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.