Category archive

World News

After lambasting Trump over BF, media silent when Lineker retweets anti-Israel activist

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

When Donald Trump retweeted three videos posted by controversial group Britain First, the media was in hysterics, desperate to label him a bigot, even though a tweet is not an endorsement. However, it displays, as always, shocking double standards, remaining quiet when Gary Lineker, the Match of the Day presenter, shared a clip posted by Ben White, a virulent critic of Israel.

One social media user described the fact that Mr Lineker had retweeted Mr White’s post as “sickening”. Others accused the former Tottenham Hotspur striker of lacking “wisdom” and urged him to “find out the facts”.

Mr Lineker responded by saying he was unfamiliar with Mr White. “Don’t know the fella,” he tweeted. “As far as I’m concerned I’m retweeting a video of kids being put in a cage. Nothing makes that right.”

The Sussex Friends of Israel group responded by saying that “If Trump had said about Britain First ‘I didn’t know the fellas,’ would that have made his posting of their videos ok?”

Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner, the former spokesperson for the IDF, tweeted: “Sorry, Gary, you’ve completely missed the point. When kids throw stones they are a public menace. They need to be stopped. Yes, the video is unpleasant but it conveniently shares only a glimpse of what happened, the aftermath of their actions. You should be wiser than this.”

Tides Foundation Spent Millions To Defeat Canadian Conservatives

in World News by

While the media is in hysterics, cooking up fake news about Russia influencing the Brexit vote and Trump’s campaign, they are rather quiet about a report from Elections Canada, which claims “electoral outcomes were influenced” by left-wing US lobbyists — dominated by the Tides Foundation.

The report entitled Elections Canada Complaint Regarding Foreign Influence, and obtained in part by the Calgary Herald, claims the left-wing US lobbyists poured millions of dollars into the 2015 Canadian federal election with the objective of defeating former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Liberals under the leader Justin Trudeau won that election.

The number of third parties registered during the 2015 federal election stood at 114 — more than double the 55 that existed for the 2011 election. Those 114 groups spent $6 million affecting the election, and at least $1.5 million of that came from the Tides Foundation — whose opposition to Canadian petroleum exploration, especially in the Alberta oil sands, would benefit Saudi Arabia (who wouldn’t want the oil competition).

The report is a consequence of a complaint from a group called Canada Decides, which charged “the outcome of the 2015 election was skewed by money from wealthy foreigners.” It specifically cites former Calgary Member of Parliament (MP) Joan Crockatt, who says she was one of 29 Conservative MPs targeted by an group called Leadnow through its 2015 Vote Together campaign. Leadnow is alleged to be awash in foreign money.

Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt told Postmedia that these concerns raised by Elections Canada should worry Canadians. “The whole concept and idea of foreign influence in an election is an important issue and is something that Canadians should not tolerate,” Bratt said Monday.

The Canada Elections Act states: “No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate” unless the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

Sweden: Fake refugees responsible for 300% increase in HIV cases

in Brexit/World News by

The number of HIV-related illness in Sweden has risen sharply from 1,684 in 2006 to 6,273 in 2016. That’s an increase of almost 300%.

According to Anders Tegnell of the Public Health Authority, this surge can be explained by the intake of fake refugees from countries where HIV is a major problem.

Publicly available health figures in Sweden show that the number of new cases was relatively constant from the late 1980s through the early 21st century. Since then there was a steep increase.

“There are more and more people living with HIV, because you no longer die of AIDS,” Tegnell said.

Pamela Geller says, “What did you think would be the state of public health in the new post-hijrah Sweden? With New Year’s Eve mass rapes, music festivals sex attacks, women attacked in open markets, and more, it was inevitable that Sweden would become a cesspool of sexually transmitted diseases and all the attendant misery.”

“With Swedish authorities doing nothing to stop the rape jihad, the HIV rate is only going to go higher, and higher, and higher. Before too long, Sweden’s HIV rate will resemble that of the African states from which these Muslim migrants have come. Its crime rate will resemble theirs as well, but after that will follow the peace of sharia, and women who are raped will simply be honor-murdered. The HIV rate will go down then.”

84 Per Cent of Child “Refugees” to Sweden Are Adults

in World News by

After a social worker named Alexandra Mezher was killed by a Somalian in a asylum centre, and he was found to be an adult, tests of age were introduced.

To ascertain the age of child “refugees”, between mid-March and late October, the Swedish government had Rättsmedicinalverket (the National Board of Forensic Medicine) conduct 7,858 age assessments.

The test results show what many expected: they are adults!

84% (6,628) were likely 18 or even older, as even the BBC admitted.

Germany also expresses concerns regards the age of child “refugees”.

Man gets 15 YEARS in prison for leaving bacon at mosque

in World News by

A man who vandalized a Florida mosque in January 2016 and left a raw slab of bacon on its doorstep was sentenced to 15 years in prison on a hate crime conviction. Such will be followed by 15 years of probation.

Michael Wolfe, 37, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to criminal mischief to a place of worship in a case considered a felony hate crime, said Todd Brown, spokesman for Florida’s 18th Judicial District, which includes Brevard and Seminole counties.

Surveillance video after the 2016 incident showed a man with a shaved head and camouflage clothing breaking windows, cameras and lights with a machete at the mosque in Titusville, Florida, near Cape Canaveral.

The Daily Mail reports that the Florida CAIR branch agreed with prosecutors and defense attorneys in determining Wolfe’s sentence. A strange choice of organisation to quote, considering that Republican Josh Mandel, who is also Ohio treasurer, claimed that the Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “is Hamas”.

Google CENSORS migrant crisis video by Polish government

in Tech/World News by

YouTube has ‘quarantined’ a hard-hitting video on Europe’s migrant crisis released by Poland’s conservative government, as part the platform’s crackdown on “hate speech and violent extremism”.

The Polish Ministry of Interior and Administration’s video has been placed in a controversial limited state designed by YouTube to restrict access to videos it says contain “supremacist” or “extremist” content, but which don’t actually break any of the platform’s rules. Videos placed in this limited state are unsearchable, impossible to embed on other sites, and removed from users’ recommended videos lists.

The only way to reach such ‘quarantined’ content is by clicking a direct link to the video in question. Even then, viewers are warned that the “content is inappropriate or offensive”, and are asked to click a button confirming this before they are allowed to watch the video.

The video’s description reads –

“The PiS (Law & Justice) government withdrew from the harmful decision of the PO-PSL government to bring immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa to Poland. We were the first to say that not every immigrant is a refugee, and only a few flee from war and terror. Two years after the Polish government’s opposition to the admission of illegal immigrants, EU leaders are beginning to understand the absurd policy of compulsory relocation of refugees.”

This is the restricted video (which has English subtitles):

This is very concerning from a freedom of speech perspective, especially as YouTube is by far the largest video sharing site online. It is very difficult for smaller rivals to compete – just last week VidMe announced that it will be closing down and user uploads have already been disabled.

We cannot allow giant corporations to become the arbiters of free expression and communication. That leads directly to tyranny. One potential solution could be the use of decentralised peer-to-peer video sharing sites, where it would be much harder for a central authority to censor or restrict content.

Palestinian flag man yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ smashes Jewish restaurant’s windows

in World News by

A kosher restaurant in Amsterdam was attacked by a man waving a Palestinian flag just hours after Donald Trump’s announcement recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

Footage broadcast by Dutch local TV station AT5 shows the man, who also appears to be wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh head covering, using a stick to strike the restaurant’s window.

He was seen aiming a series of kicks to smash his way through the glass door before briefly disappearing inside and emerging moments afterwards carrying an Israeli flag.

Judge says SORRY as he gives £110,000 payout to refugee jailed twice for sex attacks

in World News by

A migrant jailed twice for sex attacks has won £110,000 compensation for being locked up too long – after his own country refused to take him back.

The judge who awarded the money admitted he ‘wholeheartedly’ agreed that many would think it was the victims of 28-year-old Aliou Bah who deserved large payouts instead.

Bah, from Guinea, had been imprisoned twice for serious assaults – including an attack on a 16-year-old girl – and placed on the sex offenders’ register.

But in a ruling revealed yesterday, a court decided that the Government had held him unlawfully for 21 months when there was no reasonable prospect of deporting him to West Africa.

Moves to throw him out were blocked by immigration officials in his homeland who refused to process his travel documents.

Electoral Commission launches investigation into allegations of Russian interference in UK votes

in Brexit/World News by

The Electoral Commission has launched an investigation into allegations of Russian interference in last year’s Brexit referendum and the 2017 general election.

“It would be naive to assume that what we know happened in the US and France around their elections did not and could not happen here,” Sir John Holmes, the head of the Electoral Commission told BBC Today.

“And there has been evidence coming from the US inquiry that some of that activity was happening.

“What we have done is asked companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook to tell us what was happening here in the same way they did in the US.”

That’s a nice way to deflect attention away from the fact the establishment LOST badly despite all the lies and pro-EU propaganda from the government during the referendum campaign. Come to think of it, when is someone going to investigate all those lies?

While you’re at it, you could look at double voting by students due to the complete absence of identity checks, and the scourge of the first-past the post (FPTP) voting system which blocks any real change and protects the major incumbent parties.

But no, predictably the problem is ‘Russian meddling’.

The most weak and spineless Prime Minister we have ever had?

in Brexit/World News by

Similar to Cameron’s disastrous attempts to renegotiate a deal with the EU, today we saw another pathetic attempt by a weak leader who is coming back to the UK with her tail between her legs.

There are whispers that the UK was prepared to accept that Northern Ireland could remain in the EU’s customs union and single market in all but name. Theresa May’s capitulation on the Irish border has seen her yet again bullied by the EU dictatorship that has opened a can of worms.

Following reports that Northern Ireland could regain “regulatory alignment”, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon stated that there is “surely no good practical reason” that Scotland could not do the same. Additionally London Mayor Sadiq Khan has also suggested that there could be “huge ramifications” and would look to seek a similar deal. This is a colossal error – May is threatening the United Kingdom’s cohesion in a time where unity is much sought after but lacking.

Many argue that May was never the right candidate to lead the negotiations given she was a Remain campaigner and never wanted to leave: it shows. She appears to have worked to undermine and frustrate Brexit from the start. She delayed Article 50 for months, has not started any trade deals with other countries, upset our greatest ally in the United States and wants to pay a £50bn bill to the EU that has no legal standing. One could argue that she is working on a deal so bad that it will only encourage calls to remain – that could be her ultimate goal.

There is a growing rumbling of discontent from the 17.4 million mainly silent Brexiteers and a high feeling of betrayal where nothing but a hard Brexit and rejecting of a “divorce’ payment will be satisfactory. The British lion has indeed been awakened.

Politicians often forget that they are elected to serve us and not the other way round. Time is running short for Theresa to make her mark in history for positive reasons, not for the most weak and spineless Prime Minister the country has ever had.

Trump visit to Britain: date announced

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

Donald Trump will visit the UK on February 26 and 27.

The long-proposed trip, which will go ahead despite this week’s Twitter spat with Prime Minister Theresa May.

The sources said the trip had been in Mrs May’s diary for 10 days already – despite concerns raised by this week’s drama.

The visit is expected to be timed to coincide with the opening of the new American embassy in London.

Lefty activists are already preparing to protest against the democratically elected leader of the USA. Labour MP David Lammy said: “Save the date, he’s going to be met by the biggest protest this country has ever seen.”

Owen Jones has strongly objected to a visit by a US President, promising a mass protest. There was no such uproar over visits by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia – where gays are murdered – or Chinese President Xi Jinping – where workers are treated like animals. The left was not furious when Robert Mugabe visited Britain, even after his militia murdered British citizens.

Luke Nash-Jones, Director of the People’s Charter Foundation says, “Owen Jones is a hypocrite – he was rather silent when Hamza Sodagar, who wants to kill gays, including Owen, came to Britain.”

“Owen hates Trump’s firm rejection of cultural Marxism, and is trying to weaken his power, by painting him as Hitler, to claim the moral high ground. The US President is visiting on behalf of the American people, our greatest trade ally – whatever whiny lefties think, the US nation chose him, as their representative. Therefore, anyone who rejects their choice, not only spurns democracy – rather ironic when they call Trump a fascist – but also, is most certainly a hypocrite, who wishes to destroy economy, while being quite happy to sell arms to Saudi, which hardly has a glowing record for human rights.”

“A tweet is not an endorsement. Trump clearly shared the video because the content concerned him. It featured the murder of young men in the Middle East, probably because they are gay – the US president intent was to oppose homophobia.”

“If only Parliament would stop brown-nosing to Saudi Arabia and find such enthusiasm to speak out on the real problems. Every few days we hear another report of an Islamist attack; four this year. Kids are dying. Britain is home to 23,000 suspected terrorists, and 400 ISIS fighters who have returned. The hush up of the racially-motivated rape of thousands of little white girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, Keighley and other towns. Christmas markets surrounded by concrete barriers to keep cars back. Bollards on bridges. Armed police everywhere. Something is very wrong with our country when dissing Jayda Fransen is the Home Secretary’s top priority.”

Luke Nash-Jones of the People’s Charter Foundation; Richard Inman of Veterans Against Terrorism; the Football Lads Alliance; and others, including a racially-diverse group of ex-Muslims, will be leading a protest on the 26th in support of Trump.

Trump REBUKES Theresa May: “Focus on the destructive Radical Islamic terrorism”

in Islamism/World News by

Trump’s sharing of the Britain First content comes at a very awkward time for the May government, who have just had Fransen arrested for stirring “racial hatred”. Now, the most powerful Western leader is going against May’s agenda.

While US presidents traditionally pick up the telephone or make subtle diplomatic overtures to express their feelings to world leaders, Trump used his preferred social media outlet to reach the Prime Minister, perhaps reflecting how little he thought of Mr Maybe’s view.

Theresa May finds herself this week in a very tricky situation. On one hand, as Britain is part of the Union for the Mediterranean, she has to keep happy its southern oil-rich Arab League OPEC members that our economy relies on (1970s oil embargo), such as Libya, Algeria, etc., who will not appreciate criticism of Islam. Hence, Theresa May was probably under incredible pressure to criticise the Donald’s decision to retweet three videos that had been posted by Jayda Fransen of Britain First.

On the other, as Britain, leaves the EU, even if just in name, a trade deal with the US will be an absolute priority, and this means Mrs Maybe can not afford to alienate Trump. While the US government pursues a nationalistic “American exceptionalism” approach, putting its people first, bring jobs back from China, Theresa is a globalist Remoaner who would give up our national sovereignty and identity.

Many people in Britain were pleased when the US President tweeted: “Theresa @theresamay, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!”

Her spokesperson said Trump had been “wrong” to share the videos, adding that “Britain First seeks to divide communities through their use of hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions”, and “British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far-right”.

Luke Nash-Jones, Director of the People’s Charter Foundation stated, “While some people may not appreciate the Britain First strategy, such as ‘mosque invasions’ (I, myself, prefer other approaches), they are not ‘far-right’ – they are not neo-Nazis, holding drunken parties where they sing Nazi songs – no, that’s what Theresa’s own party do!”

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said, “BBC today branding Britain First party as ;far-right’. I have no interest in BF but what gives BBC the right to decide who is ‘far-right’?”

Trump’s state visit to the UK will occur, even if Chuka Umuna MP is furious. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, ever keen for an opportunity to virtue signal, said Trump’s decision to retweet the videos was “deeply disturbing”. Saudi-funded the Independent was quick to quote CAIR, a group many, even Al Jazeera, associate with Hamas, to defend Theresa.

The Conservative party’s UK Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, a Muslim himself, said Trump had “endorsed the views of a vile, hate-filled racist organisation that hates me and people like me”, and was “wrong” to have done so.

However, Trump appears to have shared the posts due to his concern about the surge in Isalmists attacks in the UK. The White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended the President by saying journalists were focusing on “the wrong thing”. She said: “Whether it’s a real video, the threat is real. His goal is to promote strong border security and strong national security.”

One carried the caption, “Muslim migrants beating up a Dutch boy on crutches”, while another claimed to show an “Islamist mob” pushing a teenager off a roof and beating him to death and a third allegedly showed a Muslim man destroying a Virgin Mary statue.

Fransen quickly moved to capitalise on the attention Mr Trump had brought her, saying she was “delighted”.

Bitter EU kicks Britain out of the Capital of Culture contest

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Brexit/World News by

Dundee will not be able to compete in the European Capital of Culture 2023 competition due to Brexit, the European Commission has stated.

Five UK cities were bidding to host the title, with the winner expected to be announced next week.

A letter from the European Commission to the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said UK participation “would not be possible”.

It said the UK’s selection process should “immediately be discontinued”.

The DCMS said it “disagreed” with the European Commission’s stance and was “deeply disappointed” that the Commission had waited until the UK cities had submitted their bids before “communicating this new position to us”.

Martin Costello of UKIP Swindon states, “They simply hate us and treat us like naughty children. Out of the 27 members they are claiming we owe 14% of their entire budget!”

“How anyone can continue to support this racket is beyond me. £40bn equates to £2k per person. We don’t owe a penny and must not pay!”

A Dundee 2023 spokesman said that the team was “hugely disappointed” at the European Commission’s late decision.

He said: “The timing is disrespectful not only to the citizens of Dundee, but to people from all five bidding cities who have devoted so much time, effort and energy so far in this competition.

“It’s a sad irony that one of the key drivers of our bid was a desire to further enhance our cultural links with Europe.”

UK loses seat on International Court of Justice for first time since 1946

in Brexit/World News by

Britain’s demise on the world political landscape continues, as we are seen as nothing more than a state of the EU. The UK has lost its seat on the International Court of Justice – a position held since 1946.

Based at The Hague, the UN court has 15 members and its job is to settle disputes between countries.

Christopher Greenwood, the current British judge, was running for re-election to serve a second nine-year term – but withdrew from the race after facing a run-off vote against India’s Dalveer Bhandari.

Ronny Abraham of France, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia, Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade of Brazil and Nawaf Salam of Lebanon have been elected to the bench along with Judge Bhandari.

Although Mr Greenwood had a majority among the UN Security Council, Mr Bhandari won the most backing in the General Assembly – with the Indian judge’s popularity seen to be increasing as support for the Briton diminished.

This is an outrage! Our nation is not only the birthplace of democracy, of liberty, of the rule of law, but it was Britons who exported justice to much of the world, which before then could not even read and write.

Russian Supreme Court: Ending Parental Radicalisation

in World News by

The Russian Supreme Court has ruled in support of legislative recommendation allowing the deprivation of parental rights to citizens who allow their kids to join destructive sects, terrorist groups or other extremist organisations.

“The term ‘abuse of parental rights’ should be understood as the use of these rights in a way that can hurt the children’s interests, for example through hindering their education, involving them in gambling, a homeless lifestyle, begging, theft, prostitution and substance abuse,” reads the ruling of the Supreme Court Plenum.

Other examples listed in the ruling include encouraging kids’ participation in any public or religious group that has been officially recognised as extremist and banned by a Russian court. The ruling allows Russian courts to deprive citizens of their parental rights if they are found guilty of such abuse.

The most recent update to Russian anti-terrorist laws, introduced in mid-2016, lowered the age threshold for terrorist crimes such as attacks and hostage taking from 16 to 14 years. The law also provides for up to 10 years in prison for anyone engaging in international terrorism, and up to 15 years behind bars for anyone found guilty of financing terrorist groups. Attracting new recruits to a terrorist organisation was also criminalised, and is punishable by prison terms of between five and 10 years.

The proposed amendment stipulates punishment of up to life in prison for those convicted of recruiting new members in terrorist groups and also amends the current formula “public calls for terrorist activities or public justification of terrorism” with a formula “promotion of terrorism.” It also makes the latter punishable with between two and seven years in prison and using mass media or internet for terrorist propaganda.

Whilst the bill is yet to be approved, it is certainly a step in the right direction to tackle extremism.

British lawmakers should take a leaf out of Russia’s book and implement similar policies, to prevent the radicalisation of children beginning at home. Prevent, one of four strands of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, released concerning figures that highlights the issue of radicalisation of young people under the age of 18.

If Britain implemented a similar strategy to the Russian example, it could prevent the radicalisation of children in their own homes, and ensure our young people are protected from dangerous ideologies that harm Britain.

North Korea: The Happiest Nation In The World

in World News by

Well… according to North Koreans.

North Koreans say they’re the happiest people in the world. They’re told that Kim Jong-Un has made their country the most powerful and economically developed on the planet. A quick look at the Internet or any international media might lead to a different conclusion but in North Korea, they’re banned.

North Koreans are being systematically brainwashed by their own government, and this is clear from the startling UN reports and individual experiences.

Their people are like robots, sporting pictures of their leader and regularly attending mass rallies where thousands move in unison against Western leaders such as Donald Trump. Their official media — has hyperbolic pronouncements, constant threats and worshipful praise of the leader — magnifies a delusional and worrying image.

The threat of nuclear war between the USA and North Korea, to some, is a war of egos and ideology. We can only imagine what this conflict will lead to.

Here is a list of wacky rules:

There are only three channels on TV and you have to watch only those. The Government control content and any information that is released to the public.
In North Korea, if you commit a crime, not only you but your entire family would be punished for the same. Your three generations, i.e grandparents, parents and children bear the brunt of punishment.

North Korean government has 28 official hairstyles approved and all men and women in the country have to follow the same hairstyles as other hairstyles are banned.
The Bible is considered to be a symbol of western culture and therefore not allowed.
Apple, Sony, and Microsoft are not allowed to distribute their products to North Korea.
You cannot smuggle in western literature about North Korea.

It is illegal not to vote, as the government mandates that all of its citizens must vote. Unfortunately, the government also mandates that all 100% of North Korean citizens vote for the same person.

That being said, I would feel a lot happier too, if I had no awareness of what was going on in the outside world.

POTUS Who Made America Great Again

in World News by

He has faced up to bullies.
He has faced down snowflakes.
He has upset the flaky political establishment at home and abroad.
He is the man Who Made America Great Again.

For sure, many people are queasy. And so many officials and business leaders baulked when he called a megalomaniacal dictator with illegal nuclear weapons a “rocket man”.

But, we at The English Channel, who want to make England Great Again, would rather have a friend in the White House with nerves of steel and a loyalty to democracy, than a fair-weather friend who tells us to get to the back of the queue when all we ask for is democracy.

Donald H Trump is a successful businessman who has employed thousands of staff and brought billions of dollars into the American economy.

Oh, how we would love to be able to say the same thing about our political leaders. Most of them have clambered up the greasy, taxpayer-funded pole of party bureaucracies, quangos, and extremist PC educational establishments.

In short, our present political establishment, is the polar opposite of this brave, honest POTUS administration.

In England, we are a country that can look back on more than a thousand years of legal development and democratic progress. Until recently.

This is because so few of our elected politicians have but one fraction of Donald Trump’s tenacity, courage and foresight. He leads his new nation back onto the path of democratic sovereignty and personal responsibility.

So, we commend the new POTUS’s first year in office. We only wish that he had a twin brother (or sister) that he could lend to our spineless and self serving ministers and MP’s for at least the next three years.

Sir, we salute you.
Yours Sincerely,
The English Channel

Perverted democracy or could we better call it “hezocracy”?

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

A common trickery on which all despotic regimes in the history of mankind rely is the perversion of ideas and concepts. The use of fallacies, cognitive biases and euphemisms are usually accompanied by the destruction of democratic institutions to oppress the members of society.

It is not strange to observe how ideas and concepts such as peace, conciliation, dialogue and understanding are perverted and diverted from their natural purpose and used by tyrannies to weave their system of domination, deceptions that even dismayed the concepts of Constitution, constituent power, legislation, sovereignty, nation and even the idea of ​​democracy, banalising it and reducing it simply to electoral acts, which although are important, are the least significant element of real democracies, since there can be no democracy without checks and balances of public powers, respect of human rights, accountability of the public administration, effective judicial protection, among others.

Today, Venezuela as per all the socialist nations in history, is more than a failed State, it is a delinquent State, there is no doubt about it; but the worst part of it is that those who are apparently calling to resist the tyranny as opposition, are often those who materially attempt against the rule of law, becoming actors in favour of the tyrannical system, either by action or omission, voluntarily or involuntarily, in a conscious or stupid way, they just serve the table for the tyranny with their democratic weakness towards despotism reducing the idea of democracy only to a matter of votes, when there are many other equally democratic and constitutional actions, quite forceful, for recovering the rule of law, one example: “constitutional resistance”.

In order to confront any problem and seek for a solution, from the simplest to the most complex, before venturing to take any action, we must first make a diagnosis as detailed as possible of the case, and from there, act accordingly, diagnosis and evaluation that in situations of significance such as the one that Venezuela suffers are especially important to consider.

There some political actors that are quick to point out that the solution to the political crisis of Venezuela can’t be democratic but forced; others that should not go to the electoral processes, others quite the contrary, when the truth is that after more than 18 years of a dictatorial regime, local states and municipalities are nothing but empty shells to which they have taken away their most essential attributions, and only used by the regime as means to oppress their inhabitants and the whole country has derived in the worst situation ever, where misery and corruption are present in every aspects of Venezuelans.

Let´s save some time and arrive at some specific conclusions. In Venezuela there is no rule of law and there is no democracy, and if there is some left, it is totally perverted; we are facing something totally different beyond simply mentioning that there is no democracy..

But if there is no rule of law and there is no democracy, what is Venezuela now? It is a failed State, a delinquent State in which far from having a democracy we could be facing an ochlocracy, kleptocracy, pathocracy or a “hezocracy”.

Let’s see…

It is well known that democracy comes from the Greek “Demos” that means “people” and from “kratos” that is “authority” or “government”; then we may say that “democracy” is the government of the people. From that very elementary idea, we can perfectly deduce other notions such as ​​”meritocracy”, as the government of those who have achieved enough merit; but how can we understand other complex expressions and ideas such as political ponerology, ochlocracy, kleptocracy, pathocracy and “hezocracy”?

Ponerology is an expression that derives from “ponerophilus” used by Aristotle in Politics to refer about the friendship and approach towards the evil, a concept that acquires current use and dimensions thanks to the Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Lobaczewki who used it in his book “Political Ponerology” in which he develops in detail the study of the evil and its effects in politics, as well as the pathology of the ruling classes and their effects in societies, pointing out that pathocracies may arise in such environments.

About pathocracies, we can highlight:

“Definition: pathocracy (n). A system of government created by a small pathological minority that takes control over a society of normal people (from Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, by Andrew Lobaczewski)


From Greek pathos, “feeling, pain, suffering”; and kratos, “rule”

A totalitarian form of government in which absolute political power is held by psychopathic elite and their effect on the people is such that the entire society is ruled and motivated by purely pathological values.

A pathocracy can take many forms and can insinuate itself covertly into any seemingly just system or ideology. As such it can masquerade under the guise of a democracy or theocracy as well as more openly oppressive regimes.


  1. Suppression of individualism and creativity.
  2. Impoverishment of artistic values.
  3. Impoverishment of moral values; a social structure based on self-interest and one-upmanship, rather than altruism.
  4. Fanatical ideology; often a corrupted form of a valid viable ‘trojan’ ideology which is perverted into a pathological form, bearing little resemblance to the substance of the original.
  5. Intolerance and suspicion of anyone who is different, or who disagrees with the state.
  6. Centralised control.
  7. Widespread corruption.
  8. Secret activities within government, but surveillance of the general population. (In contrast, a healthy society would have transparent government processes, and respect for privacy of the individual citizen).
  9. Paranoid and reactionary government.
  10. Excessive, arbitrary, unfair and inflexible legislation; the power of decision making is reduced/removed from the citizens’ everyday lives.
  11. An attitude of hypocrisy and contempt demonstrated by the actions of the ruling class, towards the ideals they claim to follow, and towards the citizens they claim to represent.
  12. Controlled media, dominated by propaganda.
  13. Extreme inequality between the richest and poorest.
  14. Endemic use of corrupted psychological reasoning such as paramoralisms, conversive thinking and doubletalk.
  15. Rule by force and/or fear of force.
  16. People are considered as a ‘resource’ to be exploited (hence the term “human resources”), rather than as individuals with intrinsic human worth.
  17. Spiritual life is restricted to inflexible and indoctrinaire schemes. Anyone attempting to go beyond these boundaries is considered a heretic or insane, and therefore dangerous.
  18. Arbitrary divisions in the population (class, ethnicity, creed) are inflamed into conflict with one another.
  19. Suppression of free speech – public debate, demonstration, protest.
  20. Violation of basic human rights, for example: restriction or denial of basic life necessities such as food, water, shelter; detainment without charge; torture and abuse; slave labour.”

Concerning the terms ochlocracy, kleptocracy and “hezocracy”, there should be no more difficultly distinguishing their scope and content; in fact, it is an interesting exercise, let´s do it:

We already know what “kratos” is … the government of … Let´s try with the others…

Ochlocracy, comes from the Greek “ochlo”, that means crowd, mass of people, “lumpen”, it is an expression attributed to the government of the informal unprepared groups of persons, usually used in those populist regimes resulting from a degeneration of democracy, also can be referred as “government by the mob : mob rule”

Kleptocracy: From the Greek “klepto” that means “to steal” or “a thief”, then kleptocracy it is usually defined as:

“… political regime whose members make flagrantly dishonest use of their official position for personal gain.”

“…a government where officials are politically corrupt and financially self-interested

And the last one, “Hezocracy”; this is a little more complex, since there is no such word; and it is more a suggestion to be implemented due to its meaning and the current need to call things with names that really represent the context of where they are used. Its etymology results from the concept of “Hez” in Spanish and Aristotle would point out that it was the object of admiration of the “ponerophilus” who blindly follow the tyrants.

Considering the political pathology in Venezuela, applying the necessary treatment; to the dictatorial regime, to the opposition and its imbecility and civil society with its laziness to confront the tyranny, even more than diagnosing that Venezuela as a failed State, we better should consider if we are not under an ochlocracy, pathocracy, kleptocracy or perhaps it will be “hezocracy”.

I personally still have some doubts, but what do you think the diagnosis is?

P.S. concerning Hez:

Hex, from the Latin  fex, fecis, that in English could be translated as “scum” (“residue, dregs”)

“… extraneous matter or impurities risen to or formed on the surface of a liquid often as a foul filmy covering”

“… scoria of metals in a molten state”

“… a low, vile, or worthless person or group of people”

“… a worthless or contemptible person or group of people”

“… despicable people, despicable person, rabble, riff-raff, refuse, garbage, trash, vermin, good-for-nothing, good-for-nothings, undesirable, undesirables, the lowest of the low, the dregs of society”

“hezocracy – scumocracy”


How The Left And The Media Hijack The Islamist Narrative.

in Anglophobia / Marxism/Islamism/World News by

On 22nd May, 2017, a 22 year old jihadist named Salman Abedi wandered into the Manchester Arena during a concert populated primarily by young teens and their parents, and detonated a suicide bomb, killing 22 people including an 8 year old girl, and injuring approximately 120 others. This was the deadliest terror attack on the UK, the other notable one being the 52 commuters killed in the London transport attacks of 2005.

We are often told that we should defy the terrorists by simply carrying on as normal.

The fact that the two deadliest attacks upon the UK in recent memory were at the hands of Islamist terrorists is not simply pub trivia.

When the apologists for Islamofascism get bored of claiming that jihadists are lying about their religious motivations, (“It is nothing to do with Islam” may sound familiar at this point) they invariably engage in the exercise of throwing around skewed data to minimise the danger posed by Islamist terror.

In the now not uncommon event of an Islamist jihadi slaughtering a crowd of innocent people, articles and tweets lying about the remote likelihood of this happening to you, instantaneously begin to surface. Each of these claims are variations on the theme that right-wing or far-right terrorism poses a greater danger than Islamofascist terrorism, and they are based on several studies which attempt to make the same claims.

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by non-Muslim extremists than by jihadists,” insists this MSNBC article based on this report by research centre New America.

This article was published in the summer of 2015. And whilst the information contained within it is frozen in time, the source report that it cites is not. The report has since been updated, and so anyone citing the article now, is citing statistics that do not include the 49 Orlando clubbers murdered the following year by ISIS-inspired gunman Omar Mateen in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. The updated statistics which now include this attack, along with other attacks in 2016, show that deaths from jihadist terror attacks in the US are now almost double those attributable to far-right terrorists.

The practice of quoting outdated figures to further a false narrative is a common ruse.

John Sexton of Breitbart notes, the numbers here ostensibly focus on the threat to Americans, but do not take Americans killed abroad by Islamist terrorists into account. The beheading of Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 7 Americans killed in the 2002 Bali Bombing, the 6 Americans killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 4 Americans killed in the 2016 Brussels bombings, the American killed in the Zamboanga City bombing, the American killed in the 2015 Bamako hotel attack, the 22 year old American student killed in the 2015 Paris attacks, for example, are all absent from these figures. Nor do the figures take into account the number of Islamofascist plots foiled as a result of the asymmetric counter-terrorism focus placed upon jihadism as a result of 9/11. As former counter-terrorism analyst Daryl Johnson acknowledges:

The U.S. government currently employs hundreds of analysts focused on Islamic extremism, but only a couple dozen who monitor domestic terror.

Fortunately I didn’t need to undertake a great deal of arduous research to find this quote. Why? Because it’s mentioned in the very same report (MSNBC) that is routinely circulated as proof that Islamic terrorism is essentially a non-issue in comparison to “far-right” terrorism.

But surely, the most blatant and deliberate skewing of the numbers here is in the fact that the biggest terror attack in the history of the United States is discounted by beginning the tally on 12th September 2001.

Florida State College Professor Andrew Holt issued a statement debunking this  and the methods it uses. In it he points out that if one were to start the clock a day earlier and therefore include the approximately three thousand innocent lives taken on 9/11, then “there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist.”

Also, the proportionality of terror attacks attributable to Islamist extremism does not factor in the scarcity of Muslims in western population.

Muslim adults comprise less than 1% of the U.S population, and yet according to data, persons claiming to follow Islam are responsible for a whopping 27% of the terrorism in that country. This is a significant over-representation among such a tiny minority and, as expected, is completely overlooked in this report. 5.2% in the UK are Muslim and yet those claiming to be of said faith have been responsible for 316 woundings or deaths since 2000. In Europe since 2004 the figure is 5103. This figure is starkly drawn into relief when we note that this violence said by perpetrators to be from, or inspired by, the Qur’an, and the Qur’an alone.

The number of “far-right”, Jewish or Christian inspired attacks is currently zero. That figure is unlikely to change any time soon.

And the next time you are confronted by someone claiming that “far-right terrorism” (or some variation of) is a greater threat than Islamofascist terrorism, they will be citing a report or article that contains most, if not all, of the below errors:

  • A tally which starts after the biggest terror attack committed on U.S. soil.
  • A tally which ends before the deadliest mass shooting on U.S. soil. (Both of these attacks were committed by jihadists.)
  • A tally which fails to include certain other jihadist and right-wing attacks.
  • A tally which misreports certain attacks as “right-wing” or “far-right”.
  • A report which fails to include figures for Americans killed abroad.
  • A report which ignores foiled plots.
  • A report which ignores the number of non-fatal casualties.
  • A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate focus of counter-terror analysis on Islamist terrorism.
  • A report which is not calibrated to consider the disproportionate number of attacks by Islamofascists in relation to Muslim’s lack of prevalence as a minority group.
  • A report which conflates several disparate ideological motivations for non-Islamic terrorism by lumping them all into the “far-right” bracket.
  • A report which ignores all terror attacks outside of the United States.

This narrow focus on terrorism committed within Western borders is particularly galling. According to the 2015 Global Terrorism Index, only 2.6 percent of terror-related deaths occur in the West (for accuracy, this figure includes the September 11th attacks.) Furthermore, just 4 groups (Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al Qaeda) were responsible for 74% of the world’s terror related deaths in 2015 — and Islamic State and Boko Haram were responsible for over half of the world’s terrorism fatalities between them.

Ironically, those of us concerned about the global impacts of Islamism are routinely accused of xenophobia and bigotry by the very same people who demand that we measure this threat by ignoring Islamist terrorism in foreign states. They seem to be arguing that as long as jihadism is negligible in the West then it’s as though the threat to “foreigners” in the rest of the world is of no concern. That sounds a lot like bigotry and xenophobia to me.

None of this is to say that far-right terrorism is not an issue. But the prevalence and threat of Islamist terrorism is a perfectly legitimate area of concern and focus in its own right. Particularly, one would think, in the immediate aftermath of an Islamist inspired bloodbath.

And this insistence on changing the subject to the far-right in response to it is not dissimilar to mounting a sustained campaign of vocal objection to cancer research on the basis that diabetes kills people too. It’s a textbook example of ‘Yes but whatabout’.

Many well-meaning people have been taken in by these reports, seemingly due to a legitimate concern over a general increase in far-right sentiment. However, their circulation and citation by Islamism apologists is a deliberate attempt to limit the problem of Islamofascism solely to terrorism, then to further limit it to terrorism on Western soil, and then to dismiss even that concern with deceitful nonsense.

Scarcely a few hours after a Muslim refugee in Stockholm ploughed a truck through crowds of pedestrians killing 5 people including an 11 year old girl who was literally ripped in half, and injuring 15 others, The Irish Times published an article worrying about how this ISIS inspired butchery would be used as political capital by the Swedish far-right.

Immediately hijacking any conversation on the detrimental impacts of Islamism as an ideology, and redirecting it towards the likes of Anders Breivik and Thomas Mair is often intended not only to whitewash the global phenomenon of Islamist terrorism, but also to divert focus away from Islam entirely.

It’s like saying right wing ideology causes someone to be a Nazi, but this argument is not extended to Islamofascism. You will often hear the ‘Nothing to do with Islam’ chant, usually after an attack.

There are other parts of the Qur’an to be considered in this as well as jihad and terrorism. This will include Female Genital Mutilation, honour killing, blasphemy, the persecution of the LBGT community, the subjugation of women, and the grooming and sexual exploitation of children, Rotherham being just one case in point.

It is simply a fact that Islamist terrorism is currently the deadliest form of terrorism on the global stage: whether they are Bangladeshi secularists pulled apart by Islamofascists’ blades, whether they are French cartoonists gunned down for defying Sharia blasphemy laws, whether they are Pakistani Sufis incinerated in Lahore for being the wrong kind of Muslims, or whether they are British children blown to pieces and lacerated by shrapnel in a Manchester concert hall.

As if to underscore this, The Telegraph ran the story  here on 26th October of Madihah Taheer, who bought her husband to be a wedding gift of a hunting knife and a plastic dummy so he could practice for killing the so called ‘right wing’ columnist Katie Hopkins!  The groom to be wanted to stab someone 27 times. I wonder if Katie Hopkins would be accused of Islamophobia here.

Almost as if to justify the narrative, in the same week the alleged head of the proscribed organisation National Action Christopher Lythgoe has been charged with ‘encouragement to commit murder’ of a Labour MP. As far as I know he is the only member of the far right to be charged with such, which is dwarfed by the relentless Islamic threat.

It is obvious which ideology presents the greatest problem.


The Post Modern Assault Pt 2; Education

in Anglophobia / Marxism/World News by

Post modernism has seeped into education. Originally, I was of the mind that it applied to an artistic movement. Or even an architectural one. But now it has expanded to encompass, in my experience, higher education. And certainly, the psychology, philosophy and the humanities disciplines. I will explore postmodernism in popular culture in another article, but today my focus is on its influence in education.

Some time back I enrolled on an access course, to then go on to study Criminology. So far so good. This course had a psychology bias, and I was exposed, surprisingly, to the thinking of Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze among others. You may recall that these were the primary French thinkers I cited in a precious article. [Here] So why is this promoted on a course where a rigorous pursuit of facts are required? Surely a strong logical argument would be easier support than one that is not.

Not if you are a postmodernist. You see, facts as you see them, are a construct. Not real. You just think they are because of your conditioning. This refers to your race/culture/education.  They will argue that if your construct can be untrue, then so are your facts, your evidence.

Here are some more facts:

  1. Access to education means access to knowledge.
  2. Knowledge enables a better future.
  3. Truth and knowledge should be synonymous with each other.

The generally accepted theory for validating a truth as knowledge is scientific experiment. You present a theory and prove the theory works via an demonstrative experiment. Others then try to replicate the results. If other findings are consistent with your own, it must be true. It supports your theory to be valid and true. But what happens when the results are inconsistent or disagree with the outcome you want?

Cue postmodernism. In education it has dramatically lowered the bar. It has hijacked it! Anyone can assert a truth, and, using the postmodern yardstick, it must be a truth for the asserter, it must also hold true globally. To argue otherwise would be some kind of ‘ism or ‘phobe. Take your pick; the politically correct have plenty for you to choose from.

And this is a very large problem indeed. If I was exposed to this thinking in higher education, then it is most definitely in basic, school level education. Young impressionable easily moulded minds are being led along a path of non-critical thought.  I found a table, which is below, setting out the main differences between modern v postmodern education theory.

Modernist Theory Postmodernist Theory
Knowledge Educators ideally should be authoritative transmitters of unbiased knowledge Educators are biased facilitators and co-“constructors” of knowledge.
Culture Culture is something students should learn about, but can also be a barrier to learning. Students from diverse cultures must be trained in a shared language, or medium of communication, before teachers can transmit knowledge to them. The modernist goal of unifying society results in domination and exploitation, because unity is always based on dominant culture. All cultures are not only of equal value, but also constitute equally important realities. Minority students must be “empowered” to fight against Eurocentric enculturation.
Values Traditional modernists believe that educators are legitimate authorities on values, and therefore they should train students in universal values. More liberal modernists argue that education should be “values-neutral.” Teachers help students with “values clarification”–deciding what values each individual student will hold. Values can, and should be separated from facts. The most important values are rationality and progress. Education should help students construct diverse and personally useful values in the context of their cultures. Values are considered useful for a given culture, not true or right in any universal sense. Since teachers cannot avoid teaching their own values, it’s okay for teachers to openly promote their values and social agendas in the classroom. Important values to teach include striving for diversity, tolerance, freedom, creativity, emotions and intuition.
Human Nature Modernists generally believe in a stable, inherent self that can be objectively known. In addition, since humans are thought to have a stable essential nature, IQ tests, and other similar “objective tests”, can be used to discover students’ innate intelligence. By giving them mastery over subject matter, teachers enhance students’ self-esteem. Education helps individuals discover their identities. Individuals and society progress by learning and applying objective knowledge. Students have no “true self” or innate essence. Rather, selves are social constructs. Postmodern educators believe self-esteem is a pre-condition for learning. They view education as a type of therapy. Education helps individuals construct their identities rather than discover them. Individuals and society progress when people are empowered to attain their own chosen goals.

It was authored by Dennis McCallum of Xenos Christian Fellowship on a different topic but it serves to demonstrate the differences well. Notice how modernism separates facts from values. Postmodernism prizes values over facts, and these values are often emotionally driven. Modernism has an authoritative and consistent delivery of knowledge and postmodernism has many different realities. This is wrong on so many levels.

As the philosopher Roger Scruton points out in his book England And The Need For Nations, the thing that binds us gives a sense community. A sense of belonging and a cohesiveness. ‘A society of citizens is a society when strangers can trust one another, since everyone is bound by the same set of rules’.

Given knowledge enables a better, more prosperous future, everyone owes it to their children, and to the generations to come, to do something about this creeping ideology of this false education.

I have a couple of suggestions on this front. Get involved in parent/teacher associations. Maybe get on the board of governors at your local school. Join local groups. Make your voice heard.

Argue your point using rationality, logic and reason to dismantle this fallacy. But be warned, although this is a relatively easy argument, you will be outnumbered, sometimes greatly so. You will also be shamed into silence using guilt (an emotion), they will point and shriek using hysterical moral panic. And they will swarm. The postmodernists rarely, if ever work alone. They will also not like you.

You may notice some are not as vocal as others. These people will also have been shamed and are just waiting for a moderating voice amid the turmoil to latch on to. Perhaps they didn’t fancy the odds, or are not resilient enough. They are allies, nurture them.

It is worth remembering the lines in Goethe’s Faust, (translated from German). ‘What you have inherited from your forefathers, earn it, so that you might own it’



The Great Climate and Global Warming Fraud invented by the Club of Rome

in World News by

Copies of this have been sent to several Warmists including George Monbiot at the Guardian and Dr Brian Cox at the BBC asking that if they see any inaccuracies they inform me. To date I have had not a single adverse comment. We can, therefore, assume they agree with the following and they owe me a tenner.

The Global Warming debate can be very academic and riddled with mis-understandings, half truths and downright lies. This blog is shortened and written in non technical language for easier reading. For thoroughly researched account that gives the whole disgraceful story see The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Dr Tim Ball.

The output of the UN and IPCC are classic examples of Lysenkoic Science.

Global warming is indeed man-made – by cod scientists and fraudsters at government agencies who tamper with data.

Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, whom they have tried to erase from their website, resigned from the organization because:
Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t | Watts Up With That?
I’ve never had a headline like this, but Greenpeace deserves it for their mind-bending defence in a defamation lawsuit: basically their defense is “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual”. Give me a break!

The organisation I co-founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.

When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.

See also 2015 – 134 Carbon Dioxide in a Nutshell There is within the Green Movement a desire to reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero which will kill all plant life.

See also

Also type CO2 into search box to see why we need more CO2 not less.

The day Al Gore was born there were 7000 polar bears on Earth. Today, only 26,000 remain.

Al Gore funded by Soros

What’s This All About Then? Global Warming is an invention of the Club of Rome (see 2014 – 002. see also 2014 – 059 & 2014 – 017 From the Somerset Levels to the EU to the UN to the Club of Rome.) aided and abetted by the EU and the United Nations Wildlands project 2014 – 021 The Wildlands Project Unleashes its War on Mankind and Agenda 21

Who are the Club of Rome?

Here’s a practical way to understand the CO2 problem.

How much CO2 is created by human activity? Imagine 1000 metres (1 km or well over 1/2 mile) of atmosphere laid out in a line on the ground. with all the gases separated out. ( I know the gas laws will not let it happen but just imagine they do)

Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres is Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres is Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1000 metres.

20 metres (66 feet) to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 1

0 metres (33 feet) left.

9 metres  is argon.

Just 1 more metre (3 feet).

A few other gases, ozone, neon etc,  make up 620mm of that last metre.

The last 380mm is carbon dioxide.

96% of that is produced by Mother Nature. (fermentation, bush fires and volcanoes, much of it underwater). The recent Icelandic Volcano negated all the UK efforts made by us to reduce CO2.

Of our journey of 1000 metres just 15 millimetres are left – about half  an inch. That’s the amount of carbon dioxide human activity puts into  the air. Of those 15 millimetres the UK contributes about 4% or 0.6mm  of the 15 milimetres. The thickness of a credit card, or another 10 people in the 90 000 crowd at a Rugby match at Twickenham

What is the effect of higher CO2 levels in the air?

At the start of the Carboniferous Era – some 350 million years ago – the CO2 in the air was about 12 times more than now (4200mm of the 1km). Despite this ‘dangerously’ high level of CO2 the world did not boil over. Instead there was an almost explosive growth of vast forests. For 50 million years the trees steadily grew and fell down to be covered up, crushed and eventually transformed into the extensive coal seams around the world. Vast quantities were absorbed into marine organisms to form chalk and limestone rock. The fungi that rots dead wood had not evolved then so the trees lay as wood. By the end of this era – some 300 million years ago – the CO2 level was about the same as now.

So where did all the CO2 come from and go?

Controlled burns of forest land and agricultural stubble are an additional anthropogenic contribution. Probably wildfires started by arsonists should be considered anthropogenic sources of CO2 also! Maybe we should also consider the CO2 resulting from smoking tobacco and marijuana for a thorough accounting!

Burning biomass merely accelerates the CO2 release. Burning a forest releases CO2 immediately rather than waiting for the trees to rot naturally. So the only differentiator between anthropogenic and natural is a few years. Then the regenerating forest sequesters CO2 for another cycle.

The trees in the almost limitless forests that flourished then had absorbed it to become stored underground in coal. Even more was deposited as chalk and limestone. How come?

Well let’s look at wheat. To grow wheat five conditions are required:

  • A grain of wheat,
  • Fertile soil,
  • Rain water,
  • Sunshine,
  • and Carbon Dioxide

The DNA in the grain of wheat contains the instructions for the energy from the sunshine to combine the rainwater and CO2 by photosynthesise into carbohydrate as new ears of corn plus oxygen gas released into the atmosphere, i.e. more wheat.  A similar process occurs in trees to make more wood

  • Any increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere will increase the yield of wheat per acre.
  • As a rough example the CO2 from one ton of jet engine exhaust could become an extra 1,500 loaves of bread.
  • Reducing the CO2 level will give a lower yield of food per acre. Halve the CO2 level that we have now and it is estimated to just about extinguish most of the life on earth.

As more information leaks out it has now become known that the warming effect of CO2 only was considered. All other gasses were ignored.

The Hockey Stick Curve

We now come to Dr Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick Curve. These Lysenkoist claims that CO2 levels have increased to dangerous levels since 1750 causing Global Warming. Mann’s paper was based on tree ring growth and a set of data and codes that he has refused to make public. His paper was published in Nature – one of the most respected scientific journals. Such journals always require that all data related to a paper must be put into the public domain to enable other scientists to repeat the claims to confirm them. Nature published it anyway – a very strange and unique decision by the editor that has seriously damaged its reputation. The Hockey Stick Curve requires the removal from the historical record of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age in 1700s when the Great Frost of 1683–84, the Thames was frozen for two months, with the ice 11 inches (28 cm) thick.

The hedonistic globalist nature of modern “libertarianism” makes it the perfect gateway for Marxism

in Brexit/World News by

While there is certainly moral value in making a stand for traditional, so-called “negative” liberty, such as that of the US Constitution, or reflected in the spirit of the Gadsden flag, it is necessary to totally and firmly reject the newer “positive”, or progressive pretender that is more commonplace. To save Western civilisation we must thoroughly cast out the hippy hedonism, the blind pursuit of happiness without regard to consequence, that today “liberty” has been hijacked as a banner for, by figures such as Gary Johnson.

Support of the traditional notion of common people making the rules, populism, is a fine, noble pursuit, to be followed. It stems back via the People’s Charter of 1838 to the days when Magna Carta was presented by a few brave noblemen to their powerful king. Such is very different to the epicureanistic nature of whacky hippies who since the Seventies have pushed a burning hatred of tradition and indeed of responsibility. A spirit that has only worsened as their descendants, without the benefit of having been taught of boundaries, are spoilt millennials who believe they are the centre of the universe.

The hippies of the Seventies are no longer students, but they hold positions of academic institutions around the world, and in many of the prominent “libertarian” think tanks. While talk is made of reform, and maturity, much is merely a rebranding of the same spirit of indulgence. However, the major concern must be how they have remained, just as back in the days of hippy love, the same tools of the Marxist ilk.

With the failing of economic Marxism, in the Seventies a new model was approached, that which had been defined decades earlier at the Frankfurt School, though delayed during the clash between communism and Nazism, where Hitler would purge the former, causing professors to flee to the USA. At Frankfurt, they had determined that before establishing an economically communist state they would first need eliminate the obstacles, that being the traditional institutions, that being family, faith, and flag. With the Cold War nearly lost, this alternative method was approached.

Yale University would be the heart of an evil academic network, promoting Marxism from a cultural angle, propagating the values of postmodernism; a direct attack on tradition. Logic, reason, truth, these notions were rejected, for these were the debauched days of wild “free love” and disregard of order. The us and them battle of rich v poor was reformed, focussing on other minority groups, be that focus by gender, race, or religion.

Hence heavily promoted were the notions of political correctness, feminism, and so forth. For example, feminism is not about women’s rights at all, but an attack on the traditional unit of society: the family, with intent to make women look to the state, not men, as their partner.

Most libertarian activists, perhaps without direct intent, do truly serve Marxism well, by being merely a front that promotes the greed of internationalism and also the folly of postmodernism. Successful societies require boundaries and responsibility, but the progressive “libertarians” show an ardent determination to disregard all tradition. Hence it comes as no surprise that many British libertarian movements shuddered at Trump’s praise of Occidental values, but have strong links to the Liberal Democrats.

While of course a few libertarians may be actually rather paleo, most “libertarians” are hedonistic “progressives”, who hate structure, often rejecting order as authoritarian, even if the means of formation be democratic. They disregard the nation-state for their utopian belief in open borders; a convenience to the Marxists, for the “flag” is one of their obstacles to establishing the communist state.

In fact, generally libertarians embrace multiculturalism with a passion and refuse to acknowledge the concept of nationhood. These internationalist traitors to their people would go even beyond the flawed “magic dirt theory” of the jus soli approach, and would remove borders entirely, allowing anyone who simply walks onto British/American soil to be an instant citizen.

Yes, we prefer Jacob Rees-Mogg to Gary Johnson

Such is the European Union model of “free movement of peoples”, and has shown itself flawed due to the lack of regard for pressures on infrastructure, demand for skills by the economy, or willingness to integrate. Thousands of illegal immigrants have swarmed into Nordic countries and there has been a disturbing, correlated rise in the level of rape, reaching levels previously unknown beyond southern Africa. Ironically, when it comes to their home, their car, or even their email account, the globalist libertarian shows sudden hypocrisy as he suddenly finds desire for borders as such, by having locks and passwords, rather than allowing anyone entry.

This typical “libertarian” has no burning desire to preserve Western civilisation, but is often concerned about little more than relaxing laws on sale of cannabis so as to reduce the sales price. Their borderless approach ignores not just the major security implications, and the economic dilemma, but also the existence of the tribe, the nation. Libertarians certainly are ardent globalists. As politics shifts from the traditional left-right economic debate, to also a cultural debate, libertarians are on the opposing side of the battle line to that of the nationalist.

These “libertarians” who perpetuate hedonism with denial of reality show little passion for their people, but seek mere pleasures alone, especially riches. These internationalist progressives support absolute free trade without even the caveat of morality, so it is no wonder they be heavily funded by corporations that cheat British workers of their rights for preference of the slave labour of Chinese sweatshops. Meanwhile, they use promises of cheap legal weed to get students backing a denial of human rights, in the name of quick profits.

The current great political debate is on whether we continue to embrace postmodernism’s disregard of reason and tradition, or we fight for and restore the finest civilisation mankind has ever known. Therefore, many “libertarians” are merely hedonistic globalists, the gateway for Marxism to overrun England, the birthplace of true freedom, and thus certainly THE greatest obstacle to nationalism and a revival of Occidental civilisation.

BBC Propaganda: No More Boys and Girls – Part 2

in World News by

This is the second piece in a two-part review of the recent BBC documentary ‘No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?

It would appear that the documentary’s host ‘Doctor’ Javid Abdelmoneim’s doctorate is probably not in anything scientific or academic, else he would’ve noticed us humans are sexually dimorphic and this dimorphism is exacerbated following childhood thanks to a process known as puberty.

Thusly, a crash course in human sexual dimorphism and basic sex differences is warranted, I suspect. To all postmodernists, feminists, gender-socialists and any all-round idiot who may still be present, please leave. You won’t enjoy the triggering.

Women’s bodies are designed for reproduction (controversial!) and men’s bodies are designed for work (whoa!). It is no accident that male upper body strength is greater than female upper body strength or that females naturally lactate from their mammary glands and males do not (human males can, but only under certain, abnormal circumstances) or that women possess a uterus and men do not.

Men are generally better at visual-spatial reasoning (which is useful for hunting) and women are generally better at colour recognition than men (which is useful for foraging). Sex differences in mental rotation ability have been linked to differences in brain structure.

As mentioned before, our brains are different (check here for a superior discussion). As Simon Baron-Cohen would say: men are better at systemising and women are better at empathising.

Women tend to take a more cautious approach to spatial exploration so as to avoid physical harm, while males will have larger range sizes and often outperform females in navigation-related tasks. Women also exhibit greater risk aversion than men (women with higher levels of testosterone exhibit lower levels of risk aversion).

Men are, on average, fifteen percent larger than women (it varies between nine and twenty-eight percent).

These fundamental differences between men and women accumulate together and are the reasons why men and women choose different careers. It’s why they want different things in life. Yet, despite the science being very much out in the aether about this, Abdelmoneim still treats a lot of these differences as if they are socially constructed rather than inherent to our physiology.

These physiological differences helped to drive our cultural and social differences as well. We perceive men as stronger because they are. We perceive women as natural care-givers because they are.

The children in the school seem to grasp all this better than ‘Doctor’ Javid Abdelmoneim does. Maybe it’s because of his blind ignorance why he continues with his crusade to teach the children that “it doesn’t have to be this way”. How? Does he plan on physiologically engineering them as well? How else will he remove their inherent biological differences?

Still not content, Abdelmoneim ran an experiment where he dressed babies in the wrong gender’s clothing and gave them to adults, so they could play with toys together (the adults were unaware the children were not the gender they were dressed up as). Naturally, the boys dressed as girls were given dolls to play with and the girls dressed as boys were given mechanical toys to play with. What’s funny is how we can see the children either rejecting these toys in favour of the gender conforming toys or showing little signs of interest – this is not remarked on by Abdelmoneim.

One of my favourite “WTF!” moments was when he ‘researched’ gender differences in emotional health and learned men are the majority of the imprisoned, commenting “the prison numbers don’t lie … simply being born a boy means you’re much more likely to end up in prison”. I link this article here which shows how gender bias and discrimination in the so-called justice system is unjustly imprisoning men and releasing women. He also mentions the pay gap which I have gleefully tackled before.

One variable that Abdelmoneim appears to have overlooked, is the impact of basic in-group/out-group bias. We can see the effects of this towards the end of the show when we see across the classroom and, save for the odd exception, the children are sitting round the tables in groups of boys and girls. They are collecting together based on sex. It would appear that, despite all the social re-engineering, boys like hanging around with boys and girls like hanging around with girls. Who would’ve guessed?

In conclusion, this ‘doctor’ knows less about sex and gender than a classroom of seven year olds (Noel Edmonds, eat your heart out). He instantiates this when he says “I’m worried that all I’ve done is upset a load of kids and none of this is having a slightest effect.” I could not have put it better myself.

BBC Propaganda: No More Boys and Girls – Part 1

in World News by

There’s been quite the furore recently pertaining to gender, be it discussions about equality, differences or sameness. A recent BBC documentary (I use the word ‘documentary’ tentatively) jumps right in the middle of this debate and tries to rubbish the concept of inherent gender differences in behaviour, using children as lab rats to prove it. Who cares psychologists have a responsibility to protect their participants from harm?

The first half of the documentary, titled ‘No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Go Gender Free?’ (could they have picked a more ominous sounding title?), aired last Wednesday and to be quite honest, it’s sixty minutes of anti-biology, cultural-Marxist, pseudoscience.

So much of the show revolves around the worrying about “women and girls”, it’s pure, unadulterated gynocentrism. They say women earn less than men, enjoy fewer career opportunities, the usual feminist clap-trap. Obviously, none of it is substantiated yet, it is pushed as part of their quest for gender neutrality.

They mention how more men named John sit as CEOs on boards than all the female CEOs combined but, no word is mentioned on the stark gender disparity in the homeless community. Funny, that.

The motivation for the show, as discussed by the host ‘Doctor’ Javid Abdelmoneim, is derived from the realisation that gender differences are caused by both our biology and our environment (imagine my shock), leading the ‘doctor’ to the belief that he can erase gender inequality if he can erase gender differences in his brave, new classroom.

Emboldened by Professor Gina Rippon from Aston University telling him there is no such thing as a male or female brain type, he sets about removing all hints of sex-differences from the classroom because sex differences are a social construct.

What the good Professor failed to tell him was that she was chatting utter nonsense, this study here (a huge meta-analysis) shows notable differences in the brains of men and women, as does this study here and this study here. It’s not just in structure but also function where we find differences.

[I feel I must note to any and all gender ideologues who read the above paragraph that, whilst the evidence does show there are sex differences in brain structure and function, it does not mean one sex is naturally better than the other – our differences are complementary. So, do not even try to use this information to “prove” such inflammatory garbage. Thanks.]

The class of seven year olds were first tested across a variety of psychological measures to quantify any and all differences; the measures were: their levels of self-esteem; their self-perceived intelligence; their understanding and levels of empathy; their assertiveness; their ability to resist impulsiveness; and their emotional vocabulary.

They found the girls underestimated their intelligence and had less self-esteem and confidence. The boys had a smaller emotional vocabulary (except for anger) – many have inappropriately referred to this as normal male alexithymia. They also found that when describing themselves, the girls used more words that referred to their appearance.

How did Javid react to these results? The differences are purely socially constructed because boys’ and girls’ brains are identical. Also, these social constructions are keeping girls down. Sigh.

He concludes this despite evidence proving that testosterone inhibits empathy (see here and here [that second study found it also altered brain connectivity]) – which shows why the boys scored lower on empathy and emotional vocabulary. And, whilst evidence does show that boys exhibit higher levels of self-esteem, the show couldn’t find a correlation between self-esteem/confidence and intellectual ability/potential (I might as well add that UCAS data shows 100,000 more women applied to university than men). Ergo, for him (or anyone) to assume girls are being held back, is inaccurate.

Following these results, he really starts to stamp out gender differences, beginning with gendered terms of endearment (love, sweet-pea, fella, mate, etc). He introduces sex neutral toilets, sex-neutral cupboards for storing bags/lunchboxes/etc, children are picked for comment/involvement via a lottery-style system … you get the picture.

Not content with stamping out gender differences in the present, Abdelmoneim wants to stamp them out for good. He does this by enquiring what jobs the children want as adults and whether these jobs are suited for men or for women. He is shocked, not just by their choices of jobs (and how they are perceived as gendered) but, how strong in their convictions the children are regarding whether these jobs are for men or for women.

Look out for part 2 of this review where we will discuss human sexual dimorphism and basic sex differences .

Should the State Administer Drugs To Control Minds Or Attitudes?

in World News by

There is a lot of talk of ‘Wrong Think’ just recently, what with James Damore being outed from Google and the alternative social media platform app Gab.Ai being deselected from the Google Play Store. There are many comparisons with Orwell’s 1984 and many obvious parallels with modern day living and dystopian SciFi. The oft-quoted 1984, The Matrix, Fahrenheit 451 and so on. But Brave New World was suddenly brought to mind when a news item caught my eye the other day.

Brave New World was written by English author Aldous Huxley. He was born 26th July 1894 and lived until 22nd November 1963, a short while before the summer of love in 1967. He wrote nearly fifty books, the most famous and well known being Brave New World. It is set in a dystopian future where citizens live in a consumerist world and live a hedonistic lifestyle where they experience the ‘feelies’ and take a feel-good drug called soma (a state provided drug that induces forgetfulness,).

Actually, it is not that dissimilar to the world we find ourselves in today. The point of note in the book is the state uses science to create a ‘happy’ seamless world. It talks of the progress of science. But when we break that down, the state is actually promoting betterment through technology, not science per se. Not advocating exploring through scientific logic and principles but more using tech to maintain a status quo. One of the basic scientific principles is to question phenomena, the environment, cause and effect. That sort of thing.

Here is the article that caught my attention.

The study, originally published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and later reported by Science Daily, involved 183 subjects, each given 50 euros which they could donate to either migrants or locals in need.

Researchers from the University of Bonn, the University of Lübeck and the Laureate Institute for Brain Research in the U.S. were “surprised” to discover that people donated around 20 per cent more to migrants than to needy locals to begin with, and when drugged with oxytocin — the so-called ‘love hormone’ — participants already well-disposed to migrants gave even more generously. [Breitbart News]

In fact after dosing was supported by peer pressure, i.e. participants were shown how generous others were, the generosity went up to a staggering 74%! A Professor at the university’s Department of Psychiatry commented that the combination of drugs and peer pressure would be able to change ‘selfish’ motives. 

Well, leaving aside the fact that an estimated 1.2 million migrants had come to Germany at the end of 2016 and only 3% of these had found work, according to the Finance Ministry. Plus the upswing of crime and terrorism by 54% as revealed recently by the Heritage Foundation, one could reasonably question the Professor citing selfish motives. It doesn’t seem selfish to any community spirited person who has paid into the public funds, via tax, to then be expected to fund such a large amount of non-contributors, as well as be at greater risk to exposure to crime as a direct result of this.

In a poll published last week (11th August) by broadcaster ZDF, found that 70% of those polled believe Germany cannot handle the rate of inward migration. The research institute Civey said that 69.8% of Germans do not feel the migrants rescued as legitimate refugees. This seems to show the sentiment of the Germans polled, and by a large margin too.

No, there is a moral dimension to this as well. Should the state use drugs to change its peoples minds? Let’s be clear here. We are not talking about health. The German people are not suffering from a disease or general malaise that is affecting the population as a whole. This is not like fluoride being dosed in to tap water to reduce dental decay or an annual flu jab, although their efficacy may quite reasonably be questioned, perhaps in another blog article.

The point I am making here is one of morals and ethics. The academics are saying that drugs can be used to change attitudes. At what point does free will and cognition cease to be an individual’s choice? And if the academics and, by extension, the state, change this behaviour what else would they like to change? And to whose benefit? This is the scenario alluded to in the dystopian novels mentioned above and the degree of free will being surrendered, I feel, needs to be questioned. It appears that a modern equivalent of soma is being advocated and it may not be beneficial, except from a governmental perspective. And worryingly, it may not stop there.

The Nazis Were Left-Wing Socialists – The AntiFa Problem

in World News by

Apparently, 29% of the US population are Nazis and Nazis are neither Left nor Socialist. Think that’s a ‘woke’ take? Try this one: according to the Mainstream Media, the Nazis are Right-Wing (but, let’s be honest, they’re not).

There seems to be some contention over what constitutes a Nazi and whether or not they are socialist. Excusing the fact that it is written in the name: The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – NSDAP) – many still deny they are Left-Wing socialists.

First, we should figure out what we mean when we say ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.

Honestly, such terminologies are unhelpful, it would be easier to see the political spectrum not from Left to Right but from ‘Collectivist’ to ‘Individualist’. Thus, people who are Left, when they espouse ideas such as “universal health care”, “equality” and “redistribution of wealth”, they are talking of the collective. When people who are Right speak of “private insurance”, “economic freedom” and “limited/no taxation”, they are talking of the individual.

Therefore, any and all ideologies that operate based upon groups or collectives are Left-Wing ideologies. Identity Politics, by very existence and definition, is a Left-Wing school of thought. The Nazis were inspired and driven by Identity Politics (Aryans vs Jews), believing themselves to have suffered due to a racial identity oppressing them – sound familiar?

Second, we should figure out what we mean when we say “Socialism”.

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics says a society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialised or co-operative enterprises. This, by definition, makes Socialism a Left-Wing ideal as it is Collectivist.

So, were the Nazis socialist?

Yes, according to Adolf Hitler himself, “[W]e are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”  Hitler spoke this to a crowd of 5000 at the Clou restaurant centre on May 1, 1927. He was paraphrasing Gregor Strasser’s one-page Nazi talking points memo from June 15, 1926.

Hitler and his National Socialist Party were not the only ones inhabiting this authoritarian segment of the Left-Wing during that era. They were ideological neighbours with Mussolini’s Fascism, Leninism and Stalinism – all were inspired by Marx.

Let’s start with Lenin as most people are already willing to associate him with Marx.

Lenin was initially well respected among Nazi circles, so much so that in 1925 Joseph Goebbels saidLenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.” Hitler secretly adopted the same philosophies as Lenin, following in the footsteps of Marx: “I have learned a great deal from Marxismhe once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit“.

The main difference between Hitler’s National Socialism and Marx was that Hitler added an identitarian element. Where Marx taught the proletariat had no homeland, Hitler was infatuated with race identity. Without race, Hitler remarked, National Socialism “would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground“. And, as mentioned above, Identity Politics (like those based on race) are a Left-Wing/Collectivist practice.

Similarities can also be drawn between Stalinism and Hitler’s National Socialism as Hitler was aiming for the same goal. As he commented “what Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.” Hitler recognised the failures of Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism and was hoping to supersede them.

Just as Marx led to Hitler’s National Socialism, Leninism and Stalinism, so too did it inspire Fascism. Frederick Augustus Voigt remarksMarxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.” Whilst these branches did eventually become opposing to one another, they all originate from the same root.

Hitler was, without any doubt, a socialist: “[N]ot a Soviet Socialist, demonising economic groups according to Marxist principles, not Internationalist, where the workers of the world unite, but a National Socialist, demonising ethnic groups according to nationalist principles. The communal social ties of Russia was replaced by the volkish blood-ties of Germany.” Hitler applied Marxist-Socialist teachings to Germany on a Nationalist level.

Yes, all these ideologies had their differences, some quite substantial, but that does not detract from the fact that they all share the same root ideology: Marxism. This is not a contentious argument, no matter how much the ideological Left may try to bury it.

Thus, it is fair to argue that the horseshoe theory is false because it implies these ideologies are of polar opposites and it is through them becoming extreme that they become similar. This is nonsense as they are not polar opposite ideologies, just different variants of the same ideology.

So this historical context leads us to the modern-day and demands we ask: what about the political groups who are active now? What about the Neo-Nazis? What about AntiFa?

Again, just as they were some eighty years ago, they are more similar than they are different.

The Neo-Nazis are arguing based on the grounds of racial supremacy (for whites) whilst claiming they are downtrodden by other racial groups (Jews and Blacks).

AntiFa are arguing based on the grounds of racial supremacy (non-whites) whilst claiming they are downtrodden by other groups which are recognised by biological traits (Whites, Straights, Cisgenders). The difference with AntiFa is they have transcended above discriminating based on ‘Race’ alone, they now include traits such as Gender Identity, Sexuality, Wealth, etc.

These groups, whilst sharing similar ideals, fight because they are so indoctrinated and committed that they search for the slightest deviation so as to be able to claim moral supremacy – this happens to near all Collectivist ideologies. Look at Intersectional Feminism, which has now all but removed White Feminism. They’re now turning their guns onto ‘light-skinned people of colour, arguing they should ‘voluntarily’ exclude themselves from people of colour spaces. It’s the one-drop rule again but this time for white blood.

It’s also why AntiFa and BLM fightin fact, BLM has asked 4chan of all people to help them defeat AntiFa. It’s also why BLM has been disrupting Pride events (most recently they disrupted Montreal Pride during a moment of silence for victims of AIDS and Hate Crimes). They all claim to be oppressed by the ‘straight, white man’ yet, would rather fight with their allies than join them.

They’re all Social Justice Warriors, all of them (AntiFa, BLM, neo-Nazis, etc).

Compare Nazis of old to modern day SJWs.

    SJWs blame [insert biological trait here]. Nazis blamed Blacks and Jews.

    SJWs want to destroy Capitalism. Nazis wanted to destroy Capitalism.

    SJWs preach Marx. Nazis were inspired by Marx.

    SJWs are subjective. Nazis were subjective.

    SJWs reject rational thought. Nazis rejected rational thought.

    SJWs are Nazis.

They have the same practices, they’ve just shifted the ideologies around. You can also lump the alt-right in there as well except the alt-right rejects Marx rather than preaching it.

In summation, the Nazis were Left-Wing Socialists.

Also, the Nazis have not gone away, no matter how much we would like them to. They will not go away until Socialism in all its forms is rejected. You don’t kill a weed by cutting of its head, you kill a weed by poisoning the root. Destroy Socialism: no more Nazis. I think we can all agree that is an outcome we all want.

The elites’ misrepresentation of James Damore’s Google memo

in Tech/World News by

Software developer James Damore was fired from Google last week after he wrote a 10-page document titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”. In his memo, he argued that the low proportion of females working in tech could at least in part be explained by biological differences between men and women.

Damore has consistently presented himself in subsequent interviews as a man of science and someone who was fired for “the truth.” After being dismissed from his Google role, he set up a Twitter account under the handle @Fired4Truth.

The document was widely misrepresented by the mass media – their headlines kept claiming it was an “anti-diversity” memo, but if you read it fully, you see that Damore doesn’t say diversity is bad. Rather, he criticises Google’s means of achieving a more diverse staff, for example, affirmative-action style quotas and female-only courses.

To give an example of the media distortion, The Washington Post claimed that the memo states that women may be technically unsuited for tech jobs, but Damore never actually said that. Also, the tech news site Gizmodo published a copy of the memo, but they removed all the links and supporting evidence. Was this an attempt to discredit Damore? You can read the full uncensored version of the document here.

This is what Damore actually said about diversity: “I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices. . . These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.”

Writing as a woman in IT, I didn’t find James Damore’s document to be controversial. His main point was that there may be reasons why fewer women are interested in coding, not that women are worse. I wonder how many of the people who complained about it actually read it in full?

There are certain things in the memo that don’t apply to me personally – for example, Damore states that on average, women prefer working with other people whereas men prefer working with things. I’m a quiet, introverted person, so I’ve always preferred working with things rather than people. Thus, a job in back-office IT is ideal for me, compared to, say, a customer-facing role. However, I accept that I am unusual in this respect and that a lot of people-oriented roles such as primary school teachers, nurses and caring vocations are female-dominated.

Although most of my IT jobs have been male-dominated, I haven’t felt disadvantaged. When I mention that I am a computer programmer, people – both male and female – tend to be impressed. There are events which promote IT to girls and women, which I think is positive but I’m uncomfortable with the idea of female-only courses. Thankfully, the events in my area are very inclusive. This shows that it is possible to promote coding to girls and women without excluding boys and men.

I think it would be a positive thing if more girls studied IT and went on to work in the tech industry, but you can’t make them do it against their will. Everyone must be given an equal chance to take IT courses but you can’t make anyone follow a particular career path if they do not want to do so. People spend a large proportion of their life at work so it is important they choose a career they think they will enjoy, rather than one they have been pushed into by their parents, teachers or by society’s expectations.

It’s very harsh that someone can lose their job and their livelihood merely for expressing an opinion and this has been a worrying trend in recent years. When someone expresses a view that goes against the accepted norms, there is a media frenzy (both in the traditional media and on social networks such as Twitter) until the person is hounded out of their job. It’s also very concerning that some employees and managers at Google have reportedly created blacklists of staff with whom they don’t want to work, due to ideological differences. It’s a great irony that a company which prides itself on diversity cannot tolerate diversity of thought.

The decline of UKIP is destined unless it will embrace economic protectionism

in Brexit/World News by

Whichever candidate wins the UKIP leadership election, their comments at hustings and in YouTube videos suggest the fundamental flaw will not be realised, but overlooked, and thus UKIP will continue to decline.

While UKIP may perhaps have issues with internal structure, and appealing to members for input on policy is a good idea, such change will only make a party more in tune with its own members, who likely already vote for it, an echo chamber, and not those outside who ignore it. Experts will be needed to research the public perceptions, to find which issues they need, but then again, such can be a party that blows with the wind, to appeal to the feeling of the moment flip-flopping on policy. We could discuss other matters, such as that it should focus on council level, targeting local issues people feel passionate about. However, all of this is for nothing if the most important thing is ignored.

Rather, what UKIP most urgently needs, if it is to survive, is a clear ideology that it believes in and stands by resolutely. No amount of whining about the mainstream media, or conspiracy theories, will change this. A call to quit the EU is not an ideology, in fact, such a desire can be driven by various ideologies, hence Brexiteers were from, as well as UKIP, also Labour Leave, who are socialists, and the Conservatives who are home to capitalists, and also vile corporatists. If UKIP is to ever go anywhere, it needs to stand for not one issue, but an ideology. Islamism is a problem, very clearly mentioned in the UKIP manifesto last election, though Nuttall looked terrified to discuss it. However, while frank discussion of these serious issues may win the Rotherham seat, I doubt such would have won Stoke. UKIP lost because no one knew what Nuttall was for, especially as he openly told people to vote for the Conservatives to achieve Brexit.

The major issue, the main concern of the working class vote in the North, in Wales, exactly where UKIP strived to thrash Labour and to win, must be acknowledged: mines were shut, factories closed, shipyard workers sacked. British jobs were given to China and India, causing mass unemployment across Scotland, Wales and Northern England.

The scars still exist. In the Welsh valleys, about a third of young people have no jobs. There are suburbs in North England where the homes are empty. This is what people are concerned about; this is on what the Tories have failed to challenge Labour, but UKIP could do it were it awake. Enough whining by Labour on mine closures; too shallow. The slogan of UKIP should be “Buy British, hire British.” If it had done so, it may have taken Northern seats, because few who voted for communist Corbyn shared his sympathies for the IRA or the admiration of the decline of Venezuela. They were just not convinced May would do anything to help the poor.

Hate me if you want; call me names, but I’m sorry, I think it must be acknowledged, to succeed, that not one candidate addressed the real problem with employment levels. British jobs must be brought home. What surprised me about the London UKIP hustings is that when asked how to create jobs for young people, not one candidate mentions the real problem, the issue no other party tackles, that would give UKIP a purpose. As we achieve Brexit, in some form, probably not true, but sadly in name only, the natural progression as we “take back control” must be to ask, where is the patriotism with regards to British jobs? What of the loyalty to our greater family, the nation? Where is the economic protectionism?

With all due respect, all the candidates’ comments on economic policy are shallow – I’m not referring to one person in particular. Though I was surprised when one candidate, after talking of standing up for the working class, gave a boring textbook Tory response on cutting benefits; an empty soundbite chosen no doubt to appeal to the UKIP core.

UKIP London hustings:

When another candidate, John Rees-Evans, who I believe is a man of noble intentions, spoke at 28 minutes and 38 seconds into the hustings, he said that he and Etheridge have been asking “libertarian” think tank IEA for advice, and I know NEC members have to. This is what Etheridge means by “libertarian”. No doubt they mean well. I would call them Faragite. They no doubt are seeking experts’ input on how to take UKIP forward, humbly looking to those with economic knowledge, and I believe they genuinely want to do what is best for the people. However, all is not as it seems when it comes to the IEA, which decades ago may have been the bastion of Thatcherism, something it uses to lure in supporters, but I believe has since leaned towards anarchism.

On one side, there are claims by Etheridge that UKIP is being infiltrated by “fascists”; suggestions by MEPs that they will quit, taking the party’s EU funding, if Anne Marie Waters or Peter Whittle win, but for goodness sake, everyone should quit regardless if UKIP won’t wake up and embrace economic protectionism. Brexit was a nationalist vote, and UKIP must embrace libertarianism of a nationalist form, standing for the people, for our jobs, our culture, and our freedom, if it is to have any meaning. Reject globalism!

Many UKIP members are understandably very pleased to hear Anne Marie Waters courageously challenge things such as the horrendous failure of our governments to prosecute anyone for FGM, and certainly something needs to be done about this horrific form of child abuse, and also the INCREDIBLY slow police action in Rotherham, or with Charlene Downes’ case, and many others.

Meanwhile, there has been much press excitement about the involvement of Jack Buckby, ex-BNP, who now calls himself a paleo-libertarian, and the Eastern Daily Press even makes claim that her deputy, Stuart Agnew MEP, expressed concern – though, as the quote is edited into an inch of its life, I have absolutely no idea what Aggers actually said. What I know for sure is that Buckby called Nigel Farage a “coward”; an approach I see as unhelpful because it put Nigel fans off AMW’s challenge to Sharia law. Whatever one thinks of Nigel’s position on Islam, his hard work and COURAGE must be recognised.

On the other hand, I hope UKIP has not been infiltrated by another form of “libertarianism”, pushed by the IEA, and what I view as their almost Blairite associate, the ASI. There are all these conspiracy theories about Carswell being a plant to take over UKIP; however, the self-claimed libertarian was often at odds with the Tories, but somewhere he was often welcome was the IEA, where he was a regular speaker. This should give an insight into the kind of party the MEPs threatening to walk would create.

In my view, those in UKIP should surely forget about Carswell, and worry about the “libertarian” machine behind: the IEA. I would suggest that such organisations, under a banner of “liberty”, utilise persons, often none the wiser, to push cultural Marxism. For example, while one their top researchers, Christopher Snowdon, has expressed to me more than once some fantastic, sensible views on border control to me, which I respect him for, as a whole, the IEA support open borders, having none other than the very DEPUTY of the EU PRESIDENT as one of their main experts and writers, who wrote a book for them demanding for Brexit to not mean a reform to UK immigration laws. They flat out ignore the real reason people voted for Brexit.

The IEA have an absolutist approach to free trade THAT HAS COST THE NORTH OF ENGLAND AND WALES THEIR JOBS. Stop blaming Thatcher! She closed half as many mines as Labour did. The problem is the willingness by governments, red and blue, to give away British jobs. While free market, low state involvement in business, certainly works within our borders, and I welcome true capitalism, because it creates jobs, it is pure folly not to have a preference for British goods.

John Rees-Evans is very right to call for more apprenticeships, for support of the vocational route, rather than this insistence to send everyone to university; cultural Marxist madrasas where 80% of professors are in love with socialism and brainwash too many of the middle class with anti-British sentiment. However, the major issue regards employment is that we have given away our jobs to communist countries like China, which is now powerful and jostling with Japan, our NATO ally, over an island that no one even lives on. There, people are working in conditions so bad that they have to put nets around the roofs of factories to reduce the staff suicide level. Is this what it means to be British these days? For the liberal elite to rape the world, because we the British plebs are unwanted since we rose up in the days of Chartists in protest and achieved human rights?

A liberal elite that no longer wants us, and when we speak out, slaps us down with false allegations of “racism”? In my view, surely if anyone is “racist”, is it not those progressive hypocrites, sipping wine at “libertarian” thinktank events, that gloat over their cheaper phone, cheering for globalism, because “free markets my man”? As if the only other option, other than supporting horrific overseas conditions, and rising poverty in the North and Wales, is to jump in bed with Diane Abbott!

Not only have our governments failed to put our people first, but also the liberal elite have profited excessively by amoral abuse of those overseas, avoiding safety regulations, and paying insufficient wages. Meanwhile there are British people on the dole. Simply reducing immigration is not enough, but only the first step.

More than one high member of the IEA team (management and a professor) told me they didn’t want Trump to win, but back Gary Johnson, as being the needed breakthrough for freedom, as this shining beacon of what they stood for – this being the idiot who poked his tongue out like a lizard during an interview. Kate Andrews wrote in public, “If Trump wins, centre-right, free-market, small-state conservatives and libertarians alike are left without a political home.” What she means by “free market” is that the globalist abuse of Chinese workers will be hindered when Trump brings jobs back to the USA. However, when she works for a think tank staffed by relatives of bankers, what would one expect?

Other than for their very appreciated stance against the EU, the IEA are in my opinion rarely different to the LibDems, from which they recruited their leader. In fact, their call for Brexit was limited by a call for open borders, i.e. they don’t want a “hard” Brexit; a real Brexit. The IEA are besotted with hippies, and hence their main youth campaign is to demand not for jobs for the plebs in the Welsh valleys and the North of England, but for weed to be legalised so posh boys parties are cheaper. While I see no logic in throwing a lost, confused teenager in jail to find themselves then unwanted by employers, and heading into a life of crime, there is not systematic charging by the CPS of youth for solely cannabis possession alone, and further, I do not appreciate the use of the word “libertarianism” as a banner with which to push cultural decay of Western civilisation.

With advisors such as the IEA breathing over their shoulders, it is no shock that UKIP have failed to properly recognise the MASSIVE void in the political spectrum, that the UKIP leader Steve Crowther alluded to finally this week – Labour are Marxists, hard-left, while the Tories ever infiltrated by progressives, head more and more to the centre, even flirting with the centre left. Other than a fringe of the Tory party, such as Mogg relegated to the bank benches, Britain has no proper right-wing voice, i.e. where the hell is the British equivalent of Steve Bannon’s approach?

The only way for UKIP to have purpose is to stand up and challenge post-modernism, or it exists without purpose. Especially from the days of WW1 until now, with the men traumatised from the wars, distrustful of authority and their soft approach with their kids resulting in the emergence of the hippies, the structure of society has disappeared, with nothing put in its place. Excessive socialism, progressivism has crept in. The gap is wide open to a Trumpesque leader tailored to the British audience, but not one candidate is pushing this.

As the Conservatives stand in the centre, flirting ever more so with socialism, with “progressivism”, UKIP could have a purpose if it became a right-wing party that stood up for both the working and middle classes against the liberal elite. It needs to make a loud, clear call for call for family, faith/freedom (culture), and flag (patriotism).

American freedom is British philosophy truly expressed

in Brexit/World News by

Some Americans have called the rebellion over tea tax the “original Brexit”. If one is to presume, and wrongly so, that Brexit was merely about who has the right to make laws, well, the original Brexit was surely on the 3rd of November 1534 when the British broke away from the Catholic church.

As much as I love the modern American Tea Party movement, and Trump, the act of treason was the stirring of the people against relatively low taxation, far far lower than what Americans pay now, to fight a war over banking systems.

Brexit, the freedom it seeks is far more than lower tax, but the preservation of the Anglo-Celtic cultural identity of the British Isles, an identity Americans at that time shared with us, being of us, and to some extent even still do. The wonderful elements of freedom, such as the First and Second Amendments were after-thoughts, and an accurate expression of liberty promoted in the British Isles but limited by the monarch. Yes, the quintessential elements of Americana, as symbolised by the Statue of Liberty, are British philosophy truly expressed.

When English barons demanded that not the king alone should create law, such resulted in the Magna Carta, which is effectively the very basis of the USA’s Bill of Rights and the Constitution. English thinkers such as John Stuart Mill would seek enlightenment, pushing for individual liberty to be respected by the monarch, and it was these very ideas that inspired the founders of the USA.

Some of the core principles of the American system are British, lifted from Magna Carta, such as the theory of representative government, the idea of a supreme law, and judicial review. Moreover, from the same document comes the basis for freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, a right to a speedy trial, a right to a jury trial in both a criminal and a civil case, and protection from loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

American independence was merely a family schism, and one that America needs cling to, to provide some sense of identity, for its culture is essentially British. Our people, this family, united by more than just a common tongue, be they in the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, must unite to stand against Marxism, European lefty imperialism, and Sharia law., the free speech alternative to Twitter

in Tech/World News by

Founded in 2016, aims to be a free speech alternative to the major social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. It is a libertarian social network founded in the classical liberal tradition of John Stuart Mill and John Milton, as well as the US First Amendment. Gab supports artistic expression and actively challenges the censorship that takes place on the major social media sites.

A couple of weeks ago, the People’s Charter Foundation met with the Chief Communications Officer for, Utsav Sanduja. You can watch the video of the interview below:

Traditional social media outlets censor content in two main ways, via the removal of posts and de-monetisation. For example, videos that YouTube deems to be controversial have their advertising turned off and any existing revenue from that video is withheld.

In recent months, more and more people have quit Twitter, citing concerns over censorship, including actor and producer James Woods.

One of the problems with censorship is that it means you cannot educate or inform people. This means that controversial ideas fester and grow underground (for example on the dark web) which can ultimately be more dangerous.

Gab is different. With Gab, there is no shadow banning, no censoring and no rules as to what you can post (as long as it is within the law, for example promoting terrorism or child pornography is strictly forbidden). Gab does not support criminal activity and is pro law enforcement. It opposes calls for violence, pays tax and is transparent.

The individual user decides what, if anything, to filter or mute. You decide and not some administrator. You are in control of what you want to see.

Gab is currently developing its Gab TV service. With Gab TV it will be possible for viewers to donate to content producers directly, all in one application.  Advertising is on its way out – 75% of millennials have ad blockers installed in their web browsers. The future is in content production.

The founders of Gab are also deeply concerned about censorship carried out by the BBC:

People of the United Kingdom, this is the state of your country. Listen to your taxpayer subsidized broadcasting agency asking us to censor, vet, control and limit speech on Gab. For shame!
This is the great country that produced John Stuart Mill; this is the country that produced John Milton’s Areopagitica, this is the country that fought for the Natural Rights of Englishmen in the 1689 Glorious Revolution, this is the country that produced us the best warning manual against dictatorship.

–Utsav Sanduja, Chief Communications Officer for

Utsav believes that government censorship of online media is being used as a means of attempting to reduce competition against traditional media.

In recent years, an increasing number of people in the UK have been arrested for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media. In London alone, a total of 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences (sending by public communication network an offensive / indecent / obscene / menacing message / matter) in 2010 – a number which had ballooned to 857 by 2015. This can result in a potential six month prison term or a fine of up to £5,000. Among the scores of those recently arrested for online posts was a Scottish resident who had used Facebook as a platform to espouse his disdain for Syrian migrants.

Recently, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced plans to step up control of the internet, but this does not solve the root cause of issues such as radicalisation. A recent government announcement proposes levying a tax on social media companies to help pay for police enforcement and moderators. Dangerous extremists are more likely to hang out on the dark web than on social media sites, so such a proposal would inevitably end up penalising innocent people. Furthermore, it is better that dangerous views are out in the open than forced underground where it is much harder to challenge them.

Even the App Store at Apple is showing partisanship, having rejected the Gab iOS app 8 times.

Britain has fallen. People of the United Kingdom, please wake up to what is happening to your own country.

–Utsav Sanduja, Chief Communications Officer for

Men’s March – for stronger families

in World News by

19 November at 10:00-21:00

London and California

UK: Trafalgar Square, marching peacefully to the Courts and on to Parliament
USA: Berkeley campus, California

International Men’s Day (IMD) is an annual international event celebrated on 19 November.

We need your help to march for strong families. 1 in 3 children live without a father (ONS, 2012). 1 in 4 children don’t consider their father to be part of their family (Childwise 2007).

We support fathers’ access to their kids. Family courts presume a mother to be the better parent, and disregard that kids need their fathers. We demand the courts maximise reasonable access in the interests of the children. The family unit is integral to a strong, stable society.

This causes incredible destress to men, who are cut off from their families. Dads are 3 times more likely to die after separation than mothers. (DWP 2015.) The biggest killer of men under 50 is suicide, and 75% of all suicides involve men (Calm 2013).

Little support is offered, because men are not deemed a minority group. Tens of thousands of lives, stolen from us – too many friends, fathers, sons, and brothers.

We want more research into prostate cancer, which many men die from each year.

We also believe false claims of a wage gap distracted people from the serious problems of workplace deaths, which proportionally more men are victims of.

84% of the hidden homeless are men (Crisis 2011).

40% of domestic violence victims are men (Parity 2010). However, women get lighter sentences than men.

Men are 35% more likely to die from cancer (except breast cancer. Cancer Research UK, 2013).

Great Britain should look closely at how Venezuela’s democracy has been destroyed

in World News by

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to travel to London and participate in an activity prepared by the Venezuelan community living in Great Britain. The intention of that gathering, which was also held in many other major cities in world was, and still is, to universally, publicly, and undoubtedly show the atrocities of the dictatorial regime that has been in power in Venezuela since 1999. A totalitarian regime that used and abused the ideas of the socialism to get into power, as it did, invading all the democratic institutions, armed forces, police, judicial and economic system, all with no other desire than to remain in power at any cost, even the blood and life of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans.

During that activity I was interviewed and asked about how our country was devastated as the idea spread worldwide that the “well-intentioned government, saviour of the poor from the evil of capitalism, made Venezuelan society richer, healthier, and happier.” I was asked why if socialism or communism was so great – they are the same with regards to the denial of the individual person and their values – we were all complaining. Then I was told that one of the candidates running for Prime Minister in the UK declares himself as an admirer of Hugo Chavez, his work and his “legacy”. As recently as 2013, the Islington MP paid tribute to controversial Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

I personally do not know Jeremy Corbyn, but there are some things I am hundred percent sure about him, and there are other areas where I still have doubts:

I am very sure that he doesn’t know me at all. We haven’t met, there is no possible way we have ever discussed any ideas about politics, economics, social, law, constitution, democracy or any other matter.

On the contrary, I have strong doubts about him really knowing Hugo Chavez, especially after I was told that he declares himself a follower of Chavez. Did Corbyn really know Chavez and his legacy? This leads us to two possibilities, but neither of them seem to be good ones.

In the first scenario, Corbyn and Chavez knew each other very well and they admired each other, and have the same ideas about politics, economy, human rights, democracy, liberty, prosperity, and so on. In the second scenario, Corbyn and Chavez did not know each other well, or rather Corbyn did not know Chavez, especially his REAL, work, his legacy. Then, like many others, Corbyn would be just another victim of the lies and the fallacies of what is called socialism in the 21st century.

I can’t in any way give advice or recommendations, and would not dare to express political opinions concerning a society in which I haven’t lived. I don’t have any relation to the UK whatsoever, other than some reading of its authors, its history, and maybe a couple of visits. I have no direct knowledge to give an opinion concerning British politics, and I am not pretending to do so.

Regarding Venezuela and the dictatorial regime stated by Chavez in 1999, I can for sure give my opinion of his work and legacy. His legacy is none other than death, crime, hunger, destruction, illness, lack of democracy, corruption, and many other issues. I live here, studied here and work here. My ancestors and I witnessed the destruction of the country, so I think my opinion about the Venezuela situation and Chavez’s legacy could be considered more reliable than Corbyn’s.

I cannot answer whether Corbyn truly knew Chavez, or if he realises that in 18 years, Chavez and his legacy completely destroyed the country, its economy, the security, the nation’s general health and welfare, and all that is the consequence of the socialism Chavez claimed was the path to follow. It would be illogical and dangerous that a person in Venezuela, Great Britain, France, United States, France or any other country that aspires to an important office, should identify with the Chavez regime and its barbarity.

On the other hand, we can also assume that Corbyn never knew the real Chavez, his legacy of destruction, the dictatorship; in this case, it is also very dangerous that some people could believe Chavez’s lies and wrongly believe that Venezuela is the seventh heaven on earth. It is not – we are now living through hell.

As I previously mentioned, I don’t personally know Mr. Corbyn, but if I did and if I had the opportunity to ask him a couple questions, I would ask him something like:

Did you know that democracy and economy in Venezuela was destroyed by the Socialism promoted by Chavez?

Did you know that people have to eat discomposing garbage directly from the garbage cans and trucks?

Did you know that Venezuela is the most corrupt country in the Americas and is among the worst 3 countries evaluated. There are no courts of justice, not even one tribunal that isn’t corrupted.

That is the most dangerous country due to criminality?

That there are no medicines, or medical attention, and all the reports given by the regime are false?

That freedom of expression is prohibited and the free and democratic media cannot make public the regime’s violations? 

Do you think that in Great Britain and the rest of the world the people should know what´s happening right now in Venezuela?

Do you know that at this exact moment while I’m writing this article, and while it is being read, there are students, mothers, older people, professionals and workers being killed by the National Guard and irregular armed groups that support the regime, only for asking for overdue elections, food, medicines, security and electricity?   

What do you think about Chavez and its legacy now?

One last thing…

Would you like to verify this and give to your followers the most accurate idea?

Let’s do something. I went to London and I freely walked its streets and got a feel for the city and UK society, again a very general overview and not enough to make a political opinion. Why don’t you come here, be my guest and see with your own eyes the real Chavez legacy, would you come and do it? [Editor-in-Chief’s note: Roberto, we do want to make a documentary about the legacy of Chavez, but sadly we do not currently have the budget for international trips.]

Whatever Corbyn’s opinions of Venezuela’s dictators are, I guess there is no problem at all in openly declaring your opinion about Venezuela being a dictatorship and all the oppression and deaths of the recent weeks.

How Leftists Ruin South Africa

in World News by

The first impression some have of Africa is remarkably primitive, depending on the region you specify. When simply talking about the continent, the image conjured is usually something like a tribe of Zulus chasing a pygmy across the Odagawa Basin. When talking about the North of Africa you might get the image of Berbers chasing a Frenchman across the Sahara and likewise, talking about the South, a white man running from a tribe of Xhosa.

The left has the same primitive views as those on the right, except whilst the right doesn’t care (except in the case of South Africa) the leftists seem to think they have the answer for the whole continent. As if Socialism is the duct tape of world affairs.

Africa is more diverse than anyone can even fathom. It is rare to find a country in Africa that has a majority ethnic group, unlike in Europe where we make fun of Belgium for daring to exist with two.

Zimbabwe has sixteen official languages, neighbouring South Africa has eleven and others keep to the language of their colonisers but even so they remain as linguistically diverse. No one seems even close to comprehending it, yet they see themselves fit to decide their people’s fate.

For example, when considering a division of South Africa, a solution preferable to some, people never consider how much of a fire starter it really is. No matter how you divide the country, someone’s going to get a raw deal. If you re-start the Boer states, almost all of the Afrikaners and about half of the whites will be cut off in the remainder. If you divide from the Cape, you get the same issue.

In Kraaifontein, a black majority borough of Cape Town, my girlfriend resides with her family. She is coloured, so much so that not one of her family members is either white or black, though we think she might be a bit Malay. She need only walk an hour or so before ending up in the coloured majority Flats. From then on she can walk on to Simon town, where the majority are white, or to Kayleisha where the black majority live in slums.

Whilst she does so she’ll pass Mosques, Churches; Kebab stores and Biltong dispensers. Some built in the Dutch Colonial style, others in a Brutalist 70’s style but most of the newer ones in an American-esque. Often, however, she stays where the people speak her language. Unfortunately she lives in the Western Cape where there exists no majority racial group, and where more than half speak don’t speak Afrikaans. All this in the Afrikaner’s heartland.

With a consistent campaign against Afrikaans, both in Education and in the media, the situation – already hindered by the aftermath of the Apartheid Fascists – has been made worse by a different type of fascist. The leftist kind.

Repeating claims that Afrikaans is the language of White Apartheid, despite being a language spoken mostly by Coloureds, the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) have stoked a campaign to remove it from Higher Education. Those who agree with the EFF but do not want to associate themselves with them instead claim that they want to remove the language to “make education efficient”. After all, Afrikaans is only spoken by a decreasing minority in the arse end of Africa. They do not, however, level that claim against Xhosa or Zulu, who are also a minority language on the world stage.

That, the constant demands for land repatriation, the defiling of Afrikaner symbols such as the statue of Jan van Riebeeck, the farm killings and the flight of most of the country’s intelligentsia due to “Black Economic Empowerment”, has made the Afrikaners very, very nervous about their future.

The Left wing media seems to be stoking these flames. In the aftermath of the state of the nation address, where once again members of the opposition in the assembly either left or where dragged out after they found armed guards inside the chamber, Huffington pPost published an article asking: “Should White People be Denied the Franchise?”

The troll who wrote it must’ve been overjoyed to find that his thinly veiled satire was published as legitimate by the leftist news-site. After finding out that it was fake, HuffPo pulled the article, but it didn’t stop the South African judiciary from investigating the matter, proving once again that it is the only branch of the government which seems to govern properly. The editor who published the article resigned, but the stain remains.

The leftists didn’t just shoot themselves in the foot, they made the mistake of trying on the Miss underwear whilst leaving the blinds open; showing not only their incompetence but their desire to push the leftist agenda above everything, even common sense. I doubt they’ll recover.

The lasting effect of this stupidity will be felt by hardest by the Coloureds, who often have to clean up after the EFF and ANC libtards decide to rampage a local statute they happen to hate.

However the conflict in South Africa is becoming increasingly less racial and even more political. Some see the struggle against the EFF not as a White & Coloured versus the Blacks, but Communism versus Traditionalists. To this end the DA, headed by the Black Mmusi Maimane, has defended the Western Cape and Gauteng against electoral incursions by the ANC and EFF. They offer an alternative to the Left and give hope to the considerable Centre-Right movement, stifling under Socialist control.

Progress is being made, but it is likely to get worse before it gets better. President Zuma, the ANC’s president of South Africa, has ruined the economy with reckless Ministerial shifts and incompetent spending. South Africa’s GDP growth is far below the continent’s average of 5.4%, meaning the resource rich country, which still holds one of the largest mineral deposits on earth and more coal than the rest of Africa, is lagging behind. Massive inflation, a low GDP and with confidence in the government at an all time low, the future for South Africa looks bleak, but outside intervention will not solve it.

Since this is an issue caused by Leftists, it’s only natural to ask they keep their mouths shut about it. Don’t post an article about how it’s all the white man’s fault or how it could all be solved with Communism. Your idiotic ideology is harmless in the first world, but in a country where violence is a way of life, you are actively contributing to the problem and I don’t think it’s too much to ask you keep your mouth shut. Likewise any contribution from the right must be made from a position of knowledge, not just a cursory glance at an article like this.

Hopefully then South Africa can be given what we give all adult nations. The responsibility to deal with their own problems in a considerate and logical way.

Nationalism is on the Rise, regardless of a Le Pen win

in World News by

I was in a livestream with members of the People’s Charter during the first round of the French elections. It was a truly momentous occasion and I couldn’t have spent it with a better bunch. Yet when it came to me declaring “Nationalism had won” it seemed I was approaching the Overton window. But this has been the case for a while and Le Pen’s victory in the first round has simply helped cement it.

Nationalism, like Luke Nash-Jones rightly said, is a linear spectrum, whether prasticed by the left or the right. Sinn Fein for example is nationalist, just a more selective kind. The Labour party was also very Nationalist. Clement Attlee even quoted from William Blake, declaring, after his 1945 electoral victory, that “I will not cease from Mental Fight, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand till we have built Jerusalem, in England’s green and pleasant Land.”
Politicians even now, whether knowingly or not, occasionally evoke the feeling of nationalism when referring to “Our Parliament” and “Our Democracy”. I’ve seen George Galloway both extol Nationalism and denounce it, depending on who he talks to.

Many politicians did this because, if they didn’t, those who did would take command of the polls and the greatest mistake society ever made was to let them forget that. Nationalism is merely prioritising one’s people and culture above all else. It was in the absence of nationalism that today’s crony corporatism was formed and far from being the cause of war, nationalism seems to have been the only thing stopping it. Would Blair have wasted the lives of his own people if he owed any respect to them? Would there be such a broken welfare state if the state put the people first?

These question are at last being asked.

You may disagree with her fiscal policy, you may even think she will lose but regardless, Le Pen, a Nationalist, has beaten two establishment candidates and has breached a record for her party. The second round won’t be a walk-over like 2002. People will have to ask themselves the tough questions; most importantly they’ll have to ask: “Is Nationalism that bad?”
With the truth, the innate realities of nationhood and a growing popular movement on the Patriot’s side, it looks to be that Nationalism is finally influencing the zeitgeist.

But don’t think it will be a walk in the park. From the look of Berkeley, London and the staunch resistance of the Liberal Elite elsewhere, we might not live to see a Nationalist Europe. Furthermore it looks to be a far deadlier endeavour than first thought. Though we in Britain have mostly avoided violence so far, talks of civil war in America have been circulating for some time and with Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos looking to make another strike at Berkeley, it looks to reach a new fervour.

Like I always say, only time will tell if this has all come down to naught.

BBC lie that the Risitas meme is racist

in World News by

BBC News, centrist state-funded media, is freaking out that weaponised autism might help Le Pen win, terrified at the rise of the new rightwing youth.

Their French reporter Helene Daouphars, is a rabid feminist, anti-British, globalist shill, who has on BBC News demanded France dump its problems on Britain; she said it is unfair fake refugees feel obliged to accept benefits in France due to British border patrols.

The Beep commissioned her to make a desperate hatchet job piece, seeking to demonise any threat to open borders.

She selects extreme Twitter accounts to falsely portray that Pepe, and even Risitas, basically Internet memes, are supposedly white supremacist anti-Semitic hate symbols, but a black lady they interview tells them Pepe’s funny.

Kong Yamang who the BBC present as the leader of the Great Meme War in France has only 68 folllowers.

It features a glass of milk emoji, when it was Black Lives Matter activists who made milk racial, by saying it’s a bigoted product due to most sufferers of lactose intolerance being black.

Time to stop paying for this rubbish! #AxeTheTVTax

Nash-Jones Declares Republic of Kekistan in Bir Tawil

in World News by

Right-wing patriots are often oppressed by the liberal establishment due to laws on free speech, and Orwellian college rules, which silence their ideas. Some Pepe-fans have called themselves Kekistani refugees, or Kekugees.

The High Priest of the Holy British Order of Kek, Luke Nash-Jones, a self-proclaimed Kekistani refugee, claimed the uninhabited government-less Bir Tawil in North Africa to be a new state of Jonesia. In respect of Pepe, he has now declared such the homeland of the Kekistani people. He has made the call for a Kek-follower to establish a home there with a Kekistan flag on the roof to legitimise the statehood.


God: Pepe the Kek
Prophets: Hans-Herman Hoppe, Sargon of Akkad, Lauren Southern, Raheem Kassam

Honorary God-Emperor: Donald Trump
Prince: Luke Nash-Jones

Defence (Memes) Secretary: Joshua Thomas
Home Secretary: Lewis Kaasikmae
Foreign Secretary: Nick Hurley
Minister for Technology: Victoria Holland

US Ambassador: God-Princess Ivanka Trump
UK Ambassadors: Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees-Mogg
French Ambassador: Marine Le Pen
German Ambassador: Frauke Petry
Hungarian Ambassador: Victor Orban

What is Shadilay?

“Shadilay” is a 1986 disco song by the Italian band P.E.P.E., the name of which resembles Pepe, the mascot of rightwing patriots. It also features an illustration of a green frog holding a magic wand in the album. Therefore, “Shadilay” has been declared to be the National Anthem of the Kekistani people.

Kekistani flag

There are many prototypes online of the Kekistani flag; here is one which we have accepted:

Support the Kekistani Republic now

Farage Helps Bid to Split California Into Two States

in Brexit/World News by

The self-described “bad boys of Brexit” have a new breakup in mind. They have been recruited by a group of Republicans to lead a drive for a referendum in the 2018 midterm election to split California into two states.

The idea is to pit the conservative and rural eastern part of California against the more urban – and liberal – coast of the state against each other, The Sun reports.

The two men – Nigel Farage and “Leave.EU” millionaire Aaron Banks – have just left the United States after raising more than $1 million for what’s called “CalExit.” The two were recruited by GOP political strategist Gerry Gunster and Scott Baugh.

Their goal is to pit the rural east of California, which is more likely to vote Republican, against the ‘liberal coastal elites’ of the west coast including L.A and San Francisco.

But Republicans aren’t the only ones looking to split the state in two. There’s also a left-leaning “CalExit” campaign in the works.

Experts say they see a natural “east-west” political divide in the state. Residents in the eastern part of the state have always felt ignored and out-voted, particularly in national elections. With almost 40 million people, California’s 55 electoral college votes have gone to a Democratic Candidate in every election since Ronald Reagan.

Banks said: “It would be portrayed as the Hollywood elites versus the people, breaking up the bad government. Seventy-eight percent of people in California are unhappy with their government. It’s the world’s sixth-largest economy and it’s very badly run.”

The petition would take more than 365,000 signatures to get on the ballot and even then, a breakup of California would almost certainly never happen.

Still the idea does have it supporters. The National Review’s John Fund is one of them:

The new states would be far more in sync on policy. The coastal state would emphasize environmental values, the “next big thing” economy of Silicon Valley, and the multicultural diversity of L.A. The inland state would have vast water resources, abundant agricultural lands, and its own cutting-edge facilities in sectors ranging from aerospace to data processing.

Politically, the two states would provide an escape from the current political conformity of California, which is dominated by public-sector unions and progressive activists. Take the last governor’s race in 2014. Democrat Jerry Brown won reelection over Republican Neel Kashkari by 60 percent to 40 percent statewide. But in Inland California, they were separated by just a few thousand votes. The two Californias would include a progressive stronghold able to experiment (even more than the state already does) with new “small is beautiful” ideas; next to it would be a politically competitive state with many constituencies that would favor pro-growth policies. Tensions and gridlock under a two-state model would probably be reduced.

Nigel Farage reminds people that nobody thought the Brexit campaign would happen either – and the stakes couldn’t be any higher for California.

“This could be the greatest political showdown ever,” he said.

We will see.

BlackLivesMatter Leader calls White People “Subhuman”

in World News by

The banners of BlackLivesMatter have been appearing at anti-Brexit rallies and pro-NHS marches across London. We are just not sure anymore how any self-respecting liberal can honestly deny that the BlackLivesMatter movement is racist. Without question, they are blatantly the black equivalent of the KKK. Where is the uproar from HopeNotHate?

The Toronto Sun did some digging and found a short commentary written by BlackLivesMatter Toronto co-founder Yusra Khogali back in 2015 on Facebook. Here’s what she said:

“Whiteness is not humxness. In fact, white skin is sub-humxn. All phenotypes exist within the black family and white ppl are a genetic defect of blackness. White ppl… are genetically deficient because… (She goes on to list various melanin related reasons that whites are genetically inferior.) Therefore, white ppl are recessive genetic defects. This is factual…”

white skin is sub-humxn – BlackLivesMatter leader

Anyone who condemns the BNP as fascist or racist, while standing with BlackLivesMatter at pro-NUS or anti-Brexit marches is an absolute hypocrite!

Much of what the BLM leader writes in the post is similarly disgusting and just as ridiculous and racist. Just as the white supremacists are evil and hate-filled, so too are the racists of this racist movement that could be more accurately named “ONLY Black Lives Matter”.

Also, last year she was caught tweeting prayers for strength not to cuss or kill “men and white folks” who were counter-demonstrating against BlackLivesMatter.

“Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz.”

This is the heart of the BlackLivesMatter movement folks, they are as hate-filled and evil as the white supremacists of the KKK. The only difference between the two groups is the amount of melanin in the skin of their supporters.

Anti-Trump Liverpool UK Protest Taken Down Following 4chan Trolling

in World News by

Update: The FACT center took the flag and stream down at the advice of police, following illegal trespassing. 

For the fourth time, Shia Labeouf and co. claimed the “He Will Not Divide Us” stream had found a permanent home—and for the fourth time they were proved wrong.

The Liverpool, UK, location for the protest livestream has been compromised, with members of 4chan’s /pol/ board scaling the roof of the FACT center and attempting to tear down the flag. Labeouf and his artist friends thought the flag was safe on top of a five- story building in a different country, but again they discounted the power of the Internet.

Trolls went to extensive lengths to scale the building and try to remove the flag, risking physical and legal dangers.

Three guys were able to get on the roof from another building and made their way across to the arts center. They complained that the flag was heavily zip tied to the pole and could not take be taken down without scissors.

The stream was cut off before the flag was taken down, leading to speculation the Brits had failed. But later pictures from the ground revealed the flag had in fact been removed from the pole.

Police have been spotted at the scene of the FACT center. They were called when FACT spotted the trespassers. The police advised the art center to remove the flag and shut off the stream.

Who is Pepe? Kek?

in World News by

(You can read here about The Republic of Kekistan)

Who is Pepe the Frog?

Around 2010, a sad-looking cartoon frog, Pepe, began to trend among posters on and similar “underground” imageboards. Pepe has become adored by right-wing patriots and seen as their mascot.

Despite lefties attempts to demonise him, Pepe is not a white supremacist symbol but a symbol of the political right. Even Donald Trump has tweeted a meme of Pepe, and the mascot triggered Hilary, resulting in a speech where she ranted about frogs.

What is Kek?

Kek is a god from Egyptian mythology, who has the head of a frog. Hence, patriots claim Kek must be their deity. He was seen as that which occurred before light, thus was known as the bringer-in of light.

Some even say the Egyptians foretold the arise of meme magic:

The sound “kek” is an odd technicality involving the Korean language and the popular video game World of Warcraft – it means laughter, just as “lol” does, and has become part of the whole Pepe identity.

British Order of Kek:

Some members of the Young Chartists call the Chartists movement the “British Order of Kek”. The flag of the Order features Celtic-style cross and the Kek insignia.

The flag of the Order of Kek:

Subscribe to MBGA News now!!

* indicates required
Go to Top