Don't Worry, Salt Shipments are on the way!

It has snowed about two inches where I live, but that has been melting for days. Even in ski resorts in Scotland, the highest snowfall reported is a foot. So the media's doomsday reporting of Britain under siege from blizzards seems a little out of place.

"Salt Shipments Due as Snow Forecast"

(Image: Salt n. substance obsessed over by the Nanny State. Good on roads, bad on your food.)

It's like the Home Front during WWII, when people looked to shipping convoys across the Atlantic for food and supplies (yes, we do appreciate the help, America).

The difference, of course, is that peoples' lives actually depended on those shipments.

However, what seems to be of equal importance nowadays, is dealing with 'dangerous driving conditions' and 'dangerous footpaths'. Don't worry, people of Britain, salt is on the way! Is this how far our domestication has gone?

Thank you for telling me, Lords!

The only problem is, you were the ones who caused 1984 to become semi-reality, and you took 20 years to say anything about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7872425.stm

(Image: "Stop the Police State". Would be nice if officers would stop obeying orders that breach the rights of the citizenry.)

[Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, peers have warned.]

Democracy was thoroughly undermined a long, long time ago. In fact, in Britain, since the Bank of England was established before voting rights, it never really existed.

[The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential" to fight crime but campaign group Liberty said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear".]

Same old, same old about 'necessity'. And ESPECIALLY the innocent have a lot to fear. But hopefully, the people will wake up, and then those who are truly guilty will have A LOT to fear.

Central Banks: Begging, Borrowing, Stealing

The Bank of England has cut interest rates to a paltry 1 per cent. They are BEGGING people to BORROW.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=473129&in_page_id=2&ct=5&in_page_id=2

Meanwhile, Obama says 'the time for talk is over' on the new $900bn US stimulus package. Yes, there's nothing to stimulate the economy like printing money; just ask the Weimar Germans and their wheelbarrows!

The Fed wants to STEAL even more, and the puppet politicians are doing their bidding and pushing these useless 'stimulus'/'bailout' packages, which is the reason this will be a world depression of the scale not seen in modern history.

More on the Geopolitical Situation

Yesterday I posted about Kyrgyzstan's US Air Force base, which will be closed. This was announced by their leadership in Moscow, along with a pledge from the Russians to provide billions in aid. Subtle.

So, this got me thinking. How much has a 'Russian Renaissance' occurred in the last decade? Or is China now the dominant player? How are things looking for America and Europe on the 'Grand Chessboard'?

(Image: Oil, the lifeblood of technological society. It gives us our best source of fuel, and is the basis for making plastics. It's not called 'black gold' for nothing!)

The most important thing in this global power struggle is still resources. Land, people, but especially natural resources in general, and oil/gas in particular. Who controls the resources?

Well, the five 'giant' oil companies are all Western: Shell (Anglo-Dutch), Exxon Mobil (American), BP (British), Chevron Texaco (American), and Total (French).

These are private companies, of course, but many of the biggest oil powers are state-owned, including members of the OPEC trade agreement. One of the biggest powers in oil and gas is Russia, which "has the largest reserves, and is the largest exporter, of natural gas. It has the second largest coal reserves, and is the second largest exporter of oil."

This power was demonstrated during the recent dispute with the Ukraine over gas, during which Russia shut off supplies to much of Eastern Europe. So that's what people mean when they express concern over dependence on foreign energy!

The fact that the frontline of East-West relations is now inside the old Soviet bloc (Ukraine, Georgia) tells you something about American dominance at the end of the 20th Century.

But in this new century, Western power has been challenged by a combination of a stronger Russia and the new Chinese superpower, which is predicted to become the biggest world economy around 2025.

Another interesting case where a country has favoured the East over the West is Kazakhstan, home of Borat and (apparently) quite a lot of oil. This oil has mainly been exported to Western Europe and Russia, but China recently moved into the Kazakh oil export market, buying up 'oil interests' worth $4 billion.

Perhaps the greatest geopolitical risk to America in particular today, however, is not in natural resources but in finance. The dollar is depreciating relative to the euro and most other world currencies - perhaps China could start trading in euros instead of dollars, which would definitely harm the US economy. Though, writes Thomas Palley in The Guardian, China would suffer from any attempt to destabilise the American economy (the Fed and the Bailouts haven't done this already!?!)

Does all this geopolitics affect the ordinary people? Well, not a great deal if you live in a wealthy country. Just, try and tell those in the 'third world' that the geopolitical game between America and Russia (which never really stopped) is harmless. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, countless African states have been ravaged by 'proxy' wars during the 'Cold War' and onwards, the best recent example being the Russia-Georgia conflict.

I am not an enthusiast for looking at the world through the lens of national politics and global trade. It tends to prevent us from identifying that the real rift is not between Europeans and Asians, Africans and Arabs, etc; but between British citizens and the owners of Shell; American citizens and the owners of Exxon, and so on.

That is not a wishy-washy Obama-style 'we are all equal' statement; nor is it a Marxist view of class struggle. It's simply a recognition that this global power game does not involve or relate to the average person, only to Rockefeller et al.

Unless you are in a 'developing' country sitting on natural resources - then of course it WILL involve you, like it or not. (Iraq, Iran, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Angola, Congo, Sudan - on and on.)

P-C

More Globalist Nonsense

From the appointed IMF World Bank Wonder Boy currently 'in charge':

Gordon Brown Calls For Global Co-Operation to Beat Economic Slump

I am getting bored of how many times he says 'New World Order' (but apparently that's still a conspiracy theory - have they acheived a real-life version of the Jedi mind trick?).

(Image: "You'll never guess where I have a Rothschild tattoo")

But here is a special treat from Comrade Brown, the Dear Leader of INGSOC. One of the problems, apparently, is 'implicit protectionism' going on at the moment. Double U-Tee-Eff? The problem is protectionism? Because here I thought the problem was the globalists and the bankers who engineered this crisis by deliberate increasing of the money supply.

It's funny...literally the same day, business secretary Peter Mandelson is warning against protectionism, saying that implementing it would worsen the economy. (you and your globalist masters did a good enough job of doing that!)

So in other words, protectionism isn't happening - but it simultaneously is part of the economic problems.

Yet more nonsense spewing from the shapeshifting 'big party' politicians who answer to their banker masters. Globalism is going to make everything OK, right? Maybe I should make it clear...

WE were supposed to be a SOVEREIGN NATION it was YOU who banned the guns YOU who vandalise the currency YOU who neglect our borders and YOU who are setting up the Police State THE PEOPLE will not take this forever be it 2 years or 200 years THEY WILL WAKE UP and THEN the spotlight will be firmly where it should be...ON YOU.

"The world will not accept dictatorship or domination" - Mikhail Gorbachev

It's All Happening Too Fast

For me to blog Big Brother's latest moves.

"School Children Complain of Obama Worship During Lessons"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/school-children-complain-of-obama-worship-during-lessons.html

"Taking Photos of Police Officers Could be Considered a Crime"
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836646

"Plans Target Digital Britain Push"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7857402.stm

"Every aspect of our lives...will be dependent on the services that the digital network provides" - Gordon [never elected] Brown, PM

Yes he did say 'dependent'.

"Chemicals 'may reduce fertility'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7855323.stm

What the report doesn't say is that the chemicals in food, water and air, are serving population reductive purposes by sterilising us, giving us cancer and other diseases, and that this is no accident.

BBC Propaganda: Today's Highlights

We must be dumb here in the UK, because we pay the government to spoon-feed us with propaganda. So, in the spirit of sheepleness, here are some of my favourites from today's BBC reports:


(Image: BBCone's graphic design. They have circles. But if they reported on it, they may try to convince you those were squares)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7852628.stm

Global Warming is Irreversible! Oh no!

Of course it's irreversible, because we cannot have such a great impact on forces, like climate, which are beyond our control! We didn't cause warming, and we definitely can't undo it (but the Sun will).

It's interesting that the study which claims warming is irreversible, was funded by the US Dept of Energy and the Obama administration (cough-the prospect of carbon taxation represents a conflict of interest-cough)

Classic "Problem, Reaction, Solution" in action. In fact all three of these stories are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7853254.stm

Because profit is indeed a dirty word.

OK, so short selling is hardly a 'moral' way to make money. But the entirety of the stock market and all those abstract 'assets' is one big casino/Ponzi scheme. So, some people win and others lose. Too bad.

But the solution to the problem is...not sound money or getting rid of the central bank...but more government and global financial restrictions! The cause of the problem shall now be the solution!

If you were prescribed drugs and they made you ill, chances are unless the doctor is Dr Mengele, you will not be told to increase the dosage. But that is exactly what we are told about globalism, private central banking and government financial restrictions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852640.stm

Yay, parents who don't pay child support will lose their passports! Except, this already happens. Just through proper legal means - you know, a COURT OF LAW. But now, government can remove someone's passport and driver's licence WITHOUT going through legal processes! What a triumph for liberty.

Oh, and I love the justification for this - that this is "faster, simpler and easier for the taxpayer". Simpler in that it gives more power to the authorities. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a helluva lot easier." - George W Bush

And the horrible irony of Labour party members and their 'quangos' talking about lightening the burden on taxpayers. Priceless.

British Jewish Lawmaker likens Israel to Nazis

And that's coming from a man born into a Polish Jewish WW2 era family, who has relatives that have fought in the IDF.



It's impressive to see the minority, but significant minority, of Jews/Israelis speaking out against the genocidal practices of their government in Gaza. For those in the West who have forgotten the meaning of a 'patriot', these are people who truly put their country first, not their government first. Good people...the world could do with more of 'em.

Viedo reported at prisonplanet.com

Think you know Left and Right?

I've been doing a little unscientific research into political stances of British and American leadership, using The World's Smallest Political Quiz as my guide.

I say unscientific because I did what I could to guess or read what Labour, the Conservatives, Obama and McCain said or did that might suggest an answer to each question. Consider that to be a disclaimer, since some of the results are unusual to say the least.

Starting with the US -

John McCain:



Barack Obama:





The main two British parties -

Labour:



Conservatives:





Yeppers, you saw it here first. Not only is Britain apparently dangerously close to total police state, our Conservatives are (on some things) to the 'left' of Labour! Also, this supports the idea that American 'liberals' [socialists] are comparable to European 'conservatives'.

And for comparison...ME:



I guess that's why I'm so pished at the current state of things. If only we'd abolish central banks, stop the spy state, stay out of foreign conflicts, stop state-controlled education, deregulate small arms completely, stop bailing everyone out, cut government size...


Seems I have become a little more libertarian recently - been reading too much Ron Paul stuff :-)


Take the multiple choice quiz here.

Blasting the Big Brother Apologists

Read 'em and GET ANGRY about something!

Secret CCTV Bunker in London

Big Brother is shouting at you

George Orwell's house is watched by Big Brother

UK has sleepwalked into a surveillance society

Amnesty International advert against the 42 Day Detention Bill, defeated in October 2008:



"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."

I am so sick of hearing that tired, old excuse for the advances of the spy state. Just think about what that means.

'Wrong' is a loose term. Under post-9/11 terror law, 'wrong' can mean anything from excercising freedom of speech in protest, to just looking something like a terrorist (having a rucksack, or just being a bit brown like Jean Charles de Menezes).

So, what the quotation above implies is that, if you go along with the government, you won't have anything to worry about. What's the problem with doing what government wants, after all?
Well, it doesn't take a historian to think of several governments in recent times who have used this premise to control people and force them to do evil. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China spring to mind.

"Don't worry Jews, if you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to worry about! Now get on the trains like your government says, because Der Fuhrer loves you."

(Image: Mao in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. He was a good man, who had the interests of the people at heart, and...I can't keep that up any longer. So why can people keep repeating the myth that governments care about the people? Why would we be different to any other period in history?)

I can't stress this enough. Government does not love you, it holds power over you and enjoys doing so. Normally governmental power can be kept in check by an informed, determined public. However, what we have today is a herd of millions who repeat the childish fairytale every time government takes their freedoms away!

Government loves me, I'll put down my gun. Government loves me, it will spend the bailout money wisely (US at least $700bn, UK at least £250bn, created from nothing then borrowed from the central banks at interest, which we will pay in tax). Government loves me, and is setting up a police state for my own good! Oh Obama, the messiah, will deliver us from evil! He's not in any way another corporate puppet!

Military on the streets is not good for society. Why is it necessary? Police powers should not be extended by such laws as the Patriot Act (Orwellian doublespeak if I ever heard it). It is never 'for our own good', it's to strip us of our freedoms - realise that now and not later.

Wave Goodbye to Independent Currency

BBC - Pound hits new low against Euro

(Image: You might not be seeing much more of that one on the right, if its value collapses further.)

Nobody was too bothered when Mr Brown sold off our nation's gold reserves back around the turn of the millennium (and at the bottom of the market, may I say).

But then again, if our currency has not been backed by gold for over half a century, who cares? It's just worthless paper promises anyway. But at least we might have had enough of what is now an important commodity, what with real money being worthless.

And now it looks like the pound is going to fall below the value of the Euro. I could be wrong here, but do we not have the strongest currency in the world? Or at least the developed world? It was the main reason we didn't want to join the Euro, and have refused to do so ever since.

Britain being the least prepared of the 'developed' nations for the current economic disaster, will unfortunately be the legacy of 12 years of Labour party control. And the gold reserve sale is part of that. So is the crippling quantity of government borrowing during the 'good times'.


-PUTS ON CONSPIRACY 'NUT JOB' HAT-

Of course, there is another explanation, other than that Blair and Brown are clueless. They are all Bilderberger group attendees, and therefore possibly subscribants to NWO type thinking.

(Image: The inside of a London cab. Seen left to right: Spying, Globalisation, Nanny State. Or, to the uninformed, "Passenger Notice: CCTV", "Euros Accepted", "Wear Your Seatbelt".)

Every incompetent action by the UK government in the last ten years could be perceived as a deliberate attempt to undermine our currency, and therefore hold up the Euro as a solution.

We are knee-deep in EU bureaucratic regulation already. Most of our laws are EU-determined, and our government just nods and enforces the will of Brussels. We didn't even get to vote on the Lisbon treaty, a repackaged version of the defeated EU Constitution which Labour promised a democratic decision on during the 2005 elections.

The strength of the Pound is both a source of national pride, and a significant reason for not joining the Euro. Intentional or not, the collapse in the Pound's value will help take another step toward Britain becoming part of a single European state.

Yard by yard, walk the thousand mile road, towards One World Government.

Who Will I Be Voting For in 2010? - Early Thoughts

Presuming 2010 is when the next General Election will be, of course.

Like everyone in my area, who turned 18 recently, on the day I received a birthday card from the local authority reminding me that I was now eligible to vote.

(Image: Two of the key powers held by a free citizen, combined for ease of reference.)

It didn't mean much to me at the time; Co. Durham is a Labour party heartland, and that isn't about to change. Thatcher is so loathed by the majority of people in this region, as it used to be a coal-mining area (and the perception is that Thatcher killed British coal) that the second most popular party here is the British National Party, not the Tories (at least in local elections in recent years, not in the last General).

(See UK 2005 General Election map; look for 'North East' then 'Bishop Auckland' to see my constituency.)

I did feel a little disillusioned with British party politics; after all, I wanted three principles that seemed as if they could not be acheived:

- Right to Keep and Bear Arms/Right to Self-Defence

(Image: The difference between subjects and citizens.)

- End to spy society, restoration of individual liberty, stop government data storage culture

(Image: Love that graffiti. Did you know, the AVERAGE UK CITIZEN [i.e. subject] is caught on CCTV 300 times per day?)

- Return to non-interventionist foreign policy; in particular, out of the Middle East.

(Image: Support the troops, End the war. Hell yeah! Unfortunately, a lot of these people would also back the Brady campaign, I bet.)

At least on these issues, I did not feel I could make a difference with a vote for anyone. Ironically, the one party which offered, at least, the first and last of these requirements was the BNP, but they are just too scary. I'd rather sleepwalk into a Labour dictatorship than goosestep into a British Reich.

So it seemed as if there was not one party out there fitting my needs. But one fatal flaw existed in my conclusion; I was a lazy arse and had not read up on other minority parties out there. When elections did come around, I was going to vote Labour out of pure selfishness, because I reckoned my potential university costs and welfare situation would be better under them. (Yes I am a member of the 'great unwashed' class.)

By coincidence, yesterday, my random searchings led me to a post on Tom Harris' (a Labour MP) blog. He was writing about how he had been mailed a copy of George Orwell's classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, and how Britain is nowhere near being a 'police state'. (Watch the video in the link, then try to agree with him.)

Just take the time to read a few of the comments attached to that post. And Tom Harris' responses. It's so important our elected officials recognise our concerns for liberty in this country; however, this guy didn't get it, and worse than that he showed utter contempt for his audience of voters. After reading that and his second post, which tried to address the criticisms, I was left feeling angry at the establishment and their patronising attitude towards the people.

Turns out, a copy of the book (inscribed with words to the effect of 'this is a warning') was sent to each of the 646 UK MPs by the UK Libertarian Party. Now, of course, that meant I had instant respect for them. And yes, once looking them up at http://lpuk.org/, I found some of the usual libertarian policy ideas that I respected about Ron Paul in the US.

(Image: Republican Congressman Ron Paul. The guy is a legend. Shame the GOP don't appreciate his affiliation.)

(Image: Love the message, but note the British-standard yellowing teeth there. Why are our national teeth so bad? The fluoride in the water maybe?)

The big difference, according to the way I see the world, is that the free market is good but not perfect, in that it would produce winners and losers. Which is fine, but i don't want to see losers starving or being homeless without choice, or being denied decent medical care. No matter how much someone screws up their life (note: not by harming others), I believe that we should not give up on them.

The Libertarian party has the attitude, however, of creating what they call 'a safety net, not a hammock' of welfare. This will involve shifting 'the overwhelming majority' of welfare contribution to the voluntary sector. As I have said before, I am sceptical as to what the results of this would be, but at least many of the problems of conventional social welfare may be addressed.

Most importantly, I want the right to self defence and the right to bear arms to be returned to the citizenry, and an end to foreign interventionist military policy. All three are satisfied by the Libertarian party manifesto.

The recession has made me sceptical to libertarian economics, but blame could also be placed on the central banks, which I would definitely like to get rid of, simply because they rob all of us on a daily basis. You guessed it, that is on the manifesto too (not surprising, of course, for a libertarian party, but good to read nonetheless).

The reason I had not heard of them is partly due to my ignorance, and partly due to them only being formed a little over a year ago. I am by no means 100% libertarian, but the way things are going in society, my mind is made up.

UK Libertarians: Run in my area, and you'll have my vote!

(Oh, and if they don't run where I am...jeez, UK Independence Party maybe? Greens? I'd be damned angry.)

Paedophiles on the loose, and other British justice problems

According to this article, prison sentences in British courts are being cut when there is a shortage of cells to go around. I can't even begin to imagine who thought this was a good idea or why.

Yes, most of the people getting shorter or no prison time are mostly non-violent offenders. However, this isn't about how dangerous people who should be in jail are. It's about lack of solutions to the prison problem.

(Image: Entrance to HMP Preston, one of many prisons in the UK suffering from severe overcrowding, according to a Home Office report.)

I have a solution - build more prisons! But since that will never happen, I propose putting more people into a cell. When you break the law you give up some of your rights, in my opinion. The LAST thing that should ever happen is to cut sentence length, because it makes a joke out of our legal system.

And now for great crime non-solutions in action: Paedophile freed to save jail space

That just makes me sick. Our prisons have been overcrowded for 15 years; not enough new ones have been, or are being built. And it went largely unnoticed until one night in November 2006, when the prison population peaked, with literally a dozen or two spaces in the entire country still available to hold criminals, for something to be done. Only, it was the wrong thing.

This brings me to another piece of the jigsaw to get us out of the economic downturn: social projects, like in the US' 1930s New Deal. This country needs infastructure: whether it be public transport expansion, the improvement of older cities' Victorian-age sewers, or more prisons. It will be financed by government borrowing (unfortunately) but it will create jobs and keep the contractless builders in business, until the market for them returns.

(Image: Should the New Deal be repeated? Maybe not exactly as it was, with all the Communist undertones, but something needs to be done to get the economy going again...)

(See here for cartoons about prison overcrowding.)

British and World: Right to Bear Arms Now!

Okay, first off, I am very much swimming against the cultural tide here in this country; also, what with the majority of my views being left/liberal to some degree, this could be interpreted as a contradiction.

I say no. Gun rights should be a liberal issue, no matter how ridiculous that seems. The classic political spectrum says liberals focus on personal freedom, whereas conservatives focus on economic freedom (low taxes, etc.)

(Images: Ar-15 and Mossberg 500, top; below, Barrett .50 cal (1/2 inch, in other words) being fired. All guns legal from US citizens, images found on Creative Commons. Guns are cool. Admit it, you want one.)

The Right to Bear Arms, or the Right to Self-Defence, should be an example of personal freedom that libs would support, but unfortunately no. They have priotitised the right to be free from the 'dangerous' legal gun owners.

(Image: Scanning for knives. George Orwell's 1984 anyone? This is NOT AN AIRPORT this is a train station.)

I understand why someone would be pro-gun control. The aim of this idea is to minimise gun deaths. As seen from evidence of comparisons between gun death rates around the world, it works, in the sense that countries with fewer guns (both legal/illegal) have fewer gun deaths.

What the numbers don't say, however, is that, in societies without guns, many principles and values have been lost, and the balance of power between criminal and citizen has been affected.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but Britain has in some ways descended into lawlessness among its young people in the last few years. Overall crime is down, but violent crime, particularly knife and gun crime, is up.

(Images: what's wrong with British society? The weapons, or the attitude?)

I personally have heard stories and rumours about people who could source illegal guns from someone or other, so it doesn't surprise me that (apparently) one in eight British men claim to be able to source a gun if they really wanted to.

(Image: Now that's the kind of thinking I can get behind!)

I'd like the Brady campaign to pay a visit to our towns and cities, where violent savages will use any weapon they have, whether it's a gun, a knife or their feet.

Also, what the numbers and reports don't tell is the fear, sometimes bordering on paranoia, that has taken control of our culture. Guns and knives, and those who own them, are the subject of hatred, misunderstanding and ignorance in our culture. (I carry a knife...when I'm making a sandwich, lol) Most legal weapon owners want to defend themselves and their families, nothing more.

(Image: Do you believe gun ownership is freedom from fear? I don't totally agree...but I think we are both less vulnerable and less fearful with guns than without.)

(Image: Shooting, in America, is often a community event that brings people together...)

(...and not just the guys! Also, guns give women, the elderly, the weak etc. a fair chance against the typical violent male offender.)

In America, a Vice-Presifential candidate can be portrayed as a good, gun-toting, patriotic hunter.

In Britain, one photo of Katy Perry holding a knife and she is condemned to tabloid hell. (even though some people had common sense)

(Image: The Sun (UK tabloid) gave, in my opinion, a ridiculously over-the-top reaction to Katy Perry, a woman who I now have huge respect for. She mocked their paranoid anti-weapon message and made them look silly doing so. And The Sun is owned by --drum roll-- Rupert Murdoch, the one-man media plague, so victory all around!)

Banning weapons does not work because criminals are criminals and will arm themeslves illegally anyway. But instead, we seem to have decided banning guns is not enough, and that Airsoft Guns need banning. What the hell is going on!?

To win the war on crime, and especially to combat the power which criminals hold over citizens in gun-control societies, we need to level the playing field and give law-abiding people the chance to defend themselves, because policing can't do it alone.

The Silent Majority, the success of gun control is a lie. It's time to take back our freedoms.