Equality

I get fed up with constant mention of “equality”. Truth be known, nobody in The Establishment really wants it otherwise we'd have a nation full of Prime Ministers. They also know that nobody really knows what it means in the greater context of all society either.

If we're talking equal opportunities, I know what that means. It means that both the capable person and the slightly less capable make it to the interview stage, with the most capable person for that specific role getting the job (we're all capable of doing different things, so it balances out). But then there's the demographic issue. For example, with equal opportunities, we'll no doubt find that more men become hod carriers than women. We'll also find that more women become beauty therapists than men. If that woman can shift more bricks in an hour than her male interviewee counterpart, she should get the job because she's obviously better at it. Likewise if a man does a better job of manicures than his female interviewee counterpart. But these aren't likely scenarios, so the demographics in these professions stick, because like it or not, the two genders are different (with the exception of those on high amounts of hormone replacements, that is).

“Equality” is bandied around like sweets amongst kids on mufti day at the end of term. “More equality”, we're all promised by the BBC on behalf of their pay masters in The House of Commons. But equality in and within what exactly? Are 7 apples equal to 7 lumps of gold bullion? Most would say no. But if you're starving to death you can only eat the apples. Are 7 dustmen equal to 7 computer programmers? Most would say no, at least in an academic sense. But academia goes out the window when your bins are flowing into the street and attracting every rat your side of the Thames. You don't need a dustman when you want some software developed. Does that make the dustman unequal? I don't think so.

Racial equality perhaps? Maybe. But bearing in mind that under Labour, Hackney's black youth haven't exactly benefited academically, we're expected to believe that all that will change by voting them in again (that's right, 12 years of zilch and it'll all change with one cross next to a box next June!). And the definition of what constitutes a "race" is becoming more obscure by the day. British gypsies with British ancestry are considered a different "race" because of how they choose to live. Soon chavs and social miscreants will be considered a race, then low earners, until in the end it's almost an individual thing, and any individual slur against anyone will be considered racist and a breach of "personal and racial equality".

Gender equality perhaps? How long before we move away from the plain concept of women being equal to men, to something far more complicated and blurred that even our newspeak pedaling masters don't understand fully? 33 year old women aren't equal to 32 year old men. Brown haired women of 5'6 with green eyes not filling enough estate agent positions? It will end up being that precise. Trust me. It's unworkable and it's meant to be.

Equality is a pretence (perhaps even a dream for some) thrown around by lefties who want to stay in power for longer - nothing else. Vote against us and you're voting against “equality”. Well, lefty comrades, give me a comprehensive report on what you think equality is, and I'll tell you why I don't agree with any of it and why I think it's a load of time wasting tosh. Its current definition is giving free money to lazy people who have never worked and never will because they don't have to (and all the jobs have gone anyway). It's giving free houses to idiot girls (who get pregnant by idiot boys who don't stick around to pay up, and are never pursued by the idiot authorities) just so they can get a free house. Again, it's about money, not opportunity to excel. In fact it's quite the opposite. Giving feckless chavs more money to spend on drink and weed doesn't make them equal at all. It simply matches them up in terms of buying power with those who've worked for it. They're still just as disliked as the equality juggernaut doesn't understand human nature. It only understands political power and how to buy it off idiots who don't ask questions. It means lazy people can buy bigger TVs, spend more in the shops and make more money for big business. Up until recently they qualified for bigger loans, which made the banks look good in terms of supposedly incoming assets and pushed up the share prices. It's about buying power. Neo-consumerism, if you will.

If they cared so much about equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of personal expenditure, they'd have kept the grammar schools, the only viable alternative for kids from working class backgrounds to compete with those who are privately educated. But they didn't. They don't want competition from the ghettos they created. They don't want their own kids being outperformed, out-witted, and ultimately outmanoeuvred by regular kids from regular families that live in three bed semis and shop at Asda. It's why so many Establishment send their own children to private schools - to gain an advantage - to be more equal than others. They hate the system they created because they understand its true purpose. To create resentment, and keep the jobs and positions in society that they deem to be profitable free for them and their offspring.

People get left in the gutter because that's where The Establishment want them. All parties benefit from someone being left to rot and grow moss, so there will always be someone, somewhere left to rot and grow moss because nobody would ever vote otherwise.

I find myself wondering how far the equality industry will go. Will it reach a point where everyone in the country is counted, squared off into an even number and bunched up so we can all have the same amount of friends allocated to us to avoid offending unpopular people? Will it mean we all have to have TVs of the same size to avoid offending people with old style tubes? The same types of cars to avoid offending Nissan Micra drivers who get upset when a Porsche overtakes them on the M25? Will tall kids have their legs broken and parts of the shins removed to make them smaller to prevent jealousy from stumpy kids? Will gardens be banned to avoid offending people who live in flats?

This “equality” is never going to happen because nobody any longer knows what it is, and is why The Establishment will persevere with it. They know if enough people buy into it by feeling discriminated against, they will always have an excuse to intervene, to make new laws, invent new taxes and alienate even more people along the road to civil war, which will only be ended by a brutal police state regime which they will take great delight in enforcing on us. Vote for us if you want your home protected! And all for what. So a bunch of charlatans can keep their snouts in the trough for just a few more years.

But there are only 646 of them. There are (officially) 61 million of us. I look forward to when the realisation kicks in and someone puts together some makeshift stocks.

A British Soldier

An excellent point well made here on the Calling England blog, which I thought I'd share with the obligatory link to the reference.

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to earn that pay, I work for the MOD.

I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque because I have to pass one, to earn it for them?

Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse, drinking beer and smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?

Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in the UK & soon!

I have some thoughts of my own to add to this. I really think that what we're seeing here is a case of people actively being deterred from joining the army voluntarily, or indeed doing any other job voluntarily, regardless of the risks involved. Not just from the above quoted email, but all over the place. Initially it appears that the government simply have no respect for the armed forces, which is no doubt true. But why would they want to actively deter people from joining up when we are currently, and no doubt always will be, in need of protection and embroiled in some oil war somewhere.

As has happened in so many other far left utopian "dream" states, the military has actually proved a vital tool for government. So if people are discouraged from signing up, to a point of there not being enough soldiers, what do we do? Me thinks national service is coming back. Not that it's a bad thing given the yoof on the streets creating gang wars all of their own. But it's how The Establishment intend to use a reintroduction to national service that worries me,

I'm 27 now, so I'll probably miss out on it all when it happens through lack of fitness and youthfulness. I could however end up joining tomorrow's industrial strength "Superpolice" (the police may seem powerless now, but there's the trailing edge to come yet. The Establishment will read the comments at the ends of Daily Mail articles online about the lack of beat policemen/women on the street and we'll end up with armed thought police swarming over every street, with The Establishment claiming that's what we wanted).

I would never actively discourage anyone from joining the British Army as it has developed so many characters, fulfilled so many people and is so essential. I respect those people a lot. But I wonder how long it will remain as a choice to join up or not. As I wonder what the core purpose of tomorrow's military will be. Away or domestic? And if domestic, how so? You decide.

That link again if you're interested.

The backswing cometh.

The Left Aren't Finished Yet, They're Too Busy Galvanising the Right

We saw in the Euro elections three months ago that The Right came back into the picture once again. Well, they were never really out of it, but this time it looked very much as though certain parties were gaining momentum for picking up domestically.

The BNP, in terms of raw votes, actually got slightly less than in 2005 (as people stayed away from the polls due to the expenses scandal, which may even have helped the big parties due to split votes for the fringe parties). Percentage-wise however, they were at 6.2%. UKIP blasted past Labour into second place and in recent months, small fringe parties such as the English Democrats have gained a bit of traction themselves.

But what exactly are The Left doing about it? Very little. They've tried the name calling approach to stop people voting right of centre (shout “racist” at the bad man who votes UKIP). That evidently hasn't worked. They persevere with that using new vocabulary that nobody understands and furrowing their brows as a means to attempt to psyche people back into voting Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or anyone else considered to be fairly similar to The Establishment in outlook (mass immigration is good. Sending criminals to prison is bad. Green tax is good. Helping the big banks whilst pretending to be socialist, etc).

It's plain to see they have run out of ideas as to how to win votes for themselves, so they just try to lose votes for anyone else. Voting BNP is a vote for fascism. Even voting UKIP is a vote for xenophobia. So what could be causing all this? It's easy to say that The Left have no ideas, but it's truer to say they have plenty of ideas – just none that anyone likes.

So they propagate the fear factor. Vote for UKIP if you want a lifetime of unemployment because no European businesses will let us play with their toys anymore. Vote BNP for having your ethnic minority friends kicked out and sent home (I personally don't see how that's workable for people brought up in this country, but the BNP can spin as can Labour, and can indeed be spun about by Labour). Vote English Democrat and have “your” council scaled down, meaning they can't deal with “your” issues anymore (and how Baby P must have thanked Haringey for their profligacy).

The Establishment need a percentage of people to vote for the likes of the BNP as if there was no evidence of racial tension, the quangos would be out of jobs. And people working in quangos vote for the people that are most likely to keep them in jobs. It's a circular reference. They need people to vote UKIP as an excuse to keep us in Europe. We won't bow down to xenophobia and anti European views, they tell us.

The Left need people to vote for parties they don't agree with because they then twist it into a non existent prejudice as a means to impose sanctions. To watch us. To make new laws and to kill off the last remaining semblances of freedom of speech that they tell us hasn't been curtailed at all. But as usual they'll take it too far, as they haven't reckoned on various factions of the right joining up and forming a larger movement.

There are parts of the so called “far right” (who very often aren't far right at all) who despite not liking each other now, will soon realise that they are too small and too insignificant to pull up any trees on their own, and will reluctantly start talking about forming allegiances on certain issues. It'll only be to further the agendas of each small faction at first, but that won't be the end of it. Not by a long shot.

UKIP don't really need any friends because they've got nothing to hide, barring the odd dodgy expense claim just like the others. They're not at all radical, just traditional. People in the know (i.e. not indoctrinated by the BBC and Guardian) know that there's nothing prejudiced or dangerous about UKIP. The idea of a stable form of conservatism is one that appeals to many. All they really need to do is start funding candidates at home as opposed to channelling all their money into European elections and they'd probably pick up a few.

The BNP need friends. They're trying to pretend that they don't, but they're playing a careful game. Basically, whenever the BNP “bans” something, such as their members being part of the EDL, it talks up the EDL. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that in a couple of years time, that ban will be quietly lifted. The EDL aren't a political organisation, and in my opinion are a perfectly valid organisation (just a small one), but any publicity is good publicity. I'd bet that the BNP are merely trying to build the profile of the EDL as the legitimate organisation that they are, in order to join forces with them later on once they've gained some momentum. They are creating their own allies.

Meanwhile, in the world of Leftist utopia, they don't see this. People fit neatly into categories. Tory voters don't agree with Labour voters and UKIP voters don't agree with BNP voters and BNP voters don't agree with the EDL. That's it. Final. But as is the case when many different factions are universally opposed to one dominant force, these guys will find some common ground, even if they end up shafting each other once the fur starts to fly and they all start gaining ground individually.

Much as the government needs people to continue smoking in order to cash in on the duty, they need people to vote for parties like the BNP in order to exercise greater control, create more quangos, call more people “far right” and ultimately use this totally manufactured prejudice as a means to control more. Tax more. Naturally, it then spreads. There aren't enough BNP voters to justify these things, so it slips down to moderate organisations like the EDL. Then even more moderate parties like UKIP. Soon it'll be the Tories.

Name calling is still rife, but it has changed as the old words and insults don't work anymore. But much as it's been the case that people who've been labelled BNP supporters for years have then gone on to join the BNP (what's the point of NOT joining them, if people will call you BNP anyway), the same will happen with the EDL, with UKIP, with the English Democrats, and possibly even the Tories.

I don't think mass immigration is for today. I think it's for in 20 years time. I think it's for when the so-called “far right” have got a grip, shattered everyone's liberties and clamped down on the free for all on British benefits – including those who need them most, and genuinely. I think it's for when people who've come in during the profligate years have bred in suitable numbers and, in combination with the remaining public sector employees, can win a new landslide vote for The Left and keep them in power for decades to come after that. It's the only conclusion I can come to for the current and continued behaviour of The Establishment, besides their profitable vested interests. They know they're on their way out, but only to be replaced by another bunch more or less the same.

The most interesting election will be in 2 elections time. Once the Tories have had a term and done nothing, people will look for a somewhat more conservative alternative. The form of conservatism may be different, but conservative it will be in one way or another.

There are too many immigrants coming in. There are too many people claiming benefits. There are too many people committing crimes and getting away with it. There are too many British born individuals being abandoned and held to ransom by gang culture. The Left rely on saying they're going to do something about it all when they have no intention of it. They need thuggery, prejudice, hatred and loathing. Conservative types don't.

But as The Left go through their death throes, which they will do a few years from now. It'll be both intriguing yet terrifying to see how much damage they've actually done. Enoch Powell was right when he alluded to the fact there would be rivers of blood. I hope there aren't. I hope they only blood I see is the blood of those stupid, corrupt, self serving people who did this to Britain. And I hope I see it soon.

The Establishment DON'T Want You to Stop Smoking!

I've been watching them. I've been watching them all. The Establishment, the useful idiots who believe in them (or at least pretend to in the hopes on being given a slice of the action) and the generally awkward. You know the types – the ones who'll go out of their way to walk as closely in proximity to your little smoking spot as possible just to inhale your second hand smoke and then give you dirty looks for it.

The Establishment want you to stop smoking about as much as they want you to vote them out tomorrow. Lets start by looking at some facts.

There's big money to be made in nicotine patches, gum and whatever gimmicky, useless mode of kicking the habit the companies (companies like Johnson & Johnson, to give you an idea of the scale) producing them can persuade us to buy. Huge money.

Of course, it doesn't have much of a success rate, so people will either persevere with the gum or start smoking again. And I know the reason why it doesn't have much of a success rate. It's because it's not strictly the nicotine that people are addicted to. Sure, as with a lot of chemicals, the body gets used to it and reacts with withdrawal when it doesn't get any anymore. But that habit is deeper for many. People smoke to delay going to the supermarkets, to get out of the office for 5 minutes at 11am when the emails come flying in or the boss is in a foul mood. Some people smoke purely to do something with their hands when they're nervous, and to focus their attention on something tangible. And some people, most notably teenagers, smoke because they think it's cool and a bit risky.

The Establishment know this. So what would they do if they really wanted us to stop smoking? Well, I'd hazard a guess at the fact that if you or I really wanted society to stop doing something, you or I would make it illegal, then crack down and force the law. But The Establishment don't. They discuss a few token rules such as the possibility of hiding cigarettes under the counter, knowing full well the media will propagate that minor detail and people will just as easily be able to buy them. They ban smoking in pubs, but allow smoking areas outside. Even in coldest January, anyone can slip their coat and scarf on and head outside for a quick puff in the pub garden. And people do. There's always a get-out clause. The Establishment planned it that way. Just like they did with the old style light bulbs, now being manufactured here and marketed as "workshop bulbs".

Now Gordon Brown is hoping to steal a few Tory votes (misguided as he is) by making noises about banning smoking in the home. How the hell is any government going to enforce that, short of Orwell's telescreens or live-in military guards? They can't, and they won't. It's bollocks. When I look at how government deals with smoking, I see them doing their utmost to create a new taboo. They know we're a rebellious bunch who don't take kindly to being told what to do. When they ban smoking in the Houses of Commons restaurant, I might start to think differently. Apart from prisons, it's the only communal place in the land where smoking is allowed. Anyone would think that our political classes aren't quite as opposed to smoking as they say.

And what about the NHS? Surely the cost burden of treating all those eeeeeevil smokers is crippling it. Well, perhaps it is, but the monumental amount of revenue from duty on cigs makes up for that shortfall. Whilst I accept that it does create a large black hole, that gap can soon be plugged. And besides, when you read stories about “shooting galleries” (special places for heroin addicts to go and ply their habit for free), it makes you wonder why The Establishment is so keen to pursue those smoking tobacco, which last time I checked, had far less of an impact on crime rates than heroin addiction. And let's not forget, drug addicts often end up needing hospital treatment too. And dying.

Then there's the “yoof”. And this one is a cracker! Anyone who has either been a teenager or come into contact with them knows that many of them are rather partial to a little risk. Something a bit dangerous. They rebel. They often don't mean any harm, they're just looking for their boundaries in order to learn how to be adults. One thing you don't do with teenagers when you want to prevent them from doing something is glamourise it, and that's exactly what The Establishment do.

They show pictures of how smoking ages the skin, makes people look older than their years. What do teenagers want more than anything in the world? To be considered as adults, of course! So smoking can age them, can make them into adults earlier and earn them the respect of adults, right? Yes, right. And the government know this. They order cigarette companies to print big bold slogans such as “Smoking kills” and “Smoking can seriously damage your health”. Great. If you're a teenager looking for a little bit of risk, and looking to be admired by your peers for taking that risk, look no further. Hey, you're running the risk of dying. How cool is that!

Again, if they really wanted to stop teenagers from smoking, they'd make it illegal. They'd ridicule smokers. Show pictures of ugly people falling flat on their arses who just happen to be smoking at the same time. They'd make it seem like a real image problem, as we know how image conscious we were as teens (well, most of us were).

Then we move onto politicians themselves and their own vested interests. When the Conservatives get in, which they inevitably will, I wouldn't be surprised if smokers we persecuted further. If smoking was made even more of a symbol of martyrdom. Even more pictures of ageing skin, more labels on cigarette packets such as “Smoking makes your face fall off and turns you green in the night”. Ken Clarke (current Tory Shadow Chancellor), has strong connections and no doubt a lot of mates in the fag business. He's not going to see his pals out with us proles on the dole queue. They also seem to be making a great deal of effort to crack down on tobacco smuggling. Looking at these stats from 2003, albeit six years ago (the bottom paragraph says it all), 41% of “smuggling busts” were counterfeit or illegally brought in cigarettes. That's right, FORTY ONE PERCENT! You'd think they might be focusing their attention more on guns and drugs. There's always a simple answer though. It's not about thwarting the crime itself, it's about you spending lots of lovely money on UK duty.

Perhaps I'm just getting old, getting cynical, but it doesn't take a psychology degree to know people and to know how they work. The government WON'T stop you from smoking because they don't want to. There's too much to be earned for them and their mates. I don't believe they want everyone to smoke as there really would be a significant problem with NHS costs and hospital beds, but I think they'd like a few more of us to take it up.

Vegan Nation

I used to have a friend I'd chat to on occasion. Me and this friend weren't aligned on many things politically, least of all this person's fanaticism towards being vegan.

As with most causes, this has noble roots. Nobody likes to think of defenceless animals being kept in pens getting open sores, shot in the head with a bolt, cut open and then ending up in the grill. It does however progress – it progresses to the emotional blackmail and the eventual stigmatisation of meat eaters as nasty people who like inflicting suffering on fluffy animals. We have the tooth structure of carnivores though, and some of the supposedly most “primitive” tribes in the world eat meat. One thing I'd say in the favour of the folks of the Amazon Rainforest is that they are very efficient. But that's because there's no commercial aspect to killing their food. They take what they need and they let live what they don't. The problem isn't with meat eating, it's with big business. It's with government's relationship with big business. The Establishment aren't going to curtail and legislate the slaughterhouse practices of Bernard Matthews because Bernie slips them a few quid not to.

But I digress.

If you really think the animals would be roaming free (even more free than on a free range farm, let's say) if we all went vegan, than I'd like you to at least consider something.

In a country the size of ours, with a population the size of ours (61 million, according to some no doubt highly massaged statistics), where are we going to grow the necessary crop needed to both keep the woolly sheep fed and ourselves? It's not going to happen. They'd cull the animals with bolts to the head, incinerate them, and whatever was left in terms of land would be used to grow crop. Waste of animals, wouldn't you say? Killing them off just to burn the bodies on a bloody big fire. I guess we could share out the meat for a final blow out.

And then you consider how much land is suitable for growing crop. How much is there? I mean nature always wins in the end, so if much of the untended green land we see about us in the leafy south and scarcely populated areas of the north was suitable for growing sweetcorn, we'd see sweetcorn growing by itself. But we don't. We see grass. Lots and lots of green green grass. That's it. Fancy a grass sandwich? We'd better hope there's enough wheat, flour and yeast (plenty of grass though) to make the bread to feed such an amount of people.

It would ultimately mean that we were completely held to ransom by other countries for our food sources. At present, we're not. Oranges from Seville are nice but we could all cope without them. But we're vegan, and we're a nation of 61 million people (at the very least – by my reckoning it could be anything up to 64 million, and illegal immigrants still need to eat). So we're all going to survive on sweetcorn from Buckinghamshire, corn from Oxfordshire, imported tofu from Japan for the snobs.

It simply won't work.

Humans are meat eaters, just like dogs, birds of prey and predatory fish. But as usual, the blame is laid in very human nature rather than those who profit out of the inhumane practices used to kill animals for fulfilling that human nature. Why does nobody ask questions of Tiger sharks that chew up smaller fish? Some of them even get swallowed whole to be digested alive in stomach acid. Can't be pleasant. Nobody questions the government's lack of action regarding the treatment of animals. They simply blame meat eaters because it's easy, and it's what The Establishment want.

I do sometimes wish my former friend had thought twice before such outbursts. I do. There simply isn't enough space for us all to be vegan, and it's not even natural. But for now, I'll respect anyone's choice to do it, even find it honourable. But I shall defend to the death my right to be a human. It's those who are inhuman that vegans should be directing their vitriol at.

Who Are You Calling Far Right?

For the past 20 years, people who disagreed with The Establishment were simply called “racist”, It didn't matter much what the subject matter was. Anyone who was against a total tidal wave of immigration was labelled “racist”, or the slightly milder but equally as head-turning “xenophobe”. Anyone who openly feared the gradual erosion of British culture, of patriotism, of being proud to be part of a nation that could laugh at itself, innovate, invent and preserve a unique sense of individualism was labelled “racist”.

But being called racist for thoughts and speech that are patently not racist or racially motivated no longer washes with many of us. The term has been devalued through overuse, through inaccurate use. It's like the boy who cried wolf - except this shrieking boy is usually an upper middle class Brit from the leafy south. And not always a boy, of course.

Now that's not working anymore, the new term of choice is “far right”. If you disagree with the development of a mega mosque, you're “far right”. If you protest against radical Islam, you're “far right”. Sooner or later, if you protest against mass immigration, you'll be considered “far right”. And then one day, protesting against the introduction of 1984 style telescreens in your home and workplace will be considered “far right”. Drinking, smoking, eating a burger, reading a newspaper, holding hands, speaking before midday, having the day off, taking a shit, will all be considered “far right”.

But what is “far right” anyway? Rather ambiguous, don't you think? And more to the point, what does it mean when used by The Establishment?

The far right is seemingly becoming more centric by the day. It's a pathetic and futile attempt to associate anyone who disagrees with The Narrative as somehow Nazi, fascist, all for the mass genocide of ethnic minorities and all for insane greed Gordon Gekko style. It puts those simply defending old British tradition, jobs, morals and proper libertarian values in the same league as the low-down footsoldiers at white supremacist rallies chanting “Kick the fuckers out”.

The newspeak is already appearing. Just look at those who are cynical of The Establishment's motives regarding the climate change phenomenon (ahem, scam). They are labelled “climate change deniers”. Nobody in their right mind denies that the climate changes but the closeness of this term with “Holocaust denier” (people who DO deny the Holocaust) makes it a very dirty term indeed. But people are catching onto the inaccuracies, the lack of factual back up. Even so, it almost makes you want to cave in and go with the flow for the sake of an easy life, doesn't it? Or does it?

The thing is, so many people have been called so many names that names don't matter anymore. Behaviour matters. Name calling is no longer the easy get out of jail free card to toss into an argument you have no viable, well thought out counter attack for. It no longer embarrasses people into silence as people now simply ask “why”. They ask for it to be justified and backed up with factual and behavioural evidence. The Establishment rarely have any, besides some weakly linked comparisons that are easily seen through. The journalists don't like to ask the difficult questions though. It may result in a cancelled all-expenses-paid dinner invite to a 5 star hotel.

Now onto the altogether lesser “right wing” label that is so often dished out to organisations like the BNP, who if anything, are extremely far left. This permits a new kind of name calling. Whereas someone could simply be called “fascist”, now they're called “right wing fascist”. You'll need to pay close attention to media outlets like the BBC. Not so much the website. It's more a term thrown in for good measure during drive time. This is purely designed to smear the entire right wing, particularly the centre right, who are comprised of an often intelligent type of modern conservative who are thoughtful and simply won't cave in and toe the line.

So we smear them. We don't do it directly. We do it by associating them with extreme organisations such as the BNP and even Combat 18. We do it by referring to those organisations as “right wing”, as opposed for far right, far left, extremist or whatever label the rest of us would see fit. That way, anyone who describes themselves or is described legitimately as right wing is instantly (in the minds of the Establishment and those indoctrinated by them) admitting to racism, homophobia, bigotry and xenophobia, all in one hit. So “right wing” becomes a dirty term too.

But it's a slippery slope though. From humble beginnings and associating a term nobody really understands the true meaning of with evil (what does far right mean anyway? Neo-capitalist perhaps?), we've now crept very much into associating a widely held view (i.e. plain old “right wing”) with evil too. It's like word association. But it won't stop here. The smear will then extend to those who brand themselves as centric. But this won't be dubbed centric. In fact the highly centric, often left leaning Tories are still branded right wing, and we know how right wing is dirty.

What we're left (no pun intended) with by The Establishment, is a choice between left and far left. The only two acceptable political paradigms in existence. It's either socialism or communism. It's either mass immigration or scrapping borders altogether. It's either strictly monitored speech or no speech at all. It's either pay high taxes or be dubbed thick and incompetent, in the case of climate change.

Name calling was a wonderful thing – once. But it no longer washes. Back yourself up and get ready for a battle, but always remember: there are more of us than there are of them.

Politicians take note. Beware of the wounded animal. It may just vote you into oblivion one day.

New Socialism Is For No-one Much

When I look at various left wing media outlets, I often read through the society and culture sections to see what I can see. I usually do it pretty innocently, hoping to find something positive and something for me, as one of society's distinct ordinaries, to look forward to.

I always end up disappointed.

New socialism does very, very little to address what's wrong with Britain's society today. And I know why – their answer to virtually every problem, whether it be a crime epidemic or an outbreak of TB, is to throw money into those communities in the hope of belated cure, rather than spending on the facilities of prevention.

Take the example of grammar schools. Grammar schools gave bright kids regardless of background (or the contents or their parents' wallets) an opportunity to be educated to a level which pushed them into a position to excel. Not all of them. Some passed their exams, others failed. But they were offered a chance, and it's a chance which is being removed with vigour. They cite elitism as a reason to ditch grammar schools, but it's not elitism because it doesn't matter how much money mummy and daddy have got, as it's still free. A working class child is no more likely to turn out thick or non-academic than a middle class one by nature. But if everyone can't win, everyone has to lose.

The old (albeit often corrupted) ideals of traditional socialism were based around roles, around joint ownership and around equal benefit and responsibility as individuals and as a collective. The ability to influence the driving of one's and all's own infrastructure. Nationalised railways and trade unions who knew when enough was enough, having stood firm in the faces of government and those who wished to take advantage of their workers both financially, and in terms of working conditions as a whole (as a means to gaining financially, evidently).

History has proved time and time again that sooner or later the seams start to give way. Governments want money, so they sell of the rail networks to private franchises. Trade unions get too big for their boots and keep making demands to justify their own existence, someone in parliament simply gets rid of them. After all, they have the power to slow production down to a standstill in the name of the greater good. What's the point of funding a trade union who guards and aids an unproductive industry when you can simply outsource the whole shebang? All that's really needed is an excuse, and in the 1970s and 80s, that's exactly what they gave Lady Thatcher.

Now Socialism has evolved – it has made the switch from an economic system to a highly politicised system. It's not about collective ownership at different levels, roles, responsibility, and equal opportunity. It assumes nobody wants ownership over the actual workmanship. It assumes nobody is happy leaving at 5pm and going off to the pub to forget about it all or play with their kids. It assumes everyone wants to be at the very top.

But everybody doesn't want to be at the very top. Some do, many don't. And who decides where the top is anyway? It seems The Left do that part of the thinking for us. And who decides what being at the top means or represents? Is it good or bad? If it's banking, you only have to look at the reaction to bankers' bonuses during the G20 protests back in the spring. Would “Fred the Shred” have been any more likeable if he'd been working class? If it's property development, look at the property slump. If it's government, the expenses scandal put paid to much of the respect many had for MPs (although not ALL MPs were to blame, in fairness). The jobs at “the top” are all despised by the very same New Socialists who think everyone ought to have a stint there – at the very top. Do they just want someone to email death threats to? A big Lego style building to throw chairs through the windows of? And if these middle class rebels got what they claim to want, how would they feel about having working classers like me and my friends ousting their parents and their friends from their comfy existences and into council housing with the local thug squad? Out into the wilds of joint ownership and shred wealth.

I also wonder where the promotion of those genuinely essential jobs in society are. Why does nobody talk about plumbers, electricians, carpenters and gas fitters anymore? Why so little focus on paramedics, ambulance crews and midwives. It seems that “good jobs” are simply defined by what one can earn out of them, rather than the fulfilment, immediate importance and standing in society one can gain from doing a trade or providing essential front line services. The only reward is financial reward according to the New Socialists. And everyone should be entitled to it. Then there's the fame factor. If you can't be a banker, be a rapper, and be classed as a failure if you don't make it. Know that in the eyes of the various media you surround yourself with, you're a nobody. Feel the resentment welling up inside you.

Going back to the pay issue, I'm not saying that someone shouldn't be paid what they're worth. As someone who has always been at the average salary mark or below it, I know what it's like to restrict my social life to virtually null, buy cheap and processed Sainsbury's Essentials food instead of brand names, to look at those in the big houses with nice gardens and wish I had similar.

But it wears off.

I come to the realisation that with the big house comes the big mortgage, the high insurance premiums, the ultra expensive security systems and the morbid fear of taking a holiday in case a break-in should occur and thieves should steal my £5,000 TV. I don't worry that while I'm in my (fictional) plush office assessing projected forecasts until midnight, my (proverbial) wife is out looking for a bit of genuine company and understanding elsewhere which eventually leads to other things, including the future break-up of my family. I don't worry my children will throw me down the stairs for my inheritance the day they turn 21. I go to the pub, I meet my friends and I talk about football.

And I'm happy. I don't want to be a millionaire because I'd waste it all on crap. As would a lot of other people. But then again, if we're all spending it keeps businesses afloat, creates an illusion of prosperity and means people mind less about little things such as the Europe's Islamic revolution, more and more curbs on the freedom of speech, spy tactics, the dumbing down of education into nothing more than a brainwashing institution designed to turn children into adults who simply won't notice.

In conclusion, giving people money distracts them from the destruction of Britain. But now the chickens are coming home to roost, as the realisation sets in that the money has ran out. Nay, much of it probably never existed.

This socialism will never work because it's not meant to work. It simply exists to create a population that looks to the government to involve itself in everything. Making everyone rich. Enabling everyone to buy that X-Box, that massive TV, that holiday to New York, the house.

It's not about you. It's about the businesses you spend your money with.

The Green Goddess

I've had a few drinks at the time of writing, so please bear with me through this possible preamble to something a little more meaningful in the future...

I put it to you that the newest world religion is the Religion of Green.

When you assess the themes of most mainstream religious texts, they inevitably involve a set of rules to live by, usually implied by a set of morals who the “lead character” fell foul of due to the ill judgement and greed of others. The lead character, whether a prophet or related to God some other way invariably suffers on behalf of the whole of humankind. Just look at the story of Jesus, a man tortured, beaten and eventually killed in agony for the sins of others.

In analysing this, you eventually come to the conclusion that the secondary incentive for following Christianity in a devout manner is guilt. Jesus allegedly died in agony so you'd be free of sin. But somebody suffered because of the wrongdoings of others.

In the Religion of Green, this concept of guilt is possibly the major incentive for silently (and often in solitude) joining up with and following the congregation (as opposed to fear of condemnation by some god somewhere). The threat of leaving your grandchildren a poisonous legacy, the fact that driving your 4x4 could ultimately result in poor civilians in Third World (nay, “developing”) countries losing their crop. Losing their current coastlines. Losing their countries, essentially.

Does anyone really want to be guilty of what in effect is passive mass genocide?

Many of the most outspoken individuals on climate change are atheists. Have you ever wondered why? I don't doubt that a good number of these people have very noble intentions, do genuinely believe in what they say and do feel something towards the guilt concept themselves. But you have to ask yourself; does the absence of another subliminal leadership and an ultimate superiority in their lives lead them to subscribe to this altogether different religion? I think so. I'm not much of a God person myself. I fall somewhere between the paradigms of agnosticism and a quiet form of atheism. I accept that whatever I say, do or think, sometimes things just happen – things that I don't understand and more than likely never will. I believe in evolution and I believe in cyclical changes. I don't know why the environment changes naturally, I only know that it does. And life on earth will adapt to it within good reason for many millennia to come.

But I did say that in my opinion, guilt was the primary concept of the Religion of Green. And here is why:

When you think about it, guilt can lead us to do some pretty abnormal things. Whereas most of the time, we're in survival mode (we go out work to earn money for the mortgage and the kids' school uniforms, go to the supermarket for groceries, etc), when guilty, we often look to pay back excessively in order to somehow exonerate ourselves and become free of guilt by returning happiness to the aggreived party. After all, how many times have you apologised to your parents, siblings or spouse with a simple gift after a blazing row? Plenty, in my case,

In the Religion of Green, this guilt for all those you're told you're inflicting suffering on is used to extract your cash and to stifle argument in the process. Don't like increased flight taxes? You obviously don't care about those in the Maldives whose crops will fail, coastlines will erode and country will slowly disappear before the World's very eyes. Don't want to give up your 4x4 and buy a “green car”? Well, our future generations better have lungs made of steel, and some seriously enhanced farming techniques to boot. They will starve if you don't pay now.

But you don't want to give up these things. You need them. You have family abroad and you live on a road with no bus route and the railway station is a den for muggers and two miles away. So you'll continue to do as you do in the name of simply doing the necessaries – things like earning money to pay the mortgage, buying your kids school uniforms. Things you have to do when you're in survival mode. A mode which overrides all others.

So what does one do?

Naturally, when we're confronted by two opposing needs of equal importance, we look for the compromise. This is where the Religion of Green really comes into its own. We know what we have to do when we're in survival mode and because we're in that survival mode, we do it automatically. But when you lie in bed at night having done it all for another day, with that forced guilt eating away at you, it can make a lot more sense to simply not oppose what's going on because you remember that photo of a weak polar bear slipping off melting ice. You remember the picture of famine, the TV articles and the YouTube clips.

But then you remember - paying a few extra quid for that flight to see your parents or in-laws in Canada goes towards helping those most affected by climate change. So in effect, you're forgiven. You've paid your penance. You'll be less likely to oppose higher car taxes because fresh faced chaps like Ed Miliband say the money you pay is all going to help those in poorer countries deal with the monstrous consequences that your functional existence causes. And you'll be prepared to keep paying because you have a need to do what you do in order to keep your family in food, clothing, warmth and a home.

It is about guilt, but most of all it's about money. It's about posh dinners for senior politicians, TV executives and journalists. It's about jobs for the boys and it's about business deals.

If you still think it's simply about reducing carbon emissions, then you need to start asking yourself some simple questions, before asking the same questions to your favourite climate alarmists.

Have you ever wondered why, when the British Government claims to be serious about tackling and reducing CO2 emissions, they are so pro mass immigration? After all, more people in the country burning fossil fuels equates to more CO2, does it not? These immigrants will need to fly home on occasion to see their relatives back home, which will mean more aviation activity and hence more flight tax revenue, no? An answer perhaps.

And have you ever wondered why a government so committed to reducing the nations' carbon footprint would commission the development of a new runway at Heathrow? How about the Establishment's consensus that we should have everyone in Britain connected to the internet? After all, last time I checked, computers used considerably more in the way of electricity per hour than a (now domestically banned) 100 watt traditional light bulb. And MPs are using the internet more and more as a communication channel, so they're obviously very pro the use of computers at home.

But do ask yourself. And if you're still unsure, start asking the Establishment, the media, the BBC and all the other propagators of a science which is far from settled.

And please watch this, if you think it's just me who is sceptical.

The Profitability of Victimhood

Victimhood is the new way to dominate. In our somewhat less than sophisticated past, the way to conquer was to do so with aggression, with brute force. Blood would be shed and land would be taken. Division was a must.

In today's world, this still exists, but is so often rebranded as freedom fighting, fighting oppression, fighting for equality, fighting for rights, fighting climate change. The list in endless. But notice the choice of words: it's all about fighting, and it all still relies on division, although division of opinion rather and a geographical drifting apart.

Humankind's underlying preference for the rights of one's own kind and mindset hasn't gone away, and it's no different regardless of whether you're white, black, gay, male, female, overweight, underweight, a dog owner, a criminal, a drug addict or any of the other million and one groups of which all of us belong to at least several.

Depending upon which groups you belong to determine how useful you are to the Establishment in creating a society which fights amongst itself, which ultimately implodes, where blood will be shed and where maximum control will need to be exercised before peace will finally ensue, and even then, only through sheer force on part of the Establishment.

If you're a militant feminist, you serve the purpose of lobbying government and providing them with an excuse to restrain the progress of, and indeed provoke the aggression of, the average working male. If you're Asian, you serve the purpose of becoming one of the footsoldiers professionally agitated and manipulated by Unite Against Fascism in order to provoke the white working classes up north into fight mode. If you're black and living in Hackney, you're constantly told that not enough is being done to help you succeed. In fact you hear it so many times you may end up starting to believe it. You may end up not succeeding purely because the Establishment has spent so long telling you and the rest of the world that you can't. Do you think schools in Hackney have improved educationally? If you're gay, you have to endure front page coverage and blow by blow accounts of homophobic attacks, to a point where you believe that you're simply not safe on the streets. Any streets.

We're all pawns in the same game. But what's the purpose of all this?

I have pondered this for a long time. What would really be the point in having so many minorities constantly battling for the spotlight, throwing all others behind them in their wake? What would be the point in ignoring any significant majorities? Remember, we all belong to several groups within society, we have split loyalties and often scrambled favouritism because of this.

Several purposes could exist for the above questions, actually.

Firstly, a society that finds its own feet and learns to live together (relatively) peacefully needs nothing much doing with it, apart from the odd bit of law enforcement and laws tweaked and drafted as and when needed. It's almost self governing when you think about it. I mean, what would be the point of a big government with fingers in so many pies if there was so little for them to address, so little for them to do.

Secondly, there's the control aspect. A society full of groups feeling completely alienated from one another is more likely to be an aggressive one. People will get hurt. Those from the groups who feel most victimised will come out fighting harder, more venomously than those they are told to believe are their opposition.

They need policing, they need surveying. Government bodies are set up to mediate and, on a publicly visible level, eventually alleviate the prejudice in question. Surveillance techniques, think tanks, pressure groups, charities (who receive government funding) and police initiatives are all set up to achieve this.

But the truth is, the government don't want to achieve equality. There are now so many jobs available in the equality and rights inkdustries, so many outspoken voices highlighting isolated cases of racist and homophobic attacks, that the government simply won't scale down such a useful set of new institutions when their sole genuine purpose, regardless of whether or not they know it, is to allow government to get bigger and mightier. More influential. More justified in intervening and snooping on every aspect of your life in the name of defending another minority. More justified in the aforementioned provocation of some minorities in the name of benefiting others.

It's perpetual though, because no matter what you say, do or legislate, someone will always get offended.

Put simply, the government relies on us fighting one another, pushing and shoving our way to the front of the queue for their attention. They want us to ask for help as it justifies them intruding further into our lives. They can tell us it's what we wanted. To justify them knowing every last detail about you. After all, you could be a racist, a homophobe, a preacher of hatred, a Tory voter, a BNP voter, a climate change “denier”, a Tesco shopper, a Sainsbury's shopper. The list goes on.

But you can rest assured that when you're at your next BNP rally or UAF street meet, you're being used and manipulated for purposes not in your own interests. You're furthering the justification for a lack of personal and group liberty only seen in staunch communist states. You're furthering the wants of the Establishment.