecided and in talks with Nick Griffin; Ian Dawson had resigned as Yorkshire Secretary; Roger Robertson had resigned as South East Organiser; there were huge splits in West Yorkshire, Steve Blake had been sacked as well and it soon became quite clear that all the talent had either walked or was being purged from the party.

About four hours later I received a phone call from John Walker who had heard a few rumours about my backing the sacked personnel and after he told me that I didn’t understand everything that was going on I explained that I understood more than he gave me credit for and pointed him in the direction of my blog. Five minuets later I received a text message from him telling me I was sacked and upon asking under whose authority, I received another text message saying: “me you stupid cunt, now fuck off into oblivion”. The next thing I knew my party mobile had been cut off and I was breaking into a fit of uncontrollable laughter.

The next few weeks were spent gathering support and attempting to put more pressure on Nick Griffin. Before long a list had appeared on the EIE website naming all those who supported the expelled personnel. The list contained quite a few well known names and it kept growing by the day. Nick Griffin was reported to be phoning up everybody and anybody to demand their unquestioning loyalty, his attack dogs were going into overdrive slandering the expelled personnel and calling us left wing agitators and searchlight spies, and before we knew it Simon Darby turned up on Newsnight calling us neo-Nazi’s. The split even made it into parliament and John Cruddas, a particularly distasteful Labour member, ended up giving a speech to the House of Commons on the subject of the split and Nick Griffins choice to send the heavies to steal Sadie’s computer for the new BNP “intelligence department” to have a look through. As it was he used information from my blog in his speech which gave me a bit of a chuckle.

January arrived and it was time to make my way to the East Midlands for a meeting being held by Voice of Change – the new pressure group that had been set up by the expelled personnel with the express aim of modernising the party and pushing for a leadership election. In all about a hundred people bothered to turn up and most of them were organisers.

As it turned out some quite interesting ideas had been drawn up. It transpired that Sadie and Co had been thinking the same things I had for a while. They were pissed off with the party structure and poor organisation and actually had some useful ideas on how to improve matters. They wanted Nick Griffins powers to be divided between an ideological figurehead and a chairman, as was the case with other party’s. At that point they were saying that they would be quite happy for Nick to remain as Political Leader, but one thing they were insisting on was that he handed over the day to day running of the party to an independent chairman who was to be selected by the Advisory Council. On top of that they wanted an independent committee to decide on matters of party discipline and to be fair not one of their demands was unreasonable. As for me I just sat there taking it all in whilst pouring tea down my neck.

The meeting ended and I made my way back to Bath. Kenny had spoken to me at the end of the meeting and he had asked if I was able to get more involved on an organisational level, and whilst I initially said I would, it wasn’t long before I decided to take a back seat. I wasn’t really able to see how I would be all that useful and as it was I was beginning to feel like it was the right time to take a step back. Steve Blake had given me an email address but all in I didn’t really feel as if Voice of Change was going anywhere.

The problem wasn’t Sadie, Kenny and Steve, but rather their position on the outside of the BNP. As I saw it their role as a pressure group would only work if they had access to the party’s members, and given the fact that Nick was sacking anybody linked to Voice of Change, it was quite clear that their ability to organise was going to be stunted. Not only that, but when they then started talking of a leadership challenge I couldn’t help but feel that whilst it was something I supported, it would wind up being nothing more than a token gesture as the required nomination signatures would undoubtedly be hard to gain given the fact that Nick Griffin’s witch finder generals were out in force and as it turned out my suspicions were confirmed when a leadership challenge was announced.

Colin Auty, a BNP councillor and organiser had decided to have a go and whilst he isn’t the sort of man to lead from the front he seemed likely to be more consensual in his leadership approach, and if anything I felt that that was exactly what the BNP needed at that point. As it was though he ended up being a couple of signatures short of the required hundred, and from what I understand it had something to do with the fact that Nick Griffin had expelled his campaign manager from party membership within twenty four hours of him announcing his decision to stand; not that anybody expected anything else. The point was, there weren’t many people willing to put their name to a piece of paper that would then have to be handed to Nick Griffin.

Me on the other hand, by this point I was merely a spectator. Voice of Chance had begun to loose direction and I had come to the conclusion that Nick wasn’t moving any time soon. People began to go back to the party; if only for the sake of the party itself and to ensure that they could vote in any leadership election and the last I heard Voice of Change were saying that they aren’t turning their backs on the possibility of putting a candidate up.

As it is any attempt to stand against Nick is going to be blocked, especially given the recent changes to the party constitution stating that the required one hundred signatures is no longer one hundred, but rather a “sensible number of organisers signatures”. No specification has been given to the exact number itself; leaving one to the conclusion that exactly what it is that constitutes a “sensible number” is to be decided by Nick Griffin in the event a challenger should arise. In effect, the party of democracy has become one of dictatorship, and until Nick Griffin stands down the party will find itself heading down a very slippery slope indeed.

As for the YBNP, since the split of December 2007 it has been relaunched with Mike Howson taking over the leadership under the newly created title of "National Youth Officer". However, sadly an organisation that was built around the idea of youth politics and was aimed at the 18 to 24 age group, has now been changed beyond all recognition and targets children between the ages of 13 and 18. Sadly, many former members no longer wish to be associated with what is essentially seen as a "playschool", as one former member put it, and as a result it doesn't look like the YBNP will be going anywhere any time soon.

Youth on the Edge: Chapter Nine

2008-11-13T07:23:00.005Z

P for Publicity

October had arrived and I moved back to Bath. The academic year had started two weeks before I actually moved but because I had been so busy with the BNP I hadn’t had time to look for a place to live earlier. I had changed degree course and had dropped the Economics in favour of International Relations; which was basically more politics with an assortment of history, economics and language units. I opted to learn Russian, but unfortunately I was the last to hand in my options form and as a result there wasn’t enough room in the language labs – which really pissed me off, especially seeing as I had brought a couple of useful books and had sat their like a mong learning the Russian alphabet and various bits and pieces.

A few weeks after I had been told I couldn’t take the class, I received an email from the lecturer and was informed that a place had become available. Problem was though by this point we were too far into the semester and even though I was tempted I knew I would have difficulty catching up; especially given my commitment to the YBNP. It was strange because the previous year I had spent a lot of time hanging around with a group of people who lived a few buildings up from mine on campus. However, something had changed since then and I found that I didn’t really have time for the social side of university and was spending all my free time working on the YBNP website and various other projects.

I woke up one morning to the sound of my phone ringing and it turned out that a production company called Blast Films wanted to chat to me about making a documentary on the Young BNP. I liked the idea that was pitched and decided to think about it and as a result I done a little filming one day in Swindon. Basically what was filmed wasn’t for public viewing, but was so the production company could pitch their idea to BBC3 and it turned out that that the BBC were quite interested in the idea.

The next thing I knew I had received a phone call from BBC Manchester and they pitched the same idea to me as Blast Films had. Well, I was in a pickle. As far as I was concerned it didn’t really matter who I went with because it was the same idea, however I wanted to give both production teams a fair go and decided that it would be a good idea to meet the people from BBC Manchester. A couple of weeks later they sent two guys down to Bath and after meeting up in a local pub we went and done a little filming in the centre of Bath.

They finished and I contacted Nick Griffin. He had spoken to the girl from Blast Films and had decided that as they were an independent production company they were the better option. Not only that after the trial Nick didn’t really trust the BBC; not that he had anything to worry about. I had done some filming for a documentary with Hardip Singh-Cole – a comedian and film maker who was working with a production company called Tiger Aspect – a few years previously in Devizes but Channel Four had decided that I was “too respectable” as it was put to Mike Howson upon their decision to cut the programme. As far as I was concerned I had never said anything stupid in front of a camera, wasn’t likely to as I don’t have extreme beliefs but Nick was adamant that he trusted Channel Four more and Blast Films had decided to pitch the idea to them instead.

I was a little nervous personally. When I had spoken to the people from BBC Manchester they had assured me that programmes such as the BBC’s “Secret Agent” and Channel Fours “Young Nazi and Proud” had been done, and what they were looking for was something different and to be fair it was something I could buy into. I never trusted Channel Four because as a television channel they had been the only ones to publicise the fact that young white girls were being hooked on drugs and raped by Muslim paedophile gangs in Keighley and this, as far as I was concerned, meant that they might feel the need to do a hatchet job on the BNP to balance things out a little. Not only that, but given my previous experience with them I was tempted to believe that taking part in any filming with them would likely be a waste of time as it would only get pulled once they realised I wasn’t a lunatic.

As it was, Nick was adamant on going through Channel Four and I decided it was worth a go but I hit a brick wall as far as the BNP was concerned. There was a party in the East Midlands that the film crew wanted to go with me to but the organisers of the event wouldn’t allow it. It was the anniversary of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett’s not guilty verdict and as a far as I was concerned it would have been a good event to take them too. But everybody was paranoid and was convinced that I would get screwed. It just didn’t seem to occur to anybody that they can only televise what a person says or does, and seeing as my views aren’t extreme, I wasn’t going to say or do anything stupid. But hey, heaven forbid anybody should blame themselves for looking like a bigoted tosser on TV.

In the end I grew tired of getting blocked off at every turn and I decided that it would be best to leave such projects until the YBNP was stronger so that I could just take any film crews along to events that I would be organising myself. However my time ended up being swallowed up by the YBNP website which was coming together quite nicely and as a result after a few missed calls from the girl at Blast Films I forgot to let them know about my decision and they stopped contacting me anyway.

I was beginning to see just why the YBNP had failed under past leaders. As an organisation it holds a lot of potential, but what it has always lacked is effective organisation and structure. One thing I can say for certain is that recruitment in itself was not a concern as interest was being shown and a great much more interest would be shown upon the website going live. However, I needed to be certain that the YBNP would work on a local level because without that all you have is young members in a local BNP group surrounded by people that belong to an older and much different generation. As I saw it the role of local BNP groups needed to be one of support, leaving localised YBNP groups to function under their own weight – if not right away, then at some point in the future.

Things were working out in the East Midlands and although there was no localised activity going on at that point, the idea was to ensure it did so at some point in the future. As a BNP region the East Midlands is rapidly expanding and as I saw it, it was going to become a centre for future growth. I also spoke to a lad called Pete in Liverpool who I had been in contact with for a year or so but had finally got round to meeting at the RWB. He agreed to become my organiser for Liverpool and the next place I started looking too was London.

Now London was a tricky area. I had quite a few people showing some interest in taking London off of my hands but one of them, a lad called Matt, was forever blowing hot and cold. One minuet he wanted to do something and the next minuet he didn’t, so upon speaking to one or two local organisers I was put in contact with a lad who was at college and was interested in getting things off the ground. As it was, things were never made official with London, but given the number of universities in the capital I certainly wanted it to be. Essentially I had decided to keep an eye on things and make an official decision later once I was sure I had the right man for the job. London held a lot of potential in recruitment terms and what I didn’t want to do was entrust it to the wrong person.

I had been in the job for almost a year and people were beginning to get twitchy. I received a phone call from Mark Collett one day and it turned out he wanted to know what was going on with the website as it still wasn’t online. As it was I liked Mark, but the last thing I needed was his advice on how to do my job. When he had run the YBNP it had achieved two things. Some useful publicity as the result of a list of schools, colleges and universities detailing where the membership were located and he had run one or two successful social events. But what he had never managed to do was to take the movement beyond a small group of people camping in a field and going paintballing. Essentially all he provided was a youth club for the kids of BNP members but my vision was of something so much more.

We wound up having an argument and it was based on the fact that he hadn’t bothered to help when he said he would and also the fact that he just didn’t seem to understand what I was going for. The website may have taken a long time yet at the same time it wasn’t just a run of the mill website. One thing that seemed to spread itself through the BNP was a “that’ll do” attitude when it came to publicity. Granted Mark Collett is a good designer, but his ability when it comes to understanding the finer principles of marketing are limited, where as Charlie – the website designer – was on the ball and was producing a design that not only looked good, but promised to keep people coming back. Essentially it was all about first impressions and whilst I could have put a design online that would have done the job temporarily, I didn’t want to.

I was spending a lot of time writing the copy for the website whilst Charlie was fiddling about with the finer points of design and marketing, and although he didn’t want to until it was finished, I managed to talk him into putting some of the design online so that one or two people could see for themselves that progress was being made. I had a chat with Steve Blake, the BNP’s webmaster, and he provided Charlie with the codes for the BNP Scotland server whilst at the same time registering the ybnp.org.uk domain name. Before long a few bits were online and after showing Mark Collett and Dave Hannam the opinion was unanimous; it looked good. Of course, Mark couldn’t help himself and he wound up giving me more advice, which I promptly ignored as I knew that what was online was only a fraction of the final design. I handed the address to a few YBNP members who were bugging me about it and as it was they all agreed that they had no idea it was going to be as good as it was – even though they had no comprehension of just how little of the design was online and that the finished product was to be much better.

Over the next few weeks more parts turned up on the server and in the last few days before it was due to go up those who had been allowed to view it were getting quite excited. Dave Hannam couldn’t seem to believe how professional the website looked, even in its unfinished state, and the widely held consensus was that it was not only the best designed and most well marketed website in nationalist circles, but was also better than anything any other political organisation in the UK had.

It was quite a stressful time as I was trying to juggle uni and my work on the copy for the website, and I knew that things were going to get busier once the website was live. What the website going live would have signified is a YBNP that had come a long way since it was first formed and a YBNP that was very much capable of not only turning into a mass movement, but also promised to provide the future BNP with some extremely promising election candidates and organisers. As for me, I was looking forward to its launch because I knew that a great many people would be massively surprised and also because it would enable me to concentrate purely on localised organisation and recruitment events and as such I set about looking into a publicity stunt that would have turned the nations liberals into jabbering wrecks.

The previous years attempt to get Nick to speak in Bath was a massive let down, and the problem was that whenever somebody tried to book Nick into a university the left would organise and throw everything that had at the single venue and it’s organiser. So it was that I decided to ask around and see who was interested in inviting Nick to speak at their uni. What I was essentially hoping for was that Nick would speak at half the venues. One thing I knew for sure is that if all the requests went into the universities on the same day, then the lefts forces would be massively divided and they would be thrown into a chaos.

Without a doubt they would not have been able to organise protests at all venues effectively and would have been left looking towards the NUS to do something who would themselves be thrown into chaos. Essentially, every ounce of their energy was thrown into preventing Nick’s talk in Bath and in the event that Nick received seven to ten invites with dates spread out over a two week period, they may have stopped one or two, but wouldn’t have stopped all and as a result their attempts to prevent all the events going ahead would have been seriously hindered.

I spoke to Pete and he agreed that he would look into the possibility at Liverpool University and he also informed me that he had a friend who studied at the other uni in the city who would possibly be interested in doing the same. I also contacted a friend of mine who was studying Law at Nottingham and within a few minuets had convinced him to throw his lot in as well. The benefit was that he wasn’t a member and as such it would confuse the left, but as it was he liked the idea if only because of the controversy it would stir up. In the end I had four definites; myself in Bath, my mate in Nottingham, a fellow nationalist in Newcastle and Pete in Liverpool. On top of that there were a number of possibles; Royal Holloway – which was touch and go as the individual concerned was not a member, didn’t like Nick Griffin but was in favour of free speech – Liverpool Met and Swansea. One thing was for sure, and that’s that the confirmations I had on their own would have been enough to keep the media and the liberal left screaming blue murder. But as it was I wanted more so decided that I would look into more locations upon the websites launch. As for Nick Griffin, he loved the idea; especially when he heard my plans to get as many non members involved as possible and realised that I had already set the ball rolling on a few locations.

As it turned out though, the website and Nick’s tour of the UK’s universities was not to happen. It was a Saturday and Charlie had all the copy and was putting the finishing touches to the website and I was writing the text for the launch email that was going to be sent out when Pete messaged me on MSN asking if I had read about Sadie Graham and Kenny Smith on the BNP website. I took a look and what I read changed everything.