Western World Politics

EU respects Ireland...but....

2008-06-18T02:18:00.000-07:00

The European Parliament is in session this week. Needless to say the arrogant European Union has been frantically trying to explain away the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the latest bag of tricks thrown at the people of Europe by their arrogant political elites. The Irish were the only one of the EU's 27 member states to allow their people a direct say on a referendum. Every other country would use parliament's, where career politicians would be used to ratify the treaty - and we know how honest and trustworthy career politicians are. With threats of deselection and promises of career advances, they would get the result they wanted. But in Ireland, people power prevailed.

The European Parliament was an interesting place. Virtually every speaker stood up and said that "Of course we respect the Irish vote" followed by the 50 mega-ton word "but". At that point, they said other countries should continue to push ahead anyway (despite the fact that under their own rules, so much as one country rejecting it means the Treaty falls). The parliamentarians repeatedly stated that "But other countries have to have their say as well", but this was, and is, irrelevant - the EU's own rules say once one country has said No, the Treaty falls. Furthermore, there was the constant invoking of things like climate change and globalisation, was simply an attempt to change the subject.

One particularly amusing sight was German Socialist Schulz, who stood up and roared his outrage at the Irish rejection. He then began accusing various people for "failing" to get the Irish to vote yes. He attacked Irish Commissioner Charlie McCreery. He attacked the European People's Party. About the only person he didn't blame for the Irish No vote was Santa Claus. But why didn't Herr Schulz consider that the people said no for a simple reason: they didn't want the treaty, and thats why they voted No. Call me old fashioned?

The condescending, patronising tone has also been clear. The European Union has stated that the Irish were "expressing concerns". No they were not, they were saying No. The European Union claimed the people of Ireland were "unsure". No they weren't they were saying No. Then European Union says it will send its Eurobarometer statistics team in to "understand" the Irish decision. What part of No don't they understand? Can anybody hear me out there?

It is somewhat ironic that an orgasation like the EU with 25 official languages doesn't understand the meaning of the word "No" in any of them.

Ireland rejects EU Treaty: Victory for Democracy

2008-06-17T05:41:00.000-07:00

The Irish people have yet again struck a blow against the EU. Ireland was the only country to put the latest EU treaty to a direct vote: and the people rejected it by a clear margin. However, the European Union (EU) has already said it will ignore the results of this referendum, and will push ahead with ratification anyway. This is the kind of arrogance the people of Europe are used to when they disagree with their leaders on matters of politics. In Europe, when the people say no, they really mean yes.

Insulting ther Voters: EU attacks democracy

The days in the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty vote have been extremely interesting in the media. Perhaps the biggest activity has been on the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian newspaper, a left leaning daily in the UK. In the past few days, it has run a series of articles which are nothing short of insulting.

All of these articles have a common theme running through them. Mainly, that the voters rejected the EU treaty because they were a) too stupid b) tricked by the press c) Nazis d) a mixture of these things. The bitterness and twisted paranoid fantasy theories of the EU supporters are hard to believe. The EU talks about how it believes in democracy, then showers abuse of the crudest kind down on those who disagree with it.

Tricked by the Press:

Throw in the related weight of truly substantial factors in the Irish equation - the (Irish edition) Daily Mail, the (Irish) Sunday Times - and what have you got? An outside element hectoring and influencing. (source)

Nazis

But referendums work best for the demagogue, the dissimulator and scaremonger, as Hitler and Mussolini, lovers of referendums, proved. (source)

Needless to say, this hate fest in the pro-EU media has sickened a large and growing number of people in European countries. Just why our the political elite of Europe, and their cheerleaders in sections of the media reacting in such a way? All the people of Ireland did was reject an EU treaty which they felt was taking the EU a step too far, and being the only people in Europe with a chance to have a direct say, they were able to stop it. As a result, the EU establishment have launched blood curdling attacks on the voters of Ireland. Why?

The answer is simple: Ireland was the one country in the European Union that allowed its citizens a direct say in the Lisbon Treaty, and they said no. Every other European country refused to allow its citizens a direct say, and let career politicians decide instead. This sends a clear message to the EU: the people do not want political union. When you ask our political leaders, the career politicians, they say yes, almost to a man. But when you ask the ordinary people, whose lives will be directly affected by this treaty, they say no. Friendship between European countries by all means, but political union? Europe as a country? Absolutely not.

What next?

For those of us who know the European Union, the EU will do what it always does: it will claim to respect the result in Ireland and announce a period of pause.

This is already the case. Let us observe today's edition of the pro-EU Independent newspaper in Britain

European Union leaders will call for breathing space before they try to revive
the stalled Treaty of Lisbon following Ireland's rejection of the blueprint

So let us look at this simple sentence in detail. We have the call for "breathing space", and there are already echoes of the "pause for reflection" the EU leaders stated in 2005 when the last time they tried this treaty it was rejected. Secondly, they stated that the treaty will be "revived" despite the fact the European Union's own rules state its failure in so much as one European country means it is dead. Finally, is the attempt at historical revisionism. This treaty is being described as a mere "blueprint": it was never that. It was being billed as the plan B to the European Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in 2005. This was not a blue print: this was their last desperate hope to ram through the treaty and the Irish rejected it.

The second thing the European Union will do is put its heads together to try and sneak the EU treaty through anyway.

No means No

The European Union has ignored the people of Europe many times.

In 1993, the people of Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty .

The EU ordered them to vote again until they said yes, and even then under the threat of Germany making veiled threats against its economy if it did not co-operate.

In 2001, the people of Ireland voted No to the Nice Treaty.

The EU denounced them for not being "educated" enough to read the treaty, and ordered the to re-run the vote until they got the result they wanted.

In 2005, the French and Dutch people, independently of each other rejected the EU Constitution in referendums.

The EU responded by renaming the Constitution the Lisbon Treaty, and since it was no longer called a Constitution, it did not have to be put to direct democracy and was put through national parliaments, where career politicians can be "encouraged" to vote the "correct" way in exchange for career advancement.

Only Ireland decided to put this Treaty to the direct democracy of its ordinary people and they said No. They struck a blow for every European who was not given a chance to vote by an EU that is running scared from democratic public opinion.

The EU juggernaut rumbles on, but is now a wounded ogre. It has suffered defeats in the past, but managed to limp on. Now, things are different. The excuses it used in the past to re-run elections were at least barely believable. Now they are just plain unbelievable. One of the most encouraging signs is the sheer volume of people who have now turned on the EU who once supported it. Even die hard European Union supporters have conceded it is getting harder and harder to justify the EU's actions, which are in fragrant defiance of the popular will.

But every dog has its day, and the EU may soon have its.

Peace in our time: the EU myth of peace

2007-07-01T03:39:00.000-07:00

The European Union's website makes the claim that thanks to the EU, there has been peace in Europe since the Second World War. Indeed, this claim that whatever flaws the EU has, at least it keeps the peace is a popular one amongst many people in Europe. This is very much to the liking of the EU-after all, who can criticise it if at least it keeps the peace? However, we shall see that this is not the case: the peace in Europe has been maintained not by the EU, and that far from being a dove like entity, the EU is rapidly arming itself, and by trampling on nation states is possibly sewing the seeds of future conflicts.

NATO or the EU: who kept the peace?

The European Union has been indulging in some very interesting historical revisionism regarding the post-war era in Europe. The EU claim to have kept the peace in Europe in false in four main regards.

a) kept the peace since 1945: the European Union did not exist in any form until the early 1950s, and did not exist in its current legal form until the 1990s. One wonders how an organisation can be keeping the peace before it even existed...

b) wars in Europe: there have been wars in Europe since 1945. From the Greek civil war, to the Yugoslav civil wars to the current conflicts in the Caucasian mountains, Europe has been anything but a peaceful continent since Adolf and friends retired.

c) end of German nationalism: Germany only came into existence in 1870, and found that most of the world's land surface had already been colonised by older countries like France, Britain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Consequently, there was almost nowhere on earth left to colonise-except Europe itself. As a result, the new German state began to attack and seize land from its neighbours, taking Schleswig Holstein from Denmark, and Alsace-Lorraine from France. During World War I, it seized Finland and most of the Western Russian Empire, and then in World War II, seized land to make way for the planned Lebensraum of the thousand year Reich. The comprehensive defeat of Germany has ended these German territorial ambitions and the military threat that went with it.

d) NATO and the USA: last but most definitely not least, is the USA, and country the EU has an institutional dislike of, hence its reluctance to credit it for anything, least of all achievements it claims for itself. The presence of US soldiers, jet fighters, tanks, missile silos and nuclear warheads in Western Europe deterred the USSR from ever invading Western Europe. It was not men in grey suits in the EU telling everyone to be nice to each other or hippies with "Make Love not War" signs. When Yugoslavia erupted, it was the USA that ended the war and restored peace, not the EU.

So as we can clearly see, the EU has not maintained peace, and on the occasions there have been peace or where peace has been restored, it has been thanks to the USA.

Welfare not Warfare!

One of the most nauseating political signs I have ever seen was held by a protestor at the anti-nuclear weapons demonstration in London, following the government's announcement to maintain Britain's nuclear weapons and build a new generation of attack submarines at the cost of around £70 billion. Opponents of the plan, almost exclusively from the far left, argued that our nuclear weapons and submarines should be scrapped, and the money should instead be spent on health care, pensions and welfare payments. Hence the term "welfare, not warfare". This attitude is by no means limited to Britain.

On the European mainland, the military is often poorly funded and given the very lowest priority in government budget plans. If the government finds itself needing an extra €100 million to fund its latest welfare scheme, then it casually takes this away from the military budget. As a result, European armies were often considered the "weak link" by NATO during the Cold War, with only the British and French considered capable of putting up a fight against a Soviet attack. Part of the justification for this cutting is that thanks to the EU, there will never be another war, so why bother arming and supplying your soldiers. However as the British have argued when replacing their nuclear weapons, you never know what may be around the corner of history. And you cannot fight an attacker with free health care...

EU arming itself-but for what?

The EU has repeatedly stated its desire for an "independent" military and foreign policy, a clear slap in the face to NATO and the USA, whose tax payers spent half a century paying for the defence of Europe whilst European governments were slashing spending on their own armies to pay for social welfare programmes. Ingratitude is an ugly word. The EU now plans to bulk up what it euphemistically calls a "European Defence Identity", but what is reality the EU armed forces. If the EU is this light unto the nations when it comes to peace and understanding, then why is it spending billions on an army? in reality the EU knows its claims about peace are a myth, but having allowed the US tax payer and soldier defend it for 60 years has now decided to build up its own army that it hopes one day will surpass that of the USA. How it will be able to fund this scale of military spend and its scale of welfare expenditure at the same time is anyone's guess. the European public have grown used to welfare, and will not tolerate cuts to it, so the EU finds itself (or will eventually) trapped-on the one hand, it wants to have the army that a self proclaimed super power feels it needs but cannot afford alongside its welfare. On the other hand, it can have its military, but only by cutting welfare and incurring the European people's wrath. Given the lack of support the EU has from its citizens at the best of times, it will be interesting to see how (if indeed at all) it copes with this wrath.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the EU claims to have kept the peace in Europe are a lie. There have been wars in Europe since the EU was founded, the EU failed to use its much famed "soft power" to persuade the Yugoslavs to stop killing each other and had to rely on its hated rival the USA to restore the peace. The EU is trying on the one hand to fund elaborate welfare programmes at the same time it boasts of an EU army, that if it is going to be in the same league as the American and Chinese armies, will need vast funding. The EU did not keep the peace in the past, and cannot claim to keep the peace, so it ought to stop claiming so.

EU Constitution: more EU arrogance

2007-06-30T02:51:00.000-07:00

This last week, the EU finally approved its "treaty", which is nothing more than a code name for the constitution that was so roundly defeated by popular vote in the Netherlands and France in 2005. By changing the name of the constitution, the EU hopes it has successfully camouflaged its latest power grab from the sovereign nations of Europe. In this report, we shall see how the EU plans to grab more power, has not changed its plans despite the change of name to the treaty/constitution and is exhibiting ever more bewildering and unnerving levels of arrogance and contempt for public opinoin, something that was never their strong suit to begin with.

When the voters say no, they really mean yes!

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." - Jean Claude Juncker, writing before the results of the votes were even in, about what the EU should do in the wake of the results.

One of the most bizarre and surreal experiences of my life was seeing the press conferences arranged by pro-EU spokesmen after the French and Dutch voters rejected the constitution. In 2005, the voters of most European countries did not get to vote on the constitution, with most countries having to watch as their political "elites", some of whom gained access to national assemblies with as little as 6% of the vote, voted in favour of the constitution. In Germany, the then chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told elected members not to "waste time with the small details" by reading through what they were voting on. Many elected members in national assemblies supported it so as to be seen as a "good European", and thus set themselves up for a possibly lucrative job with the EU Commission when they leave their national political jobs, and this can only be done by voting in accordance with EU, not national, wishes.

In France and the Netherlands, the voters were among the few to be asked what they actually thought of the consitituion in a referendum. Dutch prime minister Balkenende was so convinced of a "yes" vote, he did not even bother to campaign-that was until polls showed that the no vote was winning. The Dutch people comprehensively rejected the EU Constitution by over 60% of the vote. In France, the people also rejected the constitution, and celebrating crowds gathered at the highly symoblic Place de Bastille in Paris, birthplace of the French revolution. Perhaps in their mind their no vote was starting a new revolution.

As expected however, the EU "elites" refused to accept the votes of the people. On an interview on British television, EU Commission President Jose Barroso repeatedly stated that the no vote changed nothing, and that the EU would push ahead anyway. When asked if the no votes meant the treaty was dead, EU official Javier Solano remarked "Neither the constitutional text nor the ideas contained in it are dead".Luxembourg's prime minister Jean Claude Juncker stated that as far as he could tell, the people of France and the Netherlands actually wanted more EU power, not less, oblivious to the vote they had just delivered. The EU elites stated that they would push ahead anyway, but only after a "pause for reflection". As the then German foreign minister Joska Fischer wrote, "[The French and Dutch no votes are] not an end, rather an interruption."

By pause for reflection, they meant a delay of a suitable length that in their opinion would mean Europeans had forgotten about the no votes, and could then have it forced on them. Sure enough, in 2007 the EU announced it would push ahead with a "reform treaty", that upon investigation, actually was no different from the EU constitution. Angela Merkel, Germany's pro-EU leader openly admitted that the "treaty" was just a change of name for the constitituion. And this time, the EU was not going to take the chance of allowing the voters to have a say, in case thet voted the "wrong" way again. After secret meetings, the EU announced that there had been an agreement on a new "treaty" and that ratification would push ahead over the next two years.

Don't let the voters decide-the people don't know what they want!

"I have never understood why pulic opinion about European ideas should be taken into account" - Raymond Barre, former French president

One of the most striking things about the EU and its nauseating cheerleaders in the media and political establishment, is its utter contempt for what the public think about the EU. After the agreement on the "treaty" was passed, British voters began to demand a referendum on the issue, in line with the government's promise that they would be allowed one. However, pro-EU figures have repeatedly stated that the British people should not be allowed to vote, as they "don't understand" the "complex" issues. This is nothing more than cowardice, and the pro-EU figures know that the British people, tired of dictatorial arrogance would vote NO to the latest EU proposal. That is why they will never be given the chance to make that vote. The EU does not like us mere mortals to tell them they are wrong.

As the pro-freedom movement grows against the EU in Europe, the EU has taken steps to try and smother this opposition. The EU Commission has proposed only funding political parties that support the EU, putting parties that do not at a hopeless disadvantage at election time. As anti-EU Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan remarked "Democracy means being allowed to vote for whomever you please. Once we start disqualifying parties on grounds of their opinions, we are on a very dangerous road."

The European Union is becoming increasingly impatient with it's people and has now taken to simply ignoring them. Indeed, ignoring public opinion has been praised in the EU, with Jose Barroso telling British prime minister Tony Blair to "Stand up" to public opinion in Britain against the EU i.e. to ignore it. Other pro-EU figures cast this ignoring public opinion as "showing leadership". Others may choose to call it "showing dictatorship".

Conclusion

The EU does not care about public opinion. In 1993, it ignored the voters of Denmark when they rejected the Maastricht treaty. They were ordered to vote again. In 2000, the voters of Ireland were ignored by the EU when they rejected the Nice Treaty. They too, were ordered to vote again, this time with vast amounts of EU cash thrown at the "yes" campaign to make sure that the "correct" result was acheived. In 2005, the French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Consitution vote, only to ignored after a "pause for reflection", and this week, that pause came to an end when the EU forced through the constitution anyway, simply under a different name.

Those of us who find ourselves under the European Union have to wake up to the fact that our opinions do not matter. Our votes are simply ignored, and our intelligence openly insulted by an EU that claims we are not qualified to know what is best for us. To say I feel a sense of despair at this state of affairs would be an understatement.

Elites: the arrogance of the European Union establishment

2007-05-27T15:20:00.000-07:00

One of the most salient features in modern politics and society is the notion of the "elites". that is, media and political personalities who are above and beyond us mere mortals, and who thus are better qualified than ourtselves to decide how a country should be organised, and what public policy should and should not be. This is particularly pronounced in Europe, but increasingly so in other parts of the Western world.

The concept of a political elite

The first people to suggest the need for a political elite were the ancient Greeks. In their city states, it was believed by some thinkers that the everyday people were not sufficiently intelligent or morally developed to be trusted with any kind of power or authority, and that therefore they were not fit to rule. Instead, an all powerful elite would rule over them, known as the arete. Whilst ancient Greece is often thought of as the cradle of democracy, it has also been conversely the cradle of tyranny. Indeed, every tyranny is essentially based on the notion that the people are inferior to their rulers, and need to be guided and controlled by them.

In a state where an elite rule, there are several features. One is that this elite regard themselves as superior on a variety of dimensions, most notably a belief that they are more intelligent, wise, kind and morally developed than their subjects. Another salient pyschological characterstic is their paternal attitude to the population: they view themselves as wise, long sighted parents who have to guide and cojole rebellious populations for their own good, as if the citizenry of their states are moody toddlers. Whilst the people may protest, they lack their "elite's" wisdom and long sightedness, and therefore have to be forced to accept it's will.

This contrasts with genuine democracy. In a genuine democracy, whilst there are leaders, they are selected by the people on a popular mandate. That is, candidates whose views are popular and shared by the majority of the people are placed in power. These people then rule, by the consent of the people, and are public servants, not rulers. If and when they displease the people, this consent can be withdrawn, and the office holders are replaced with others who are given a chance.

The Real World versus Ivory Towers

Another important difference between elitist states and democratic states is the personal and professional background of political figures. In an elitist state, the leaders are all from a very similar background of priveledge and "elite" circles. Most went to the same elite universities: indeed, both the British Prime Minister and the Opposition leader went to the same university (Oxford) and the next British Prime Minister, who takes over next month, went to a similarly elite university (Edinburgh). Many also have the same professional background, and this is particularly true in France, with a vast percentage of politicians from both left and right having attended the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris. This is essentially a finishing school for the future political figures of France, and is very typical of the way most European politicians spend virtually their entire careers right from leaving university being prepared by elite schools and training centres and job posts for their eventual succession as a member of the ruling elite.

Again, this contrasts very sharply with the professional background of the figures in a genuine democracy, most of whom have spent decades working in "the real world", and whose professions have rarely if ever had anything to do with politics. This means that when these people become politicians, they will understand and appreciate the populations hopes and fears more keenly. It also means that they trust "common sense" over the extremely complicated and abstract theories so loved by the "elites".

Where do they get their ideas from?

In an elitist state, all the elitist figures share similar views, attitudes and dare I, say values, regardless of their party political affiliation. These views are largely formed by the teachers and professors they are exposed to at their ivory tower colleges, where they learn the gnostis, that is hidden knowledge that we mere mortals cannot understand. For example, the elites believe that crime occurs because of poverty and societal inequality, and therefore the elites must re-engineer society to prevent crime from occuring. This is totally false of course, and most ordinary people reject this bunk gnostis, that is actually little more than 1960s flat earth sociology. But to the elites, this is superior knowledge that must be implemented at the first opportunity, hence the disastrous anti-crime measures taken by various Western governments in the last few decades.

Indeed, most Western governments abolished the death penalty, but not because the people wanted it abolished. Instead, the elites took control of the political system, and having had their heads filled with criminologist nonsense whilst at college, believed that by abolishing the death penalty, they would impress the criminals with their superior morality, and the criminals would emmulate this by stopping killing people. The elites also viewed the objections to abolition from the people as little more than petulant "populism", and this "p word" will be discussed in more detail.

There are few slurs that leap from the mouth of an elitist more easily than "populist". In their eyes, what most of us would regard as common sense is little more than a knee jerk, simplistic reaction to a problem they insist needs long, complicated "solutions". Indeed, they regard views that oppose their own as not deserving of discussion or debate. In the European Union (EU), this attitude is particularly pronounced amongst its media and political "elites", who have declared a number of topics, from mass immigration and the abolition death penalty as being beyond discussion. This reveals their cowardice at being unable to defeat an opponent in a debate.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the EU elites are drunk on their own perception of themselves has moral and intellectual giants, who do not need the approval of the people they govern. Indeed, they rarely even bother to ask them, and on the rare occassions they do ask their people to vote, simply ignore their wishes if it contrasts with their own. This is an intolerable situation, and only by voting the "elites" from the established political parties out of power, and replacing them with men of the people will they get the message that we are not going to be bullied anymore.

An Award for Western World Politics!

2007-05-26T09:26:00.000-07:00

We were delighted to receive an award for a "Thinking Blogger", meaning that this blog has been awarded for it's ability to make readers think. We certainly try! Many thanks to Patriotic Mon's blog for nominating us! We also recently celebrated our 8,000th visitor, so it's been a good few days for us at WWP!

Women in combat: re-thinking women's role in the military

2007-04-07T04:16:00.000-07:00

The Iran hostage situation, where British marines and sailors were captured by Iran is now, thankfully, at an end, with the servicemen in question back at home. They have given press conferences where they spoke of their ordeal, from their capture and mock execution, to psychological abuse and being forced to denounce their own government on propaganda broadcasts. Perhaps the most enduring image of the crisis was the image of female sailor Faye Turney, who was shown throughout the broadcasts in a head scarf she was forced to wear by her captors, smoking nervously.

Within a day of their release, two other British women in the military, Jo Dyer (aged 24) and Eleanor Dlugosz (aged 19) were killed by a roadside IED bomb in Iraq. The images of a servicewoman forced to wear a headscarf by her captors, and of two young women cut off in their prime during active service appearing in our newspapers have sparked a debate about the role of women in the military, something that this author feels strongly about. We shall explore some of the issues.

Gender Equality

For the past half century, ever since bras across the world went up in flames, there has been an aggressive drive towards gender equality. Feminists held that men were deliberately excluding women from male dominated jobs in part of a vast male conspiracy to keep women bare foot and chained to the kitchen sink. One could be forgiven for thinking that in the mind of the feminists, every male dominated profession was like a ten-year old boy's tree house with a large NO GIRLS sign on the door, and sociologists coined the term "glass ceiling", stating that whilst women were being told they could move up in these professions, the reality was there was a clandestine attempt to hold them down.

Since the 1960s, women have advanced tremendously in many professions, with an increasing number of women CEOs, surgeons and in some countries women leaders. Perhaps the final frontier on gender equality in the minds of the feminists was the army, perhaps the world's most exclusive boy's club. Indeed, this was even more male dominated than the aforementioned tree house, and as a result, women have been recruited into the military with increasing frequency.

Male-Female differences in aggression

The problem with females in combat roles is that the genders differ tremendously in the types of aggression they practise and excel in. Males are predominantly physically aggressive, with females being predominantly using "relation aggression" i.e. manipulating friendship alliances to isolate rivals. There are also important differences physically and mentally between men and women that mean the former is better suited to a combat role than the latter, and this fact has been acknowledged by one of Britain's first female military commanders, Major Judith Webb. Indeed, two major factors put women at a disadvantage in combat:

Risk taking: combat soldiers need to be willing to takes risks and put themselves in potentially dangerous, even potentially fatal situations. Women however are less inclined to risk their safety than men. To use an everyday example, very few women would be prepared to walk home alone after dark.

Physical strength: On average, men are taller, heavier and stronger than women, all of which combines to give them a significant edge over females in fields such as athletics. Combat is no different to athletics, except with higher stakes and less rules.

Where women soldiers excel

Whilst female soldiers struggle with the physical and psychological aspects of front line combat, there are other areas of the military where women are at an advantage to their male colleagues, sometimes having unique advantages over them. For example, many captured terrorists come from societies where women have no power, so to place them in an interrogation room where a woman officer is in charge, who is forcefully pushing home a line of questioning, the terrorists will find themselves rattled in a way a male interrogator simply couldn't achieve. Also, females have distinct advantages over men in language learning, meaning they can excel as translators, a vital link in the intelligence war on terrorism, against combatants whose first language is usually not English.

No one doubts that women can and do have tremendous contributions to make to the war on terror. Few jobs are as critical as translating "chatter" in foreign languages or interrogating captured insurgents, and these are jobs that women soldiers are in an excellent position to succeed in. However, a frontline combat role is not for women: it is barely a place for even the toughest of men.

The EU: 50 years of tyranny

2007-03-31T07:09:00.000-07:00

Recently, I returned from a short break in Belgium, and part of that visit involved a tour of the city of Brussels, capital of Belgium and seat of the odious European Union (EU). The EU is celebrating its 50th birthday, and any number of nauseating displays have taken place, from a meeting in Berlin, to flags lining the street. Indeed, all around Brussels, on the sides of buildings and on banners and posters there are EU flags with the number "50", usually with a suitably propagandistic scene, such as smiling children or flowers. Yet far from celebrate 50 years of tyranny, the people of Europe do not share the enthusiasm of their secretive, unelected "elites" who run the EU and who give orders to the elected politicians of Europe.

No democracy, no human rights

The EU claims it is the guardian of democracy. Yet the only part of the EU structure which is elected is the parliament, and EU members of parliament (MEP) do not have any legal power. They cannot make laws, they cannot propose laws and they cannot reject legislation. In other words, they are nothing more than cover for the EU, to give the outward impression of democracy. The real power with the EU lays in the shadowy EU Commission, with unelected commissioners led by Commission President Manuel Barroso deciding on laws. These laws are written up in secret meetings, by committees whose member list is never made public.

Once the Commission decides on a law, it is applied throughout the 25 nations of the EU. If any nation attempts to reject it, they are fined heavily and forced to adopt the law following a ruling by the European Courts of Justice in Luxembourg. This is not to be confused with the pompous and misguided European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which passes laws that only seem to benefit rapists, terrorists and murderers. These judges, who are totally unelected, come from a system of law where rights are granted unilaterally, irrespective of how a person uses them and how much or how little that person respects that right in others. The result has been crime flourishing. Under English speaking law, rights are tied to responsibilities, unlike the EU.

Another interesting point is the EU has its own Europe wide police force, and there are moves to grant immunity from prosecution to these police. In the English speaking world, we quite rightly believe that the police should be bound by the law they keep. Yet like most totalitarian states, the EU wants its police to be exempt from prosecution, which could open the door to any number of police abuses, such as torture and even killings, all without fear of prosecution. Is this what the self proclaimed guardian of human rights needs?

Deaf to the people

The EU rarely bothers to ask the people of Europe their opinion, preferring instead to force law through the Commission where it cannot be stopped by the electorate. On the rare occasions they have allowed a vote, they have often found out just how little enthusiasm there is for the "European project" as its supporters pretentiously call it. In 1993, the people of Denmark voted to reject the Maastricht Treaty, but were ordered by the EU to re-run the election until the Danish people voted to accept it, which they (eventually) did.

in the year 2000, the Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty (pronounced Nees, after the French city). The result? The Irish voters were accused of "not being good Europeans" by EU officials, and ordered to re-run the election, in which the EU eventually got the result it wanted. Finally, in 2005, the voters of the Netherlands and France were asked to vote on the EU Constitution, and overwhelmingly rejected it, in two separate votes. The result? The EU stated there would be a "pause for reflection", but true to form, has now announced the treaty will go ahead anyway.

The EU also ignores the people of Europe in other ways. When Saddam Hussein was executed, officials in EU countries fell over each other in their rush to state their anti-death penalty credentials, often claiming to be speaking on behalf of Europe's people. Yet an opinion poll conducted by respected German newspaper Der Spiegel found that in 4 out of 5 sampled European nations, clear majorities supported the execution of Saddam Hussein. Yet the EU has stated that the death penalty will remain abolished regardless of what the people want, and attacks nations that have it.

No peace, no prosperity, no trade justice

The EU also likes to boast of how it has secured "peace in our time", preventing another European war. The actual fact is that peace in Europe was maintained by NATO, not the EU. Also, the EU hopelessly failed to stop the civil war in Yugoslavia that left 250,000 people dead or displaced. It was also busy twiddling its thumbs when Kosovo similarly imploded. On both of those occasions, it was NATO, and the USA in particular that came to the rescue. The EU has also failed to prevent wars in the South Caucasian mountains, and thousands of EU citizens have died at the hands of domestic and foreign terrorists, a form of urban warfare that the EU has miserably failed to stop.

The EU also has subsidies under its Common Agricultural Policy that tops up farmers incomes, and prices out poor Third World farmers, continuing the cycle of poverty and instability in Third World nations.

Conclusion

The EU has brought nothing but misery to Europe's people. It is corrupt, un-democratic and displays staggering arrogance and contempt for the wishes of the people. Furthermore, it stomps around the world like a peacock in heat, convinced of its own superiority to the rest of the world, and harbours mad fantasies of being a superpower. However, the EU has spat on the people of the EU for too long, and it is only a matter of time before the people start to vote for anti-EU parties in even higher numbers than they are already doing. Let us hope so, because I for one cannot bear the thought of another 50 years under their rule...

Climate change and the green goosestep

2007-03-17T12:55:00.000-07:00

For much of 2007, we have been bombarded in the media with increasingly hysterical and frantic claims about what is going to happen if we don't move instantly to stop climate change. At first this was just talk, and one could be forgiven for thinking this was just another evanescent band wagon that politicians are inclined to leap on when the smell of publicity and votes is in the air. However, here in airstrip one (a.k.a Britain), as in many other parts of the Western world, increasingly draconian steps are being taken to force us to comply with the narrow agenda of radical environmentalists.

In this report, we shall have a look at the steps the far leftists are taking to restrict our choice, leisure, liberty and to tax us even more heavilly. We shall also look at the truth about so called "climate change" and why decent people should not be silent about this totalitarian grab at yet more power over the ordinary people of our Western world.

Cars? No! Public transport is good enough for you citizen!

One of the first steps taken in the UK to ram the green agenda down our throats was the introduction of a "congestion charge" in central London. The aim was to reduce the number of cars, but now we are being told the charge was really about tackling climate change. Furthermore, there are serious plans in place to expand this congestion charge ring to swallow up even more of London, catching even more ordinary motorists in its tentacles. Also, certain types of "high polluting" cars are being charged more than other motorists, with SUV drivers having to pay an extortionate £25 (US$50) per day when they drive into London.

Yet the hypocrisy of London Mayor Ken Livingstone is extraordinary. The man so far left he was nicknamed "Red Ken" in the 1980's, constantly lectures Londoners on climate change, and how they must accept these cruel and extortionate charges in order to save the planet. Yet the same man just weeks later took a jet flight to Venezuela, cheerfully posing for photo opportunities with Communist Hugo Chavez, and sending his best wishes to Communist tyrant Fidel Castro. Perhaps Red Ken would like to explain how a working family driving into London to pick up their children from school is more damaging to the environment than a 747 jet?

But the green hysteria is not just limited to the lunatic fringe of the British left. The leader of the increasingly left wing "Conservative" party, David Cameron supports any measure, no matter how unfair, unworkable or ineffective, providing it has the prefix "green". The party which enjoyed unprecedented success under its low tax, small government policies of the 1980's, has now said if it wins power in the future, it will introduce a tax on frequent fliers. This will mean more regulation and monitoring (after all, they need to monitor how much we are flying before they can classify us as frequent fliers for tax purposes).

Light bulbs and ration cards

One of the most interesting inventions of all time was the light bulb. Thomas Eddison famously invented this world changing item after hundreds of attempts, a testament to the mans genius and persistence. Since then, the light bulb has dramatically enhanced the quality of life of billions, and has been a silent witness to many other inventions of our time, as great men toiled under their light to unravel the genome, split the atom and put a man on the moon. Yet the green lobby have decided to destroy our old light bulbs: indeed, the European Union (EU) ever keen to stomp on ordinary citizens has issued an order that the traditionally shaped light bulbs be replaced with "environmentally shaped ones" (link). Indeed, the EU, which in the past has sent agents into supermarkets in Belgium to see if the curvature of bananas is correct, now tells us that the humble light bulb has to go as well.

Also, there are serious discussions about whether or not to issue citizens with a "carbon rationing card". In other words, each citizen will be given a certain limited allowance, and each time they drive their car, get on a plane or do anything else that involves "carbon emmisisons" their total will be deducted until they have used up their ration. So, if your daughter telephones you late one night needing a ride home, and your rations have run out, then it looks like she is going to have to take her chances on public transport with the muggers and the rapists. Hey, the proles can get raped and murdered, but as long as mother earth is ok, who cares comrade?

War on the middle class

When one examines the people most hit by the new anti-global warming measures: people who drive high performance cars, people who are frequent fliers, people who own electrical equipment etc. they all have one thing in common. They all tend to be middle class and upper middle class people., as they are the only people with sufficient economic power to drive these cars, own these gadgets and fly frequently. Environmentalists are typically far leftists and apostles of Karl Marx, if not by the letter then certainly by the spirit. Essentially, they share his belief that the "petty bourgeoise" middle classes have too much money, and need to be taxed and limited to make them equal with the poor. Also, the tax which is then cut out them like a pound of flesh can then be used to fund the left's highly inventive social programmes.

Indeed, the left wing intellectuals and media bosses also tend to be leftists, and thus the chance to use anything to justify its persecution of middle class people is one they cannot resist. By lying to the people with ever more cataclysmic prophecies of flooded cities, the far left can justify its grab for our taxes, as well as its attempts to pin us down by limiting our leisure and travel. Sadly, too many people are under the impression that, as insanely oppressive, intrusive and greedy these measures are, they are necessary to avoid the doomsday scenario. Or are they?

The truth: no coming climate crisis

There is no climate crisis upon us. The planet's climate fluctuates constantly, and periods that are hotter than others are common. Indeed, during a tour of Ely Cathedral in England, our guide pointed out that there were scenes of grape growing carved into certain parts of the stonework, reflecting the fact that medieval England was much warmer than today. Indeed, medieval European stories like Snow White reflected the fact the Medieval period was very hot, as people with fair skin were sufficiently wealthy not to toil in the very hot sun of the Middle Ages. Yet there were no cars, no coal fired power stations and no international air travel then, the same villains the left would have us believe are the root of all evil. There were also no of those evil light bulbs.

The planet is constantly changing, and is doing so naturally, not because of anything we are, or are not doing to it. Indeed, in the 1960's, the long haired liberals warned us we were headed for another ice age because of pollution. Yet now they tell us we are headed for Sahara like heat. Would they please make up their mind which apocalypse we are headed for?! Furthermore, whilst the left pontificates and wrings hands about light bulbs, Communist China is building a coal fired power station every week. Yet the left doesn't seem to be anywhere near as concerned about this. You see, they can't get the Chinese to pay taxes, nor can they stop them driving their cars, so us middle class Westerners will pay the price.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have seen that our political and media classes are obsessed with the notion that any measure, from charging motorists through the nose and limiting air travel, to banning light bulbs and forcing us mere proles to carry carbon rationing cards is justified. This is despite the fact these same "elites" zoom around in half empty luxury jets to their international conferences, and are driven around in limousines and high performance cars. Indeed, with their trademark hypocrisy they regard themselves as being above the law and rations they are so happy to impose upon us.

Yet these measures are at least as much to do with taxing and enslaving the ordinary citizen as they are to do with appeasing the vengeful gods of the green lobby. The left salivates at any excuse to tax, especially if the people it is taxing are wealthy, educated, drive nice cars and like to travel, which is the profile of the most heavilly hit victims of its latest social engineering orgy. Yet none of us outside the internationalist clique behind the climate change hysteria are safe, including those of us without a nice SUV purring away in our garage.

We must expose the climate change hysteria for what it is, which is flat earth science intended to frighten a population into accepting draconian and deeply unfair taxes, restrictions on their choice and freedom and constant self righteous moralising by the green lobby. If we do not expose these lies and tell the truth about them, then we will all find ourselves living in an eco-friendly 1984 that not even George Orwell could have predicted the repressiveness of.

Afrikaans pop song De la Rey causes a stir

2007-02-25T09:05:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting countries in the world is South Africa, and it had an extremely fascinating history in the C20th, starting with the Afrikaaner people's attempts to rebel against British rule, followed by Apartheid, insurgency by Mkhonto We Sizwe and finally the establishment of black majority rule from 1994 onwards. Since then, South Africa has been in the headlines largely for the wrong reasons: a President who doesn't believe HIV and AIDS are related, a vice president accused of rape, tidal waves of brain-drain emmigration and sky rocketing crime. However, something more mundane than stories of car jackings and AIDS has been hitting the headlines in South Africa of late: pop music.

Afrikaans language singer Bok Van Blerk's song "De La Rey" tells the story of the Boer War general of the same name. At first viewing, it is nothing more than a folk song about the Boer war, but it speaks to deeper sentiments of Afrikaans nationhood and pride. It has been accused of being a "far right" call for violent revolution against the current government, and the South African "Institute of Race Relations" said it would "monitor" the song closely.

The Song

The song is extremely soulful and uplifting, and even though it is sung in a language I don't speak, one can detect the melancholy and longing in the singers voice. The video shows men in Boer war era clothing, shivering against the cold as the flag of the Transvaal Republic flutters above them. There are flash back shots to shivering Boer civilians in British concentration camps and shots of a Boer thoughtfully stroking the earth. In the finale, a drum march kicks in as the Boer men make a final march. You can watch the song on YouTube, at the following link (De La Rey). The song has been taking the Afrikaans speaking community of South Africa by storm, with Van Blerk playing repeated sell out gigs to a predominately young audience. At one gig, a defiant Van Blerk remarked "I am proud of my language and culture are you?" to the roars of the crowd.

ANC songs: the real call for violence

It is somewhat ironic than the South African left can become so upset about such an inoffensive folk song about Boer history, when the ANC is responsible for some of the most blood curdling political songs of all time. Take the "Song of the Pledge", which all members of the Mkhonto We Sizwe terrorist group sang, including former member Nelson Mandela. The lyrics include lines such as "We have pledged to kill them all/Kill the whites". On a similar note, former South African vice-president Jacob Zuma is particularly fond of the song "Bring me my machine gun" which is similarly blood curdling. Yet the ANC doesn't seem particularly concerned about these songs.

Conclusion

The song by Van Blerk is nothing more than a rousing song about Boer history, which has captured the spirit of young Afrikaaners who have been taught to believe they have nothing to be proud of. Granted, apartheid was wrong, but there is more to Afrikaans history than that period, and the heroic resistance of an outnumbered Boer army against what they saw as imperialism and tyranny is one example of that fascnating history. Anyone who thinks the song is some coded call for revolution is quite frankly reading into something that is not there.

Gun crime in Britain

2007-02-18T05:39:00.000-08:00

In Britain, gun crime is an increasing problem. In the past two weeks, four youths have been shot dead in London alone. This does not include the many non-fatal shootings that occur in Britain every day, nor the crimes committed with guns where the weapon is not discharged (e.g. robberies at gun point). British people have traditionally thought of gun crime as an American problem, although all British people are fully aware that gun crime is a way of life in the increasingly lawless, feral inner cities of Britain. Indeed, fully functional hand guns can be bought for as little as £200 (US$400), and ready for use within the hour. So why has Britian become such a gun crazy nation?

Family breakdown

Without a doubt, family breakdown and more specifically absent fathers have been blamed as a major antecedent to involvement in gun crime for young men. In Britain's inner cities large numbers of households are headed by a single mother, and the percentage of boys growing up in a home where their biological father is resident with them is depressingly low. In an environment where there is no male role model, and thus no source of information about what constitutes appropriate male behaviour and attitudes, other more noxious influences can take the place of the father.

Of particular interest is the "gangster rap" sub-culture that many of Britain's inner city youths are enamoured with. In this odeous sub-culture, men are encouraged to regard women as "bitches" and "hoes" and violence against other men for even the most slight (if any) reason is glorified and applauded. Similarly, drugs, greed, scorn for education and hatred of the legitimate authorities is peddaled. It is hardly surprising that with these attitudes shaping young men, that problems arise.

It is however over simplistic to say that gangster rap is responsible for the gun crime culture in Britain. After all, millions of people listen to such music and yet only a relatively small percentage of it's listeners go on to commit crimes of violence. Why is this? The answer is that in most cases, the listener is in a household where there is a male role model, whose attitudes and modelled behaviour "cancel out" the negative messages of the gangster rap. In a functional household, the father encourages his son(s) to respect women and whilst be prepared to defend themself if attacked, teaches them never to go looking for trouble, to obey the law and to respect the legitimate authorities. If a young man is receiving all of these messages, then the impact of a few coarse lyrics is greatly reduced.

Legitimate Authorities

You may wonder what do I mean by "legitimate authorities". In the context of the current debate it is teachers, parents and the police. This has been echoed by inner city London pastor Ben Okechekwu, whose daughter was one of two people murdered by 17 year old Roberto Malasi. Okechekwu stated that better school discipline and more respect for the law would help prevent tragedies like he experienced. Having said all this, it is too simplistic, and this is a case of putting the cart before the horse. For starters, the ability of a school to discipline a student depends largely on how much the student respects the schools authority to do so, and if he doesn't respect them, any attempt to punish him will make him even more violent and disrespectful.

In the 1960's, leftist "intellectuals" and celebrities began urging young people to question the legtimate authorities in what was then a low crime Britain. Many quoted Mao's "All authority should be questioned" and urged young people to do just that. Well, now they have done, and an ever increasing pile of bodies is the fruit of this line of thinking and teaching. Everyone from parents and teachers, to the police have been spat on by a lawless, immoral underclass of criminals the far left fed and watered. It is, as ever, the innocents in the middle who pay the price, such as the low income families who are trapped living in the same run down neighbourhoods as youht criminals, and who are often their first victims.

Britain and America

The common perception in Britain, on both the left and the right is that America is a gun crazy nation awash with weapons and thus it is unsuprising when young people use guns on each other, as was the case during the 1999 Columbine massacre in Colorado. In that case, the left in particular stated that it was the guns to blame, yet when they discuss youth gun crime in Britain, they say the guns are not to blame, and that it is a question of culture. I find it hard to understand how a person on the one hand can say youth gun crime is due to the guns in one place but not due to the guns in another place. In Britain, 1 in 3 gun crimes involve teenagers.

Darrell Scott, whose daughter Rachel was killed in the Columbine massacre wrote in the book Rachel'sTears that in his opinion, guns were not to blame for his daughters death, but rather youth sub-cultures cut off from morality and purpose, cross pollinating with hedonism. This is very true. On both sides of the Atlantic, what used to be considered moral and lawful has been undercut by decades of far left thinking, and it is the children who pay the price...

Secularisation and Integration

2007-02-06T12:44:00.000-08:00

There is much debate in contemporary society about the role that religion plays in society. Whether it be school prayer, the integration of new immigrants or to what extent (if any) that religion is a point of reference for law and politics.

Faith schools: Why banning them won't work

In the UK, there has been a number of increasingly strident moves to severely undermine faith schools. That is, any school which has an explicit statement that it is founded and run in accordance with the tennants of the founding faith. The secular ruling class, along with their cheerleaders in the mass media and "commentating classes" as Archbishop Rowan Williams calls them, have claled for all government funding to faith schools to be cut. They argue that the tax payer should not have to fund what it sees as centres of indoctrination and division. They propose instead that all schools should be secular, in the belief that this will push students from different faiths together, integrate them and give them common values.

On paper this idea looks good, so good in fact that over 6,000 people in the UK have signed various petitions calling for the banning of state funding for faith schools and a ban on teaching religious "mythology" as they call it in state schools. You can see them at this link. I would guess that the number who support this idea but have not signed is even higher.

This "secular school" idea looks good on paper, but it is flawed. The problem with this idea is two fold. Firstly, it supposes that "secular" values are completely morally and ethically neutral and thus have equal appeal to all faith groups. In actual fact, secular values are rooted in humanism, which has very definite views on a number of ethical points (e.g. homosexuality) and is not simply neutral. It is a well known fact that humanist views on some topics are the absolute polar opposite of many religious views, and students will not "meet in the middle" on something they disagree on.

Secondly, even if children from all faith backgrounds went to the same schools and studied the same secular curriculum, they would still emerge with their religious allegiances and beliefs intact, maybe even stronger and more strident variants than when they went it. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, because using muscular tactics to suppress religious faith will only stoke up feelings of religious persecution amongst the students. The harder you hit a nail, the deeper you drive it in. Secondly, the believers in secular education have rather over simplistically assumed that school is the only place that young people get their values from. It isn't.

To use an example from my own life, I was educated at an entirely secular school, as an agnostic raised in an entirely secular family. By the time I graduated, I was a born again Christian.

Conclusion

In conclusion three points must be borne in mind when discussing: firstly, secular schools are not morally or ethically neutral, and not only stop religious sentiment, but in some cases can inflame and strengthen it. Secondly, schools are not the only place where people learn and develop their values, thus it is absured to believe that a secular curriculum will do much, if any good. Finally, by sneering at the values and morals of religious communities, the "commentating classes" make it increasingly less likely that faith communities will listen to them.

The truth about the EU

2007-01-21T08:11:00.000-08:00

"The EU is the new European Soviet" - former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbacev

I believe that for all Europeans, the most pressing danger to our freedom is the European Union (EU). Indeed, I predict that the EU will become a problem for the entire world soon, and already has attempted to strut the international stage like a superpower in the making. However, behind the gloss and smiling faces of its representatives, the EU is at it's heart, un-democratic, corrupt and governed by a completely unacceptable social contract, whereby the governed must bow down at the feet of the all powerful super state. In this report, I hope to explain in detail about how the EU really works, how this is a form of tyranny and what must be done to stop it.

The EU Propaganda claims

The EU loves itself very much. Indeed, it makes a large number of increasingly pompous claims about it's origins and it's functions. It has even taken to re-writing history, claiming any number of historical acheivements that even the most casual observer could easilly refute. One of the EU's most outrageous claims is the claim that it has maintained peace in Europe since 1945. This is absolute rubbish for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there has not been peace in Europe since 1945. During the 1990s, the former Yugoslavia errupted in the heart of Europe, with the EU doing absolutely nothing to stop it. In the end, it was the USA which secured peace in the Balkans. Furthermore, it was the USA and its nuclear deterrent, NOT the EU which kept peace in Europe during the Cold War, as it successfully deterred any would be invasion from the USSR, and it was this mutually assured destruction that kept the people free from the Communists, not the EU. The peace in Europe since World War II, when we have had it, has been thanks to the US tax payers and their nation's military might. When we have not had peace, the US restored it, as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo.

No Democracy in the EU

One of the most worrying myths people outside Europe have been fooled by is the claim by the EU that it is democratic. On the face of it, one would expect a club composed on various democracies to be democratic. However, it is not in any way, shape or form, a democracy.

The EU has three layers of power: the European Commission (or "The Commission"), the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. When the EU wants to claim it is a democracy, it points to it's elected house, the EU Parliament, and talks of how it is the only pan-continental elected assembly in the world. In a recent tour of the building, an EU tour guide told me this with quite obvious pride. However, an elected chamber is not much use if that elected chamber has no power. Yet that is exactly what the EU parliament is.

Unlike the British parliament, where laws can be created, modified and either accepted or rejected by the elected officials, the EU parliament has absolutely no power to make, modify, accept or reject legislation. It has been accurately denounced in the press of many European nations as a "talking shop", and even on a good day, is barely 10% full. There are over 700 elected Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), yet attendance is very poor, largely because the members realise they actually can't do anything there.

Now that we have established that the EU's only elected chamber is it's least powerful organ, we now realise that the EU is not run by a democratic chamber, but by the un-elected EU Commission.

The EU Commission

The EU Commission is the most powerful body in the EU. Its Commissioners are un-elected, and meet in secret, just like the governments of Cuba and North Korea. The Commissioners must also sign declarations that they will not represent their individual countries interests in the EU, instead they promise only to support the EU, irrespective of the consequences for their home nation (that used to be called treason in my book). The Commissioners, who are paid fortunes for their "work", then draw up laws and regulations which never have to face a democratic vote. Instead these laws are forced on the people of Europe without any debate or vote.

Ignoring the voters

On a few, very rare occassions, the EU has asked the people of Europe what they think of certain issues. Let us see what the EU reaction was to their votes:

* In 1993, the people of Denmark were asked if they wished their nation to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. They voted against it. The result was the Danish police firing on their own people, who were by now celebrating the rejection of the treaty. The EU ordered the election to be run again. This time the ballot paper had two possible voting options "Yes" and "Yes". There was no option to reject. The EU then got the result it wanted, and toasted it as a triumph of democracy.

* In 2000, the people of Ireland were asked if they wanted their nation to ratify the Nice Treaty (pronounced "Nees" after the French city where it was drawn up). However, the Irish voters rejected the treaty in a vote. The EU declared that the people were not "educated" enough to have voted "correctly" and then forced them to re-run the election until it got the result it wanted. Again the victory in the re-run was hailed as a triumph of democracy. At one point, EU officials taunted the Irish, ordering them to vote "yes" this time like "Good Europeans".

* In 2005, the people of France and the Netherlands were asked if they wanted their nation to adopt or reject the EU constitution. The voters of both nations rejected it by clear majorities. Yet the EU stated that they must re-run the elections after a "pause for reflection". Just this year, the EU stated that the constitution must be ratified, and may re-run the elections, or simply force the treaty through without a vote. The EU constitution is over 500 pages long and contains 50,000 words.

The EU also ignores the voters on a number of day to day issues, such as the death penalty, with clear majorities of European people wanting it re-introduced. Yet the EU has pushed in the opposite direction, abolishing it and also stating that it will "punish" any EU state that tries to bring it back.

Conclusion

The EU is a grave threat to the freedom of the people of Europe. I would urge all readers to inform their friends about the truth of the EU. With luck, maybe we can save the people of Europe, before Gorbacev's predicition becomes even more true than perhaps we could dare to image...

The left's claims about Saddam versus Reality

2007-01-04T12:24:00.000-08:00

One of the most brutal figures of the C20th met his end at the end of a rope recently. Saddam Hussein's execution has sparked heated debate across the world, particularly in light of the leaked tape showing the way he was taunted with sectarian insults before his death. In light of all of this, I have decided to offer my own take on the life of this notorious individual, examine the allegations he was a Western stooge and offer my views on the debate surrounding his ultimate fate.

In particular, I will focus on three issues; firstly, that Saddam was executed quickly to silence him from speaking further about any involvement he may have had with the USA. Secondly, I will answer the leftist claims that American bank rolled his wars and supplied him with weapons. Finally, I will offer my thoughts on the criticism of his execution which came from some quarters.

"It's a pity both sides cant lose"

The above quote was one of Kissinger's most famous, and is his reported response to a question about who he wanted to win the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88). This war saw the newly Islamist state of Iran locked in combat with Saddam's Iraq, a war which had been triggered by an Iraqi incursion in a disputed border territory. At first it looked as though Saddam would win, but by 1982, his forces had been exhausted by fierce resistance from Iranian suicide squads and militias. At one stage, Saddam's forces were virtually pinned on their own border, and it looked as though Saddam would lose.

One of the most controversial areas of debate surrounds his relationship with the USA, which is known to have existed in at least some form around the time of this war. The left claims that Saddam was simply a US puppet, and that part of the motivation for his quick execution was to silence him before he revealed more details of his dealings with the USA. This claim has very little basis in fact, being nothing more than wild speculation driven by the left's cardinal hatred of the USA and it's people. The reason he was executed was given by Iraqi authorities, who stated he was executed in accordance with Iraqi law, which requires a swift sentence once appeals have been exhausted.

The claim that the USA bank rolled his war with Iran is also false. The overwhelming financial contribution to his war came not from America, but from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who gave him a not too shabby $100 billion during the war. These Sunni states had no desire to see Shi'ite Iran emerge victorious. However, because the left cannot malign the USA by noting this, it simply ignores this fact and claims the USA was Saddam's arms dealer. Again, this is not true. Indeed, the main reason for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait shortly after the Iran-Iraq war was motivated by Kuwait suddenly changing the terms of Iraq's repayment of loans it had given Saddam.

This fact has been well documented by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) who found most of Saddam's weaponry 1973-1990 came from the USSR (57%), France (13%) and China (12%). Therefore, more than 80% of his weaponry was supplied by someone other than the USA. However, the fact Communist states and France are nations the left has a soft spot for means that again, this fact is never discussed. The USA only became involved when it looked like Iran would win and over run the region and de-stabilise it, and even then only on a modest scale. You may wish to point all of this out to leftists next time they try and say Saddam was a US tool.

Saddam's execution

The execution of Saddam has also been criticised by the left, which never misses an opportunity to show off it's trademark bleeding heart, especially on the issue of capital punishment. The execution of Saddam was a decision for the Iraqi people to make, and his execution was supported by the majority of it's people. The EU and other leftists have no business telling a sovereign nation what it can and cannot do with it's justice system. Former EU Commission president and current Italian prime minister Romano Prodi has spoken of his wish to propose a UN enforced global ban on executions. What the press don't tell you was that he had no problem working the "former" communists on the EU Commission, and currently governs Italy in coalition with communists. This is not a man who can lecture anyone else on morality, given his obvious ease with the evil ideology of communism. Furthermore, the Iraqi government rightly pointed out that Italy, which executed it's own dictator in 1945, has no right to lecture other nations which choose to do the same.

Interestingly, whilst the EU leaders fell over each other to declare their opposition to the death sentence, it is interesting to note that this was not their people's view. Survey's conducted in a number of European nations by Der Spiegel newspaper found that in all but one of the five nations it surveyed, a majority of people supported Saddam's execution. The people of Europe support the death penalty, it's just their far left leaders don't listen to them, then claim to speak for them on the world stage on this issue, when they clearly do not. Bear this in mind next time you hear a European leader state his nation's opposition to capital punishment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have seen that Saddam was not a tool of the USA, whose involvement with him was minimal, particularly in relation to other countries who are strangely spared criticism by the left. Saddam's wars were funded and financed by his Sunni neighbours, France and the Communist bloc. America did become involved, but only when absolutely necessary for the stability and safety of the region, and only then with great reluctance. As for the EU's self righteous pontification about Saddam's execution, it can be seen that this is nothing more than an extension of its desire to irritate the USA, and it does so without the support of its pro-death penalty majorities.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-25T13:34:00.000-08:00

I would like to wish all of our readers and their families a very Merry Christmas, and pray that you will enjoy a season of peace and joy. Thank you for being with us, and we look forward to writing more articles very soon!

Regards

Michael

"That's not true communism!": Leftist excuses for communism

2006-12-22T22:35:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting points about leftists, is their support for communism as an idea, despite the fact it has failed miserably in every corner of the globe it has been tried. Whether it be in Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa, communism fails. Yet far from acknowledge they are wrong, leftists simply state that the reason these states failed was because they were not truly practising communism, simply some not-quite-the-full-package version of it, hence why it failed. Leftists assure us that when they do it in our nations, it will be perfect communism, with us all skipping happilly off into the sunset of a classless utopia with absolutely no problems at all, and thus we have nothing to fear when millions of leftists march through the streets with hammer and sickle flags at "anti-war" rallies. Indeed, the leftists' aloof dismissive attitude is as annoying to us, as it is insulting to the memory of the millions who have died at the hands of communist regimes, either as the result of democide and/or the citizens of non-communist states that were attacked by them.

Easy as one, two three

Communism teaches that the revolution to take down the capitalist West will take three stages.

1) Over throwing the current society: The communist argues that this must be done, as the concept of organic societal change is the complete opposite of communism. The society in question can be over thrown through what leftists call "scissor techniques"; pressure from the bottom in the form of aggressive activism, protests and industrial strikes coupled with pressure from the top as leftists who have infiltrated high places try to help the revolution along. Part of this process is the concept of revolutionary defeatism, which essentially states that any movement or trend that can destabilise the society must be supported. This is why leftists are to be found in movements that harm the fabric of society.

2) After the old society falls, there will be a period of instability. To over see this period, the leftist proposes setting up a transitionary "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", a form of transitional government. At this point, the leftists usually "liquidate" any opponents, such as right wingers, traditionalists, faith leaders and most interestingly their "useful idiot" allies, who have out lived their usefulness once the take over has been completed.

The communist now has to totally re-programme society, which means that totalitarian control over every aspect of public life (arts, the media, the education system, trade unions, even churches) come under the ownership and command of "The State". After all, you cannot bring about total change without total control. There is then a sustained campaign to "re-educate" the civilians of the society, a euphemism for brain washing, with particular focus on getting them to abandon any ethnic, religious, national or family ties, as these are competitors with "The State" for the persons influence, opinions and affections.

It is perhaps unsurprising that in a state where ideology if everything, that there is a special section of the security services solely to deal with ideological "thought crimes". This means a secret police is established, usually immune from prosecution and with carte blanche to torture, rape and kill any citizen who is felt to be a political liability to the regime. This police force is heavilly dependent upon an extensive monitoring apparatus of bugged phones, hidden microphones in public places and a network of casual "informers", whose job is to report any casual remark made by an acquantance that could be perceived as a sign of political disloyalty or un-orthodoxy.

3) The leftist holds that eventually, the society will have been successfully "cleansed" of its capitalist ways, and that one day, the people of the society will be "New Soviet Men". That is, people totally devoid of any loyalty or identity other than that as a worker drone in a global hive as we step into the end of history and a "Classless Utopia" where we all live happilly ever after.

Apologist for Communism

Given communism's embrassing and brutal history, it is extraordinary that anyone could defend it. Nevertheless, leftists routinely defend communism and the states which practised it, with a passion that is deeply disturbing. When confronted with the lack of freedom of expression and conscience in communist states, the leftist will shrug his/her/it's shoulders and say something along the lines of "Yes but..." followed by some glowing and highly selective account of the communist states health system. When confronted with the devastating famines communist social engineering caused, the leftist again shrugs his shoulders, and states this famine was nothing to do with the communist ideology. When confronted with the communist state's track record of building nuclear and biological weapons, the leftist states that this was a purely defensive reaction to the West. The list of excuses leftists will make is endless.

Let us examine the double standard. If an academic was confronted with the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis, and that academic's response was to say "Yes but, the Nazis did solve unemployment, those road building programmes were something, huh?" then there would be uproar and quite rightly. Yet across the Western world, especially in it's universities, there "academics" whose excuse making for communism is endless, and yet goes unchallenged, indeed, practically considered uncontroversial. Why is this?!

Conclusion

Communism is not dead. It is alive and well. Whilst many states that practised communism are gone, there will always be sick minds who believe communism deserves another chance, and who will stop at nothing to drag us and our people into the darkness that is a communist state. Whether it be the "former" communists now employed by the EU commission or the "crypto-communists" of many alllegedly centre left parties, the threat has not gone away. We must remain vigilant, otherwise the smug excuses of college professors will be the least of our worries....

Apologies

2006-12-17T12:00:00.000-08:00

Sorry for my absence lately, but work has been keeping me busy. I will be publishing soon, as I finish for Christmas break soon, so keep tuned!

Individualism, collectivism and hyper individualism

2006-12-03T05:51:00.000-08:00

We social scientists state that a society can have one of two possible "cultural orientations". It can either be collectivist, or individualist. Put simply, in a collectivist society, family and clan ties are regarded as critical and people in these societies are expected to put their own dreams and beliefs to one side for "the greater good" of the whole community. Examples of collectivist societies include Latin America, the Far East and the Islamic world. In an individualist soceity, the individual is regarded as sovereign, and it is their wishes that should be the ultimate decider of action. Examples of individualist societies are Europe, North America and Australia-New Zealand.

However, I argue that there is in fact a third type of orientation which is co-existing inside our Western societies that is often a source of tremendous societal chaos and personal misery. I call this "hyper-individualism", and it needs to be brought out into the open and discussed and dealt with.

What is the difference?

There is at first some close inter relation between individualism and hyper individualism. After all, both reject communalism and the notion that a persons life should be ultimately under the control of the herds around them and/or its self appointed "community leaders". However, there are at closer viewing some considerable differences between individualism and hyper individualism which reveal why I regard the latter as so potentially problematic. In an indivudalist society, people do not regard "the community" as their boss, but at the same time are mindful of it and work hard to fit their own desires and habits around the other membrs of that community and often feel a strong urge to be involved in that community. By contrast, hyper-individualists couldn't care less about anyone but themselves, don't care about what impact their actions have on others regard themselves as a living God.

The two essential planks upon which hyper individualism is based is "instant gratification" and "only I matter". Let us explore the first

"Instant Gratification"

Instant gratification sprang out of the 1960's, when a youth that had unprecedented spending power and personal freedom decided that they want it all and want it now. This was part of the inspiration behind the sexual revolution which led to people having casual sex as and when the need took them. Despite it's flowery sounding camouflage of "free love", it was in fact nothing more than a sexual free for all, with sky rocketing sexual disease infection rates, un wanted pregnancies and abortions. By the 1980's, a new disease called AIDS had arisen, with some believing that the sexual prmoscuity unleashed in the 1960's could have been the cause of it. We have yet to shake off the sexual revolution sexual mores.

This instant gratification ethic of wanting it all and wanting it now also crossed over from purely sexual gratification to consumer spending. People increasingly began to buy trinkets and other semi-useless toys for their homes, often running up huge debts in the process. Indeed, modern Britain like most other Western nations is a cauldron of obscene levels of personal debt, most of it to blame on people buying things with credit cards so they do not have to necessarily have the money at that moment to buy their latest expensive trinket. Indeed, people long ago abandoned the notion of carefully saving up for things. However, credit card repayment often cripples the person with debt, and as British politician George Osborne said "...an economy built on borrowed money is an economy built on borrowed time". Sobering words.

"Only I matter"

As well as the problem of instant gratification, we also have the problem of "Only I matter". Increasingly, our societies have moved from being based on responsibility for ones actions to one where we increasingly demand our "right" to do x, y and z, regardless of the consequences to others. After all, as long as I get what I want, who cares about the consequences of that? Indeed, this is very clear in criminal justice, where criminals who clearly have no interest in the rights of others are the first to angrilly demand their "rights" via their lawyers. We see it with the sex offenders who pounce of lone women and children to get their instant gratification; so what if their lives are ruined by the assault, thinks the rapist, as long as I get what I want, who cares about the impact on others?

Perhaps worse is the increasingly privatised society we now live in, with people retreating to their homes in suburbia to hide from the world around them. There is no sense of community or togetherness, and as such, people don't feel a need to fight evil or injustice, because people only care when the evil and injustice hits other people. If we see a news report about a rape, we just switch channels instead of fighting against criminals and the corrupt lawyers and bleeding hearts who defend them. Indeed, as our civilization struggles against terrorism, mass immigration, spiralling crime, family break down and other symptoms of a society in crisis, the fighting is increasingly being done by a small number of activists who often are not even given the time of day by the people who should be fighting with us. It is not good to burden these brave individuals with too much.

The ethic of only I matter also impacts on stability in romantic relationships and marriage, as people increasingly view their partner as utterly disposable if and when they feel that they are no longer giving them what they want. Who cares about the impact of divorce on the children and/or wider society, as long as I'm ok, who else matters?

What is needed

* Make it harder to apply for credit cards to discourage people from buying things they cannot afford
* Institute harsh penalties for criminals with no reference to their so called "rights"
* Discourage sexual promiscuity in school sex education classes and discourage its portrayal in the media
* Remind people of the concept of a persons actions having consequences for others

This list is by no means extensive, but if something isn't done soon, our civilization may have become to sick to rescue.