Western World Politics (Old)

We are moving

2006-06-25T11:54:00.000Z

Hi

First of all, I'd like to apologise for the inconsistent activity of late. This has been caused due to personal commitments, which have understandably left me little time for blogging. However, thankfully, these problems are now solved, and I am ready to re-commence my activity in the blogosphere!

a) WE ARE MOVING: This site is moving to the shorter, more convenient address of;

http://thewwp.blogspot.com

This is to make it more convenient for our readers. Remember to add the new address to your bookmarks! The old site will remain online, as there a number of acclaimed articles still on there, but all new articles will be on the new site.

I would like to thank my regular visitors for their continued support and loyalty during this tricky time, and look forward to hearing from you again in future, as without you, WWP would not be possible. Please visit our new site!

Stay tuned for our next article, which is coming soon.

Regards

Michael (Editor, WWP)

Human nature and leftists versus the truth

2006-06-11T12:27:00.000Z

If someone was to ask me what is the main problem with leftists, its that they cannot-will not grasp human nature. This failure to properly recognise and deal with human nature is at the root of their intellectual and ideological flaws. They can use all the long words they like; they can put forward ever complex sociological theories; they can keep writing more and more laws onto the statute books. None of it will work, because human nature is not malleable. Like it or not, human nature, in all its gory technicolour is with us, and will be till kingdom come.

This would not be a particular problem, were it not for the fact that leftists control/have a controlling share in our mass media, legal system and educational establishments, all of which are bad areas for sociological flat earthing to be going on. The result is our societies continue to suffer more and more as a result of the powers that be failing to grasp the root of crime and other social pathologies. In this essay, I shall attempt to explain this further.

Human nature; Leftist views

According to leftists, humans are perfect beings. They are born with no propensity for violence, greed, cruelty or any other negative character trait. Marx for example held that humans are born perfect, but as they become exposed to "bourgeoise" values, they begin to exhibit negative traits such as greed and selfishness as they internalise these values. Modern leftists also hold that humans are born in a state of tabula risa and that it is societal pollutants such as poverty, discrimination etc which spoil their perfect nature, and explain their negative anti-social behaviours and pathologies.

Therefore, leftists hold that society can be made perfect. If we just put enough effort into eliminating the societal pollutants like poverty, racism, homophobia etc, then humans will no longer be polluted, because the polluting factors will no longer exist. Without pollutants, people will then awaken to their perfect nature, and we can all skip around the rainbow of a classless utopia, as Marx predicted would one day happen, once the society responsible for these pollutants had been restructured completely to the point where it was no longe recognisable.

Attracting the naive idealists

This world view, and this belief in the perfectability of humanity and the creation of a heaven on earth with enough of our collective efforts is wonderfully appealing. It comes as no surprise therefore that the membership of many leftists groups is over flowing with idealists, many of whom I don't doubt are decent enough people. Another defining trait is their sence of urgency and at time outright zealotry. Part of the reason leftists become so wild and unruly, especially at protests, is because they honestly believe that heaven on earth is just one last push away, and if someone believes they can be responsible for pushing us into it, then of course they will be very determined and at times aggressive.

This zeal for removing societal pollutants such as poverty explains the quite frantic nature of movements such as the "Make Poverty History" campaign, which I have written about in the past in a somewhat critical light. This is because I hold that poverty can never be totally erradicated, and even if it could, it is not poverty that explains the negative side of human behaviour. That is better explained by their urges and nature, which are not going to change because a person chooses to walk around with a white wrist band on.

The sad truth

The sad truth about human nature is, well, human nature. We are not the perfect angelic beings just waiting to be enlightened as the left envisions us being. We are all born with genetic programming for violence, hatred, cruelty, lust, greed and other traits. As a Christian, I recognise this as being the result of man's fallen state (i.e. as a consequence of Adam's sin, all men are inherently flawed and imperfect, and thus have an automatic inbuilt propensity for evil). But you don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge that human nature is anything but perfect, and it is not the result of Western civilisation and its societal pollutants of "homophobia" and "patriarchy" and "bourgeoise values". For evidence, just look to non-Western cultures, where we see the same traits of cruelty, greed and selfishness being exhibited in abundance. Therefore, Western society and its traditional values are not to blame for negative human behaviour. We see exactly the same kind of human failings and evil in all human societies, many of which bear not even the slightest resemblance to Western societies on any dimension.

However, because leftists hold that societal pollutants are in-built into traditional Western society and values, then it is their duty to completely dismantle that society and thus remove the pollutants. If one studies my earlier acclaimed essay "Revolutionary Defeatism" you will get a more detailed picture of this. One could call it scorched earth, whereby leftists will happilly plunge the West into flames such is their desire to destroy what they view as its sources of pollution. What they sadly fail to grasp is that 1) these pollutants do not have their origin in Western values 2) even if they did, erradicating Western civilization will not stop humans behaving in an evil manner.

Examples "for" or examples "of"

One area leftists failure to grasp human nature is particularly clear is in the realm of criminal justice. When it comes to punishing criminals, leftists are appauled at the idea. They instead cling to the dream of "re-habilitation", and looking at the "bigger picture". That is, they claim that person x would not have committed the crime in question had he not been poor, or come from a broken home etc. In other words, the criminal only does what he does because of societal pollutants and, as more radical leftists add, internalising the cultural values of the traditional West. It would be insane to punish someone if the ultimately repsonsibility did not lay with them, hence the leftists shyness to punish anyone. Indeed, the word "punish" is considered taboo in leftist circles when discussing crime.

According to leftist sociologists and criminologists, the real challenfge is not in dealing with the criminal, but in re-structring society. Also, they argue that the government should "Set an example" for the criminals. This is best seen in the leftist attitude to the death penalty; they argue that by executing people, the government sets an example that killing is ok. Therefore, the leftist claims that by abolishing the death penalty, we "set an example for the people". Of course we righ wingers are under no such delusion about what this action results in; more violent crime.

In Britain, the death penalty was abolished during the leftist administration of Harold Wilson in the mid-1960's. Leftists, who believed by abolishing they would set an example to the criminals; the result? By the end of his reign, the murder rate had soard a massive one hundred and twenty five percent, criminal gangs had turned the East End of London into an urban battle zone and child sex killer Ian Brady and his accomplice Myra Hindley had abducted, tortured, raped and mutilated several children. Human nature at its worst, and no amount of "example setting" by the government was going to stop it.

The solution

In traditional English speaking nations governed by right wingers, we have always understood that crime is the result of flaws in human nature, and therefore our legal system was geared towards dealing with those flaws when they hurt people. Thats why we believe in punishment. We are not trying to change human nature, which is impossible. We are simply setting up a legal system that very sensibly deals with people who allow their flaws to hurt others. Nor do we right wingers treat every criminal case as an experiment in sociology. We treat it on the merits of the individual case. And rightly so.

Marx and his disciples in left wing movements across the globe have set about the impossible tas of trying to prefect the unperfectable. They are doomed to failure, but their political arrogance and naivety prevents them from seeing it. As with communism, whenever their utopia fails to materialise, and crimes still occur, they conclude it must be because they aren't trying hard enough to remove societal pollutants, or arent setting a left wing enough example for the criminals to follow.

We don't need to set examples for criminals; we need to set examples of criminals.

The Problem with Pacifism

2006-05-10T19:32:00.000Z

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other" John Stuart Mill

Pacifist groups are making a come back. They are dusting off their badges and taking to the streets and to cyber space with their views, determined to spread the message that violence and war are intrinsically immoral. They have been amongst the key shock troops in the so-called "Anti-War" movement that has mushroomed in size and marched in every major city on planet earth. These pacifists are undoubtedly very principled, sincere people-unfortunately being sincere doesn't make you right. After all, it is possible to be sincerely wrong. And make no mistake, the pacifists are indeed sincerely wrong.

Human Nature

If theres one thing most left wingers can't grasp, its human nature. According to Marx and other authors of his ideological stripe, humans are perfect creatures, who have simply been polluted by the society in which they were born. Once these societal pollutants (poverty, inequality, discrimination etc) have been removed then there will be nothing left to stain our nature. Humans will then be made perfect, and we can then skip into the rainbow as we commence the first day of our eternal "classless utopia". Sounds great; except its wrong.

Leftists explain most phenomena in terms of society polluting an individual in question. Every time there is an execution in America, the anti-death penalty leftists argue that "poverty" or "abuse" in the killers childhood were to blame for their crimes, and that therefore this person should not be held to account for their crimes. Instead, they argue the authorities should socially re-programme their societies in such way as to remove the societal pollutants of "poverty" and "abuse" or whatever else they blame it on to prevent further crimes. Their geopolitical explanations are based on a similar theory. They argue that because of international competition for resources and the ability of national governments to decide whether or not to fight, wars begin. Therefore, if resources are shared, and the right of a government to decide to go to war is a decision they hand over to the UN, then no more wars.

However, we rightists are under no such illusion. Crimes do not occur because of societal pollutants. They occur for something a little more basic than the theories of abstract post-modern sociology. At an international level, wars dont only begin because of greed or a desire to control resources, sometimes the pure desire to inflict tyranny on others is enough. Something else is to blame. That something is called human nature. Hard wired into our psyche is the potential for violence. The potential for cruelty. The potential for selfishness. Its all there in our DNA, like it or not. And the evidence is irrefutable.

In Seville, UNESCO announced that violence and killing are not natural. They are wrong. Extensive evidence from the earliest days of human pre-history show evidence of organised violence and warfare. Stone age human skeleltons have been un earthed which show clear signs of having being murdered. Throughout human history there has been rape and cruelty, as shown by the existence of laws against it in the earliest human societies. Thats just the way we are. Brain washing and re-education can only do so much to change human nature. Over 70 years of state communism attempted to do this using the full machinery of a total state and failed to change human nature in any way, shape or form. Human nature cannot be changed, and any attempt to change it is on a highway to nothing.

Preying on the weak

Now let me propose something to you; lets suppose I place a sign on my front door saying "No matter what, I will never use force to defend myself, no matter what you try to do to me or my family and no matter what you try to take from me". This might make sense; after all, the overwhelming majority of people I know and who I spend my time with are decent, law abiding people who would never dream of doing me harm. Therefore, I'll never need to defend myself. Sounds like a great idea, its just that its not from people like this who you need to be prepared to defend yourself.

Criminals and tyrants will see any sign of unilateral pacifism as what it is; a sign of supreme weakness and naïvety, which the wicked will be only too happy to take advantage of. History is sadly full of examples of how peaceful individuals, and peaceful societies made unilateral statements of non-aggression and were swept away by the pitiless tyrants who neighboured them. Take the people of Tibet; the Tibetans were a peaceful and noble people who had no history of violence against anyone. Their peaceful religion of Buddhism has/had a very strong prohibition on violence under any circumstances, and for all its ethical appeal, this was to prove their downfall.

The Communist Chinese had no such shyness about shedding blood. In the early 1950's, they began making threats against their neighbours. Despite the peaceful protests and attempts at peaceful diplomacy from the Tibetan authorities, the Chinese communists snorted at them, and launched an invasion of Tibet. Atrocities were widespread; reports of rapes, tortures and massacres began to come out of Tibet. Ancient Buddhist monasteries were dynamited or converted to secular purposes. Holy Buddhist scriptures were burned. The Tibetan language and other aspects of unique Tibetan cultural identity were suppressed, and anything upto 1 million Tibetan people were forced to flee, including the leader of their spiritual community the Dalai Lama. Today, there is almost no trace of Tibetan indigenous culture, a sad testament to the cost of pacifism. Whilst it is an ethically admirable and appealing stance, it does not impress those from whom we have most to fear.

During the Cold War, leftist groups like CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) marched through the streets of the West's major cities, urging us to destroy our nuclear weapons irrespective of what the USSR did with its. This was at a time when the Soviets had over 1 million men poised to invade Western Europe lined up along the East-West German border, backed by hundreds of super sonic jets, hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces and of course, thousands of nuclear weapons. Documents de-classified by the Kremlin have shown that the reason the USSR never rolled into Western Europe with its tanks was the fact it knew the Wests leaders would use nuclear weapons to defend themselves against the USSR's very large troops formations and even against its cities. Makes you think what would have happened if we'd done what CND asked....

Are you Tibetan or a Spartan?

Compare the sad fate of the pacifist Tibetans to a culture that believes in self defense. The Greek people have spent millenia being attacked by their neighbours, but time and time again, resisted the tyrants who would smother their freedom and suppress their identity. At the battle of Salamis, the Greeks fought a heroic battle against the Persians who threatened to invade their nation and smother the fledgling Greek culture in its infancy. Had the Greeks not resisted there would have been no classical Greek culture, and therefore no democracy, and no Greco-Roman culture, without which the Western World would be unrecognisable.

Later in their history, the Greeks were overwhelmed by the Ottoman Turks, who began attempting to ruthlessly destroy Greek culture. However, the Greeks refused to give in, strongly resisting any attempt to erase them as a people, until in the early 1800's, they rose up against their oppressors and over threw them. Even to this day, the Greek people remain amongst the most culturally, linguistically and religiously unique. Had their ancestors been pacifist, this would not be the case, and the Greeks would be a sad, small footnote in a history book. One of my favourite stories is about an ancient visitor to the Greek city of Sparta. He asked one of his Spartan friends why there were no city walls around Sparta. His companion smiled, pointed to the young men of Sparta and said "We don't need walls. These men are our walls". The Spartans were no pacifists; hence the unwillingness of their enemies to attack them, and hence why there is still a Greek culture today.

Conclusion

Pacifism is nice on paper, and how nice it would be if human nature was such that there was no more war. However, human nature is bad. And whats more, it will never change, no matter how much money and aid we spend alleviating poverty. No matter how much we educate the people. It will never change. We need to get that into our heads. No amount of "social justice" or "economic justice" will change our DNA code. As long as there are evil men (and we've already established that there always will be) there will be a need for men who fight them. Without good men who fight, yes, fight evil, then evil will triumph. Its all well and good having good, principled people, but they will all lay dead at the hands of the evil if there are not good men prepared to fight to protect them.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the men of Sparta protecting me than the men of the anti-war movement.....

The Iran Nuclear crisis; the "options" on the table

2006-05-05T20:00:00.000Z

The Iran nuclear crisis is hotting up. Iran is moving ever closer to producing nuclear weapons, and as it gets closer, its celebrations become even more extreme and confrontational. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made increasingly murderous remarks about America and Israel, and it is strongly rumoured that he believes it is his duty to trigger the judgment day that will usher in the return of the "Mahdi", a messianic figure in Shia Islam. Meanwhile, the Israeli's have said they will "not tolerate" a nuclear armed Iran, and are strongly rumoured to be planning a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Nantaz. Meanwhile, Iran has begun beefing up its military, conducting war games and making threats that it will respond if attacked.

In this essay, we shall explore in depth some of the possible options on the table for the Bush administration and their pros and cons.

Option 1: Do nothing

This option is reminiscent of what the Bush administration chose to do with North Korea. When Bush branded North Korea part of an "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and made clear his desire to seek "regime change" there, the North Koreans rapidly set about acquiring nuclear weapons. In the mean time they bought time by entering into negotiations they had no intention of honouring and making typically murderous dramatic threats, such as promising to turn South Korea into "A sea of fire" in the event of a US attack. Soon North Korea had nuclear weapons, and the Bush administration quietly went away. There will never be an Iraq-style regime changing invasion of North Korea by America because North Korea's possession of nukes now makes that an impossibility; no US president would ever survive politically if American troops were killed by the tens of thousand and/or if Taepodong ICBM nuclear missiles found their way onto US soil, which they have the range to do.

Pros: The advantage of doing nothing with Iran is, in the first instance a pro because it avoids war. Wars are very expensive, both in terms of their vast costs and in terms of their human casualties; 50,000 Iraqi's have died since the 2003 invasion, over 2,000 coalition troops have died and 20,000 coalition troops wounded. Also, wars are politically expensive. The infamous "body bag" factor shows that as US casualties mount in war, the president of the day suffers falling popularity. Not good for re-election. Another advantage of doing nothing with Iran is it would help downplay accusations from some corners that Bush is a "war monger".

Cons: The Bush Doctrine states that the USA's greatest threat in the C21st is when regimes with a history of hatred towards America and a history of backing international terrorism acquire WMD's and pass them on to terrorist groups to use against America. The only way to deal with this threat is to pre-emptively invade these "rogue states" and bring about "regime change" in them. Iran is a text book example of a "rogue state" in this regard, indeed, a much better example than Iraq or North Korea. If Bush does nothing with Iran, then the Bush doctrine has ceased to have any foundation.

Furthermore, if Bush does nothing, this could embolden other unpleasant regimes (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc) to develop nukes. North Korea proved to the world that if you have nukes, you don't get invaded. If like Iraq you don't have nukes, you do. These regimes will therefore simply take the steps needed to acquire nukes, and the Bush doctrine, set up to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of dictators, could actually spur more nations to go nuclear as a means of ensuring the Bush doctrine is never used against them.

Option 2: Sanctions against Iran

Pros: Sanctions look nice on paper. They send a clear message of disgust towards the recipient of the sanctions, whilst not being a direct act of war. Also, they can grind down the nation in questions economy, which has two pleasing side effects. Firstly, it makes it harder for the regime in question to find the money for it's WMD programmes, which are certainly not cheap. Secondly, as sanctions bite, and/or the regime cuts back on its peoples needs to fund it's WMD programmes, the population begins to dislike it's government, increasing the chance the people will topple it, like what happened across Eastern Europe in the late 1980's and early 1990's. This provides the Bush administration with lots of great images of celebrating people over throwing their despotic regimes (great for using in re-election broadcasts) and also means US military deaths do not happen, as the need for US invasion vanishes with the revolution.

Cons: Sanctions however are not perfect. Sanctions look good on paper, but regimes can always find a way around them, especially if it works through third parties (do the words "Oil for Food" sound familiar?). Furthermore, its unlikely sanctions would pass the UN, given the large Islamic vote at the UN, and also the fact that nations frosty to US interests such as France and Russia could veto them on the Security Council. Sanctions also tend to hurt the most vulnerable in the target nation, as harrowing images of malnourished Iraqi children throughout the 1990's proved. Additionally, as was proved in Britain during the 1940's submarine blockades, hardship amongst the civilian population, far from turning people against its government (which can always claim any hardship is not its fault), can actually increase the people's loyalty to the regime, and stiffen their resolve to beat the nation responsible for them.

Option 3: Surgical air strikes against nuclear facilities

Pros: Firstly, surgical air strikes are relatively cheap to do, certainly much cheaper than the cost of a full scale invasion, yet they achieve similar results. The US could use a combination of F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles to deliver bunker buster strikes to pin point locations in Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In just a few hours of attacks, Iran's nuclear programme could be could back decades, and the regime, which has boasted about its nuclear prowess for some time on state television, would be humiliated. Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities also have a good track record; in 1988, Israel pre-emptively carried out surgical air strikes against Iraq's Osirak nuclear weapons facility, at a point when Saddam was on the verge of acquiring his first nuclear bomb. The attack left the plant in ruins. Had that strike not happened, Saddam would have had operational nuclear weapons in time for Gulf War I. Certainly makes you think....

Cons: It is now known that during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the US considered pre-emptive surgical air strikes against nuclear weapons sites in Cuba. What eventually made them decide against that course of action was Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis Le May could not guarantee the attacks could destroy all the facilities, and so much as a single one that was missed or not fully destroyed would have been used against America in a counter attack. If the US could not guarantee hitting just a few sites on the tiny island of Cuba just a few hundred miles off the US coast, how much more true is it of the vast nation of Iran? Furthermore, the attacks would kill hundreds of Russian nationals, who are known to be involved with the Iranian nuclear programme, provoking confrontation with Russia. There is also the very real possibility that bombs could go astray and hit civilian targets ("collateral damage" does not look good on CNN). Also, if (as is very possible) any US planes were shot down, and their crews had to bail out over Iran, their safety would be anything but guaranteed. Assuming they were not killed by lynch mobs or the troops who captured them, the air men could be executed by the Iranian government, as happened in 1942 when the Japanese executed several "Doolittle Raid" airmen who had bailed out over Japan.

Option 4: Invade Iran and bring about "Regime change"

Pros: This option is useful, as the bulk of America's offensive force is already in the Middle East, and therefore is already ideally placed to launch an invasion of Iran. Also, there are many ethnic and religious groups within Iran (e.g. Baluchistani's and Parsees) who would cheerfully help attack Iranian forces, thinning them out and making it hard for them to focus on fighting the US. Furthermore, it would topple yet another potential enemy of America, and justify the Bush doctrine. With the Islamist regime in Tehran deposed, funding for the hundreds of terrorist groups Iran backs around the world (such as Hezbollah) would dry up over night, as would their supply of Iranian weaponry. With Iran under US control, the pincers would tighten around Osama Bin Laden in (one assumes) Waziristan, who would find himself trapped between US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan and then Iran. If Bush could bow out in 2008 having toppled the 9/11 backing Taliban, surrounded then trapped America's most wanted man ever, and having dealt with long time US enemies Iraq and Iran along the way, then the Republicans would romp home to electoral victory.

Cons: Iran is not like Iraq. When the US attacked Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi's were weakened by ten years of crippling sanctions, and had suffered the loss of most of their heavy military equipment in Gulf War I. They had no air force, and no real navy to speak of. Their generals were corrupt and couldn't wait to surrender, nor could most of its infantry. Iraq's terrain is flat, and excellent for quick movement of troops and supplies. Within a few weeks, Saddam had been over thrown, and it was "Mission Accomplished".

This is not the case with Iran. Iran is four times the size of Iraq, and has very unusual geography, including steep cliffs and jagged mountains. Iran also has nearly three times the population of Iraq, which is very heavy on fighting aged males (a result of the pro-natalist policies of Khomeini in the early 1980's). This provides the Iranians with a huge pool of men to dip into for conscripts. Also, the Iranians have a track record of fanatical resistance to invaders. During the Iran-Iraq war, thousands of Iranians joined Basanji and Pasdaran suicide brigades, whose job was to clear mine fields for the tanks by marching across them. Even Iran's children got involved, and many were urged to go to the front by their parents, issuing them with plastic keys made in Taiwan which they told them was the key to Paradise if they died in battle. These are not the type of people you want to be fighting.

Also, even if/when the war was won, winning the peace would be even harder. In Iraq, it has been nigh impossible to reconcile the demands of the Kurds, Shia and Sunni factions. Iran is even more ethnically diverse than Iraq, and this, added to the possibility of US proxy indigenous forces used for the invasion suddenly wanting their own way and turning violent is a possibility. It has happened before, when the Taliban stopped being a proxy for us against the USSR and turned violent.

Conclusion

The Iran nuclear crisis is not going away. Even as we speak, uranium is being enriched for nuclear weapons, and the Iranian military are preparing plans to fight a defensive war. This is the most serious test of Bush' presidency. We have looked at the options he has, none of which are particularly appealing ones, but he must choose the right one or Amhadinejad, who once said "Israel should be wiped off the map" will soon have the weapons to make that threat come to life, and Ahmadinejad who so craves the armageddon may very well just have it...

Columbine 7 years on

2006-04-22T13:58:00.000Z

Two days ago was the 7th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy. It was on that day in 1999 that the most bloody high school shooting in US history occured when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris rampaged through their high school in Littleton Colorado with guns and home made explosives. By the end of the day, they had killed and injured dozens, then turned the guns on themselves. The tragedy wounded the peaceful suburban community and has left scars that will probably never entirely heal. However, one of the most striking features of that day was the number of Christian children who died, and the subsequent way in which the heroic way many of them met their deaths has sparked a spiritual revival amongst the Y2K generation, which had previously been written off by many commentators as being hopleslessly materialistic and hedonistic.

In this article, I will pay tribute to the bravery of the martyrs and hopefully do justice to them.

Why?

The big question about the tragedy is "Why?". Why did two boys from stable and successful family backgrounds attending and high school in a middle class community suddenly launch such a murderous attack on their fellow students? Everyone has their theory; in the early days, it was believed that the boys, who had reportedly been bullied by the student athletes ("jocks") launched the attack as a way of getting back at the bullies. Indeed, on the day of the attack, survivors remarked that the boys had barked "All the jocks stand up!" upon entering certain rooms of the school, seeming to lend credence to this theory.

However, it is false. As one "jock" replied when asked about what he thought of this theory, he pointed out that had Eric and Dylan wanted to kill jocks, they could have done so by going into the school gymnasium at 8 am when it was filled with student athletes working out. Instead, Eric and Dylan seemed to focues their attention on the library where the overwhelming majority of their victims were killed, and if one was looking for atheltes, a library would not be the place one might choose to look for them. It therefore seems extremely unlikely that attack was part of a revenge against athletes scheme.

Martyrs

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowlegde him before my Father in heaven" Matthew 10:32

The word martyr comes from a Greek word meaning "witness", and many of the young people who died at Columbine gave a powerful witness to their faith, and their willingness to acknowledge God rather than deny Him in a bid to save themselves from the gun men. Tapes found after the shootings revealed that the gun men had a particular hatred for Christians; in one tape dated just a month before the shootings, Harris remarks sarcastically "Yeah, I love Jesus, I love Jesus.....yeah shut the f**k up!". He went on to mock Jesus' crucifixion remarking "Go Romans! Thank God they crucified that ass hole!" before joining in with Klebold in a chant of "Go Romans! Go Romans!".It was apparently well known that Harris and Klebold despised Christians and in a Washington Times article about the shootings stated "...it was widely known...that Harris and Klebold had little tolerance for devout Christians". The same article suggested this could have been because "...they represented everything Harris and Klebold disdained".

At the start of the killing spree, Klebold and Harris shot devout Christian, Rachel Scott as she chatted to a friend near the cafeteria. Scott, who was 17, reportedly survived the first shot, but as she tried to crawl away was grabbed by one of the shooters who yanked back her hair and barked "Do you believe in God?". She replied "You know I do" at which point the shooter finished her off. Scott, who was beautiful and renowned for her artistic nature has gone on to be an inspiration to Christian youths across the world. Her journal, which was recovered from her body days later contained a number of very telling spiritual remarks, and have been read by millions worldwide.

As the rampage continued, they made their way into the library, which was filled with senior's filling out college applications. They went from table to table taunting their victims before killing them, until they came to the table of Cassie Bernall. They pointed a gun at her and asked "Do you believe in God" at which point she replied "Yes". obviously infuriated by her refusal to deny God and thus try and save herself, Harris remarked "There is no f**king God" and shot her. Cassie Bernall, a troubled teen who became a born again Christian and turned her life around has also gone on to become a hero to millions worldwide and a book of her life "She said Yes" is masterpiece.

Political point scoring

One of the most disgusting consequences of the tragedy was the way different groups tried to use it as a way of political point scoring. Most guilty in this respect is arch-leftist Michael Moore, whose movie Bowling for Columbine is nothing more than ceaseless propaganda, using the precious memory of the dead as a club to beat out his narrow political agenda with. In the movie, Moore has the gall to suggest that the presence of a missile factory in Littleton is what inspired the shooters. He suggests that America's gun laws are to blame for the tragedy, despite the fact that several of the victims family members have strongly denied this was the case. Perhaps the best refutal of this comes from Rachel Scott's father, who strongly attacked this claim in the book "Rachel's Tears".

Another worrying trend was the fervour with which atheist groups attempted to refute the story of Cassie Bernall's martyrdom, claiming that her famous interchange with the gun men never happened, and was simply Christian propaganda (link). The official investigation concluded that the interchange had probably occured, but may not have been with Cassie, and may instead have been with another student similar in voice and appearance. However, as Cassie's mother remarked "It doesn't matter whether Cassie said 'Yes' that day. What mattered is she said 'Yes' everyday to God".

Conclusion

The tragedy was one of the defining moments of the Y2K generation, impacting very strongly on wider popular youth culture (link). It is unlikely that the families of those killed will ever truly heal, although most have shown admirable dignity and courage in its wake. When one reads the accounts of Rachel Joy Scott, Cassie Bernall, Daniel Mauser and the other victims, one it immediately inspired by how these ordinary young people met their deaths with such courage. I was particularly inspired by the story of Cassie Bernall, who turned her life around after dabbling with the darkside of teen culture, becoming a born again Christian shortly before her death. You can see a website maintained by her family at this link. A similar website exists for Rachel Scott at this link.

There is ongoing work towards a permanent memorial for the victims (link). But as a culture, the greatest memorial we could give, is to never forget the memory of those lost, and work to heal a wounded generation of young people to ensure these tragedies never happen again.

Heroes of the West: William Wallace (Scotland)

2006-04-05T21:00:00.000Z

There is something unique about Westerners; they just will not tolerate tyranny or injustice, no matter what the odds of challenging it are. Whether it be the American revolutionaries dumping tea in Boston Harbour, or their descendants fighting heroically at Midway, Guadalcanal or Normandy, Westerners fight and die for perhaps the most precious thing this world affords; freedom. It was this cause of freedom that left a yearning in the hearts of many Scots in the early middle ages. One man would step up to meet that challenge, and that man was William Wallace, who would go on to be immortalised in the award winning movie Braveheart. So what was the real William Wallace like Early years William Wallace was devoutly religious and showed a genuine Christian concern for the weak and oppressed. Yet at the same time he was as fierce as a lion when the occasion commanded it. Particularly influential in his formative years was his uncle, who was also a clergyman. Wallace enjoyed relative comfort in his youth, and learnt several languages. He also learnt that freedom is sacred, never to be surrendered Dico tibi verum, libertas optima rerum; Nunquam servili sub nexu vivito fili. Roughly, this translates as "I tell you, no gift is like freedom; they never live in slavery". It would become a major part of Wallace's world view.

As he grew older, Wallace filled out into an awesome physical specimen. He grew to be over 6 feet 7 inches tall, at a time when most men barely reached 5 feet tall. He was always armed with a long claymore broad sword, and was a ferocious fighter, whose size and strength terrified any adversary on the battle field. It would be to the battlefield that he would soon be drawn...

The massacre of Berwick 1291

In 1291, Edward I of England kidnapped Scotland's nobility and threatened them. They agreed to allow his forces to annex Scotland, and English rule was harsh and humiliating for the Scots. Whilst the "elite" of Scotland may have turned the other cheek to this oppression, the common man would not. In 1296, Scottish men carried out an attack on an English military base in the city of Berwick. As a reprisal, Edward I sent his forces into the city, and there was a three day orgy of looting, beating, rape and summary executions. Historians estimate at least 17,000 Scots were killed, and some put this figure at over 20,000. Edward believed this act would show how hopeless any resistance was. But he was wrong; instead it sparked outrage across Scotland, and when news of the massacre reached Wallace, he could take no more, and raised an army to fight the English. Wallace had already been harassing English baggage trains, and was now ready to fight them on the field of Battle.

Battle of Stirling Bridge

In September 1297, Wallace's militia met the English army, and the contrast between the two could not have been greater. The English army, the finest in Western Europe at the time and un-beaten in battle for nearly a century, versus the rag-tag Scottish farm peasants armed with basic spears. The commander of the English army, the Earl of Surrey was amused by the sight of the Scottish militia, and was confident that as his own forces outnumbered the Scots 4 to 1, all he needed to do was threaten them and they would back down. He was to be sorely mistaken. When a peace delegation arrived from the English camp to persuade the Scots to surrender, Wallace replied with a now famous remark;

"Tell your people that we have not come here to gain peace, but are prepared for battle, to avenge and deliver our country. Let them come up when they like, and they will find us ready to meet them even to their beards".

But this was not just bravado. Wallace was also a keen tactician, and knew that this remark would provoke the Earl of Surrey into launching an attack. Indeed, when Wallace's reply reached him via the returning delegation, the Earl exploded in rage, and decided to send his forces to attack Wallace. However, this meant crossing the narrow, rickety wooden bridge across the river separating the two armies, and Wallace had been counting on them to make this mistake...

The bridge was very narrow, and Wallace positioned his militia men near the bridge. As the English came across, the bridge was so narrow they could only cross perhaps two at time, no where near enough to fight for a toe hold for re-enforcement. The narrow columns of English troops were trapped and butchered by the Scots. The English would usually rely on their highly skilled archers to equalise this, but Wallace commanded his men to fight in close, to stop the English from firing on them with arrows lest they kill their own troops. By the end of the day, the English army had suffered what was then the worst defeat in its history. However, Wallace's trusted friend and advisor De Mornay, had been killed that day.

Defeat and Betrayal

Wallace then marched his militia into Northern England, to create a buffer zone against future invasion. However, the Scottish militia was ill equipped to maintain such an ambitious campaign and was out of its natural fighting territory. The English rolled the Scots back, until the two armies met again, this time at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298. This time the English archers, this time commanded by Edward I himself, showed no fear in firing on its own infantry as they fought close quarters with the Scottish militia, and in doing so used a weapon that Wallace could not counter. Wallace's forces were massacred, many of its key lieutenants captured, and Wallace himself was forced into hiding. However, it would not last long...

In August 1305, Wallace's hideout was betrayed by John Feith, and Wallace was seized. He was taken away, and subjected to ghoulish torture before being executed and his severed head being placed on a pike in London. It looked like Wallace's dream had died. Or had it?

Picking up the torch

Edward I was a fierce and ruthless commander; his successor was not. So when a dashing and tactically aware Scottish noble man by the name of Robert the Bruce commanded a Scottish militia at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1315, the result was a total rout for the occupiers, and Scotland was declared free of English rule as a result. The now famous Declaration of Arbroath was read out at Arbroath Castle in 1320, in a document that is unmistakably the ancestor of the US Declaration of Independence. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Wallace had been the man who had given heart and soul to the freedom against tyranny.

Freedom is precious. Men have fought and died for it. So lets take it a little more seriously. Perhaps the final words on the matter should be from Wallace himself, who when asked of the importance of freedom said;

"For as long as one hundred of us shall remain alive, we shall never in any wise consent to submit to the rule of the English, for it is not for glory we fight, nor riches, or for honour, but for freedom alone, which no good man loses but with his life."

Heroes of the West: Jerzy Popieluszko (Poland)

2006-03-29T15:39:00.000Z

Jerzy Popieluszko (1947-1984)

Whilst often thought of as an Eastern nation, Poland is more accurately described as part of the West. Indeed, at a time when most nations in Eastern Europe became Orthodox, Poland chose to remain part of the Western Catholic fold. This Catholic faith is a defining characteristic of Polish culture, and has remained a foundation stone of Polish identity in times of crisis, serving a not dissimilar function to the role the Eastern Orthodox church played in the Balkans during the Islamic Ottoman occupation.

When Poland fell under the jackboot of Communism following World War II, the Poles found themselves under one of the most repressive and vile regimes on earth. For nearly half a century, the Polish Communist Party (PZPR) ruled with an iron fist, making use of its internal secret police, the Sluzba Bezpiecznestwa (SB) to crush internal dissidents. However, during the 1970's and 1980's the Polish people became increasingly tired of their tyrannical leaders and began moving against them. Several strikes were crushed with brutal force. Nevertheless, the anti-communists, such as "Solidarity" continued to fight the regime, led by their leader Lech Walesa. His spiritual advisor was a charismatic priest named Jerzy Popieluszko.

Popieluszko was renowned for his ability to mobilise the people in dignified protest against the evil regime they were under. During several periods of martial law, the Catholic church remained one institution which the atheist Marxist regime had little influence over. The Catholic clergy in Poland were often on the front line in the liberation struggle. When future Pope John Paul II requested the local communist authorities build a bigger church for his worshippers, they of course, refused. So he simply decided to hold the mass in the open, a public symbol of outright defiance to communist Poland's godlessness. Popieluszko became famous as a skilled public speaker who routinely criticised the outrages of the regime in his sermons, and he became the spiritual advisor to Lech Walesa, who was increasingly being seen as the leader of the anti-communist movement in Poland. Walesa would later go on to become Poland's first post-Communist President. You can hear a sample of Jerzy Popieluszko's melodic voice at this link, when he spoke the BBC in the early 1980's (Polish language).

The Sluzba Bezpiecznestwa secret police repeatedly intimidated Popieluszko, from sending him menacing phone calls and letters to attempting to force his car off the road, all of which failed to make this brave and noble man back down. It was clear to them Popieluszko was no coward, and was never going to stop until his people were free. So when Popieluszko went missing in October 1984, there were fears for his safety. These fears, sadly, proved to be well founded when the body of a man was found floating face down in the Vistula Water Reservoir two weeks after he had gone missing. His body showed clear signs of beating and ghoulish torture. The Communist authorities believed they had solved the problem; but they had just made it worse for themselves, as the murder of a priest was seen as particularly dastardly and low, even by the standards of the regime. To many people, murdering a priest was the last straw.

His funeral became a rallying point for anti-communism (see pictures from it at this link). At his funeral, a heart shaped wreath was placed on his coffin bearing the letter "S" for Solidarity; many mourners passed by his open coffin, his face badly mutilated by the beating and torture he had endured before being killed. As his coffin was carried from the church, banners from Solidarity and one saying "God, Honour, Motherland" were held aloft by the defiant mourners, whilst the security forces looked on nervously. Two men traveled to his funeral from the town of Kielce, holding a banner saying "Father Jerzy you are our hope for peace and freedom"Many of the mourners stood by his grave and gave a defiant "V" for victory sign with their fingers, a gesture that had first gained popularity in Poland as a sign of defiance to Nazi rule. Now it was a sign of defiance to the communists. The martyrdom of Popieluszko was a catalyst for freedom.

By the end of the 1980's, Communism in Poland had collapsed, and the shock waves traveled to neighbouring Germany, where the Berlin Wall fell. Not long after that, the Soviet Union collapsed as did the corrupt and blood thirsty client regimes of Eastern Europe. In just a few short years, Eastern Europe was free. When the history of the C20th is being written, Poles such as John Paul II and Lech Walesa are rightly named as amongst the most influential figures in bringing down communism in Eastern Europe. But we must never forget the sacrifice and bravery demonstrated by Jerzy Popieluszko, who laid down his life for his peoples freedom. Popieluszko is now being discussed as a potential saint by the Catholic church. In closing, I will leave you with perhaps the finest tribute to him, was paid by US Ambassador to Poland Victor Ashe, who, speaking on the 21st anniversary of his murder stated;

"It is right and just to commemorate the death of Father Jerzy Popieluszko. Father Popieluszko was a true, modern-day, Polish hero and martyr, who died in the struggle for freedom in his beloved Poland. His courageous support of Solidarity in the face of oppression is an inspiration to all freedom-loving people around the world. "It is a consolation to all of us in Poland today, especially to Father PopieluszkoÂ’s church, parishioners, family and friends, that his sacrifice will be remembered forever and that his flame will burn brightly in the pantheon of Polish heroes."

Heroes of the West: Lennart Meri (Estonia)

2006-03-27T14:07:00.000Z

Lennart Meri (1929-2006)

In our heroes of the West series, we will look at many of the heroes of the West who are household names. However sometimes, we will look at those who are not, but should be. Very few people have heard of Lennart Meri. However the story of this great man, who died just two weeks ago is a testimony to the unconquerable human spirit of freedom amidst darkness and tyranny.

Lennart Meri was born in Estonia in 1929, but as the son of a diplomat traveled widely, and along the way becoming fluent in several languages. The young man had a bright future ahead of him, but that was threatened by the Nazi-Soviet pact. He was just 11 years old when the Soviet Army moved into Estonia by force, and Soviet soldiers came to his family home, telling his parents they had 20 minutes to pack a case before they were frog marched to a railway station. From here, the family were loaded into cattle trucks and deported to work in Siberia's notorious "re-education" camps in sub-zero temperatures, over 2,000 miles away from their homeland. This would be the fate of over 200,000 people in Estonia during World War II.

When Meri was eventually allowed returned from the camps in 1946, he found Estonia's coast line dotted with barbed wire and machine gun towers to prevent anyone from escaping to the West. Estonia had now been annexed by Stalin, and it would remain under the jack boot of Communism for six decades. Many Estonian's despaired that they would never be free again; however, Meri never lost his belief that one day Estonia and its people would be free again. In particular, Meri's father was a source of great strength, often stating his conviction that one day Estonia would be free. When asked to comment on those days, Meri replied "...you could say that in our family, there was never an iron curtain...the state of mind in my own family was that the existence of a totalitarian state was something very temporary".

Meri was banned from following his dream of becoming a historian by the Soviet's, who were keen to prevent any "unofficial" history being reported. Meri instead became a film maker and producer of radio plays, and proposed to his wife on the day Stalin died in 1953. As a skilled linguist, Meri had no problem understanding the broadcasts of Western broadcasters, which transmitted messages of hope to those trapped behind the Iron Curtain throughout the Cold War. This no doubt inspired him, reminded him that the world had not forgotten Estonia or other Soviet conquests. Another source of inspiration was the portrait of Winston Churchill he kept in his room whilst a university student.

During the 1970's, Meri began to travel, especially to Finland (a neutral country during the Cold War and there were therefore few Soviet restrictions on travel to there) where he built up many friendships. Not long before he left for a trip to Finland, he was the architect of Estonia's "Singing Revolution", which called for an end to the USSR's occupation of Estonia. It was whilst on a trip to Finland in the early 1990's that the Soviet Union finally collapsed. When he returned to Estonia the following day, he reportedly refused to disembark from his ship until the Soviet hammer and sickle flag was taken down from the port, as he did not wish to enter Estonian territory whilst it was still under a foreign flag. This epitomized the confidence to defy Communism that now was felt in Estonia. Not long afterwards, Estonia was finally recognised as an independent nation, ending six decades of Soviet occupation and domination.

Meri was soon elected as the first President of the new Estonian nation. At the time he took over, Estonia's economy was in ruins thanks to decades of communist mismanagement. Annual growth was at the rate of minus 14 per cent when he took over. Yet through his promotion of free market policies and economic liberalism, this was quickly turned around, and Estonia was soon seeing annual growth rates of plus 11 per cent per annum.

Estonia would also go on to become a major player in Internet technology and the "dot.com" boom of the 1990's, so much so that Estonia was often playfully referred to as "E-Stonia" (link). This is extraordinary when one considers that at independence, less than half of the population had access to a phone line! Estonian professionals have also gone on to make break through's in palm top technology and medical technology, and one estimate suggests that there may soon be more computers than people in Estonia, a country that is now dotted with wireless internet connect. In education, the eminent linguist Meri encouraged Estonian children to learn English, the language of international business, and set up the Estonian Institute to foster and encourage relations between Estonian students and the rest of the world, meaning we will no doubt see even more entrepeneurialism and success in Estonia in the future.

Meri was conscious of Estonia's vulnerability to a future militarily re-juvenated Russia. For this reason, he was quick to join NATO, explaining with classic wit that "Security is like virginity; you either have it or you don't". On other occasions, he blasted the West for over looking Russia's failure to fully democratise, and was angry that Western nations offered aid to Russia without requiring it to reform its militarism. With typical eloquence he explained "They thought that by feeding a tiger more and more meat, it would eventually turn into a vegetarian". Meri would use his skills as a diplomat to ensure that Russian forces withdrew without incident from Estonia in 1992, and warned the West of the growth of hyper nationalism in post-Soviet Russia.

Meri would eventually loose his fight with cancer, dying on March 14th 2006 at a hospital in the Estonian capital Tallinn. A sign of the man's greatness and influence can be gaged from the very personal sense of loss Estonians of all ages felt when the news was broken. Fighting back tears, 76 year old Lydia Koivu, old enough to remember the dark days of Communism before Meri remarked "He meant everything to us", whilst 25 year old Piret Kleemann a product of the successful dot.com generation Meri captained said "Smart. Very smart. Thats how I remember him. Through Meri, all the world learned to know us". At his funeral, Estonian writer Jaan Kross described Meri as "...a visionary with a sunny personality". His successor as President of Estonia, Arnold Ruutel said that "In his nine years as head of state, Meri both restored the presidency and built up the Republic of Estonia in the widest sense...His works helped preserve and strengthen Estonian identity under an alien totalitarian regime".

Tributes from outside Estonia also poured in. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said that Meri "...was a man out of history who also made and shaped history". The President of neighbouring Latvia, Vaira Vike-Freiberga said "The world has lost a great statesman, a great Estonian and a great European" whilst in Finland, where he was particularly loved, Finnish President Tarja Halonen said "The Finnish nation lost in Lennart Meri a close and sincere friend, and the world, a great statesman who was one of the leading architects of the Post-Cold War world".

Meri was a great intellectual as well as politician, humanitarian and diplomat. He translated the works of Shakespeare into Estonian, and wrote a scientific paper on cosmology. He also wrote the book Silver White, theorising how a comet collision in the Baltic had shaped regional geography. He had been awarded an honorary degree from Helsinki university. He was a member of the Estonian Writer's Union and was elected an honorary member of the Finnish Literary Society. His films won several international prizes, such as "Winds of the Milky Way", which won a silver medal at the New York Film Festival.

His work as a humanitarian saw him campaigning for the rights of German families ruthlessly cleansed from their homes in Central and Eastern Europe, almost all of whom had had nothing to do with Nazism. In 1999 in recognition of this, he was awarded the highest possible distinction of the Board of Expellees, and served as a member of the jury on the Franz Werfel Human Rights Award. In 1998, he set up the Commission to Investigate Crimes Against Humanity Perpetrated in Estonia. In 1998 he was named as "European of the Year" by French newspaper "La Vie".

He was also a man of great heart, quick to forgive and holding bitterness towards no-one. Despite the fact he had been forced to work as a slave in Siberia by the Russians, he rightly did not hold modern Russians responsible. He once remarked "It is our duty to live for the future. And this can only be achieved without hating the past and without seeking revenge", and he vetoed a bill in the Estonian parliament that would have threatened Russian culture in Estonia. For these, and many other reasons, Meri was very highly respected by ethnic Russians in Estonia.

Meri will be sadly missed. However, we have his stirring example to follow. If we can even half emulate him, our civilization will be in no troubles. At the moment things may look bleak, and any resistance may seem difficult. However, Meri was prepared to fight the far left and knew in his heart that he would achieve victory if he kept true to his principles and used all the skills he had. And he was in a worses situation that we are! I particularly like one quote he made;

" In the past, when I still shot films about fishermen and hunters, I always had to admire their ability to perceive time in its entirety. They moved freely between the past and the future. For them, the present was not exactly secondary, but always temporary - like the hole in the ice for the seal, who surfaces there to breathe. Unfortunately, our civilisation has lost this bond between times, and tends to measure time with a yardstick, bit by bit, from one point to another.."

If we patriots, conservatives, traditionalists and freedom lovers are going to win back our culture from the far left, we are going to do so not by becoming bogged down in skirmishes, but by attacking the very central philosophy on which our opponents are built. Only then can advance forward using the shining examples of men like Meri to guide us.

Heroes of the West Series launched

2006-03-27T13:14:00.000Z

WWP is launching a "Heroes of the West" series in addition to our regular articles, in which we will honour the brave men and women of the West who deserve to be honoured. Whether it be people who resisted communist persecution behind the iron curtain, brave men who fought back against Islamic extremist occupation or just simple men and women who in their own ways made the West great will be honoured here.

We hope you enjoy them!

Birth rates, numbers and influence; how liberals do it

2006-03-16T20:00:00.000Z

I was inspired to make this post after reading a discussion over at Conservative Underground, a good discussion board for right wingers. We were discussing the finding that right wingers typically have a higher birth rate than leftists, who have fewer kids (if at all). As I commented, this is as much the result of the pro-natalist views of right wingers which are conducive to larger families, as it is down to the anti-natalist views of left wingers. The fact that leftists have a lower birth rate than right wingers led some posters to gleefully conclude that leftist power must therefore automatically decline. After all, in a democracy, numbers is power; or is it? After all, if we right wingers have a higher birth rate than the leftists, how do leftists, who are smaller in number than ourselves keep such a grip on the culture of the West?

Well, as I commented over at CU, one should never confuse numbers with influence. Throughout history, more has been achieved and accomplished by disciplined minorities than by masses of majorities. How is this so? Well, let me use an analogy from the world of light physics. There are particles of light in the air; if we concentrate these particles, we get a beam of light which is bright and if we concentrate them ever tighter, we get a beam of light so intense, we call it a "laser" which can cut through steel. The secret therefore is focus and concentration of power. This is one thing liberals do well. Concentrating your forces is one thing; the next thing is where to position these concentrated forces. For that, we need only read Gramsci

Gramsci; leftist master tactician

Gramsci is the most influential leftist tactician of all time, indeed, he is rightly referred to as the Godfather of the Leftist culture war. Lenin believed that a leftist society would be built when "the masses" ahceived "class consciousness" and then spark a devastating revolution that would sweep away the "bourgheoisue". However, Gramsci disagreed; he noticed that actually, most people don't care about politics, let alone such abstract political concepts like the ones Lenin articulated. Gramsci noticed that in actual fact, most people couldn't care less about politics. Ratgher than see this as a handicap, Gramsci believed that it meant leftist with political agenda's could do their work largely un detected by the majority of the population; provided they did it gradually, and did it in the right areas of society.

Rather than try and spark a mass revolution among the masses, Gramsci instead believed in a gradualist strategy for moulding the West into a leftist gulag. To use an analogy, if you place a frog in boiling water, it leaps out straight away. However, if you place a frog in cold water and then ever so slightly turn the heat up, the frog cannot detect the gradual rises in temperature, until eventually the temeprature reaches boiling point, and the poor frog dies. The same principle is at work in the west, as leftists "turn up the heat" on our traditional values until they hope to boil them to death.

Gramsci urged leftists to do two things-firstly, to concentrate themselves into small groups of activists, where their power would be most concentrreated (remember the laser). Secondly, he told them to point this laser at the societies "nerve centres"; its mass media, its educational establishments, its churches, its trade unions etc. From here, they would have their hands on the levers of Western society, from where they could turn up the heat until the Western world had been eliminated. Since Gramsci first suggested this theory, leftists have been implementing it. Today, the leftist voice is the dominant one in many critically important socialisation centres of the West, and it is this which is the source of their power.

Numbers, influence and information

"God is usually with the big battalions" - Bismarck, German General

Numbers is important, make no mistake. However, if the majority of people in society are not independent thinkers (which they are not) then they are vulnerable to the messages of the mass media and the schools they go to. If these are controlled by liberals, then it will be liberal ideas which are viewed as "normal", and thus it is these views which will go a long way to determining how they vote. Indeed, its one thing being a democracy, and having the right to vote for who we choose, but we vote based on information that is given to us. This causes us two major problems...

Firstly, it means that in order to capture votes, various "conservative" parties tailor their policies to make them more left wing and thus more congruent with the world view the leftist has most people in the West believing to be true, thanks to the information it feeds them via the mass media. Here in Britain, the Conservative Party has changed over 150 years of principle and begun adopting leftist policies across the board, which I discussed in some detail in my article "Left wing ideas infecting the British Right". Indeed, its new leader David Cameron in one of his first speeches described the Conservative Party he would lead as being "liberal" and "progressive". He has introduced women only short lists for election candidates to help stamp out "patriarchy" and "sexism", and other such leftist gimmics. One of his senior aides Oliver Letwin in a radio interview said he favoured a "re-distribution of wealth", right out of the Marxist lexicon from this "conservative".

Secondly, anyone who doesn't bow down to the golden calf of leftist ideals can then be portrayed as being "abnormal" in some way. If you are opposed in any way shape or form to "gay rights" then you can be portrayed as a "homophobe", clearly a sick mind in need of urgent medical and psychiatric intervention to make you more "tolerant". If you are opposed to mass immigration, then you can be protrayed as a "xenophobe" or "fascist". If you are opposed to your countries sovereignty being handed over to supra national agencies you are an "isolationist" or as we in Britain are called "Little Englanders". This means that if you stand up the far left, the left will pass information to the public casting you as a "fascist", and people will not vote for you because of this misinformation.

We patriots and traditionalists are the second category. We do not sell our principles for thirty pieces of approval from the left wing media, as Cameron and his ilk have done. We should not believe for a moment that just because the leftists have fewer babies that they are going to lose in the long run. Whilst sometimes birth rates conquer countries, sometimes they don't. Sometimes leftists, ever so slowly tweaking the levers of a society can do the same thing....

Will Al Qaeda win control of Pakistan?

2006-03-13T21:03:00.000Z

(Above: Protestors at a pro-Al Qaeda rally in Pakistan)

We are sometimes reminded that Pakistan is "Our ally in the war on terror". Well thats only partly true; Pakistan's government is on our side in the war on terror, but a large number of its people are not. Indeed, sympathy and often outright support for Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Bin Laden are common place in Pakistani society. Indeed, Osama Bin Laden and his entourage are said to be using Pakistan's lawless frontier provinces with Afghanistan as a hide out. A long standing ambition of Islamists in Pakistan is to over throw the military government of Pervez Musharraf and establish a Taliban style Sharia state. If this was to happen, it would be a disaster of epoch making proportions, not just for the region, but for the world.

Pakistan

Over 97% of Pakistan's people are Muslims, and they are devout Muslims at that. Indeed, the very foundation of the state was based on the Islamic religion, seen by Ali Jinnah as a place where the sub-continents vast Muslim population could be safe. Over 1 million people died in the partition of India when Pakistan was born, and these memories don't die quickly. From the 1970's onwards, Pakistan's government became increasingly Islamic, and Sharia law began to creep in. In 1980, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan was the base from which the Mujihadeen were kept supplied and armed, with Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, funneling weapons, ammunition, medicine and food to the mujihadeen, amongst them Osama Bin Laden. During this time, a group of religious hard line students known as the Taliban came to the fore, and the ISI enthusiastically funded them and supported them. Eventually, the Taliban would come to dominate Afghanistan, by 1996 taking control of the capital Kabul, and setting up to this date the most hard line Sharia state ever; and it was a model of Islamic purity that many in Pakistan wanted its own government to emulate.

9/11 and the aftermath

Right up until the day the planes hit the Twin Towers, Pakistan was one of only three countries on earth that recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, and arguably its most ardent backer. The ISI were reportedly still supplying them and thus keeping them in power, as well as funding their war against the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, thus threatening to expand the Taliban's influence and power. Therefore, it came as a true body blow for the Taliban when days later, President Musharraf announced Pakistan no longer recognised the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan and cut off all aid and supplies in a stroke. This crucially weakened the Taliban forces, at a time they were preparing for a US invasion, which they hoped to counter using the guerilla attrition tactics they had used to beat the Soviets. However, Pakistan then announced that it would allow the US to use Pakistani air space, allowing the Americans to pulverise the Taliban with precision guided smart bombs, missiles and cruise missiles, sometimes fired from submarines and ships hundreds of miles away. The Taliban never had a chance. By November 2001, less than two full months after the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban had been over run by Northern Alliance troops who gleefully took advantage of the Taliban's weakened state.

As America moved into phase two of its attacks, this time tracking down Al-Qaeda operatives, the ISI provided intelligence info to the Americans helping them to do so. To date, a number of key Al Qaeda men have been captured or killed based on information the ISI shared with the USA, and Musharaff's army and police have killed or captured many more. The average Pakistani, fiercely religious and anti-American will not forget what Musharaff has done. They regard him as an "apostate lackey" of the West, who betrayed their Taliban allies then used his power to further turn up the heat on Islamic extremists. There was rioting during the attacks on Afghanistan, with a real fear they could topple Musharaff. However, Musharaff cracked down on them, and lived to fight another day. But can he keep this up forever?

The consequences

Needless to say, the fall of Pakistan to an Islamist regime would be an utter nightmare, even above and beyond the severity of the Islamist take over of Iran in 1979. There are several reasons why this is so; for one, Pakistan has a large nuclear weapons stockpile and Shaheen and Ghauri class missiles capable of delivering them to any major city as far away as, and this is significant-Israel. Furthermore, an Islamist regime is likely to immediately wage war in Kashmir, bringing it into war with Hindu India, a nation which also has a vast nuclear weapons stock pile. India has an edge in conventional weapons, and in order to neutralise this, Pakistan would quickly use its nukes; given the fact missile flight times between the countries are as little as twenty minutes, there is almost no way of stopping them happening. In 1998 New Scientist magazine reported that the possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan was a real possibility in the near future, especially given the religious fanaticism on both sides which made them either blind to the consequences of nuclear war or even worse, disinterested in them.

In the vastly populated theatre of the Indian sub-continent, nuclear exchanges would have hideous consequences. Millions would die, and the resultant radioactive fall out would poison the rice crop on which hundreds of millions depend for survival, triggering probably the worst famine in human history. As millions rioted for food, the ability of the governments of South Asia to keep control would buckle, and the tidal wave of refugees could de-stabilise the neighbouring nations security, as the politically incorrect novel "Camp of the Saints" describes. This could lead to more wars and coups.

Enter the US; Regime change for Islamist Pakistan?

At this point, couldn't the US simply send troops to over throw the Islamist regime that toppled Musharraf and replace it with a pro-Western one? No. You see, Pakistan is not like Afghanistan, Iraq or even Iran. Pakistan has a truly massive population of over 165 million people more than the previous three countries combined, and it is widely believed that this is an under estimate. Add to this Pakistan's very high birth rate, and therefore this population, already the worlds sixth largest, could grow to be nearly 200 million by mid-century, making it even harder to keep control of, never mind fight in all out war. Its not just the number of people Pakistan has, its the type; over 40% of the population are young, fighting aged males, and the last thing you want is to have an insurgency style war in a country that has tens of millions of fighting aged males in it.

Conclusion

As long as Musharraf remains in power, and retains the respect and obedience of the Pakistani army, the West is unlikely to have a problem with Pakistan "going Islamist". However, if he loses the respect and loyalty of the army, his only means of protecting himself and his pro-Western government has gone. Unless he can then flee the country, and fast, he will be dead. As William Lind writes, "...if the riots continue and grow...the Pakistani forces responsible for containing them will at some point go over and join the rioters. Musharraf will try to get the last plane out...if he doesn't make that plane, his head will serve as a football, and not just of the political variety".

The notion of the Taliban's ideological twins winning control of the worlds sixth most populated country, armed with nukes, and positioned at a critical strategic location on the globe is a nightmare few could bear to imagine. Add to that the obvious disregard a Taliban-esque regime would have for human life, and their indifference to the consequences of weapons of mass destruction, and you have a hell of a mix. The world would be a very dangerous place indeed if Pakistan "goes Islamist". Lets pray that it does not...

Attack, attack, attack or defend, defend, defend?

2006-03-08T21:25:00.000Z

The left was only ever set up for attack. Attack, attack, attack. The belief was and is, that all the left would have to do is keep chipping away at the West's values and institutions until eventually the white flag would be run up, and they would accomplish their victory. With the "right wing reactionaries" out of the way, the stage would be set to create their socialist utopia, and thus bring about heaven on earth. The exact details of this need to be worked out by a temporary "dictatorship of the proletariat". But in the mean time comrade, keep attacking. Any minute now the hated Western society will be destroyed and it will be mission accomplished.

This means several things and one things for sure, it means the left is an aggressive and determined opponent, and that much I must concede. Liberals are nothing if not persistent. This means our opponents will always keep attacking us, which has unfortunately led to right wingers believing that in response we must always defend. This has led to the formulation of a "siege mentality" amongst many on the political right, which increasingly adopted a defeatist "defend, defend, defend" strategy, to hold off the lefts "attack, attack attack" strategy. Unfortunately, as Napoleon (an expert of tactics) once remarked "The logical conclusion to any defensive war is defeat". Therefore, whilst it seems tempting to sit tight against a leftist attack, we can only do so if we do not mind eventually being overrun and beaten.

Consequently, we need a new strategy, which combines the best of attack and defense, and which does not fall into either tactical extreme. To illustrate the disastrous consequences of these tactics, let us look at historical examples and their results.

Defend Defend Defend; Dien Bien Phu 1954

During the early 1950's, leftist guerrilla's of the Viet Minh were launching persistent and determined attacks against the French all over the colony of Vietnam. In response to these constant attacks, France's General Navarre believed the solution was to adopt an ultra-defensive strategy that would be too hard for the leftists to attack and wear down. He set about building a very strong fortress in the midst of the jungles of Northern Vietnam at a place called Dien Bien Phu.

Navarre believed that the Viet Minh (later to be known as the Viet Cong) would try and storm the fortress and be slaughtered in the attempt as the French defenders mowed them down from their defensive fort. But the Viet Minh did not attempt to take the fortress by full frontal force; instead, under the leadership of Generals Vo Nguyen Giap and Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Minh simply surrounded the fortress. Such a big defensive target had attracted the attention of the Viet Minh high command, and they called on their guerrillas from across the country to converge on Dien Bien Phu.

After days of siege, the fortress finally fell; the following day the French government agreed to withdraw from Vietnam.

Lesson; the Viet Minh leftists, like the left wing activists in the culture war were constantly attacking, and were extremely persistent attackers. Navarre adopted the "defend, defend, defend" strategy many modern right wingers have adopted. By only defending, Navarre placed his men in a no-win position, and France suffered its worst defeat since the fall of Paris in 1940.

Attack, attack, attack: Little Big Horn

Sometimes when up against a determined attacking opponent, it is tempting to "fight fire with fire". During the mid-C19th, America was at war with the Native Americans of the Western United States. One of the most persistent and cunning commanders of the Native Americans was Sitting Bull, who carried out a fierce "attack, attack, attack" strategy. The US cavalry in the region had a general by the name of George Armstrong Custer, who believed that he had the solution; fight fire with fire. He planned a daring all out attack on Sitting Bull's positions, and prepared to launch an attack. It was in mid-May 1876 that Custer led the men of the 7th Cavalry Regiment out of their base at Fort Abraham Lincoln in modern day Montana. In the book Indian Fighting Army by Fairfax, it is reported that as Custer's men thundered out of the fortress, someone watching them had a premonition, in which half of the regiment suddenly seemed to ride off into the clouds and vanish; the person who had the premonition took it as a sign that the regiment was about to suffer disaster. They were proved correct....

As Custer's men approached Little Bighorn, where the Native American forces were said to be encamped, he gave the order to launch an all out attack, believing that a full scale aggressive charge would panic the Native Americans and make them flee. He was so confident of this, he split his already small force up, sending some of them on ahead to intercept any Native Americans that fled from his initial charge. Then Custer plunged with everything he had into the valley where the Native Americans were camped; and what followed was one of the worst defeats in US military history...

Lesson; Custer attempted to fight fire with fire. But by launching into a reckless attack he couldn't win (possibly fuelled by his desire to maintain his reputation as a daring commander) all he did was lead to hundreds of deaths of his own men and himself. Furthermore, later atrocities against Native Americans are possibly the result of US soldiers remembering the tales of how Custer's men had been mutilated after death by the victorious Native Americans at Little Big Horn.

Conclusion

The fight for our civilization against the left is the most pressing of our times, and in order to win this struggle, we need winning tactics, neither of which are to be found in the tactical extremes of attack attack attack or defend defend defend. Many rightists believe that the left will eventually tire of attacking our entrenched positions and give up-it won't. Some rightists believe that we should launch full scale attacks (not, I might add in the literal sense of the word) on the lefts moral and intellectual positions. Whilst it is encouraging to see a desire to fight back after 50 years of defense, especially amongst young, campus based right wingers, we must be sure our attacks are not too reckless. Otherwise we will be in the same chapter of the history books as Navarre and Custer....

Bringing back the Death Penalty in Europe

2006-03-03T13:32:00.000Z

As I have stated before, I am a supporter of the death penalty. Sadly, every nation in the EU has abolished the death penalty, usually through deception and sly legal maneuvers. After all, when a huge percentage of Europeans support the death penalty, why risk putting the matter to a public vote the abolitionist leftist elite know they will lose? For decades, many Europeans have yearned for the death penalty to return to help counter the growing tide of violent crime. So why hasn't this desire been transformed into action? We shall investigate why.

EU Membership and the European Human Rights Act

Every member of the European Union is legally bound as a condition of membership to incorporate the Human Rights Act into its national law. The act states that the death penalty is to be abolished for all crimes, and consequently, there is no death penalty in the European Union. For countries that have not yet joined the EU, abolishing the death penalty is a condition for commencing entry negotiation talks. This explains why many countries like Serbia and Turkey have recently abolished the death penalty.

As long as the EHRA is on a nations statute books, the death penalty cannot be used, which means it cannot be re-introduced without first scrapping the EHRA from national law. In order to do this, the country in question would have to first pull out of the European Union, a monumental political statement, that no European country has yet to make. Withdrawing from the EU is no easy feat; the leftist mass media and the bought politicians of Europe continue to weave a propaganda spell that we "depend" on the EU for trade and jobs. The EU also hands out money for various "worthy causes", and as a condition for giving this funding, requires the recipient organisation to display a very large EU flag outside on a sign. These signs are very common in Britain and other EU nations, and they also re-inforce the myth that the EU is a benevolent organisation, and that it makes no sense to withdraw lest they stop funding the "worthy causes".

Therefore, if any European nation is going to bring back the death penalty, it needs a political party dedicated to EU withdrawal to win an election, and in order to win an election, you need lots of money and positive media coverage, which for the reasons outlined above, is not exactly forthcoming in Europe.

Amending National Constitutions

Many European nations, like the USA, have a written constitution. There is a very interesting contrast between the American and European constitutions; the American constitution is compact, written in the language of the day and sets out to strongly limit government power. Indeed, many articles of the US constitution begin with the words "Congress shall make no law...". This is anything but the case in European countries constitutions; unlike in the English speaking world, where freedom is believed to be something which we are born with and which God is the final judge of, the EU states believe that it is the state which is the final ultimate authority, and it is the state which decides whether or not we are free.

For example, the German constitution states that ; " Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court."

Many European countries constitutions have a specific clause banning the death penalty. For example, Germany, the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland and many other EU nations have such a clause, and this trend has spread to other leftist dominated societies (link). Anti-death penalty group Amnesty International urge nations to pass anti-death penalty amendments to its constitution because this makes it harder to bring back the death penalty if the people want it (hey, who needs democracy when you have "Human rights"?) Therefore, if a political party wanted to re-introduce the death penalty, it would have to win a big enough percentage of the election vote to change the constitution (typically two-thirds of the vote). Given the proportional representation voting system of most EU nations, the chances of a party winning two-thirds of an election vote are very slim indeed.

Referendum vs Parliamentary Vote

The final stage in bringing back the death penalty in Europe would be to ask the people to vote on the death penalty in the form of a national referendum. It would have to be by referendum that such a decision was made, and public opinion polls show very strong levels of support for the death penalty, especially if the crime for which it is to be used is specified (e.g. for child killers). This stands in sharp contrast to the political and legal "elites" of the European nations, who are fanatically opposed to the death penalty, and who do not take public opinion on any matter into account if it clashes with their world view.

Whilst there are liberal elites in many nations, some of these at least have the professionalism to admit that public opinion should come first. In South Korea for example, Supreme court judge Kim Hwang Si said that "I am personally [opposed] to the death penalty but it is also true that as a justice system there are things to consider, including public opinion". This stands in sharp contrast to the supreme arrogance of Europe's political and legal elites, who do not take public opinion into account. If you want to know more, I would strongly urge you visit this link.

Conclusion

The leftist elites in the EU are opposed to the death penalty. However, they are aware that most Europeans want to bring it back and would do so given the chance, and therefore the elites have sought to use any number of legal and political maneuvers to keep the final decision out of the public's hands and thus maintain their dictatorship. In order to bring back the death penalty, three things would have to happen 1) an EU nation would have to leave the EU following the victory of an anti-EU party in a national election 2) this party would have to have sufficient majority in its national assembly to amend the constitutional ban on the death penalty 3) the final vote on re-introduction would have to be put to the public, as the legal "experts" and political elites would not support it.

Is all of this possible? Yes!

As public opposition to the EU grows, anti-EU parties are picking up more and more supporters and votes. Furthermore, many of the individual members of some other nominally pro-EU parties are beginning to have doubts. There is nothing to stop an anti-EU party from eventually winning an election in an EU state and taking its nation out of the EU prisoner of nations. This means step one can happen. For step two, whilst it is unlikely one party could win two-thirds of the vote, this anti-EU party could forge alliances with like minded politicians in national assemblies until it has the two-thirds majority it needs to amend the anti-death penalty clause of the constitution. Finally, it has to give the final vote on the matter to the people; because we know what the result of that vote would be-the liberal elites would not like it; and nor would the violent criminals....

Cruel and unusual punishment? I'll give you cruel and unusual

2006-02-22T14:31:00.000Z

I want you to imagine something; I want you to imagine a female who is dear to you such as your mother, your sister, your girlfriend or wife.

Now I want you to imagine how much fear they would be in if a man sprang out of the bushes towards them, and smashed them in the face with a steel tool. Now imagine them crying and screaming with fear and unimaginable pain as they are hit twenty times in the face with this steel tool. Now imagine them whimpering and barely alive, as they are dragged face down through the mud by their ankles to a dirty path. Then imagine watching their clothing on their lower body being ripped off, and then imagine them being raped repeatedly. Imagine the screams. Imagine the fear. Imagine the pain. Then I want you to imagine them being stabbed in the chest several times before the killer runs away, leaving the person you love to splutter on their own blood, still naked from the waist down until they die, violated, alone and in unimaginable fear and pain, with no one ever hearing their dying whimpers for help.....

This is exactly what the family of Terri Winchell have had to imagine for over 25 years. It was on January 8th 1981 that this bright 17 year old girl received a phone call inviting her on a shopping trip. It was whilst returning from this shopping trip that she endured the exact ordeal I have just described to you, when she was set upon beaten, tortured, raped then murdered. Her killer, a known drug user called Michael Morales was found guilty and sentenced to death, and it emerged in court that he had lain in wait for the victim for some time, showing a high level of cold blooded pre-meditation. Ever since, his legal team have tried every disgusting trick in the book to try and get him off.

He was scheduled to die last night, but he has had his execution postponed. And why? Simple; his legal team have complained that his execution by lethal injection might "hurt".

How lethal injection works

The lethal injection is actually a combination of three injections. The aim of the first one is to make the prisoner fall asleep, so they do not feel pain and also so they do not feel any fear at having to watch themselves being injected with the final two syringes. The first injection is therefore very similar to an anaesthetic used in surgery. The men who carry out executions display a level of professionalism and compassion that is exemplary; they even carefully wash the prisoners arm with alcohol to make sure the vein is easier to inject into, and carefully sterilise all needles to make sure the prisoner does not become infected.

However, the legal team for Morales have argued that if the first injection does not totally knock him unconscious, he might feel "pain" when the second two in injections are administered. They claim this would violate prohibitions on "cruel and unusual punishment" that exist in American law, and therefore, the State of California were ordered to have two qualified anaesthesiologists (medical doctors who specialise in pain control) present at the execution to doubly ensure that Morales did not suffer any discomfort as he was being executed. However, the doctors refused to participate and this has meant Morales' execution has had to be postponed whilst the State of California decides what to do next. The decision to postpone his execution was made just 1 hour before he was scheduled to be executed, and has yet again extended the agony and heart ache of Terri Winchell's family. Morales' lawyer described his client as being "relieved"....

Conclusion

It is sad to see that Morales, a cold blooded rapist and killer, has yet again cheated justice. Perhaps more worrying, is that his case could set a precedent, and lead to other creatures on death row claiming they cannot be executed as it might hurt them and thus constitute "cruel and unusual punishment". I do not call execution by lethal injection either cruel or unusual. I call it kind and quick, which is more than the murderers ever gave their victims. Indeed, many murderers, particularly in sexual homicides and kidnap homicides, deliberately set out to inflict as much prolonged pain and fear on their victims as possible. For this reason, I find it hard to feel sympathy for killers who after years of imprisonment in luxury conditions at the tax payers expense die peacefully. Killers on death row are there because they deserve to die, unlike their vitcims, who did not. A gentle prick on the arm followed by a quick death is not cruel and unusual.

But you know what is cruel and unusual punishment? Being smashed in the face twenty times with an iron bar. Cruel and unusual is being stabbed through the heart after being sexually assaulted in the mud and dirt. Cruel and unusual is coughing and choking on your own blood alone in the darkness, crying out for help that never comes. Cruel and unusual is having to imagine all this happening to someone you loved, which is the horror the Winchell family have endured for a quarter of a century, and will continue to endure for the rest of their lives. Maybe the anti-death penalty activists who are so worried about Morales' feelings should step into the shoes of Terri Winchell's family; then they'd really know the true meaning of cruel and unusual; and a gentle prick in the arm is not it.

What leftists mean by "Moratorium" on the death penalty

2006-02-06T18:28:00.000Z

I support the death penalty, as do 70% of Americans and a not dissimilar percentage of Europeans (very interesting link). However, with the exception of the US, every country in the Western World has abolished the death penalty, and the death penalty is not on the statute books of 12 states. So, unless you are lucky enough to live in one of the 38 US states where fighting crime is actually taken seriously, we pro-death penalty Westerners have to live under legal systems where the “right to life” of the most hideous criminals is exalted as inviolable, and thus killers have carte blanche to commit crime, safe in the knowledge they will always get the chance to do it again.

In this report, we look at the ways the death penalty was abolished in Britain, which was not due to public opposition, but rather due to leftist politicians and legal activists with extreme left social agenda’s. This is typical of leftists; their bizarre beliefs means they cannot get the mass support they need, so they rely on a combination of mass media disinformation and propaganda, shadowy back room deals, the presence of leftists in sensitive political and social positions and totalitarian acts of fiat to get their work done.

What leftists mean when they say “Moratorium” on the death penalty

One of the most commonly used words by leftist activists is “moratorium”; they tell Americans that there has to be a “temporary” pause in executions to “see what’s wrong”, and this push for a “pause” is being pushed by various leftist groups (link). However, are we to believe that far-left anti-death penalty groups truly want this pause to just be a “temporary” one? Of course not! They want it to be permanent, but leftists always rely on lies and deceit to get their way, so why are we surprised they are using the same techniques here? This trick, of pretending they want a “temporary pause” or a “moratorium” has been tried by leftist before, in the UK, and it is this example the American leftists are following. I would urge all American’s who support the death penalty to read this example, and warn others about what happened in the UK, as the tactics used by leftists to abolish it in Britain are repeating them in America.

In 1963, Harold Wilson came to power in the UK. He had a range of extreme left policies which he pursued, having dishonestly campaigned to win the election. One thing his regime put forward was to have a “moratorium” on the death penalty. In 1964, the Wilson regime announced a 5 year “temporary pause” in executions to see if the crime rate was effected. The results were astonishing.

During the 5 years the death penalty was “paused”, the murder rate in Britain increased by an astounding 125% (yes, that’s right, one hundred and twenty five percent) and organised criminal gangs turned parts of London into urban battle zones, most infamously the Kray brothers. During the “pause” in the death penalty one of the worst serial killers in British history, Myra Hindley and her lover Ian Brady embarked on a grisly rampage across Northern England. They kidnapped, raped and murdered five children, before burying their bodies on the moor lands outside the city of Manchester (ironically the city where Britain’s last execution before the “pause” occurred). On some occasions, the duo made audiotapes of the children screaming and begging for mercy during the rapes, and sent them to the distraught victims families. These audiotapes have been played in segments on British television in the past, and I can assure you once you hear them, you can never un-hear them…

One little girl victim had her throat cut so violently by Brady that she was nearly beheaded. Another had her face smashed in with a brick. One little girls body was not found for over 20 years. However, thanks their crimes having occurred in the “pause” they could not be executed; Hindley spent the rest of her life in prison, callously refusing to tell the mother of one of her victims, Keith Bennet, where she had buried the child’s body; his body remains unfound, and his mother who died recently, died broken hearted that she had never been able to say goodbye. Ian Brady is still alive, being kept alive by British tax payers in Northern England, and a recent Daily Mail article revealed he is every bit as evil and sinister as ever.

Lets look at the facts. Despite the fact organised criminals took over London and despite the fact child rapists, kidnappers and murderers had arisen, what conclusion did the Wilson regime make? Well, I’ll tell you. In 1969, they pushed ahead with full abolition of the death penalty anyway, despite their false promise that this pause was only a temporary one, and despite the fact violent crime had surged in the mean time.

Today, the violent crime rate in Britain is astonishing, with over 1 million violent offences a year. Far from responding to repeated calls to re-introduce the death penalty, the British regime has ignored the wishes of its people, and pushed in exactly the opposite direction. In 1998, the far left Labour regime under orders from its EU masters passed the “Human Rights Act” and by 2000, had pushed ahead, abolishing the death penalty for all crime. The far left regime for all its claims to be “tough on terror” refuses to extradite terror suspects to America except when assurances are given the poor little terrorist won’t be executed.

Governor Ryan

One thing we patriots and true conservatives need to be wary of is leftists in right wing clothing. One example of this is Illinois’ former governor Ryan. In 2002, Ryan announced that the state of IL would be holding a “moratorium” on the death penalty. During this time, a “scientific study” by the far-left Northwestern University found that the death penalty system was flawed. Ryan foolishly took these leftists at their word, and announced that he believed the system was too corrupt to be used again. He went on to announce that he was going to blanket commute the death sentences of several hundred men on death row, regardless of whether they were “innocent” or not.

There are several issues worth looking at here. The first, is that leftists carry out any number of “scientific” studies showing their positions to be true, which cannot be trusted, and which are often hopelessly inaccurate and unscientific (anyone familiar with Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent studies will already know this). Secondly, is that there are any number of “right wing” politicians who are dangerously easy to influence by the leftists slight of hand and who either lack the intellectual or moral fortitude to see through the leftist illusions. Finally, is that leftists as they had done in Britain 40 years earlier, yet again used their “moratorium” smoke screen to set up a mass commutation. They did not get quite what they hoped, which would be abolition; the death penalty remains on IL’s statue books, but the fact hundreds of killers are now free means it might as well not have. It was the final act of Ryan as governor, in an unspectacular reign, characterised by accusations of his corruption and incompetence.

Conclusion

Leftists want to create a society that is true nightmare to all decent people. One thing they have is a desire to allow rapists, paedophiles, kidnappers and serial killers to run riot in our societies, due to their belief in the phenomena of “revolutionary defeatism" (link), a concept that is central to their world view, and I urge all conservatives to read it so we know our enemy. Alternatively, some leftists are opposed to the death penalty because of their painfully naïve grasp of human nature, and their belief the scum of the earth on death row can be “rehabilitated” and turned into prancing, cuddly peaceful citizens. The fact is, it does not matter exactly why a given leftist opposes the death penalty, only that he does, and will stop at nothing to abolish it, even if it goes against the wishes of the people in that society. We patriots must support the death penalty, as it is the surest way of protecting society from vile criminals. If we allow the leftist to use his “moratorium” smoke screen to abolish the death penalty, it could be someone we love next who is murdered by a “rehabilitated” killer…..

Sex, career women and demographic catastrophe

2006-01-23T14:25:00.000Z

I have recently read two articles which I found to be very haunting; the first is "Its the Demography Stupid!" by Mark Steyn (read it here), which is the best analysis of the demographic disaster we in the West face I have ever come across. The second was "Its the Sex Stupid!" by J Roback Morse (read it here), which was a response to the earlier one. The central thrust of the first article was that Western people have such a low birth rate that within a few short decades they will be the minority in every country on earth, in sharp contrast to the exploding Muslim populations both in the Islamic world and in the Muslim diaspora communities in the West. The second article by Roback, claims that it is the depersonalised view of sex we have in our post-modern societies that have made our birth rates so low.

Its all about sex?

In discussions with colleagues about why the Western birth rate is so low, it has been suggested by some that Western people need to be encouraged to have sex more. However, this is not the case; sex is where babies comes from granted, but our low birth rate are not the result of too little sex in our societies; far from it! Westerners are having sex more often and with more partners that possibly at any time in recent history, and sexualised imagery is everywhere. Yet during this same period there has been an agonisingly low birth rate. This stands in sharp contrast to earlier decades, where sexual activity was more limited in terms of number of partners and the use of sexual imagery in public life, yet the birth rate was much healthier. So whats gone wrong?

The answer is, as Roback accurately describes, is that sex has been turned into a hobby, and has been removed from its original contextual setting. Sex is about babies, but it is also about building up bonds between the people involved; science has shown that chemicals released in the brain post sex actually assist in this feeling of affection and bonding growing and becoming more intense. However, sex is no longer seen as a way of building up the emotional bonds between partners. Nor is it seen as a way to make babies. It has been transformed into an activity in itself. Sex for its own sake.

Following the Sexual Revolution, far leftists told us that pregnancy was not the mark of a loving relationship, but part of some intricate "patriarchal" plot to keep women oppressed, keeping them in the words of one radical feminist "barefoot and pregnant, chained to the sink". They went on to argue that women should aggressively pursue careers instead of a family, and told them that an abortion was their most basic and fundamental right. Indeed, a recent case in Europe, the far left European Union issued a statement telling doctors they had no right to refuse to give an abortion as refusing a woman an abortion "...may be a violation of international human rights". There you have it; the same EU which says executing rapists and serial killers is wrong, says in the same breath that executing unborn children is ok. In fact more than ok; its your right to do it.

Recently it was the anniversary of Roe vs Wade, and in that time, 33 million abortions have occurred. Thats a lot of people to loose. If we accept many of these victims would have gone on to have children, the number could be even higher.

Sexual Liberation?

Another out growth of the feminist movement was the call for women to be "sexually liberated" which was in real terms a call to be as promiscuous as they could manage, in the belief that this was somehow going to strike a blow for equality. Many modern women have enthusiastically answered this call, and in many ways, the sexual behaviour of many modern women has become every bit as obscene and immoral as many post-modern men. By bed hopping, beer guzzling and otherwise behaving inappropriately, all under the banner of "Equality", "Womens Lib" and "Freedom" they are in fact falling into a new form of slavery; Aldous Huxley was so right when he told us that there were no group of people so hopelessly enslaved yet believing themselves free.

Career Women

There is a difference between a woman with a career and a career woman. The latter refers to the ice cold automaton aggressively pushing for promotions at any cost, be it personal happiness, loss of spare time, loss of relationships and of course, having children. Yet far from pointing out such rampant "career women" are a bad thing, the media idolises them, as does the far left academics, who urge impressionable college age women to emulate them. Is it any wonder an increasing number of women are choosing to follow this path, with its resultant catastrophic birth rate fall?

Conclusion

The German general and statesman Bismarck used to remark that "God is with the big battalions". That is to say in war, it is typically the largest army that wins the day. Our populations are dying as our people refuse to give birth lest it interfere with their careers, and instead spend their lives in feckless epicureanism. By contrast, Muslims have lots of children, and their numbers are growing fast, indeed, doubling every 18 years. The battalion into which Islamic extremists can dip for recruits is getting bigger, whilst the Western one, once so fertile and lively is now dying because of our peoples fecklessness and selfishness. Ho Chi Minh once remarked that "We are the fish, the people are the water". That is to say, as long as there was a large community of ethnic Vietnamese in which the Viet Cong guerrillas could hide, they always had a secure base from which to strike the Americans. The same is now true of Islamic extremists, who already are using the expanding sea of Muslims as a base in which to hide themselves.

Western people place too much faith in military technology to protect them from terrorism. There is no point having $2 billion aircraft carriers to defend us from rogue nations if there are no young men to man them because no one is having children anymore. Nuclear weapons exist, but they cannot be used to defend against a home grown intifada; will France use nuclear weapons on the Muslim suburbs of its own capital? Would Britain use nuclear weapons on London or Bradford? Would the USA use nuclear weapons on Michigan or New Jersey? The answer is of course no.

Western people need to have more children; if not, then by all means carry on beer guzzling, bed hopping and rampant careerism. But just remember what Bismarck said about battalions....

Blog Landmark

2006-01-15T19:23:00.000Z

This blog reached a historic landmark recently, as we had our 2,000th visitor! Thanks to everyone who visits, what ever your political persuasion, for making this possible.

Michael

10 ways Nazis and Communist are both far left

2006-01-08T15:34:00.000Z

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism that separates us from it...I have given orders that...Communists are to be recruited into the party at once. The petite bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a Nazi, but the communist always will" - Adolf Hitler

Every conservative and patriot has at some point been accused by a leftist of being a "Nazi". In fact it seems to be the favourite epithet of leftists, who toss it around in the direction of anyone who opposes them. I recently read that if you Google "Bush+Hitler", you get over 1 million results, such is the frequency with which leftists accuse conservatives of being "Nazis". The leftist typically casts the Nazis as extreme right wingers, and thus anyone who is a right winger is on the verge of Nazism in the fantasy world leftists live in, hence why they feel so inclined to accuse us of it. The insult is cheap and tasteless. It cheapens the lives of those killed by genuine Nazis, and betrays the lack of intellectual ammunition the left has in debates with conservatives, showing that leftists must resort to tasteless insults to get their point across and smear anyone who opposes them.

Ironically as it happens, Nazism is actually much more accurately described as a far LEFT movement than a far right movement, as it is more commonly (and it must be said falsely) described as being. In this report we shall examine the way the Nazis worked, and see that they were in fact better described as far leftists, like the Communists they were allegedly so diametrically opposed to, and thus leftists should be the last people to toss the "Nazi" epithet around. Lets look at the startling common ground Communism and Nazism have, which is un surprising given they are in actual fact both far left movements.

1) Cynical use of nationalism, frequently run in parallel to socialism

Whenever one suggests the Nazis were far left, the response of the leftist is to say they couldn't be, as the Nazis were nationalists both in a national and racial sense, and nationalism is more associated with the right than the "one world, no borders" view of the leftists. However, one should always be aware that leftists often like to appeal to sentiments of patriotism in order to better conceal their leftist agenda. The Nazis were no different. The party name the National Socialists directly shows this interweaving of nationalism and socialism, but it was not a mix, rather it was socialism/communism using a veneer of nationalism and patriotism to disguise itself, and to appeal to patriotic voters.

The Russian Communists also used nationalism when it suited them. For example, during the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa, the Communists urged the Russian people to "Defend the International Working Class" and other hollow Marxist cliches. The Red Army performed disastrously, and its morale was rock bottom. But then something changed; the Red Army suddenly got tougher, began fighting to the end, exhausting the Germans and finally defeating them. The reason was simple; the army were now no longer fighting to protect the "International working class"; the Soviets had changed their message, so now the men were fighting to protect Rodina Mat-Mother Russia. The war was dubbed "The Great Patriotic War", and the old Russian nationalist heroes of the past were evoked in film and radio to instill a sense of nationalism and patriotism, which the Communists had to permit in order to instill fighting will in their men. Men do not fight for abstract cliches. They fight for family and country.

This tactic has been copied by other far left regimes; in North Korea, Kim Sung Il has a number of honorific titles, some of which include "Matchless Patriot" and "Eternal Partisan", both of which are more nationalistic than socialist, and at North Korean military parades, nationalist emblems are more common than socialist ones. The North Korean army also sing a marching song called "No Motherland without You", which again appeals to right wing sentiments of patriotism. Even today leftists like to parrot patriotic slogans or make hollow statements about "Loving my country" when in fact they hate it, but they have to make these noises to take the wind out of the sails of genuine patriotic opponents.

2) Racism

At this point we shall look at the racial nationalism angle. Granted, we have established that far left regimes can and do interweaving nationalism and patriotism into their political expression (even if only for cynical reasons). However, the Nazis were also racial nationalists. The leftist argues that this means the Nazis were not leftist, as left wingers cannot possibly be racist or anti-Semitic now, can they? Yeah right....

There are countless examples of leftist racism. In the USSR, whole ethnic groups could be up-rooted from their homelands and forcefully deported, be it to create the fabled "New Soviet Man" or as collective punishment such as when North Caucasian ethnic groups were deported for perceived disloyalty. Whole ethnic groups could be the subject of collective punishment for perceived crimes against Communism, such as when the Communists starved over 1 million Ukrainians to death. In Communist Vietnam, hill tribes people such as the Montagnards and Hmong are routinely persecuted by the Communist regime in Hanoi on the grounds their ethnicity makes them naturally more deserving of punishment. The black Marxists of Zimbabwe are also known for their undisguised anti-white racism, and have gleefully orchestrated a campaign of ethnic cleansing, property seizure and vilification against the whites.

3) Similar demographic target voter

The Nazi party appealed to the exact same constituency as the DKP (Communists). Both appealed to the lower middle and upper working class Germans who had been worst hit by the Wall Street Crash and its resultant global depression. If the Communists are far left and the Nazis are far right, then one assumes they would attract different voter groups. But they didn't, as they were in actual fact both simply sub-variants of the same far-left ideology.

4) Similar power seizure tactics

Both Nazism and Communism, have little that appeals to most voters, and thus their chances of electoral success are slim. The Communists realised early on that the masses would never accept Communism, and the Nazis also realised this. Both Communism and Nazism believed that their best tactic for winning power would be to seize power by force during a period of societal chaos and anarchy. For the Communists, this was called "revolutionary defeatism", which is outlined in more detail at this link. Essentially, it was to encourage proxy groups to stir up chaos and violence, until the current society collapsed, and in this window of opportunity, armed Bolsheviks could seize the organs of power.

Nazis also believed this; again, a period of chaos and societal breakdown was needed to create a window of opportunity which their activists could take advantage of. The only difference was that the Communists wanted to have a hand in starting the chaos, whilst the Nazis did not, believing it was best to simply prepare for the chaos eventually happening so they would be placed best to take advantage of it when it finally came. In some ultra-nationalist circles this is called a "Redeeming crisis", though it is by no means limited to these circles.

5) Contempt for innocent life

"One death is a tragedy, a million is statistic" - Stalin
" If the war is lost then it is of no concern to me if the people perish in it" - Hitler

Both of these far left leaders quotes epitomise the contempt for innocent life the far left has. The Nazis and Communists also racked up a fair body count in the C20th, with at least 100 million people killed by both. They did so because they did not care about innocent people, and this led them to either kill them themselves in massacres, or as a result of their bizarre social experiments, such as Stalins attempts to collectivise farming or similar one by Mao which was so bad, that Chinese peasants resorted to eating soil to try and remain alive, only to die of intestinal disease; Mao is said to have remarked that he was more than happy to have half of China's (then) 500 million die if thats what it took for his utopia to come about.

Both Communists and Nazis glorified violence. Official Nazi propaganda taught that war was the noblest human calling of all, and the Nazis believed that there vision of a utopia would only be complete once they had Lebensraum in which to build it, hence the launch of World War II. Communism also relished/relishes violence, aggression and confrontation, and even today, far left publications are filled with urges to "resist", "struggle", "fight on" etc. And the black Marxist BPP adopted the slogan "By any means necessary".

6) Re-invention of morality and human nature

Both Nazism and Communism re-invented morality; both believed there was no God as it was "the ultimate Jewish consequence" or "opiate of the masses", depending on whether you were Nazi or Communist. There was also a denial of the traditional Western moral view of the dignity of the individual, which was cast aside in favour of collectivism and deindividuation. Both Nazis and Communists expected their citizens to submerge their individuality into the sea of the collective masses, and to sacrifice themselves for this goal, until we had a "New Soviet Man" or "Ubermensch", again a different label for the same concept. Both of these mythological utopianites were men who had no traits to distinguish them from any other, and whose whole psychology revolved around serving the hive-like structure of the collectivist utopian society.

7) Belief in creating a utopia via the guidance of an all powerful ruling party

When the Nazis came to power, one of their first goals was to create a Volksgemeinschaft ("Peoples Community"), where all divisions based on class would be swept away, and all people would live together in a healthy state. One can already see the parallels between this "classless utopian" vision of the Nazis and the similar classless heaven on earth envisaged by Marxists.

The Nazis also believed that a temporary period would be needed to realign and re educate their population before this leap to a classless Volksgemeinschaft paradise could come about. This meant an all powerful inner party taking control of all organs of public culture, from theatre and music to the education system and print media. This was exactly what the Bolsheviks in Russia did when they came to power, as they too believed that there needed to be a temporary "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" when an all powerful inner party would lead the re-education and societal re-alignment of the masses to prepare them for the leap to the classless utopia. Again, no difference between the Communists and the Nazis.

8) Use of monitoring, gulags and slave labour

Both the Nazis and Communists also employed secret police forces to crush internal opposition, thus eliminating competing views of the future from interrupting their social engineering. In both cases, the police forces of Nazi Germany (Gestapo) and the USSR (NKVD, later KGB) operated with almost total power and employed an extensive number of informants who were encouraged to "denounce" their neighbours. Yet again, absolutely no difference between the Nazis and the Communists, as they were both far left movements.

Both the Nazis and Communists constructed elaborate camps where political opponents, real or imagined could be sent. These camps were characterised by forced labour, sexual abuse, forced participation in medical and military experiments and brutal working conditions. I would recommend Solzhenitsyn's book "Gulag" for anyone interested further in the conditions inside these camps. Political opponents were also used as forced labour; indeed, in Nazi Germany there were almost 5-10 million people working as slaves when the surrender came, and at any one time during the Cold War at least 250,000 people were detained in Gulags in the Soviet Union. Many of the civil engineering projects of the Stalin years were built using slave labourers.

9) Political narrative casting one group as the source of all evil

Both the Nazis and the Communists had political narratives in which one all powerful opponent stood between them and their heaven on earth. The only difference was what they called this group; for the Nazis it was "International Jewry" whilst for Communists it was the "bourgeoisie". In these narratives, the group in question were never capable of being part of the new utopia, were trying to use their control of banking and finance to prevent utopia from coming around, and the only option left therefore was to eliminate them altogether. For Nazis, this was "the Jews", whilst for the Communists, this was the bourgeoisie; as Pipes remarks, "Lenin hated what he perceived to be 'the bourgeoisie' with a destructive pattern that fully equaled Hitler's hatred of the Jews". This destructive pattern followed an ever escalating campaign of vilification towards the target group; property confiscation, legal bars, violence towards this group encouraged and un-punished by the authorities, and eventually starvation, deportation and killing.

For Communists, several famines were deliberately engineered so as to kill off "bourgeoisie" and the ones who miraculously survived were often put against a wall and shot by Red Army units. Many were also loaded onto cattle trucks and transported to gulags in Siberia. Lenin often urged his Red Guards to be "pitiless" with the people, and they did just that. The Nazis also used starvation, such as in the Warsaw ghetto where Jews were allowed to starve to death, before they were loaded onto cattle trucks and taken for "re-settlement"; and we all know what that was a euphemism for...

10) Desire to disarm and dominate the people

"...ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state" - Heinrich Himmler

In a truly free nation, the people rule the leaders, not the other way round. However, in tyranny, the reverse is true, with a small cabal dictating terms to the masses, and viewing them all as nothing more than cogs in the state machinery to serve the needs of "The People" or "The State". In such a state, a few heroic people will always resist, some forcefully. In the extreme states of the far left, citizenry are disarmed almost immediately, leaving them to the fate of the "party", and also leaving the people they choose to massacre and transport to gulags defenseless.

Conclusion

As we have seen, Nazism and Communism are/were indistinguishable. This similarity is not because, as leftists claim, because both Communist and Nazi states used similar tactics. The tactics were not the result as a coincidence; it was because the two systems were ideological twins, even if at least outwardly they were non-identical ones. Nazism and Communism are both far left ideologically; the brutal tactics they each employed were the natural outgrowth of ideologies that exalted collectivism, deindividuation and violence.

It is ironic that leftists, who are most prone to toss the epithet "Nazi" around, are actually closer to being Nazis than any Conservative will ever be...

Left wing ideas infecting the British right

2005-12-30T22:27:00.000Z

In the past, I have stated that it is not just far left individuals who are a threat to the West, nor is it just left wing pressure groups and political parties. It can also be left wing ideas, and this is particularly menacing when alleged conservative/right wing parties begin adopting them. This is what has happened across the West, and is now accelerating in pace here in the UK. Earlier this month, the British Conservative Party, Britain's largest right wing party appointed a new leader; David Cameron (link). Cameron became leader after campaigning on a ticket to "modernise" the party. For those of us in the post-modern West, this word "modernise" usually means one thing; becoming more left wing. Indeed, Cameron has already been compared to leftist Tony Blair by much of the British media, and since his appointment, the Conservative Party has long since abandoned any premise of what would be regarded as Conservative ideals. Its a case of out with the old, in with the "progressive".

Goodbye family values, with the nuclear married heterosexual unit as the ideal to be supported and promoted; hello "alternative families"! Yes indeed, should have been music to the ears of the "Gay Conservatives" (link).

Goodbye entepeneurial flair; hello "redistribution of wealth"!

Yes, that's right. In a radio interview, one of Camerons henchmen Oliver Letwin casually remarked about his desire to see a "redistribution of wealth" in British society, (link for full story), which sounds ominously familiar to anyone who has studied Marx. Letwin has in the past been nicknamed "Oliver Left-wing" given his leftist ideals. It is worth pointing out that just a few years ago, arch-leftist Peter Kilfoyle of the Labour Party used the very same phrase when commenting on the government budget report. So, we have a right winger (Letwin) who sounds exactly like, and wants exactly the same thing as a leftist, and not just any leftist! Kilfoyle is what was described in the 1980's as "hard left", therefore it is accurate to describe Cameron as far left.

Another scheme of Cameron's was to appoint a "Global Poverty Consultant", to advise the Conservatives on how they can create a global utopia where we spend all day dancing around a rainbow singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" or "Ebony and ivory" or something as equally nauseating as that. There are several things I hate about this scheme; firstly, I thought Conservatism was all about looking after your own country and economy, not jetting around the world living out some kind of Messiah complex. Secondly, it demonstrates the "touchy feely" politics that have taken the place of serious debate in Western political discourse. Finally, the consultant they have appointed is arch-leftist Bob Geldof (link for story), a washed up has-been pop star who has spent the past year whining about poverty in Africa, and urging us to give all our cash to African nations, cancel the debts they owe us and other badly thought out, unworkable ideas. (For a detailed run down of why these anti-poverty "guilt-a-thons" always fail, see this article). Geldof claims to have "expertise" about how to solve poverty; if you define expertise as urging hackers to attack the E-Bay website and urging school children to skip school to attend the G-8 summit protests in Scotland in 2005, I'd say Cameron has picked a real star! Lets not forget that in 1984, Live Aid didn't exactly solve poverty, and by his own admission things are worse since then. Bravo Bob!

Geldof did urge children to skip school; (check the bottom of this link). Notice that he does not urge people to stay off work, but he does urge children to stay off school. What kind of thing is this to say?! As for his comments about hacking E-Bay, this too is true; the story broke in the run up to the Make Poverty History concerts that tickets for the gig, which should have been free, were being auctioned on E-Bay. Despite the E-Bay management acting swiftly to take these items off, and issuing a public apology, Geldof still urged hackers to attack the site during a British news interview. So there we have it; the British "Conservatives" think that a man who encourages truancy and urges criminal damage to entrepreneurs websites is a good man to have as an advisor; the words "what" and "ever" spring to mind.

Another bright idea of Comrade Cameron (or Ca-moron as he has been accurately dubbed by some genuine rightists) is that a full 50% of Conservative Party candidates at elections should be women. Goodbye meritocracy, hello affirmative action by gender! There are two reasons this idea is a bad one; firstly, this kind of scheme is originally a far-left idea, making it weak on ideological and philosophical grounds. Secondly, it is a mistake on tactical grounds, as was proven at the 2005 British election; in the Welsh district of Blaenau Gwent, where a Labour candidate was almost guaranteed success given the areas demographics and its long history of support for the Labour party, they decided to appoint candidates using a women only short list. One Labour activist, Peter Law complained, stood as an independent candidate, and won a historic victory, seizing 40% of the Labour vote and thus defeating their candidate Maggie Jones. Comrade Cameron should learn this lesson.

Heads we win, tails you lose....

Thanks to Cameron switching the Conservatives to a leftist ideology, we now have three choices at election time; vote for mad leftist party A (Labour), mad leftist party B (Liberal Democrats) or now, mad leftist party C (Conservatives). We have a fourth choice, which is not vote at all, and thus allow other people to vote for which leftist will ultimately govern us. Neither or these options appeal, so there remains there is only one option left; vote for a genuine rightist party, and for me, this was the UK Independence Party, a mainstream party of British patriots who share many of the values of traditional conservatism. In fact, not only did I vote for them, I even stood as a candidate for them at the 2005 election. However, you may choose a different party, as is your right, and that's up to you.

So that's your choice; vote for one of the far left parties (Lab/Con/Libs), don't vote at all and thus adopt the ostrich approach to fighting the far left goose step or finally, join and work for a party that actually believes something different from the far left consensus. My advice is do it soon, before they elect a new leader who does a Cameron routine....

Apologies

2005-12-12T13:36:00.000Z

Hi readers,

Sorry I haven't posted for a few days as I have been busy at work doing 55 hour shifts! However, I have several articles near completion, and will post them soon. Bear with me in the mean time!

Regards

Michael

Korean War Betrayal: Will it mean Korean war II?

2005-12-08T20:18:00.000Z

The Neo Con's are pushing for war. They pushed for, and got, war with Iraq. The ease of that victory has led them to believe that they can take on anyone and win with similar ease. This has led to several countries potentially being the next recipient of Neo Con war; Iran, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, Syria and various other bizarre and unpleasant regimes. However, it is talk of war against North Korea that worries me most. North Korea is a heavily armed nation, whose people are fanatically loyal to it. This is unlike in Iraq, which was poorly armed, and unlike Iran, whose people and especially its young people, are very pro-Western. What is interesting about the North Korean show down is that North Korea as a state should not exist! In the Korean war, we had the chance to defeat it, and were just weeks away from doing so. So why didn't we finish the job?

In this report, we shall look at what went on in the Korean War; we shall look at the cowardly surprise attack launched by the Communists on peace loving South Korea, and how under the brilliant leadership of General MacArthur the West pushed the North Koreans back. The West was weeks away from total victory, when far leftists in the American political establishment managed to trick Truman into sacking MacArthur, and into placing inexplicable restrictions on the US military, enabling the North Koreans to recover and live to fight another day; which may be sooner than we think.

The Communist's invade

North Korea launched a sudden invasion of South Korea in 1950, and quickly smashed through the poorly equipped and under strength South Korean army. Just three days after launching their attack, they captured the capital Seoul, and weeks later had captured almost the entire peninsula but for a tiny thumb nail of land around the port city of Pusan in the extreme south-east. The South Koreans here fought ferociously and with great courage and were holding off the North Koreans. Brave though they were, they needed reinforcements, or they would fall, and another country would be put under the jack boot of communism.

Then came General Douglas MacArthur. He launched what to this day is regarded as one of the most brilliant military assaults in history; the Inchon landings. Rather than attack the North Koreans at Pusan, he used a swinging hook motion to hit the North Koreans on the blind side, and cut their forces in two by landing Marines in the lightly defended port city of Inchon. Within weeks, the North Koreans were in full retreat, with the whole of what they had gained quickly retaken, and the Western forces had driven into North Korea itself, capturing its capital Pyongyang, and within just a few hundred miles of the Chinese border. It was a rout; the North Korean communists, having launched a surprise attack, were now helpless and fleeing, weeks away from being totally defeated. It looked like the North Koreans would be beaten, their despotic regime over throw, and the country re-united with the democratic South. But leftists in high places had other ideas....

Betrayal of a hero

In October 1950, General Douglas MacArthur, fresh from his resounding victory at Inchon, met with US President Truman to discuss how to finish off the war. Or so he thought. What actually happened was Truman insisting that MacArthur's hands be tied, effectively giving the communist forces time to recover and counter attack when they were just weeks away from being defeated. MacArthur demonstrated that the Chinese army, which had entered the war on the North Korean side shortly after the allied counter attack, could be beaten. MacArthur was told he could not go any further than driving the North Koreans back to the original pre-war border, despite the fact almost all of North Korea had been captured by the allies. He was outraged, and rightly so.

MacArthur was a man of great expertise and skill, and every inch an American hero. He was the second highest ranking General in the US army, master mind of the "Island hopping" strategy that routed the Japanese and the man who had accepted the Japanese surrender in 1945 thus ending the most destructive war in human history. After this he became governor of Japan, and ruled with great benevolence and dignity towards the beaten foe, who respectfully referred to him as "Shogun", an honorific title reserved only for the greatest warriors. During his time as governor, he passed several modernising reforms, which laid the foundation for Japan to become one of the worlds greatest nations. This is definitely a man worth listening too; its a tragedy that Truman wouldn't.

Truman is strongly believed to have been under the influence of known communist sympathisers in his administration, such as Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Assistant Secretary of State W. Averell Harriman and Undersecretary of State for Far Eastern affairs Dean Rusk. Could it be that these men, known for their admiration of communism, deliberately tried to stop McArthur from beating the Communists they so admired? I will leave that for you to decide. But consider this; if your country is in a war, and you do everything in your power to stop it from fighting a winning strategy, what does this make you? This would sadly not be the last time the leftists would attempt to hand victory on a plate to the enemies of the West (link).

In addition to pointing out that failing to eliminate North Korea would only mean another war, he also noted that had he been allowed to attack China, which was aiding and supplying the North Koreans, he could have stopped communism there as well, thus nipping a future totalitarian super power in the bud. MacArthur understood the threat China would one day become. Speaking before a congressional committee, he said "It is my own personal opinion that the greatest mistake we made in a hundred years in the Pacific was in allowing the Communists to grow in power in China. I believe we will pay for it it". But despite this, MacArthur was told he was not allowed to carry out this winning strategy, and instead was forced to watch as Chinese troops and supplies came flowing into North Korea. Eventually, frustrated that men were dying because of the insane and treacherous hand tying of the officials in Washington, MacArthur went public and criticised Truman. Not long afterwards, he was sacked as commander of the US forced in Korea.

This was a disgusting gesture on the part of Truman for several reasons; firstly, this stellar general, historical giant and matchless strategist had become the first General in US army history to be relieved of his command without a hearing or formal charges. He was also denied the opportunity to resign, and the first he knew about his sacking was when one of his staff heard about it on the radio and rushed to tell him. This meant he was not allowed to say farewell to his troops, troops who meant everything to him. And with their brilliant General gone, troop morale dipped dramatically. Furthermore, without his insight and determination, the Communists were able to fight and eventually force a cease fire, which marks the modern day borders of the Korean peninsula.

What the betrayal of MacArthur meant

The betrayal of MacArthur meant several things. It meant that a golden opportunity to stop the spread of communism had been missed. By allowing the North Korean regime to survive, countless millions of North Korean people would die in political crack downs, gulags and starvation. The regime would later go on to develop biological, chemical and most recently nuclear weapons, with which it threatens the world, particularly its peaceful democratic neighbours, Japan and South Korea. The regimes survival meant it could start a counterfeit dollar operation, and cultivate heroin and other hard drugs that ruin the fabric of Western nations to which they are sent.

Furthermore, as history has proven, and will prove further in the decades to come, China was a threat that was allowed to live another day. It has since become an economic and military giant, and is a potential very real super power that has every chance of breaking the US hegemony in the decades to come (link 1), (link 2). We should have taken MacArthurs advice and finished the North Koreans and Chinese when we had the golden opportunity in late 1950. However, leftists in high places conspired against MacArthur, unable to bear that prospect that not one, but two far left regimes would be beaten if they allowed him to fight to win. When it became clear that he would not back down to their threats, they concocted an absurd charge of "insubordination" against him, and pestered Truman to sack him, until he eventually did. This sacking was a blot on a flawless military career of one of history's greatest generals.

Korean War II; no cake walk

In 2002, Bush branded North Korea as part of an "Axis of Evil", which included Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran. Given that Bush has knocked out one member of the Axis, and is believed to be planning a strike at Iran while his forces are still concentrated in the Middle East, it is only a matter of time before America attempts a show down with North Korea. The Neo-Cons are under the impression that all they need to do is launch an attack on North Korea, and then abolish North Korea as a state, merging it with the democratic South. I would warn anyone who believes this that it is a mistaken impression. The attack on Iraq was easy; the Iraqi's had no air force, no navy and a shoddy army that couldn't wait to surrender to us. The population were not brain washed, and had a surprisingly deep knowledge of the world outside Iraq.

North Korea was allowed to wiggle off the hook when we had it at our mercy. Their officials have learnt the tactical mistakes that nearly led to their defeat last time, and will not make them again. The coast line of North Korea has since been heavily fortified; there will be no Inchon landing next time. Furthermore, the North Koreans who had only geared up for a quick war last time, are now gearing up for a long war. They are stockpiling food, ammunition and most importantly fuel. These facilities are buried deep in concrete bunkers, so deep and strong nothing short of nuclear weapons can penetrate them.

The North Koreans also remember the way allied air superiority played a part in their near annihilation fifty years ago. The pilots of modern Western jets, like the F-16, are taught to engage the enemy planes at long distance, and attack them with missiles from long range. This is in sharp contrast to North Korean pilots, who in MiG fighters are taught to quickly close in on the enemy fighters, closing the distance, and neutralising the allied tactic. At close range, the fighters will be forced into dog fights, and the MiG, which is much lighter and manoeuvrable than the F-16, giving the MiG a distinct advantage in dog fights.

North Korea also has the largest commando force in the world. In the event of war, special forces units can be landed by hovercraft on the tip of South Korea, opening a second front, and special forces are also believed to be planning attacks on the US bases at Wonsan, Okinawa and Guam. North Korea's special forces combine psychotic levels of ideological fanaticism with superb military skill, perhaps the closest thing to the Waffen SS we have seen in 60 years.

The North Koreans also have Goksan artillery guns, and have over 20,000 artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, a city of over 20 million people. They could pulverise the city in minutes in the event of war. The allies employ the Paladin anti-artillery gun to counter this (link); however, the Paladin's main weakness is it only works against stationary artillery pieces, and many North Korean artillery pieces are mobile, mounted on railway lines to prevent Paladins from getting a fix and hitting them.

One final point of note is the psychology of the North Korean people. Unlike in Iraq, where the people hated Saddam, the people of North Korea idolise the leader Kim Jong Il, and believe him to be a demi-god, worthy of all out sacrifice to protect. Additionally, the North Korean people are kept constantly on edge and in expectation of imminent war, by a propaganda machine that warns them the enemy is planning an attack at any moment. The Pyongyang subway train system pumps military music over loud speakers to commuters, and occasionally barks warnings to commuters to be on the look out for spies and traitors (music samples). The subway system also doubles up as an air raid shelter, with every tunnel deep enough to withstand bunker buster attacks, and equipped with blast proof doors (link). For fifty years the North Koreans have been preparing their people for total war; how long will it be before the Neo-cons giver it to them?

Conclusion

We have seen that the West had a golden opportunity in the Korean war to destroy the North Korean regime and possibly the Chinese communists as well. We did not take that chance, because far left politicians would not let the generals take it. This meant, as the leftists traitors surely must have known and hoped, that the communist regimes of Beijing and Pyongyang would wriggle off the hook and live to fight another day. In the decades that followed, millions died, as both regimes starved and butchered their own people in social experiments and political crackdowns. The blood of these people is on the hands of the leftists, not just the Chinese and Korean leftists who carried them out, but the far left Western insiders who allowed it to happen.

Since then, both North Korea and China have gone on to develop awesome military arsenals, and have the power to inflict mass death on millions. We now find ourselves having to diplomatically tip toe around both countries, lest we "offend" them and "spoil relations". I do not know what the solution to dealing with China and North Korea is; all I know is that if patriots like MacArthur had been allowed to do their job, and not handcuffed and gagged by leftists, then we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. MacArthur warned us that we would pay the price one day for failing to finish North Korea and China when we had the chance; we will one day find out what that price will be....

Leftist Dystopia; the war on tradition and history

2005-12-02T17:34:00.000Z

"And if all others accepted the lies which the party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the party slogan 'controls the future:who controls the present controls the past'" George Orwell 1984

Without a doubt, many of the horrors described in dystopic novels of the C20th are coming true in our time. We have the mindless consumerism and sexual promiscuity of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", coupled with the thought control and droning propaganda of George Orwell's 1984. Of these two novels, Huxley's is actually a closer description of what we are currently living through in the modern world, although Orwell's account does describe things that are all too familiar with us post-modern Westerners as well, most notably the phenomena of "double speak" (link), and its attendant, the arrests for "thought crimes" (link). However, often over looked by commentators is the way "The Party", the sinister powers of the 1984 world, manipulate history and twist the facts to make it fit their official current propaganda.

We shall now look at the way leftists twist and distort history to make it fit their official ideological world view.

Beware the glorious past

The West has produced literally countless men and women of great valour, courage and inspiration. We have great poets and writers like Shakespeare, Marlowe, Poe, Twain, Donne, Wordsworth and Bronte. We have great soldiers like Themosticles, Marcus Aurelius, Vercingetorix, Martel, Napoleon, Nimitz and McArthur. We have great political thinkers like John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith. We have great rebels and freedom fighters like Boudicea, William Wallace and the American Revolutionaries. We have great explorers like Eric the Red and Columbus. We have also produced staggeringly advanced and cultured civilizations; the Greeks, the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantines and the various great nations that the people of Europe and their descendants across the world became. How can we not be proud of such things? I personally feel my heart thunder with pride within my chest to think that I am a part of this.

The far left hopes to destroy and/or enslave the men of the West. In order to do that, it has to cut them off from their past. There are several reasons for this; firstly, it stops them from knowing how great they are as a people, and thus makes the "white guilt" trips a bit easier to force down peoples throats. By making Westerners feel they have nothing to be proud of, then by extension they must only have things to be guilty of. Secondly, it makes them utterly rootless, and erases their unique national identity; if a Frenchman cannot be proud of men like Napoleon or a Briton cannot be proud of Churchill or an American cannot be proud of Washington then he is, effectively, no longer French/British/American; he is, to use that nauseating phrase of leftists "A citizen of the world", or to use my translation has been de-natured and thus prepared for his lifetime as a cog in the New World Order's machine. De-naturing people is vital; if there aren't distinct nations with distinct histories, then why complain about mass immigration if there's only one world? Why complain about a global government at the UN if there's only one world? You are beginning to see how this works....

Another very important reason for the leftist to cut us off from our past, is because so often in our history, Western people have been bullied and oppressed by arrogant elites and invaders from the Third World until we can take no more, and fight them to win total victory against them. Be it Charles Martel halting the Jihad at Poitiers, which paved the way for the Christian Reconquista of Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella, or the American Revolutionaries over throwing their corrupt, tyrannical leaders, the West's men and women have shown time and time again that they can and do rise up when they are pushed too far. By cutting us off from these examples, leftists hope to prevent us emulating them.

They see a tree without roots dies. The same is true of cultures and nations cut off from their historical roots and traditions. The far left hopes to achieve this through several strategies.

Elevate non-Western Cultures at expense of Western ones

One way this was done was when ultra-leftist radical, and fanatical black nationalist Jesse Jackson led a protest chanting "Hey-ho, hey-ho, Western Civ has gotta go!". This led to the university canceling a course that taught the great story of the West, and cutting off American students of European decent from their culture and heritage, as well as denying non-European descended students from exploring the beauty of our culture. By contrast, they replaced it with the bizarre pseudo-history of "Afrocentrism", which no serious historian takes even vaguely seriously. This bizarre school states that Africa was a civilizational master piece and that it was a scientific miracle. Afrocentrist authors and "academics" have made several wild, utterly bizarre claims in recent times such as

* Claiming the ancient Kenyans had calculated the speed of light
* That black Egyptians built the pyramids and invented electricity
* That Africans traveled to the Americas and taught the Aztecs everything they knew
* That various figures in Western history were actually black Africans
* That the Romans and Greeks were taught everything they knew by blacks

Anyone with half a brain cell can see how utterly false and laughable these claims are. However, they are being taught at this very moment in universities across the West, and are finding a surprisingly receptive audience amongst de-culturised western people. These lies, which have not even the slightest shred of archaeological evidence to back them up, are also being used to stoke the fires of black militancy, and some Afrocentrists have been known to suggest the reason that black Africa was such an advanced place (at least in Afrocentrist mythology) was because black people are a superior race. For a comprehensive rebuttal of Afrocentrism, I recommend reading Dinesh De Souza's "End of Racism" (link), which lays to rest the lies of Afrocentrism.

Stressing and/or exaggerating the levels of aggression of European people

As I have mentioned earlier, the West's people are brave and fearless, often fighting and dying to defend and extend freedom, both amongst their own people and to extend this freedom and prosperity across the world. Part of the reason the far left hates our heroes and heroines so much, is because they stood for things so great, noble and true, that we could not possibly expect a cowardly, selfish soul less leftist to ever comprehend them. No one denies that Western people have often used force, but they often followed up their conquests with good deeds, such as introducing medical and agricultural technology, and outlawing practices like human sacrifice and female genital mutilation. So whilst we may have been aggressive initially, we more than made up for this my giving the conquered people access to our technologies which doubled their life span, improved their quality of life and by abolishing the more blood thirsty practices of their culture, such as when the British stamped out the Thugee human sacrifice cult (link) and when they out lawed Suttee cremation of live widows (link).

However, the leftist's hatred for the West is so intense, that he cannot acknowledge our good deeds. Instead, he focuses obsessively on the (small) number of incidents where Western people met Third World force with force. Far left academic Susan Sontag once wrote that all the West's cultural, scientific and technological achievements were meaningless because they were "cancelled out" by Western aggression! This is the same "anti-racist" Sontag, who once described white Westerners as being "The cancer of humanity".

Many of our heroes and heroines have been smeared to make them seem like one-dimensional violent psychopaths. Joan of Arc, whose faith in God inspired her to win back her peoples freedom, has been described by leftists as "possibly mentally unbalanced". Columbus, who fearlessly set out to sea not knowing if he would survive the journey has been compared by leftists to Hitler, and leftists use the Columbus Day celebrations as a time to stage fanatical hate-fests of this great man (link). The Conquistadors have been written off as disease spreading genocidal automatons. The list of leftist slurs against our people is limitless.

And yet the leftist has nothing to say about the white slave trade, where Arab raiders seized whites from as far a field as Ireland and France. They say nothing of the white women forced to work as sexual slaves in Sultans hareems, or the European boys forced to serve as cannon fodder "Jannisary" units in the Ottoman army. They say nothing of the Native Americans raids on undefended European settlements like Roanoake in Virginia, or their brutal killings and rapes of travelers across the American West. They say nothing of the Aztec practice of mass human sacrifice or the Third World customs of child marriage, cannibalism and selective infanticide. They say nothing of the Hun and Mongol raids into Europe. They say nothing of the Ottoman subjugation of the Balkans for nearly four centuries.

Shall I go on? I won't, as you get my point. Leftists think that white Europeans, and only white Europeans, are fair game for smearing as murderers and rapists, despite the fact Third World "civilizations" were every bit as brutal if not more so, and yet these "civilizations" are treated with glowing praise in leftist academic and historical circles. Western violence is stressed and exaggerated, and any and all Western good deeds are denied or written off as being irrelevant.

Erasing symbols of Western culture

Throughout the West, there are numerous symbols of our cultures achievements and identity, from beautiful churches and religious paintings, to statues of well known figures and local heroes. The leftist needs a total state to achieve his mad end goal, and thus has to totally erase all history of a past where values other than his own were in place. What better way to do this than to remove these symbols? We have seen this happen in the American South, where a sustained and hysterical campaign has been waged by the far left against any symbol however tenuously associated with the Confederacy, from statues of Confederate figures to the famous Confederate battle flag; several Southern States removed the battle flag from their official state flag (link), and many Southern Universities, some of which have a very long history inter-twined seamlessly with the Confederacy have been encouraged to distance themselves from their association with the Confederacy (link).

The battle has also been extended to other parts of the Western World. In England the red cross "St George" flag is ancient in origin, and deeply symbolic. Yet during the European Soccer Championships in 2004, taxi's in several parts of England were banned from flying the England flag (link 1), (link 2), (link 3). In one English prison, tie pins depicting a St George style design were sold to raise money for a cancer charity; however, prison workers were told they had to remove these pins from their ties, as it could "offend" Muslim prisoners given the association between the red cross and the Crusades (link). This shows the leftist's sick priorities; erasing traces of Western culture and cosying up to criminals in prison is more important than allowing people to support a cancer charity.

De-Christianise the West; erasing the past AND the future?

Perhaps the most interesting tactic of leftists is their attempt to remove any and all symbols of Christianity from public life. This is interesting as it not only cuts people off from the past, it also denies the existence of God and the after life, cutting them off from their future. In many communist states, it was felt the churches teaching people about the afterlife would stop them striving to create an "egalitarian utopia" in this one. Therefore, teaching the after life was, forbidden, and still is in many communist states.

This has had the effect of causing Western people to live in the eternal present. We have been cut off from our history, and told that there is no future after life. No past, no future, just the here and now. The result has been a sharp increase in casual sex, drug taking and other forms of "thrill seeking", many of which are highly injurious and socially corrosive. After all, if there is only today to live for, why not enjoy it? What passes for enjoyment in the eyes of many Westerners is somewhat confusing, but the leftist assault on history and religion has had its part to play in these phenomena. Furthermore, if there is no past, then we are not descended from anyone, and if there is no future, why bother having children and carrying on our culture? This has contributed to a massive "Baby bust" phenomena across the Western World, whereby our birth rates have collapsed (link 1), (link 2), (link 3). This "baby bust" has been used by leftists as an excuse to bring in even more Third World immigrants.

Conclusion

When George Orwell wrote 1984, he predicted that a future leftist regime would erase traces of history that occurred before "The Party" seized control of the society. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley predicted that people would be urged to live in the eternal present, and this would give rise to wreckless spending and consumer debt, as well as recreational drug use and promiscuous sexual activity. Today, in the post-modern West, we see these trends coming to life, as the far left from its positions at vital nerve centres in Western culture attempt to turn the screw against all that was once good and decent as part of its fanatical agenda.

The left is behind this strategy; its up to us to warn others about it, and thus begin the fight back, before the leftist succeeds, and the only memory we have of our greatness is in the decaying memories of elderly political prisoners in leftist "Thought Crime" prisons....

Vietnam, Iraq and the left

2005-11-18T07:22:00.000Z

In his excellent essay, Dennis Prager calls the left "nothing" because of its addiction to aligning itself with whoever is fighting against America at the moment. He is right. Leftists very much believe in the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and this explains the reason leftists so cheerfully provide moral, intellectual cover to any anti-American forces. In the 1960's, it was the Viet Cong. Today, it is Islamic militants. We shall look at both conflicts, to see the chilling similarities in the leftist political, academic and media tactics which tried and tested in the 60's, are being recycled in the C21st. The leftists assault on America has been compared to a pair of scissors, with “pressure from the top” and “pressure from beneath” being brought together to cut into everything decent people hold dear and destroy it.

Vietnam and the leftist politicians; pressure from the top

In Vietnam, Communist killers were cycling in and out of South Vietnam from neighbouring countries, in one of the most important conflicts of the Cold War. America had begun sending help the besieged South Vietnamese government. The generals believed they had a solution to Communist insurgency; all out war against the Viet Cong and their bases, followed by an invasion of North Vietnam to clean up what was left of their forces. However, leftists in the American administration insanely bound the hands of their generals. They restricted the targets they were allowed to attack, restricted the number of troops they were allowed to have, and made sure there was a conveyor belt of inexperienced teenage conscripts doing the fighting, and not battle hardened veterans who were much better equipped to do the job. The result as history records was catastrophic; America found itself fighting a war using "politically correct" and "culturally sensitive" tactics that resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans. Instead of the war the generals wanted which would have been over in 90 days, the war dragged on for years, causing millions of deaths more than was necessary.

The examples of this “pressure from the top” are numerous; highly ranked officials like Robert McNamara advised the administration to release the comparative death counts between the two sides, which did nothing but underline the loss of American lives and undermine public support for the war on communism.

The generals would later write at great length about just how badly their hands were tied by leftists in government. I would strongly urge you all to read this link, which details the shocking truth about just how seriously the generals ability to fight was compromised, and the shocking treason of leftists at every level of society.

The leftist media did not focus on the bravery of American troops; instead, it published lurid tales of their visits to Vietnamese prostitutes and published photographs of American soldiers smoking pot, in a clear attempt to smear brave American soldiers as nothing more than drug addicted, sex crazed moral lepers. Worse was to come, when American troops were cast as soulless genocidal automatons. The leftist media showed never ending coverage of the My Lai massacre by US forces, when between 300-500 people were killed. Yet the far left media, conveniently, did not report a massacre by Viet Cong troops in the city of Hue in January 1968, when nearly 3,000 unarmed civilians were butchered. The Viet Cong took the city, and after killing "class enemies" in kangaroo courts, set about killing those who were likely to be "counter revolutionary" whilst subjecting the other civilians to Marxist brainwashing and indoctrination. When it looked like the Viet Cong were going to loose control of the city of Hue, they massacred everyone who was left so there would be no witnesses. Even today, skeletons are often dug up in Hue, some with their hands still bound. The leftist media largely covered up this massacre, so as to protect the reputation the Viet Cong, with whom the American left was so clearly enamoured. American troops were also smeared as "baby killers" by the media, who never ceased publishing photographs of Vietnamese citizens caught in the cross fire. All of these things, casting American troops as sex and drug crazed genocidal maniacs went a long way to whipping up a climate of hatred and hostility towards returning American veterans, many of whom, even today, are not given the recognition they deserve for their brave fight in almost impossible circumstances.

Left wing media figures also jumped on the "lets line up with Americas enemies" band wagon. In 1968, Lt Corrigan of the USAF was being held as a prisoner of war in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton" jail camp, being kept in disgusting conditions. One morning he was woken up, shaved, washed and placed in clean clothing and told an "International Peace Activist" was visiting the camp. Imagine his surprise when none other than Hollywood actress Jane Fonda appeared. Far from showing concern for her fellow Americans, Fonda walked up and down their lines, sarcastically asking questions like "How does it feel to know you killed babies?" and "Aren't you so grateful to be receiving such generous treatment from your captors?". Many of the prisoners weighed less than half their pre-war weight due to starvation rations, yet Fonda clearly didn't care. Some American inmates handed her secret messages on small pieces of paper as they shook hands with her, believing she would take the messages back to America and give their families hope. To their horror, she simply handed them to the camp guards, and after she left the camp, the guards savagely beat the four men who had handed her messages, killing three and leaving another barely alive. It is because this man survived we know about this. Read more about this at this link.

Campus Revolutionaries; Pressure from the bottom

One of the most striking social developments of the Vietnam era was the co-ordinated “anti-war” activities across University campuses across America and for that matter the world. Activists would organise on campus, their anti-American and anti-freedom beliefs on display for all the world to see. Sometimes, they would triumphantly shout the name of Communist killer Ho Chi Minh; sometimes they would cover themselves in red paint and stage tasteless “die ins”. Sometimes they would burn American flags. All of these things were seen by the troops on TV, who were severely demoralised by them before they went on patrol.

Many black nationalist groups, strongly influenced and allied to the far left would circulate myths that black soldiers were being made to do disproportionate amounts of fighting. This further stirred up division and social strain. Many leftists would “drop out” of society in protest at the war, and burnt their call up papers to show their contempt for the military. Some leftists fled America and spent their college days getting drunk, smoking pot and bed hopping, whilst boys their own age were fighting and dying to keep them free.

Conclusion

Leftist always line up with the enemies of America, such is their all consuming desire to see it destroyed. In the C20th, they lined up with Communism, and spent 50 years defending this sick ideology. Leftist intellectuals preached what a wonderful system the communists had built, and urged American college students to embrace it. Leftist media stars travelled to the Communist bloc and returned with glowing appraisals. Leftist media bosses cast anti-Communist nations in the Third World as "fascist" and "authoritarian", isolating them from potential support in their fight for survival. Even as Communist forces developed small pox and anthrax, and pointed over 20,000 nuclear weapons at American cities, leftist "Peace Activists" told us to destroy our only means of defending ourselves against them under the name of "Nuclear Disarmament". Thank God that cooler heads prevailed. Even as Communist leaders like Khrushchev boomed that the USSR was "going to bury America", leftist told us all he wanted was peace on earth and good will toward men.

In this age of radical Islam, the left again lines itself up with an enemy of the West. When Islamic militants rammed planes into tower blocks on 9/11, leftist "academic" Ward Churchill compared the American victims to Nazi's, calling them "little Eichmanns" who deserved to die (link), whilst other leftists state their desire to see America suffer “1 million Mogadishus” (link) or urging American soldiers to kill their superior officers (link). When Islamic militants march through the streets chanting "Death to America" and burning American flags, leftists tell us that its all America's fault for supporting Israel. When Iran's Islamic militant president Ahmednijad calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map", and busily builds the nuclear weapons needed to do just that, we are told by leftists it is purely for "defensive" reasons to ward of "American pre-emptive aggression". Leftists tell Americans they cannot launch attacks on Islamic holy days lest it "offend" Muslims, yet doesn't raise a whisper against Islamic suicide bombers who target Bar Mitzvahs and Jewish Sabbaths. The left tells America not to do anything that could be interpreted as desecrating mosques, yet has nothing to say about the case in Indonesia two weeks ago where the severed heads of three Christian teenage girls were left on the doorstep of a church by the local Lashkar jihad militia. Whilst the left demanded America give Gitmo inmates a "culturally appropriate meal", Islamic militants torture and behead bound and gagged civilians in Iraq, with not much in the way of protest from the left.

In the 1960's, America had the military ability to defeat Vietnam; however, leftists on Capitol Hill used their influence to bind the hands of the generals, making winning the war almost impossible. Leftists in the media used their influence to poison the American people against their own soldiers, and shamelessly whipped up a frenzy of troop hating. They also focused endlessly on the casualties, slowly destroying American public will to fight on. These combined to hand victory to the Viet Cong, who have ever since ruled Vietnam with an iron fist. Today, history repeats itself; leftist politicians like Dick Durbin describe US troops as "Nazi's", and left wing play wright John Pilger has compared the US troops behaviour in Iraq to that of the Nazi's on the Eastern Front. The leftist media reminds us endlessly of Abu Ghraib, yet says almost nothing about the torture chambers of Saddams Iraq. Whilst the Palestinian Authority talk of Palestine "From the river to the sea", thus wiping out Israel, leftists urge Israel to treat the PA as "partners in peace". Left wing media figures used award ceremonies to attack George W Bush, and Michael Moore released a movie that was nothing more than a propaganda exercise aimed at portraying the US as corporate fascists obsessed with invading other countries to improve their share price. Meanwhile, far left “anti war” groups on campus like ANSWER goose step across campus for a flag burning encore.

Are we going to let history repeat itself, and allow leftists in high places and leftists at grass roots level act together to destroy freedom? Or are we going to stand up for our veterans and our values. I pick the latter. I have made my choice; it is time you make yours.

Media violence, crime and the leftist strategy behind it

2005-11-15T20:56:00.000Z

Media violence, crime and the leftist strategy behind it

Violence in the mass media is at an all time high. This is explained by many patriots and conservatives as being nothing more than reflective of the decadence and immorality of the producers and directors, and the social effects being nothing more than scaring children before bedtime. What they need to understand is that the goal goes far, far deeper than they can imagine, and the leftist controlled corporate media and entertainment studios have a much bigger plan than simply giving school children nightmares.

As any one who watches the leftist and is wise to his schemes knows, there is always a deeper motive behind their actions. Leftists never do something in isolation, it is all part of a broader strategic advance. Leftists don’t do random. The sooner we grasp this truth, the sooner we can start to look at what they are doing. In this report, I aim to show how the media violence we see on TV and in other aspects of our “entertainment” culture are part of a leftist agenda.

We will look at how the leftists use of gratuitous violence on TV/movies aims to emotionally “opiate” and de-sensitise us to the sufferings of victims of violent crime. They do this because their softly softly leftist ways of dealing with vicious criminals mean far-left run societies have lots of them. By de-sensitising the masses, they ensure the masses never demand change and get tough on criminals, because the masses are too numbed to feel sufficiently outraged and motivated to demand and work for change.

De-sensitise the masses

Generations ago, Marx wrote that “religion is the opiate of the masses”. Opiates, as any medical student will tell you, are drugs that are pain killers; or to use another phrase, they stop us feeling something unpleasant happening to us, and thus prevent us from reacting to stop it.

Think about that phrases for a moment.

Leftist schemes are disgusting, and rightly arouse outrage in the hearts of decent men and women. Leftists have always feared what well informed, politically organised right wingers can do to them. If and when we right thinking people learn the truth about a leftist scheme, we tell others, and start to build the nucleus of an opposition movement, which can distribute information to the public, and then provoke a demand for action from our political representatives. The leftists fear this more than anything else. So they need to counter it.

The solution is simple; opiate the masses. To return to my phrase from earlier defining opiate activity stop us feeling something unpleasant happening to us. It does not mean that it’s not unpleasant; it just stops us from reacting to it as we would do were we not drugged. Hence, by drugging the masses, they will not feel the sense of outrage and angry they should do when they learn of leftist schemes, and/or the consequence of leftist schemes.

Let me use an example; under ordinary circumstances, a person is outraged by violent crime. Who could not read the harrowing ordeals of victims of violent crime and not feel a desire to punish the perpetrator? Most violent crime occurs because of the softly softly policing and legal system that exists across the West, allowing savage violent criminals free range in our towns and neighbourhoods to rape, assault and kill at will. It is accepted fact that leftists are behind this softly softly state of being.

However the amount of violence on TV and in our movies means that violence just doesn’t shock us anymore. In the past few years, we have seen a gang of men kick a tramp to death and gang rape a crying woman in front of her elderly father in Clockwork Orange. We have seen a man kidnapped and sodomized in Pulp Fiction and we have seen a bound and gagged police officer being tortured and having his ear sliced off in Reservoir Dogs. We have seen a woman stripped, sodomized and mutilated with a knife in Irreversible. Thirty years of watching this stuff makes you numb. Lets be honest, in 2005, it takes a great deal more to shock us than it did in 1975. The movie Straw Dogs, was banned in the 1970’s because of its extreme violence, but when watched today, barely raises eye brows, so eclipsed has it been by the sadistic sex and violence orgies of more recent films. This means we are numb…we can’t feel the outrage we should do when something like this really happens.

So when these crimes inevitably happen for real, people don’t get outraged and demand action as they should do. Instead, when a news report of a vicious crime occurs, people think “what a shame” then flick the channel to see how their favourite sports team is doing. When they read a newspaper article reporting such a vicious crime, they think “What a shame” then flick the page to see how you can lose weight on a brand new diet exclusive to readers. People who shrug their shoulders at injustice because they have been numbed by media violence are not going to get angry ; they are not going to feel a sense of righteous fury that such an outrage could occur. This is exactly what the leftists want; a population of numb masses, who won’t resist or react when something terrible happens in their midst as a result of leftist schemes. And lets be honest, a population who don’t get angry and demand accountability from their leaders will be all that much more easy to enslave and frog march into a leftist hell.

How it should be

"Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by crime feel as indignant as those who are" King Soloman (link)

Imagine what would happen if after a vicious child killing, people responded with outrage. What if instead of flicking the channel to see how their sports team did, they e-mailed their elected officials and demand that zero tolerance policing be adopted? How about instead of reading about that new diet on the page after the crime report, we wrote a letter to the newspaper expressing our outrage at the crime? What if instead of muttering and sighing about how terrible a recent crime was at a barbeque, we organise a petition to bring back the death penalty for child killers?

You see, the fatal flaw in the leftist plan is that not all the people are going to be opiated by the mass media. Some are going to resist it; some are not going to be numbed by the ceaseless violence we see passed off as “entertainment” on our screens. These people are the vanguard of the fight back on the leftist. We by ourselves can do little, but by working together, and getting the truth out there to others, we can turn the tide against the leftist. I am one of those people, and if you’re reading this now, you are probably one of them as well. We are therefore faced with a choice; are we going to speak out against this outrage of leftist sponsored media violence? Are we going to point the finger of blame at the corporate media, and tell them we will not be watching their shows anymore, or buying their “news” papers, thus cutting off their financial arteries? Are we going to tell the movie directors who make violence that we will be going to see other movies instead, stopping him from getting a pay day? Are we going to speak out and tell others the truth about the far left and its goals? Are we going to do this?

Or are we going to see how our favourite sports team did? I made my choice, and am fighting this leftist hydra as best I can. It is time you make your decision too.

Western World Politics (Old)

We are moving

Human nature and leftists versus the truth

The Problem with Pacifism

The Iran Nuclear crisis; the "options" on the table

Columbine 7 years on

Heroes of the West: William Wallace (Scotland)

Heroes of the West: Jerzy Popieluszko (Poland)

Heroes of the West: Lennart Meri (Estonia)

Heroes of the West Series launched

Birth rates, numbers and influence; how liberals do it

Will Al Qaeda win control of Pakistan?

Attack, attack, attack or defend, defend, defend?

Recommended articles

Bringing back the Death Penalty in Europe

Cruel and unusual punishment? I'll give you cruel and unusual

What leftists mean by "Moratorium" on the death penalty

Sex, career women and demographic catastrophe

Blog Landmark

10 ways Nazis and Communist are both far left

Left wing ideas infecting the British right

Apologies

Korean War Betrayal: Will it mean Korean war II?

Leftist Dystopia; the war on tradition and history

Vietnam, Iraq and the left

Media violence, crime and the leftist strategy behind it