The Day Glo Revolution

My belief in the honesty of our current politicians and the client media has not been very high since the Tony Blair era when spin (a nice word for professional lying) somehow became a respectable attribute. This week our establishment has surprised me all over again by taking their dishonest efforts to thwart any exit from the European Union to another level.

I struggle to take them seriously any more. Every vote, every story line showcased by the client media is part of an orchestrated pantomime. Our Prime Minister behaves like a ham actor in a third rate amateur dramatics production reading out lines prepared by unseen handlers, there is no evidence of any thought process in what she says other than to ensure the words are said in the correct order. As she reads her lines, behind her on the stage even worse actors than her continue their performance, trying to persuade the audience that this is a functioning democracy.

At the end of March 2019 we leave the European Union, that is the law. This law was passed as a result of a referendum in 2016 when in our nation’s greatest vote ever 17.4 million of us voted to leave the European Union. In 2017 Theresa May called a snap general election, and the two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, stood on a mandate that they would honour the referendum. Therefore, there is no democratic mandate for staying in the EU.

So here is the problem, our current set of politicians have no intention of leaving the European Union.

It seems pretty clear that Parliament has rejected the withdrawal agreement the Prime Minister has negotiated, she does have a few weeks to see if she can get some concessions from the EU before returning to Parliament but it is difficult to see how she would prevail. The opposition could call a vote of no confidence to spark a General Election but that also looks unlikely to succeed. So Parliament’s last desperate throw of the dice to keep a democratic veneer on this will most probably be to somehow contrive a second referendum. I contend that any such referendum will ensure that this time the ‘correct’ result is delivered and that it will be the last time anyone is offered any even notionally democratic choice in their future. The jury is out on whether they will try this option to block Brexit, after all the only legitimate question you could put on the ballot paper is to leave with the Prime Minister’s deal or leave without one, but given I have zero trust in our politicians the ballot paper will probably offer us the choice between staying in the EU or remaining in the EU.

There is of course the possibility that Parliament will find some device to stop us leaving without a deal. The narrative for this is already being carefully introduced, you may have noticed how the client media have started talking about Parliament taking control, the irony of this lie of course is that it is Parliament taking control to prevent a process that returns powers to Parliament from an unwanted supranational entity. In my view this would be a very bad development, a Parliament that has decided for itself it can ignore a referendum it had promised to honour can pretty much ignore anything else it wishes to from that point forward and you can be sure that it will.

I wrote elsewhere a few days back that I am minded of a family building up to confront the head of the household about his gambling and drinking problems. Subconsciously he is aware that the denouement is looming but still he deceives and conceals because it has served his purpose so well in the past. This time however things are different, the family can see through all the lies and are determined to finally confront him with the truth. The truth I suspect is that the family fortune is gone, all of the assets and heirlooms sold off and the family left with nothing but debts.

I believe that in March 2019 the people of Britain will finally learn whether they live in a democracy or they are under the occupation of a foreign power that hides behind a puppet government. My hope is that there are enough politicians in Westminster that now see that this is no longer about the European Union but the contract within a democratic nation state that we all learn to share power.

The past two years have shown me how much of our establishment is made up of venal, lying degenerates, I don’t trust them and I do know how much contempt they have for the people of this country so nothing would surprise me about them. I still hope we can leave the EU without civil unrest but si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace then prepare for war. My advice is to invest in a yellow high visibility jacket and wait for further instructions, you might be needing it.

Advertisements

April Fool 2019 – who is Sovereign?

“L’État, c’est moi” – Louis XIV of France

For me one of the major irritations in the referendum debate is the way many on the remain side contend that the United Kingdom and its parliament is sovereign. All too many on both sides of the debate labour under the impression that the EU is an inter-governmental arrangement, a sort of NATO for trade. Few realise how much control of this country has been handed over to the European Union in the past forty years or so. Fewer still understand how much of what happens in this country is decided in Brussels and not London.

British politicians have gone to great lengths to pretend to the people of this country that we are members of a friendly trade club. The EU however has been very clear what this is about, the creation of a Federal States of Europe. The EU also has a clearly explained structure, it has an executive in the form of the European Commission, a Council of Ministers that supervise the commission, a court and a parliament (I know – lets leave that one for now). It really requires a phenomenal feat of mental gymnastics to pretend the EU does not see itself as a state particularly when they explain it to you on their web site.

Now there is an argument for a Federal Europe, I accept that, I don’t wish to be part of it but I take the argument at face value because it is a logical belief. What I will not accept is the argument that we are somehow a sovereign nation despite giving away so much control of our country to an anti democratic supranational entity.

This argument matters so much now, as our country draws to the end of the Article 50 protocols. At the end of March next year we either leave the EU with a deal or crash out without one. My views on falling back onto WTO are well known – I favoured leaving within the EFTA pillar of the EEA, this is pretty much academic since this option has not been explored. The deal we will be offered is the one being negotiated by the Prime Minister.

I am not privy to the details of the deal she is working on but the reaction to her favoured ‘Chequers’ proposal has been covered in much detail elsewhere. Unlike many other commentators on the developments I don’t think Theresa May intends to betray the country, I just don’t think she is up to the job and even if she was I don’t think she has been very well supported – our entire Civil Service having long ago ensured only those that supported the EU had any prospect of a career. I am fairly certain she will return with a deal, it will be a poor one of that I am sure but we only had a couple of strong cards to play and they were wasted at the outset.

She has allowed Tony Blair to backchannel with the EU and to use his detailed knowledge of the Good Friday agreement to weaponise the Irish Border question. She agreed almost a year ago to the EU proposed backstop. The deal she returns with will probably keep the UK in some form of Customs Union during the transition period. More expert commentators such as Dr Richard North have pointed out that the Customs Union does not solve the border issue it is regulatory alignment that is the issue. For the sake of argument let us say it does park the problem, whilst not ideal I could live with it – but here is the kicker, we will not be allowed to leave it without the EU agreeing for us to do so.

In a way I hope it comes to that because with startling clarity the sovereignty issue will be there for all to see. Parliament if it is indeed sovereign can make or unmake any law. Sign up to such a deal and the mantra that no parliament can bind a future parliament will no longer be true, parliament will not by any definition be sovereign, someone else is.

Give it time, the penny will drop.

Time for the Flexcit approach to Brexit?

I have just read an interesting piece by Lord Hague of Richmond (William Hague) in the Daily Telegraph defending the Prime Minister and her handling of the negotiations over Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Lord Hague describes how the Conservative Party is stretched to the limit over our relationship with the EU which is hardly a surprise to those of us that follow politics. I take a vicarious enjoyment from this in that the party that took us in to the European Union is the party with the most troubled conscience over it, karma I say.

During the referendum Lord Hague campaigned for us to stay in the European Union and I see little that suggests he has changed his mind; however he has been consistent in respecting the outcome of the vote so I respect his views and acknowledge his democratic credentials so I am prepared to listen to what he has to say.

He rightly identifies the struggle the Prime Minister faces in keeping her party together, the need to keep the Democratic Unionists on board and the seemingly intractable problem of the border in Northern Ireland. Whether by design or poor strategy the Prime Minister has created a situation where the negotiations have moved to a point where we either defend the Union or we accept that part of it remains under EU jurisdiction.

There is of course an argument to throw Northern Ireland under a bus, not sensible in my view but it is an argument – George Galloway has already suggested just that in terms of the need for the unification of the island of Ireland. In isolation it is a valid argument but would strengthen the case of the Scottish Nationalists who see remaining in the EU as their route to independence (I know – lets not do that one right now). In any case I don’t think any Prime Minister wants to go down in history as the one that broke up the Union. For the sake of brevity, right now that dog don’t hunt, the Union has to stay intact – at least for now.

My take on Lord Hague’s intervention is that the shrewder Remainers have made the calculation that if the final months of our membership of the EU reach a point where all the discussion is about protecting the Union and negotiating a deal with the EU takes a back seat then we create the conditions for leaving the EU in the Spring of next year without a deal – the so called Hard Brexit.

Many of my fellow Brexiteers are strongly in favour of a Hard Brexit, I am not one of those and cards on the table here I have long been an advocate of Dr North’s Flexcit plan:

Dr North’s Flexcit Plan

For the purpose of this blog it means invoking Article 50 and dropping into the EEA / EFTA arrangements for a number of years to allow us to catch our breath and prepare for full independence. I won’t go into lengthy details about Flexcit (the plan is over 400 pages long) but I will attempt to summarise why I favour this option.

The notion that any nation is completely sovereign is not an accurate characterisation of the modern world. Even China signs up to international agreements that take certain decisions out of their hands, this is not a bad thing when we consider the good regulations that come from international bodies, for example last year the aviation industry had the safest year ever courtesy of international co-operation. The key difference here is that intergovernmental agreements tend to be transparent and come with accountability. The EU operates a supranational model where decision making is opaque and there is little visibility of the people that exert control over our lives- even in Communist China people know who their leaders are. Put as simplistically as I can the EEA is more of an intergovernmental arrangement – unlike the EU. In general terms the EFTA pillar of the EEA allows us to participate in the single market, negotiate trade deals, frees us from the European Court of Justice and allows a better degree of control over immigration since it reverts back to free movement of labour not free movement of people – i.e. you can’t come here just to sign on. There are a number of models of the EEA / ETA arrangements, my preference would be the Norway model.  I feel I must re-emphasise I see the Norway model as a fairly pain free stepping stone to independence not a final destination.

What struck me about Lord Hague’s piece was that for the first time I have heard a senior Tory float the idea of EFTA arrangements. Whilst this is a good thing in my view I am irritated by his sudden realisation. It was because of Remainers like Lord Hague who insisted on telling people if we left the EU we would lose access to the single market and it was Remainers and their knuckle headed Project Fear that prevented this option for Brexit getting the consideration it was due.

More worryingly, Lord Hague mentioned in passing that Parliament could block any attempt to leave the EU without a deal. I am certain that is exactly what will happen, I am certain that any attempt at a Hard Brexit will ultimately fail – not because of the will of the people but because it provides exactly the excuse our political class need to prevent our country leaving the EU. Of course this will be dressed up as acting in the national interest.

Hopefully I have managed to convince some of you to have a deep think about the Norway option, it may not be exactly the Brexit you wanted but please do think deeply about what I have said. The Hard Brexit many of you wish to see will in my view achieve the exact opposite, your argument does not have the Parliamentary arithmetic on its side, mine probably does. Think about it, I implore you, put emotion to one side and really, really think about it, we only get one shot at this.

The Dark State Fools

On the rare occasion when my diary is clear from meeting world leaders and strutting the global stage; a nice weekend starts on a Friday evening with a beer in my local tavern in the company of my better half followed by a nice home cooked fish meal. Once fed and watered I like to settle in front of the TV and veg – Friday night is the night when I don’t want anything too taxing so a good comedy fits the bill perfectly.

The trouble is that these days the shows I can actually enjoy seem to be getting fewer and fewer. I still love QI and Room 101 and I found Toast quirky but addictive but most of the others now like Mock the Week just seem to follow the same hate Brexit hate Trump mantra. This is not to say I am a huge fan of Donald Trump – but the hysteria is getting a bit boring now, in any case if misogyny is their pet hate why does the King of Saudi Arabia get a free pass?

Comedy can be cruel and poking fun at the rich and powerful is considered fair game although I think a line needs to be drawn when the target is going through personal turmoil, the rich and powerful people are human like the rest of us. That aside I accept the deal, what I struggle with is that modern comedy seems to focus solely on areas that threaten a Globalist worldview but choose to ignore things that really do deserve to be laughed at. When it comes to religion Christianity and Judaism can be taunted mercilessly but Islam is scarcely touched – at a time when humour really could do some good.

Making fun of people that cannot fight back is moral cowardice; the great comedians of the past like Dave Allen were fearless in their choice of targets. The vast majority of modern comedians (Jonathan Pie being a rare exception) share this same moral cowardice, more than happy to virtue signal over Brexit, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson they are absent when it comes to very real threats to our lives such as violent Islam.

BBC comedy output in particular now seems to operate exclusively from this playbook, by all means mock Nigel Farage dropping in heavy hints about his racism when he clearly isn’t a racist yet say nothing about Dianne Abbott – who clearly is. The topics and the angles are so predictable now it seems to me that the only way a comedian is ever going to get a slot on a television channel funded by taxpayer’s is to ridicule many of the things people actually support. Put it this way – how many comedians have you heard on a BBC panel show ripping in to the EU? Yep – none. Figure the break.

I have written before about how BBC news does not actually tell the news, it uses news items to push a Globalist agenda. Illegal immigrants are now undocumented migrants (or refugees), the predictable impact of mass immigration is deliberately ignored, instead we have a housing crisis or an NHS crisis – funny how it’s never an immigration crisis? The same dogma is fed to us through comedy and it is becoming less and less subtle.

I do wonder if any of them have the wit to ask themselves why its only their worldview that gets broadcast, doesn’t it occur to any of them that they are there not because they are funny but because they may serve the purpose of some very malign people? Marcus Brigstoke at least made some effort to understand this, not long after the referendum he noticed that when he performed outside of the London area people started to get up and leave when started his jokes about Brexit. Yet too few noticed that people that voted to leave the EU i.e. the majority didn’t take too kindly to paying their hard earned money to be called knuckle dragging troglodytes, I wish Marcus took his thinking to its logical conclusion and asked why the BBC is doing the same thing on a grander scale with licence payer’s money.

I am afraid all too many now do not deserve to be called comedians, they are nothing more than court jesters for the Dark State.

Article 50 and the Ides of March

Few of us that voted to leave the EU have enjoyed a day when it seemed crystal clear that the outcome of the referendum would be respected. Since the vote in 2016 I have not known one moment when there was absolute certainty we were leaving the EU. Straight after the referendum we had to endure weeks of abuse and hysteria from the media and all too many on the Remain side of the debate – not able for one second to enjoy the first ray of sunshine many of us had seen in years. Beyond this our establishment has tried every legal and political device to thwart the decision against a constant background of smears that somehow 17.4 million people were bribed by the Russians/Aaron Banks/Cambridge Analytica (tick one) to vote to leave the EU.

One further piece of law-fare got under the radar when the Labour party conference dominated the news. On Friday 21st September Scottish judges decided to allow the European Court of Justice to rule if Article 50 could be revoked by Parliament. So what? You may ask. Well this matters, it matters a lot. The Government still has the option of referring the decision of the Scottish judges to the Supreme Court (an ironic term when you think about it) but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Until now the understanding of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is that the nation that invoked it could not unilaterally withdraw it – a sensible provision if you think about it since a nation could use the withdrawal mechanism as a form of blackmail to get its way over some aspect of national interest. Notwithstanding this, given the time and effort the EU would need to devote to the process it had to seem like a one way process to deter nations from invoking it lightly. The only way the process could be stopped was if all of the remaining nations agreed for this to happen, not impossible but one or two would probably prefer to see the back of a nation that had caused them so much trouble, in the case of the UK a nation that has been a royal pain in the backside since it joined.

I don’t want to get into a Paddy Ashdown hat eating moment here but I am pretty sure the European Court of Justice will rule that Parliament has the power to revoke Article 50 effectively by-passing the other nations in the EU. What are the odds that this all happens at the time the Prime Minister returns to Parliament to vote on the deal – a deal the Labour Party has already stated it would vote against?

The timing of this is highly suspicious (to me at least), the ruling is expected in December which is about the same time the ‘meaningful’ vote Parliament on the deal Theresa May has negotiated with the EU. Since the EU has been negotiating with someone who does not want to leave, the Prime Minister of Parliament that also does not want to leave there was never any pressure on them to offer anything meaningful.

I have long argued that the simplest and easiest route out for us was by way of membership of European Economic Area (EEA) and then application to re-join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Time has pretty much run out of that option and we have a Prime Minister determined to negotiate her ‘Chequers Plan’ to a successful conclusion, a plan the EU has made abundantly clear is unacceptable to them.

To be fair to the EU they have been consistent in their message about the single market that there could be no cherry picking, since the Chequers Plan seeks exactly that it is difficult to see what the Prime Minister hopes to achieve here. Now there are many Brexiteers that want to see a clean break with the EU and don’t care for Chequers or the EFTA option – that is a separate argument, what I think is going on here is theatre, my take on it is that Theresa May will return to Parliament with a deal she knows neither side will accept – an achievement in its own right. Parliament will perform a pantomime for the plebs and vote it down and with the clock ticking toward our exit without a deal in March 2019 Parliament will vote to revoke Article 50 ‘ in the national interest’ and the coup against the people of this country will be complete.

Our establishment betrayed us by taking us into the EU in the first place; does anyone really believe they won’t try to pull the same stunt again? At least one thing, it will finally be as plain as the nose on your face that the people who own our country don’t actually live here.

A post script – a fellow blogger, David John Phipps has written an excellent follow up piece on this subject Article 50 Revocation

The #PeoplesVote – how to steal a country from its people

Until Tony Blair decided to make white people illegal I was a very committed Labour supporter. Nowadays I don’t support any political party or political ideology, preferring instead to focus on more simple observations about the world, a favourite observation is that the poor are so poor because the rich are so rich. This observation is logical – given any finite resource if a small part of a group of people control most of it then the rest of the group has less.

Political ideology attempts to solve the problem of wealth distribution, two of the main ‘solutions’ are either to tax the wealthy and to redistribute their money or to create the conditions where those that have less at least have an opportunity to create more. Both of these approaches have failed, the wealthy are adept at hiding their money (since they own the politicians) and no one has ever really explained how you magically generate more from something that is finite. I suppose we could all keep pretending that printing more money or generating more ones and zeroes in bank computers creates more wealth but that would require a level of collective stupidity normally confined to politicians and economic ‘experts’.

Ideology fails and it will continue to fail because it does not address human nature. In order to save time I will be blunt, the reason the rich are so rich is because a small part of our gene pool produces greedy bastards with no sense of shame and a super inflated sense of entitlement, in the main these people are the wealthy elite and are expert at exploiting decent people. A similar percentage of people are lazy bastards with no sense of shame and a super inflated sense of entitlement, these people are very good at exploiting the welfare system established by decent people. In the middle of these two cohorts are the majority – decent people, the people who work, create and produce and the people the wealthy and the lazy harvest for their parasitic existence.

OK – I have maybe painted society with too broad a brush, but I hope at least you can see what I am getting at. Human society has been plagued by these people since we left the caves and political ideology is not going to change that, I am afraid for the time being the rich are always with us, they have no intention of sharing their wealth with us but expect us to share ours with them and they do not feel the slightest prick of self-consciousness about it.

Wealth and power are connected, whilst it is true some very powerful men in history had little or no money (Adolph Hitler was remarkably austere) money has always bought influence and a great deal of power. The financier George Soros who has never held public office seems to have most of the world’s leaders on speed dial should he require an audience – this despite the fact that he is not a citizen of most of the countries he likes to meddle in. I don’t know a single British person who enjoys the privilege of lobbying the Prime Minister directly at a whim but this is the world we live in.

One of the few checks society has introduced to limit the power of a predatory elite is democracy. The term comes from Greek and means rule by people. Much as the elite refuse to share their wealth they absolutely resent sharing power. The problem for the elite is that modern technology requires an educated workforce, an educated workforce starts to ask awkward questions like ‘who are you and why are you telling me what to do?’. Democracy on the terms of the wealthy elite, much as it pains them, does at least help control a reasonably educated workforce, after all when you own all the political parties you hardly care which one the plebs vote for. This pretty much explains the current predicament across the West since no matter how we vote we get the same no borders globalist dogma inflicted upon us, the most obvious explanation to me is that all main political parties are bought and paid for by the same wealthy elite, we just get to choose which personality to shaft us.

What the wealthy elite really fear is direct democracy, this is where us voters get the chance to vote on decisions that affect our lives and have a say in how our country is run. Politicians don’t like referenda because it limits their power and the wealthy elite really hate referenda because it actually does mean their vote carries no more weight than anyone else’s and what is worse the politicians they own are not able to carry out their master’s orders.

This brings me to the referendum and the decision by the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. I don’t intend to revisit the debate over Brexit here but I think most seriously minded people however they voted must have noticed the incredible hysteria once the vote went a different way to that the establishment expected and a result the wealthy elite thought they had paid for.

For the two years since we have seen a constant effort to de-legitimise the result, i.e. it was the Russians, we were lied to (that’s right, I thought we were electing a bus), we were stupid and ill informed (well if we’re stupid we whipped your hide, what’s that say about you?). Against this backdrop has been a very well funded self styled “People’s Vote” – I think very little money for it actually came from the British people, I would wager most of it came from foreign interests. The purpose of this “People’s Vote” is not to endorse any final deal on EU membership, its sole purpose is to cheat the people in a decision they have already taken. If it proceeds the ongoing coup against the people of this country will be completed. We will be finished as people within a generation or two, most have noticed how much our establishment dislike us, never underestimate the spiteful revenge they will exact on us for trying to thwart their plans if they manage to overturn the result.

The elite have never accepted the outcome of the referendum and have sought to undermine it ever since, so learn their tactics and use them against them, de-legitimise the so-called “People’s” Vote, our media is not going to do it so we need to. People’s Vote are desperate to avoid the appearance of this being a second referendum – so challenge them on this as it is their weak point and exposes their dishonesty, if it is not a second referendum then why are they asking people to remain in the EU when they have already voted to leave? Surely if it was a People’s Vote the question on the ballot should be accept the deal the Prime Minister negotiates or leave the EU without a deal? Never pass up an opportunity to ask why it is wealthy foreigners are pouring money into the People’s Vote campaign, never fail to point out that there seem to be an awful lot of very wealthy, privileged people seeking to overturn the referendum. Finally never stop asking exactly what sort of country do people expect they will be living in if 52% of the population have been told their votes don’t count and keep pressing them on this point until they answer.

There is of course a brighter alternative future for us and that involves ensuring the outcome of the referendum is respected and that we leave the EU (hopefully with a good deal). Do that and we can push further, for the first time in decades the people were given an actual say in the running of their country, we have the technology for more direct democracy, direct democracy makes political parties redundant and diminishes the power of the people who have been sitting on our backs for millennia and transfers that power to us.

And of course once the power is transferred to us we can finally ask the question, ‘who are you – and can you explain where you got all this money from?’

Mr Trump’s cold Turkey treatment?

President Trump seems to conduct American policy via Twitter these days – which at least makes it easy for a pleb like me to keep track of where he is going on any particular day. His latest spat is with President Erdogan of Turkey; Mr Trump announced an increase on tariffs for Turkish steel and aluminium in response to the lack of progress over the release of an American pastor held in a Turkish prison. It is unlikely that this is the real reason, I doubt any nation would risk a trade war for the sake of one individual however worthy his or her case but there is little doubt that the relationship between Turkey and the United States has become very strained, particularly over Syria.

Turkey does show worrying signs of heading towards an economic crisis, it is spending more than it earns and is very reliant on imports. The Turkish lira has lost 30% of its value against the dollar since the New Year; this makes imports more expensive and thus fuels inflation. The Turkish stock market is down 40% and government borrowing – even in its own currency is now at an interest rate of 18%.

To add to the countries woes repayments on some of its loans are due very shortly – so refinancing the debt will be required, in addition many Turkish business’s have borrowed in foreign currencies, the weakening Lira has inflated their debt.

Central Banks can intervene to control inflation – most typically by raising interest rates, something President Erdogan has insisted he will not do.

You may well ask that given the aftershocks of the credit crunch many countries around the world (ours included) face financial headwinds – so why am I writing about Turkey? Well Turkey is one of the wealthiest countries in the world ranked 17th in Gross Domestic Product by both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Turkey is also an important member of NATO both militarily and strategically. Moreover Turkey has, since the end of World War Two, formed part of the Liberalist consensus that has spread across the world. It is this consensus that many see as part of the architecture of the Deep State – the Deep State that President Trump seeks to end.

Putting Turkey into a position where it may leave NATO is not without risks, it could lead to a much stronger bloc of powerful anti American countries although it could be argued this is already happening and already spreading given President Trump’s actions over Iran. From the perspective of Europe the more immediate consequence could be a flood of illegal immigrants should Turkey decide it has no longer has any obligation to the EU.

Turkey now faces a perfect storm, a Central Bank that is hamstrung by its President, looming debt repayments and a weakening Lira, a trade war with the US is the last thing it needs.

But then perhaps President Trump already knows this?

The Sound of Silence

“Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be”

– Yogi Berra.

I try to be careful when writing about the world I grew up in, it is easy to remember fond memories of how things were and forget all too easily that some things are better now. In my memories of childhood holidays in Walton on the Naze the sun was always shining and I played on a beach of pure golden sand. Now unless we went through an unreported period of severe climate change during my childhood my memory must be slightly at fault, but I genuinely cannot remember a day when it rained. I guess this is true for all of us, when we remember good times we have simply forgotten the things that tarnish that memory.

So it is with care in mind that I write that twenty years ago Britain was a much better place to live in. The mass immigration instigated by Tony Blair had not yet made that much impact, the economy was doing well, and austerity would have been difficult to comprehend. Many of the technologies we use today were in their infancy, people were beginning to use the web for social purposes, there were concerns over how this technology would develop but most felt it to be benign and beneficial to our lives. The world was not without its problems but I remember that there was still a sense of progress, a sense that the next century would be even better despite our misgivings about technology.

One aspect of life back then was the freedom we had to speak and to hold opinions. Whilst it was true that announcing you had just been promoted to Grand Wizard of your local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan was not a great ice breaker, having views that differed from the line of the BBC was not considered controversial. When it came to religion nothing was really off limits.

Now consider the world we live in now, look at the hysteria following the result of the EU referendum. I live and work in London, the Brexiteers I work with had to put up with quite awful comments and accusations. One girl in my office, a well educated girl, felt she had free reign to shout and scream all sorts of names at people. Fortunately one of my colleagues (a Remainer) had a quiet word with her manager who managed to shut her up. All the London Brexiteers I have spoken to have had similar experiences, we live in a world where we have to keep our beliefs to ourselves whilst others feel entitled to bully everyone else into accepting their sanctimonious world view. Let’s not even get started on the inability to criticise Islam – but funny how you can say what you want about Christianity. Hmmm…

As a joke I nicknamed the girl in the office Polia after Polia Nikolaenko, the “heroic denunciatrix of Kiev”, from the time of Stalin’s purges in the 1930s. Thanks to Polia’s sterling efforts about 8,000 people were sent to the gulags or slow death in an NKVD dungeon. In my case the denunciations normally involved being called a xenophobe – xenophobe because there was absolutely no hope whatsoever of making the racist slur stick. This is not to suggest we are experiencing some Stalinist purge, I do have a sense of perspective- but to point out that the infrastructure is already in place for one.

A few days ago Alastair Campbell, a former Downing Street Press Secretary, tweeted that people who disagree with climate change should be locked up. Personally I am not in the climate change denial camp – but the fact that someone like Alastair feels emboldened to make this demand is just a tad worrying, more troubling is the silence of the elite media over his sinister words, nope not a peep. You can be sure Alastair will continue to be paraded as a regular political pundit on national TV enjoying the same immunity that so far has prevented any serious questions being asked about his involvement in the invasion of Iraq.

In a similar vein Guardian Journalist Owen Jones (who loves to portray himself as a defender of the working class) has also been particularly active in the ongoing Momentum purge taking place in the Labour Party. Owen seems to be doing a great impression of Squealer from Animal Farm by rejoicing at the moves to de-select Kate Hoey and Frank Field – two MPs respected across the spectrum for holding reasonable middle of the road views on things.

This is now the age of the denouncers and the squealers of what I call the Dark State of Liberalism. They have secured almost complete control of the elite media, ensuring that nearly everything we get to hear on radio, watch on TV or read in the legacy media has their voice only. The march of the Liberalists continues across social media. I live in Ealing, a major local story concerned the Marie Stopes abortion clinic and the long running ‘demonstrations’ outside. I am a fairly keen runner and the clinic is on the route of one of my runs so I am familiar with the anti abortion demonstrations – these mainly consisted of a Polish Catholic couple sitting outside offering leaflets. Of course the media would have you believe that the women heading to the clinic had to fight their way through a six deep Spartan Phalanx.

Ealing Council took the deeply worrying step of prohibiting demonstrations within 100 metres of the clinic. My local Facebook page was triumphant – the few people like me who question the morality of abortion as a form of birth control tried in vain to point out that many of us are troubled by abortion and deeply troubled by losing our right of assembly. Naturally we were denounced and hounded for daring to point out that a large number of abortions are repeats i.e. multiple abortions from the same mother.

The relentless march of Liberalism has moved directly into our lives, few of us that hold a different world view are able to speak freely and in time I am sure those few will succumb. Those of us who remember a world where we shared a common culture and language, a world where political views could be expressed and religion rightfully criticised are now being intimidated into silence. Silence however is not enough for the Liberalists, we are required to state things as fact that we know are untrue. I have written before to share my concerns about the real purpose of the transgender narrative, it seems designed to create conditions where it is heresy to point out that nature is not gender fluid when it comes to Homo Sapiens i.e. there is male and there is female and that is it. Give way to this narrative and we face an Orwellian future where two plus two equals five.

I do not identify as a Populist, I reject any ideology in the same way I reject religion, I have concluded that both reveal an inability to think freely and independently and hinder the ability to construct a model of the world based on what is directly experienced. My views, ones that I freely expressed twenty years ago are increasingly becoming heresy – how has this happened so quickly and how much worse is this going to become? Is this the purpose of the poisonous identity politics to set the young against the old? To remove all trace of the people who remember a better world?

My heresy is that I wish to live in an independent democratic nation state, a nation where one is able to think and speak freely, one that is not menaced by a Dark Age cult. How on earth have these beliefs become a thought-crime? We have drifted so far from the country I was born into.

Squealer’s penalty shoot out

If I lived in a country that enjoyed a benign establishment committed to protecting its people I would probably write blogs on one of my passions in life – sport, team sports in particular. I therefore find it a happy coincidence that my addiction to the football world cup has brought into sharp focus the sneering attitude our establishment has for this country and its people.

Since the world cup started I have watched every game either live or the recorded highlights. Being a particularly sad individual I watch the England matches live and the extended highlights. The knockout game against Columbia was a particularly tense affair, given the torment of extra time and penalties I do wonder sometimes why I put myself through it, watching England is more of an ordeal than a pleasure.  For once England won a world cup game on penalties and I went to bed shortly after almost collapsing with nervous exhaustion.

The next day on the train in to work I checked my Twitter feed as I do most days but I found myself ignoring the Brexit conversations and instead focused on the football feeds. Mostly jokes and memes but one drew my attention mainly from the angry responses it generated.

As the social media joke goes – that Tweet aged well. Kevin Maguire is a journalist and associate editor at the Daily Mirror, Kevin is a pretty committed Labour supporter. In many ways I can understand the trajectory of his career, a working class background, grammar school education which took him to University and from there a career as a journalist. No surprise there that he would support Labour, what I struggle with is the disdain he has clearly shown for his fellow countrymen.

Now Kevin is entitled to his opinion and I defend his right to express it, in fact I am pleased he did on this occasion because it helped crystallise my thoughts. You see Kevin’s views are not only acceptable to our establishment; they conform to their way of thinking. Kevin’s tweet was an affirmation of the utter contempt they have for the working class – and in particular the white working class of this country. In Kevin’s case I have a special dislike for him, he is working class but he has decided to become a Squealer, the propaganda minister in the book Animal Farm.

Put aside Brexit, the effects of mass immigration, the ever present menace of the religion of peace – here is the real threat to us, almost the entirety of our establishment are made up of people that think like Kevin. We now have a self perpetuating system of people that hate their own country and its people that now run our media, our judiciary, civil service, academia and political system. To flourish in any of these sectors you must conform to a certain worldview.

This is a worldview that denounces and increasingly imprisons those who try to speak out about Muslim rape gangs. One where the EU is some wonderful harmonious project and those that don’t quite see it that way are ignorant xenophobes whose votes are ill informed and therefore to be ignored. It is a worldview that seeks to extinguish the British as a race but cruelly brands them as the racists for the crime of trying to ensure their children grow up in world with the freedoms and security they enjoyed as children, not one menaced by a violent Dark Age cult.

People are of course entitled to their opinions and these must be protected if we wish to live in a free country – but what nation, what system or organisation could possibly survive where its upper echelons despise it and wish it to fail? Would shareholders allow a company to be run by someone that constantly bad mouths its products and ceaselessly plays mind games with its employees? Would the chairman of a football club persist with a manager who psychologically undermines his players and champions the virtues of other teams?

But this is where Britain is now, a cabal that despise the country and its people now run it, their corrosive narrative bouncing backwards and forwards within the echo chamber they have created, creating a growing crescendo with each self affirmation on how right and virtuous they all are. The humble voices of the people of this country, their victims, unheard in the main, the few leaders they produce to speak on their behalf denounced, ridiculed by a media that they alone control.

I care little for religion but I am very aware of a spiritual component of my nature, this aspect of me tells me it is foolish to hate people. So I don’t hate these people in the way that they hate me but I do hate what it is they do. If and when we leave the EU our country does at least have a chance of a better future but we are doomed if we continue to allow such people anywhere near positions of power and influence. Surely loyalty to the country and its people must be a prerequisite for those who seek power? For our country to succeed in a post Brexit world the Squealers that sit above us must never be trusted with power ever again.

They must be removed, for good.

All hail the NHS

A well known political ploy is to release bad news at the same time as some other major issue hits the headlines. The past few weeks have seen a lot of media focus on the EU withdrawal bill, the World Cup and President Trump’s actions over illegal immigration. The announcement that the NHS will receive additional funding (from higher taxes) also dominated the headlines. Buried in all of this was the latest scandal from the NHS – the needless deaths of hundreds of patients at Gosport War Memorial Hospital.

A report authored by the former Bishop of Liverpool James Jones (who also ran the Hillsborough inquiry) found that of 1,500 deaths studied at the hospital 456 died following inappropriate administration of opioid drugs and possibly 200 more patients died prematurely as a consequence. The report named Dr Jane Barton, a GP who worked as a clinical assistant and found that she had been overprescribing opioids to patients from the mid 1990s. What is particularly disturbing is evidence that other professionals and managers at the hospital knew about it and not only did nothing; they bullied whistle blowers into silence. The matter has been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration so we don’t know if Dr Barton was at fault, all we do know is that she was named and we also know that 456 people were killed. Whatever the truth of it, the calls from some quarters to consider this as a crime of mass murder I find hard to ignore – a simple test for you, don’t say 456 people died, say 456 people were killed as I have just done, then see how you think.

A rogue nurse or physician has a particular dread given the trust that is placed in medical professionals. Fortunately such rogues are rare and they are certainly not unique to this country. However they do seem to be able to operate more freely and thus kill more people if they work for the NHS. This is not the first time hundreds of people have died at the hands of the NHS, Between 1975 and 1998 Harold Frederick Shipman killed an estimated 250 people most of whom were elderly women. Shipman’s murderous activities were not halted by anyone from the NHS; it was John Shaw, a taxi driver who reported to the Police that he suspected Shipman of murdering his patients.

The Alder Hey scandal although not involving the deaths of patients provides a further example of how malpractice flourishes within the NHS. Professor van Velzen retained organs from children’s post mortems at the Alder Hey hospital without the consent of the parents. The anguish this caused to grieving parents who yet again had to attend a beloved child’s graveside is unimaginable but a troubling aspect is that there were already concerns about Professor van Velzen before he was appointed to the post, perhaps what is worse there was no monitoring of his performance thereafter.

Once again it was not the NHS that halted Professor van Velzen’ s pitiless practices, it was the determination of Helen Rickard who lost her 11 month year old daughter (who died undergoing open heart surgery). Helen demanded to see a copy of her daughter’s medical notes and found out that the pathologist had retained her daughter’s heart. This took place at a different hospital – the Bristol Royal Infirmary but thanks to Helen an inquiry was set up that uncovered what was going on at Alder Hey.

The Gosport report was not the result of any action from the NHS it was the result of campaigning over two decades by the families affected. The NHS not only seems incapable of intervening where medical malpractice is concerned it does its utmost to conceal it, to punish those who to speak out and to protect the perpetrators. How many more examples do we need before people realise the NHS is not the shining guardian of the nation’s health it would have us believe?

In an earlier blog I argued that whilst I support the provision of universal healthcare, I maintain the NHS is one of the worst systems that could be designed to deliver it. Spain and the Netherlands are two examples of countries that have much better systems – and much better outcomes for their patients. Yet here we are – throwing more taxpayer’s money at a system that systematically kills hundreds of its patients and carries on as though there is nothing wrong.

Of all the countries in the world that have adopted universal healthcare not a single one of them has copied the NHS model but rather than considering a different approach our politicians have weaponised the NHS, Labour sees it as some form of medical Stormtrooper to be sent into battle in every election campaign, the Conservatives too timid and too weak to touch it for fear of a public backlash.

I doubt the money being given to the NHS will much to improve patient outcomes, more likely is that some of it will be used to hire even more Diversity Managers and LBGT Outreach workers, even more will be wasted providing services to people who are not entitled to it and right now, right this minute at a hospital near you people are dying before their time, killed using our money, killed by a bureaucratic machine that has a dark heart.