Charities and the Dark State

Most of us support charity in one form or another. One of the more charming aspects of human nature is the way many of us gather together in a communal effort to raise money for a worthy cause. I have only run one marathon in my life, and I doubt I will run another as it damned near killed me, but taking part in the London Marathon was one of the best days of my life. Having decided earlier on to slow down and allow the elite athletes a chance to win the race, I was able to soak up the atmosphere and enjoy the sense of being part of a beautiful act of human theatre and being part of something bigger than myself.

Privately I support a number of charities, sometimes for reasons of selfish altruism – I have a close family member with a serious illness. Sometimes I support a charity because it is the right thing to do – like buying a poppy or giving money to help people that survived a disaster like the Tsunami in 2004 – I guess most of us behave in this way. Whilst not all of us are mad enough to run a marathon, still at some point we have joined with others for a charity walk or bake in, put money in a tin for the RNLI or donate quietly to charities we support.

Somehow though something unwholesome seems to be happening to some of our charities. For a number of years I donated to a charity called Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), I supported this charity as a result of travels in my younger years to poorer parts of the World. I was always struck by the limited access to healthcare most of the human race suffers and how very fortunate we are to live in a wealthy nation where we are unlikely to die from an easily treated infection. I felt that by supporting MSF I would be helping people in the developing world so I was furious when MSF took it upon itself to fund a boat to ferry illegal immigrants across the Mediterranean Sea. My donations were to be used to help sick people in poorer countries, yet MSF somehow decided to use my money for people trafficking. Clearly I cancelled my donations – I think many others did as well.

Yet this drop in donations probably did not trouble MSF too greatly. MSF like many charities receive most of their money from Governments and unseen wealthy donors, since Governments themselves have no money the cash comes from taxpayers. So now we have a situation where taxpayers’ money is used to fund people trafficking and away from what the charity was initially set up to do. These large charities are often referred to as NGOs – Non Government Organisations, yet when you think about it putting the word Non at the beginning does not alter the fact that they are funded by Governments and would act in accordance with their wishes.

Now some would say NGOs are independent and superficially it would appear that way but it would take less than ten minutes of basic research to find most of them are headed by people close to the establishment. You may recall a recent leadership election in the Labour Party, David Miliband was expected to win but his brother Ed pulled off a surprise victory. David was left with a life of humble destitution on a salary of a mere $600,000 dollars a year as head of refugee charity International Rescue. Now I have no axe to grind with David Miliband but I do find something grotesque and even shameless in taking $600,000 a year from a charity. Clearly the refugee game is where the smart money is.

Questionable salaries aside what is seldom challenged is how the activities of some of these charities are working against the interests of the people whose taxes they spend. You may have noticed the term Sanctuary Cities being used by politicians and journalists, the term itself seems to have come from the United States. Sanctuary Cities are self declared centres of tolerance for illegal immigrants. Of course the preferred language is ‘refugees’ or ‘undocumented migrants’ but this does obfuscate the fact that being in someone’s country without permission is illegal. Sanctuary Cities take great pride in extolling the virtues of their tolerance, which is odd when you think about it, illegal immigration is against the law but somehow the administration of a city can boast about encouraging what is a criminal act.

Perhaps even more worrying is that no one seems willing or able to challenge the morality of a situation where taxpayer’s money is used to displace taxpayers from their own homelands. Surely if we want to help the world’s poor the best thing is to spend it where it is needed rather than import the world’s poor into our cities and displace our own poor? Maybe its just me but I find spending other peoples money in a way that destroys their communities is just a tad immoral?

The problem of Sanctuary Cities has found its way to our shores. City of Sanctuary is a charity supporting a network of groups across the UK and Ireland who are part of a movement to build a culture of welcome and hospitality within their communities. City of Sanctuary received £50K in funding in 2016/17 in a grant from Unbound Philanthropy (2016/17). Unbound Philanthropy keep the names of the donors secret but seem very active in providing finance to the charity version of people smuggling. This does seem mysterious – why the secrecy and why the web of cross funding and hidden identities of who is behind this?

Large parts of our charity sector seem to have lost their way, I would argue many now are actually doing harm – at least to the taxpayers that fund them. The sector itself – certainly at the NGO level has become a gravy train for establishment figures to maintain an influence over our lives with little or no public scrutiny into their activities or the real purpose of what they are doing. The opaque web of funding itself is of great concern. Whilst I am sure there are many wealthy donors who give money for no other reason than to help their fellow man, the system lends itself to corruption by less scrupulous individuals who seek to shape the world according to their vision. Sadly I feel this vision is a grim one for the people of the West, our own generosity and humanity is being used as a tool against us.

Advertisements

The NHS and how to become a hated tool of the State

 

In 1883 Germany introduced the Sickness Insurance Law, the first system designed to provide healthcare to the general population. The UK followed suit in 1911 with the National Insurance Act which provided a level of healthcare to wage earners. Healthcare provision in the UK was famously extended when the National Health Service was launched in July 1948, the first comprehensive system in the world, many commentators observing that this was a reward to the working class for the sacrifices they had made during the Second World War. Many Western European countries followed suit and within a few decades most developed nations in the world had introduced a system of universal healthcare.

 

In Europe healthcare is funded by a mixture of public and private contributions, some such as the Netherlands rely on compulsory insurance and a form of risk pool between insurers to ensure that everyone, whatever the state of their health is provided insurance. The system in the Netherlands also ensures that there is no financial advantage in providing insurance solely to healthy people since the levy to the risk pool becomes that much greater. The UK funds the health service via a single payer method, i.e. the State is the only source of funding.

 

Systems of healthcare and the methods of funding them are complex subjects and way beyond my level of knowledge to add anything useful to the debate however I do feel that the single payer method is beginning to lead the NHS astray from what it was set up to do and to lead it down the same dark path the BBC has decided to follow. For clarity my concerns are about the NHS as an organisation and not the Doctors (mainly), Nurses, Paramedics and Porters nor the cleaners, the administrators and other support staff that get out of bed every day to provide healthcare to the nation. The rot as I see it is at the top amongst the politicians, senior managers and civil servants.

 

You may recall a few weeks back Theresa May announced proposed changes to the way organs are to be obtained in the future. The current system for most people in the UK is that donors register their willingness for their organs to be used in the event of their deaths. To my mind this is a fine thing to do and I would encourage everyone to register, providing the gift of life to another even when you have passed has a heroic quality to it, we are all familiar with some of the wonderful stories of how this act has provided a level of comfort to grieving families. Theresa May has however proposed to change the way this system works from an opt in method to an opt out one. In other words your organs can be harvested unless you specifically say no. Now I have ethical concerns about this, your body belongs to your loved ones, not to the State. The State has no right to do this, it is an infringement into an area where the State and its agent in this instance, the NHS has any business.

 

There are of course arguments that this will save more lives, possibly – but so would allowing people to sell a kidney and I do not think that is an ethical thing to do either. In any case after the scandal at Alder Hay hospital where the unauthorised removal, retention and disposal of children’s organs was widespread I would certainly not trust the NHS with this kind of power.

 

In the same period the NHS has decided to dabble in identity politics by gathering data on the sexual preferences of patients – whether this is relevant or not. Now clearly in conversations between a GP and a patient this may be highly relevant but come on, I recently trashed my elbow playing cricket, what difference to the outcome would it make to find out if I liked the Scissor Sisters and adored Barbara Streisand? I struggle to understand why the NHS feels it needs this information in most cases – other than to play a bit of identity politics and, well, to be a bit creepy if you ask me. In any case my reading of the Data Protection Act is that there are very clear limits on how you gather personal data and you have to be very clear about why you need this information.

 

More widely I have noticed a more bullying, overbearing tone coming from the NHS, threats to withdraw treatment from people that are obese or smoke are increasing. Now pardon me I thought the role of the NHS was to provide healthcare, that is its purpose, where did it acquire the right to intimidate people? Who gave it this power? I don’t remember any political party offering to give it that authority in an election manifesto. Yet gradually over the years we have seen the NHS wade into the political arena to push its own dogma, the main mantras being;

 

– It is free at the point of service – this is of course not true, it is not free, the taxpayer paid for it upfront.

– It needs squillions of immigrants to function
– only in the sense that as a result of mass immigration we enjoy the correlation that the more immigrants you bring in the more immigrants you have to hire to treat them.

– It is the envy of the world
– it is not, no other country has adopted this model, for example, Spain, a country I am very familiar with has a far superior health service and uses a mixture private and state health provision. The NHS and the industrial complex around it has used its dominant position to prevent private healthcare providers from offering taxpayers an alternative.

 

The sanctimonious bullying is now filtering down the organisation, Rachel Clarke, an NHS Doctor felt that she had the authority from the taxpayer to make dark threats to a journalist (Katie Hopkins) via Twitter.

 

FYI Rachel you are paid by the taxpayer to treat people you don’t get to choose who –  period, shut up and do your job.

 

The creeping politicisation of the NHS, the intrusion into our private lives and the adoption of the poison of identity politics is in danger of turning the NHS into another BBC, a once trusted and fairly benign organisation into a dark, sinister omnipresent shadow in our lives. Sadly I fear my concerns and those of millions of others will not be heard and the NHS will go the same way as the BBC, a hated tool of the State.

 

Homage to Madrid

No_pasaran_Madrid

Spain is a country dear to my heart, I have strong connections to the country, I have friends and family there and I own a house not far from the border with Catalonia (which kind of concentrates the mind a bit). I am an admirer of its art and culture, I have a fascination with its rich history and a deep affection for its people who I find to be funny, warm-hearted and full of life, a people as sunny as their weather and joyful in company. So I thought I would write some words on my take on what is happening. As a Brexiteer I am keen to warn others who seek our own independence to be mindful of making parallels, in other words to be careful what you wish for. The break up of Spain would only serve to empower the EU; it has no benefit to us or the people of Spain.

The events in Catalonia over the past few days have saddened me. The story itself is not a new one however; on my frequent visits to Madrid I am used to hearing the locals bemoan the latest outrageous comments from the Catalonian Government. The agitations by politicians of the autonomy for independence have been there for as long as I can remember although for the past decade or so they seem to have eclipsed that of the Basque region – another fault line in Spanish politics.

One of the false narratives from recent events is that somehow Madrid represents fascism, but it is important to note that Madrid held out to the last against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War. More recently in the elections Podemos (the left wing populist party) gained control of the city. Madrid is a city I have come to know quite well and I can assure you that the people there may well oppose the break up of Spain – a view that I share, but they are certainly not fascists. One of my favourite ways to waste an afternoon in Madrid is to walk along the Gran Via; as I walk along I like to imagine in my mind’s eye the scene George Orwell described in his book Homage to Catalonia. Orwell marched with the International Brigades along the Via, past cheering Madrillenos and from there into the trenches dug into the slopes of the University district. Against all odds Madrid held out, perhaps the high point in the contribution of the International Brigades and indicative of the nature of the people of Madrid, they are brave and they will not back down.

This is not to say that the people of Madrid agree with the way the Guardia Civil behaved in order to stop the illegal Catalonian referendum from taking place. My friends over there are pretty mortified by the heavy handedness shown by the authorities, one of my friends observing that they could have just shut the gates and locked them in and waited. Most agree that there was no need for the Guardia Civil to crack the heads of old ladies to uphold the constitution, after all the referendum was illegal but voting isn’t. Blame the politicians not the voters is the message I gather from my friends, their sense of gloom deepening as rumours abound of military units being moved to Catalonia in advance of the expected declaration of independence in the coming days.

The other narrative that I feel should be addressed is that somehow Catalonia cannot achieve a referendum through legal, democratic means. This is simply untrue. The constitution of Spain is quite clear, Spain is a nation indivisible. So the only legal means is to change the constitution. This is not beyond the wit of man. So that leaves us with the democratic obstacle, how is a separatist party going to convince the rest of Spain to change the constitution? Well the recent difficulties Mr Rajoy and the Partido Popular (the Conservative party of Spain) had in forming a Government gives a hint of what is changing. The centre right and centre left parties in Spain are finding it harder and harder to gain an outright majority in elections, coalitions and agreements with other smaller parties are becoming increasingly necessary in order to form stable governments, and so it is only a matter of time before political necessity makes constitutional change part of the deal of forming a government.

More widely – until the ham fisted efforts of Mr Rajoy to uphold the constitution by way of thumping anyone who likes Lionel Messi, there was no outright majority for independence in Catalonia, as is often the case; the voice of the people who believe in the nation state was hardly heard. Certainly given the current mood if Spain were to hold a referendum in Catalonia the separatists could well win – but this is not likely to happen now, at least not for a few years and I do sense that in a calmer atmosphere the majority in Catalonia would probably vote to stay part of Spain – albeit through gritted teeth.

So what of the Catalan politicians that brought this to a head? Much like the Scottish Nationalists I remain puzzled as to why they call themselves independence movements since a common theme is to remain in the EU. That is hardly independence since the sole consequence would be to move the capital city from London or Madrid to Brussels and direct rule by EU bureaucrats, yet oddly this obvious fact seldom gets challenged by lazy journalists in the main stream media. As an apropos I am always amused that the term nativism is used as an insult by those who seek to destroy the nation state and the identity of the people that live there, strangely though in the case of these fake independence parties the nicer term civic nationalism is used. Whatever that means.

As someone who trained in science I do not dismiss theories if they provide a good explanation, if the theory does provide this I then look for evidence that supports the theory. The EU is a political project that seeks to end the nation state and thus create a supranational entity that governs the millions of people across most of Europe. This becomes easier to achieve if you break nation states down into smaller and smaller parts, their power becomes weakened and their voices diminished, the people led into a Potemkin’s village of bagpipes and tartan – or Catalan flags and Cava wine foolishly handing over their homelands to the control of people who care nothing for them, their history or their culture.

I am afraid I do see the EU’s hand in all of this, the breakup of Spain fits with their divide and rule agenda much as they sought the breakup of Britain with the Scottish referendum. The evidence for this? Well it came sooner than I expected, Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s representative in the Brexit negotiations let the cat out of the bag broadcasting to the world via Twitter:

There is a solution for the situation in Catalonia: reform Spain into a federal state in a federal Europe.

So there you have it, as clear as a bell, the EU has offered to solve the problem by breaking Spain up into smaller pieces to be ruled from Brussels. He even wrote it down for us. Thanks Guy.

As for further evidence, the EU has form in this area, in the early nineties the civil war in Yugoslavia was partly caused by Germany recognising Croatia as a nation state when it broke away. EU interference in the Ukraine has seen the country split in two as Russia moved its military in when it realised the agreements with the West to keep Ukraine neutral were not worth the paper they were written on.

I do see a scenario where on the one hand the Rajoy government is being encouraged by Brussels to take a firm line against the separatists whilst at the same time the EU is back channeling to the Catalans to invite in the EU to broker a solution. The solution will of course be the balkanisation of Spain.

Spanish people seldom get to hear voices that question the motives of the EU or its direction of travel, the media tends to follow the EU playbook that we are all on some fabulous journey with a wonderful destination. Of all my friends in Spain I know of only one who sees the EU in the same way that I see it, an anti democratic, overbearing empire that is doing great harm to European civilisation and simply does not care.

Any Brexiteer worth his salt should see the game being played by the EU here and put aside little digs about Gibraltar, there is something much, much bigger at stake, whatever your views on the behaviour of the Rajoy administration for the sake of Europe, its culture and its people Madrid must prevail or Spain will fall.

I am not prepared to stand by and watch it fall and do nothing. It is up to every Brexiteer to get the message out to the people of Spain, your nation is in great peril, do not invite the EU to mediate in the dispute, it will be the end of you.

At the start of the Spanish Civil War, in July 1936, Dolores Ibárruri delivered a speech that became the battle cry of the Republic against the fascists, ¡No Pasarán! – They shall not pass! There is no march up the Gran Via for me, nor a trench at the end of it but I can try to battle for your thoughts and those of others. George Orwell felt that Spain was a nation worth fighting and dying for as did many men and women from these islands, it still is.

Spain is a nation indivisible and they shall not pass.

¡No Pasarán!

The Diversity Game

Creating the conditions for a level playing field is an admirable endeavour. Most of us suffer some form of disadvantage as a consequence of being born, some of us are born into poor families, some of us are born with a disability, some of us are born into societies where women are second class citizens, some of us are born with a skin colour different to the majority. Any or all of these things can affect your chances in life. 

In the grand scheme of things the UK has been one of the better nations at tackling these discriminations, both race and sex discrimination were made illegal in the seventies. Discrimination on the grounds of disability lagged behind for some years but recent legislation has improved matters although not to the extent of race and sex discrimination laws. Curiously religious discrimination remains legal, a Catholic is not allowed to become King, given the arcane interview process for becoming a Monarch I am not sure any Catholics would apply for the job in any case – but that is not my point.

The UK has made a lot of progress in creating the conditions for a fairer society but some aspects remain stubbornly unfair. I am always struck by how poverty hits women the hardest, an all too familiar story to me is the one of a woman in my social circle who built a life with a partner but never formalised the relationship by marriage or civil partnership, only to find that when the relationship broke down there was no safety net. The situation made worse by having had children and a now unaffordable mortgage all based on trust and a misguided notion of being a ‘liberated woman’. From what I have seen being a liberated woman can come with a very harsh end game. There was a reason gay men and women pushed for their rights under marriage, they are not stupid.

I could at this point drone on about how being born into very modest circumstances and attending a state school for my education limited my life chances, to a degree this would be true but when I add in my own idleness (plus the fact that I was a complete head banger for many years) I have to accept my own role in failing to make the grade as an astronaut for NASA. Besides the one disadvantage I did not really have to contend with was the colour of my skin. As a White Anglo-Irish male I probably still enjoyed better life chances than a Black British one – even one who worked harder and studied more than me. This was not only unfair but for a society it was a pretty stupid thing to do, after all we have no idea where the next Einstein will come from or what he or she will look like, strikes me it is a pretty dumb thing to shut out a certain percentage of your population before they even had a shot at things.

Overall I think the British are a fair minded people and most of us are treated reasonably well, the legal framework for removing discrimination is now fairly well established and most of us have a fairly good grasp of what is right and what is wrong in terms of how we treat one another. Yet despite all this progress we see the march of the diversity and inclusion manager – a well paid professional with the role of ensuring organisations treat people fairly, now you could argue that this is what the law requires them to do in any case but clearly one of the consequences of austerity in the public sector at least is a huge demand for these fine people. A cash strapped NHS seems to be able to find the money to promote the cause and hire a battalion of diversity and inclusion managers. Now the private sector can do as they wish, if their shareholders are content with the need for the company they own to spend potential profit on these managers then fine, its their money, the public sector is however different, taxpayers have little say over how their money is spent and building an army of equality and inclusion managers might not be as important to a taxpayer as erm….curing their cancer?

Admittedly this is not the only area where the public sector can be frivolous with taxpayer’s money but it is one of the most bone headed and discriminatory. Demanding that boards and senior roles of organisations reflect the diversity of the population sounds like a reasonable thing to ask. Yet this is where the cult of quotas shows its innumeracy, boards and senior positions in the public sector at least tend to be made of people in their forties and fifties, this cohort when they started work did so before Tony Blair rubbed the nation’s nose in diversity so they probably do represent their own cohort i.e. they started their careers when there were fewer ethnic minorities in the workforce. Demanding that these people now make room for newcomers actually discriminates against them because of their age.

Not convinced? OK – try this one, I live in London, I am constantly hearing how organisations must reflect society, I have no difficulty with this notion – I have real difficulty with the selective approach. London has now been so successful with diversity and inclusion fewer than 40% of the population is white British (you can guess the future direction of travel), so of course we can now insist that organisation reflect that. But here’s the thing, if a regional council in the West Country where the population is 95% white British insisted that only 5% of jobs could go to ethnic minorities there would be uproar (and quite rightly). Yet this is exactly the discrimination that is being legitimised across our public sector and particularly in our cities, social and housing policy designed to displace the indigenous population followed up by employment policy to ensure the few that are left are further discriminated against.

A self declared Liberal elite are pursuing these nation destroying policies, what they hope to achieve I do not know but the hypocrisy and double standards in their approach become more bizarre by the day. No good will come of this. The way we achieve a fairer society is by dialogue and making people aware of unfairness, training a cadre of people to play identity politics at the taxpayers expense is not the way to do it and I fear will provide fuel for a growing resentment at the way ordinary people in this country are being side-lined.

The BBC – British in name only

For all its faults the West has generally been a power of good for the world, the spread of democracy, the triumph of rationalism over religious superstition and the advance of women’s rights are achievements to be proud of. By the late seventies the UK had built a relatively safe, productive, homogeneous society. The Arts and Sciences flourished, new technology was quickly adapted and introduced into society seamlessly and despite the political unrest there was a sense that the future was going to be brighter and not something to fear.
Many studies have concluded that the seventies was the happiest in our nation’s recent history. Without trying to make the case to bring back Bazooka Joe Bubble Gum, flared trousers and the Bay City Rollers I think I am on fairly strong ground to argue that in terms of happiness things have taken a turn for the worst since the Millennium. In the space of a few short decades we have travelled from being a fairly happy, homogeneous society, hopeful about its future to one that is troubled, dysfunctional and fearful of the years ahead. How did this happen to us so quickly?
As a Brexiteer I could point to the fact that it was in the seventies Ted Heath took the nation into the Common Market – what was to become the European Union. However that in itself is not what I see as the change. The plan behind the European Project always relied on a deceit i.e. to achieve full union by any means, I suspect most people have figured that one out for themselves be they for Brexit or Remain. To achieve full union by democratic means involving so many countries would take well over a century, so Brussels instead relied on a ratchet process of acquiring power by other methods – such as treaties, gaining control of the legal systems of nation states and obtaining direct influence over their education systems and media. A Remainer may well argue that the ends justify the means, however this introduces a problem, if you develop a system where the real power and governance over a people is hidden and unseen you create the conditions where very bad people can assume control over a nation state without them knowing until it is too late. This I fear is what has happened to the people of Europe and perhaps more widely across the West.
In the UK our main political parties harvest the votes from people who believe that the party they vote for will represent their interests. Sadly the main parties do not care about the voters, only their votes, this is because they are beholden to their donors and they implement the policies dictated to them by people you cannot see. To conceal this further, surrounding our political parties is an intricate web of think tanks and political charities that enjoy direct influence over decision making at Westminster. The funding of these organisations is murky and often comes from foreign donors who want your Government to work in a certain way. This may provide an explanation as to why, however we vote, we get the same Globalist ‘No Borders’ dogma imposed upon us.
The legal system in this country has effectively been passed under the control of the European Court of Justice. Whilst we do have a Supreme Court, it is Supreme in name only, it cannot make a ruling against the ECJ. For all intents and purposes your judiciary is not independent, it is controlled by Brussels – though it does however enjoy complete independence from the nation and its people.
So how is all this done without the people knowing? Well a key component is our state broadcaster the BBC. I have written a number of blogs on how I have become increasingly concerned over the behaviour of the BBC. The BBC are expert at manipulating the truth and peddling falsehoods, you may note that anyone who takes a stand against the Globalists and their dogma are always labelled with a negative adjective like ‘extreme right’ or ‘controversial’. Messages that fit the narrative come from ‘progressive’ politicians. Oddly enough challenging the imposition of a Stone Age belief system onto a highly advanced society is somehow regressive, defending it is always ‘progressive’. Pardon me for pointing things out but in the Dark Ages of the seventies people did not have to take their children to a Christmas market in an armoured car nor did they carry the burden of a colossal debt thanks to ‘progressive’ politicians and their Ponzi scheme economics.
You may recall the attempts by the BBC in the early part of last year to push the ‘refugee crisis’ narrative and the obvious cover up of the events in Cologne. Clearly that attempt to fool the public into believing millions of neurosurgeons and rocket scientists were heading toward Europe from the Middle East did not gain much traction with a people that had lost patience with uncontrolled immigration. What is rather striking though is the complete silence from the BBC since, thousands of people from the developing world are transported every day across from Libya into Italy by our own Navies and the ships of Non Government Organisations such as Save the Children yet not a word from Auntie Beeb on their people smuggling activities. The policy of transporting so many people from Africa and Asia will have one eventual, predictable outcome, the people of Europe will lose their ancestral homeland. This is known to the BBC, it is also obvious to the rest of our establishment, their quiescence – and in the case of the BBC, censorship of this aspect of the ‘migration crisis’ is rather telling.
In Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings one of the story-lines is how King Théoden (one of the good guys) has been slowly poisoned by a powerful sorcerer, the poison ages him prematurely and robs him of his energy and vigour. The King is further controlled by a character called Grima Wormtongue, a dominant figure in the King’s Palace, Grima flatters the King constantly but ensures that the truth is concealed about the dangers that face his Kingdom and a false picture is painted of the evil forces that are moving against him. Fortunately for Théoden a good wizard breaks the spell and Théoden sees the lies and reclaims his strength in the nick of time.
I am compelled by the parallels here, the establishment eco-system has been poisoned from afar. As a people our energy and vigour is slowly being drained away from us, yet daily the BBC (our own personal Grima Wormtongue) feeds us a diet of lies and conceals the truth from us. The British on the whole are a fair and decent people, they sense something is wrong but cannot pin down why this is happening to them or who is doing it. Whilst Grima Wormtongue controls nearly everything we get to hear, read or see, we are extremely unlikely to find why this is happening, who is doing it and how we can stop it.
Our ancient culture and way of life is under a very grave threat, I still believe there is time to save most of it, but to do this we have to break the spell and help our people wake from their stupor. Brexit at least showed there is hope, it showed that what I prefer to call the Dark State has not gained complete control yet, but it is perilously close, if we do not stop the falsehoods and obfuscations of the Wormtongues, then I fear we will face a very bleak future.
We must all of us work now to end the BBC and silence the lies of the Wormtongues. You can do this by cancelling your licence fee (you do not need one to own a television) and start supporting the many campaign groups such as biasedBBC.org that see it for what it is. The BBC is an enemy, it is the night hag sitting on our nation’s chest.
The only thing British about the BBC is the word in the title.
 

Brexit – chlorinated chickens or a chance to improve animal welfare?

The subject of animal welfare and free trade has become quite topical of late with the current media obsession about chlorinated chickens. Since I know only the basics about global trade and even less about regulation for animal products there is little I can add to the subject. However I do want to write about a subject close to my heart, what I see as a excellent opportunity we now have to improve the welfare of animals in a post Brexit world.
As I will explain further in the piece, the EU is not exactly first in class when it comes to animal welfare, but then again none of us are. In terms of animal experiments, transportation and cruelty every nation on earth has made little progress. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we are all of us in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars but before expanding on what I see as a way out of the gutter I thought it useful to explain some aspects of animal welfare under the current EU regime.

Animal experiments
Perhaps the aspect of animal welfare I feel the most strongly about is the use of animals for experiments. I can understand the argument that one animal’s life can save thousands of humans, I accept that argument at face value, I would merely state that I believe there is no moral case for inflicting suffering on a sentient being, none whatsoever, the argument is so alien to my way of thinking in the way that I presume mine is to theirs. However the one aspect of animal testing that can quickly bring me to a hulk like rage is the use of animals for cosmetic and other household product testing. All the cosmetics that exist now have all been brought to market making use of this ‘science’, there is no further need to any more animal testing, we do not need new cosmetics and for the life of me I cannot understand why allow manufacturers to bring a constant flow of new cosmetics and other household products to market when we already have all the ones we need. Do we really need yet another ‘improved’ shampoo? No, we don’t and because we don’t we could end animal experiments in this sector quite quickly.
The latest figures show that in 2011 almost 11.5 million animals were used in experiments across Europe, only a slight decrease on 2008. France, Germany and the UK were the top 3 users of animals in experiments, in that order. The countries of the EU in 2011 reported that they used 17,896 dogs, 3,713 cats, 358,213 rabbits, 6,686 horses, 6,095 monkeys, 675,065 birds, 77,280 pigs, 28,892 sheep, 30,914 cattle, over 1,000,000 fish and over 8,500,000 rodents. Fundamental biological research accounts for 46% of the total number of experiments, while the use of animals for research and development of human and veterinary medicines only accounts for 19% of the total number used. 34% of old world monkeys are still imported from non-EU countries. France, Germany and the UK are the biggest users of monkeys, in that order. Six of the EU countries conducted a total of 977 animal tests for household products, with Denmark as the biggest tester.

Now let that number sink in, 11.5 million animals are experimented on every year.
Every year.

Animal Transportation

Whilst the topic of eating meat is a debate in itself it is generally accepted that an animal should be reared and eventually slaughtered as near as possible to where it was born. It is difficult to argue for an end to all animal transportation, breeders need to get livestock to market, but given the intent here is to sell the animal, welfare would form a necessary part of the process. Long distance transportation of live stock is however particularly stressful for animals, the EU permits the transport of animals enormous distances – often to parts of the world outside of the EU such as the Middle East with lower or even non existent standards of animal welfare. There is no moral argument to transport animals thousands of miles to be slaughtered, the animal can be dispatched locally – and in the UK this means reasonably humanely and the carcass transported in refrigerated vehicles.

Animal cruelty

Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does require member nations to consider the welfare requirements of animals but provides no legal base leaving it up to member nations to decide. This might help explain why bullfighting is still permitted in Spain.
I spend a lot of time in the country and bullfighting goes out on prime time TV – a clue to the Spanish government’s view on the matter. Toward the end of the summer most villages in Spain have a fiesta, I like to visit a particular village near Valencia. This village has the custom of setting fire to a bull’s horns for it to be then taunted and chased by the local men – who are normally fortified with alcohol (not that I am completely sober myself at the time). Since I am a guest in the village I try to join in with the festivities, but I always leave with a sense of shame that I did not speak out about the suffering of an innocent animal. I don’t enjoy it, sometimes I feel that a part of my soul has been tainted by watching the terror and bewilderment of another creature in the name of entertainment.
In fairness to the Spanish, I am pleased to relate that a growing number of the younger generation of Spaniards find bullfighting and animal cruelty in general as objectionable as the rest of us, unfortunately that does not help bulls due for la Corrida de Torros and the festivals this summer.
In a further defence of the Spaniards I am also mindful that this country does not have a very good track record in terms of organised animal cruelty, there is still a lot of evidence of a illegal dog fights. I also acknowledge that fox hunting and hare coursing have only recently been made illegal.

A bill of rights for animals

The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to implement laws protecting animals. In 1822 an Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle was passed by Parliament. I strongly believe that once we leave the EU we should once again show leadership in animal welfare and introduce the first bill of rights for animals.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 does provide a degree of protection for animals in terms of welfare but only applies to domesticated animals. I would like to see these same basic rights extended to all animals and I would go further, I would prohibit the long distance transportation of live animals to slaughter and I would abolish animal experimentation for non medical research.
Personally I like to see a complete ban on all animal experimentation but I doubt that argument can be won at the moment but I really do feel that now is the time for us to be the first to introduce a basic minimum of rights for all animals. People say what would a post Brexit world look like, my view is that it is the one we seek to create for ourselves. It is not just humans that live on these islands, we share it with other flora and fauna, if there is a dividend from Brexit, let us share it with them.

Brexit – the Sisiphus of democracy

It is over a year now since the referendum on membership of the EU. After many decades of frustration with our membership of a supranational body I was finally given an opportunity for my voice to be heard. 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU, I was one of them.

One year on and I have not known one single day where it feels like the democratic will of the people will be carried out by Parliament. One year on and still our will is constantly frustrated – our wish to decide for ourselves mocked and sneered at by a supercilious middle class, the legitimacy of our democratic mandate constantly undermined by the fake hysteria of the BBC and large sections of the elite media. One year on we have had another General Election where 85% of the electorate voted for parties that made a manifesto commitment to leave the EU. Yet still powerful elements are committed to thwarting the wishes of the people.

Whether you voted Leave or Remain the past year provides an insight into how our Parliament operates. Think of the position in reverse, not a single party had a mandate by way of a manifesto commitment or the validation of a referendum to sign the Maastricht Treaty or the Lisbon Treaty despite in the case of Lisbon a referendum being promised by all three main parties. Barely a word of protest was heard in Parliament, barely a peep from the elite media as these treaties handed more and more of our country away from our democratic control to a foreign unaccountable bureaucracy. No Gina Miller and crowdfunded legal challenges, no procedural trench warfare in Westminster to thwart the transfer, no acknowledgement that Parliament had no mandate to do any of this.

Now consider what happens when you do obtain a mandate, the Conservatives under David Cameron won an unexpected majority in the Commons in the 2015 General Election, the Conservative manifesto promised a straight in / out referendum on EU membership. Parliament passed the required procedures to allow the referendum to take place in 2017. For unexplained reasons David Cameron made the vote advisory rather than binding, however if this was a ruse it was neutralised soon after when the Government used tax payer’s money sending a booklet to every household to set out the case to remain in the EU and stating quite clearly the Government would act on their wishes.

Setting the merits of Brexit aside, the leave campaign won the referendum, for two weeks after the BBC and irresponsible politicians whipped up hysteria across the nation in what I felt was an attempt to sow the seeds of social unrest. It was deeply irresponsible, I was only too aware that many EU nationals felt unwelcome in the country, their discomfort was amplified by the BBC and their spiteful caricature of Brexit supporters as the UK branch of the Ku Klux Klan. Legal and procedural challenges followed both in the courts and Parliament itself. It became all about stopping Brexit and de-legitimising the vote – the mood music being that since it was mainly the working classes that voted to leave they were too stupid and too uneducated to be taken seriously and their votes were somehow lesser than the educated middle classes.

More recently we have had a further general election, both main parties made commitments in their manifesto to implement the will of the people. Once more this commitment faces constant legal challenges, the BBC pushing a daily narrative that somehow there is something wrong with carrying out the democratic wishes of the people and that there is something virtuous and noble in those who believe the EU should just be forced on people by their self appointed superiors.

So what is the lesson from all of this? Well for me it is quite clear, we have a political system that can pretty much do as it likes provided it is not mentioned in a manifesto or is the outcome of a referendum but woe betide anyone who does seek a plebiscite, you will find yourself enduring the fate of a political Sisyphus, doomed to pushing the rock of democracy up a hill only to see it cast down each and every time by a sneering elite who think only their votes should be counted.

I have long felt the EU is anti democratic, and it was for reasons of democracy that I campaigned to leave the EU. One year on and all of my fears remain, it no longer feels I live in a democracy, it feels like there is some secret, hidden Government that is in control of my country, one that is desperately trying to maintain the veneer of democracy and conceal the true nature of the Potemkin’s village that we seem to live in.

Defining Terms

Independent Britain

One of the odder characteristics of what is called the Brexit debate is the tendency of people to adopt alternative definitions for familiar terms.

The sui generis example must surely be Mrs May’s circular, “Brexit means Brexit”, which, taken seriously, can only mean, “Brexit means what I tell you it means”.

Picking up that particular baton and running with it, several politicians and journalists have taken to saying that, “hard Brexit” means Brexit but “soft Brexit” means Remain. When is a Brexit not a Brexit? There is a joke in there somewhere.

So, instead of discussing the various important issues relating to Britain’s future relationship with the EU and EU Member States (not to mention the rest of the world), politicians, journalists and academics seem to be more interested in divining the Platonic ideal of the one true Brexit.

That is precisely what the Flexcit plan attempts to avoid. In…

View original post 248 more words

The weak and unstable Kingdom

nintchdbpict000326406851

It is a sunny morning as I write this, but this sunny morning is different. Two days ago I awoke to the events in Manchester Arena where a Muslim slaughtered innocent children. For two days now the rage has burned in me silently, for two days now I have pondered why I should accept a world like this and do nothing. Like I say, this morning is different, I have rarely had such clarity on what needs to be done.

In June we have a general election, we go to vote with soldiers on our streets, unsure where the next attack is coming from. Our media pours out lies and distortions of the truth, concealing inconvenient facts, peddling falsehoods that we are united against terrorism – perhaps someone needs to explain that to the terrorists and the community that produces them?

In June we go to the polls as a nation crippled by debt, a debt run up by the shadow banking system and transferred in plain sight onto the tax payer without a murmur from the media or our political class. Take a look at your tax statement, there it is about fourth on the list, the amount you paid in interest on the debt. That’s right interest, the debt is still going up, and next year you will pay even more interest on even more debt.

In June we go to the polls not as a nation that is somehow united, we go there as a dysfunctional zoo, the indigenous population feeling less and less that this is their homeland, the more settled sons and daughters of invited, legal migrants now worried about their future as they feel the country they call home no longer offers the sense of comfort and prosperity that brought their forefathers here.

This is the world our politicians have created for us – no longer a United Kingdom, no we are now a weak, unstable nation, a battered broken people ruled over a political class that hates its own people, a political class that never seems to miss an opportunity to insult them. This is the world our politicians have created for us, a world of lies, fear and terror, a sick perversion of what we once were, a world where our children are murdered or sexually abused and where we risk going to jail for having the nerve to complain about the people doing it.

I do not want this world, few outside of the establishment do either. So we either do something or we fade, the good thing is we can do something. However you voted in the EU referendum, Brexit does carry a lesson, it shows that the people of this country reject the lies of our media, it shows we reject the established order and it shows we want to change direction. I take encouragement from Brexit, at the risk of sounding like a character from a George Orwell novel I feel that if there is hope, it is to be found in us, the proles, not in our establishment.

We have too little time to organise ourselves for this coming election, all I would do say now is to urge every one of you to stop voting along tribal lines, vote tactically. If you are pro Brexit then you have little choice but to vote Conservative unless you live in a constituency where UKIP are the only viable alternative to Labour. If you oppose Brexit then this gets more tricky, the Liberals and the Greens are unlikely to form the next government and Labour seem more opaque by the day on what their plans are, so I would suggest getting behind the pro Remain candidate you think most likely to win irrespective of their party.

Whoever wins in June will be there for five years. This means we have a further five years of this world, it is not going to get better, and it is going to get worse. At the end of their term you will be even further in debt than you are now, hundreds more of us would have died at the hands of Muslims, hundreds more children abused, the lies and distortions will get worse, you will be even more fearful of the future and even more scared to speak out. Over the next five years at least another million people will be allowed to settle on our over-crowded island. More houses and infrastructure will need to be provided for them, more nature will succumb to the bulldozer, wildflowers and songbirds replaced with concrete and bitumen.

Five years from now you will be poorer, more despondent and enjoy fewer and fewer moments in your life where you can live without fear. You will be mocked and provoked further and further by an establishment that despises you, insults you and will not protect you. For those of you who voted for Brexit the odds are that there will be one last final betrayal.

And you know what I am saying will come true – but you can change it.

We have five years to organise ourselves, five years until the next General Election. In five years we can reshape the future, we must all of us stop being taken for granted, stop blindly voting along tribal lines, there must be no such thing as a safe seat ever again. Over the coming five years every MP must be made to feel as insecure as they have made us, they must really sense that if they don’t respond to our concerns through action rather than the usual lies and platitudes we will withdraw our support.

There are already promising signs of the change we need to bring about, the recent local elections saw a huge swing to the Conservatives, this masked out a very interesting trend, the rise of the independent councillors. These are councillors who have no political affiliation and (in theory at least) more likely to take account of the voter’s wishes rather than the Globalist dogma of a party machine.

Over the coming weeks I will write more about how we can field more and more independent candidates both at local and at a national level. Please do get in touch with me with ideas and suggestions if you feel you can help, I am quite easy to find on social media.

We have five years, these five years will be difficult ones for us, but there is hope and that hope lies within each and every one us.

9 25