Labour | More financial mastery

5 06 2010

Another day and another disclosure of the previous Labour Government’s criminal mishandling of the public purse.  This time to the tune of £1.8bn being ferried to various ‘consultants’ in another extension of the money-merry-go-round.

It isn’t a rabbit hole we’re peeping into, it is an intricate, air-conditioned, Fort Knoxesque-locked, sharks with frikking laser beams attached to their heads’ moated tunnel network that makes the Vietnam era ones look like a badgers nest.

Labour ministers spent £1.8bn on consultants in ONE YEAR, public spending records reveal

By Gerri Peev, Daily Wail.  Last updated at 4:48 PM on 4th June 2010

Labour ministers spent an astonishing £1.8billion on consultants in a single year – double the amount of the previous 12 months, it was revealed today.

The figure was unveiled in the first publication of the government’s entire expenditure. For the first time ever, the Treasury released a massive database which details spending line by line.

Labour’s spendthrift habit was laid bare across the 24 million individual entries for the year 2009-10.

Sources from the incoming government said they were ‘shocked’ at how much Labour had spent on consultants, particularly at the height of the economic crisis.

The Department of Health was the biggest spender, splashing out nearly half a billion pounds – £480,420,000 in one year alone.

It was followed by the Department for International Development, which spent £288,100,000 on consultants, despite its main aim being to provide aid to the world’s poor.

The scandal-plagued Home Office hired consultants to the tune of £194,116,000.

The £1.8billion consultancy bill is the equivalent of nearly a third of the cuts that will be felt across Whitehall departments and public services this year.

In 2007/8, the 16 biggest Whitehall departments spent £909million on consultants.

The Combined Online Information System  released yesterday has the apt acronym, COINS.

But the Con-Lib government’s claim that it heralded openness was met with some scepticism, as the database is too vast and unusable for anyone but computer and data experts to decipher.

Before they were in government, the Conservatives had talked up the prospect of the database creating a £6billion private industry which would crunch and analyse the data.

The party’s manifesto said: ‘Our plans to open up government data and spending information will not only help us to cut wasteful spending, but according to new research… it will also create an estimated £6bn in additional value for the UK.’

Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said it paved the way for more transparency across government.

‘For too long, the previous government acted as if the public had no right to know where their hard-earned taxes were spent.

‘Today we have lifted that veil of secrecy by releasing detailed spending figures dating back to 2008.

‘This data is complex, but this is a major step forward and shows we are delivering on our promise to make this government more open and transparent while ensuring we deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

‘I hope people will take the opportunity to scrutinise carefully how their money is being spent – as I am doing every day in preparation for the spending review.’

‘We plan to release more data in the coming months that will be easier for the general public to understand.’

The Taxpayers’ Alliance welcomed the publication of the database, and  hailed it as a victory for its campaign to unveil the public finances.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The publication of the COINS database is another fantastic victory for transparency.

‘The TaxPayers’ Alliance has long campaigned for this level of openness about public spending, as the public have a right to know how their taxes are being spent.

‘It is right that this data is out in the public domain, saving departments time and money responding to Freedom of Information requests.

‘The next step is for this trend to continue, so that all information about government spending is available, allowing the public to call the government to account.

‘There is an army of enthusiastic, skilled amateurs out there who will gladly explore and use this information to suggest ways in which the Government can save money and improve public services.’

Former Labour minister Jim Knight, warned that there could be privacy implications however.

He said: ‘These days, people can mesh government data with commercially available data. That can give you data right down to the level of a few houses.

‘It won’t be hard to get down virtually to the individual. Some would argue that gets pretty scary.’

Love how the politicians love to claim privacy this and privacy that when it involves anything to do with our fight against political corruption but change their tune when it is the pleb’s privacy at stake in their war on terror, drugs and violence.

The first act of any new government is to hold the old one to account.  Sadly, that will not be done for it is exactly what the ConDem’s plan to do.  Over twenty-million deluded souls voted for the Status Quo.  For the continuation of the greatest scam ever conceived, government.

We’re doomed.

Advertisements




Earth PLC | Whose in whose bed

5 06 2010

Considering that every class and creed of people have their own favourite watering holes, it is surely no different for the Political Class.  Like celebrities like to hang around with fellow celebrities, so do the powerbrokers.  Problem with the powerbrokers meeting under Chatham House rules means the unmentionable is not only mentioned, but discussed in such a manner to make it seem as trivial as brushing ones’ teeth.

A wonderful snippet from the Daily Wail’s Tony Blair bashing piece gives us a link between the Gaddafi clan of Libya with the Eurocratic Club in the EU along with the supervision onf their bankers.

The social web that connects the rich and powerful

Saif Gaddafi sits at the centre of a remarkable social web that has ensnared both Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson.

The men are bound together by their interests in Libyan business and their friendship with the multi-billionaire financiers of the Rothschild family.

Lord Mandelson once remarked that he was ‘intensely relaxed’ about extreme wealth, a position he has justified ever since. It was only natural that he should share an interest in networking and wealth with one of the world’s oldest banking families.

But even the Rothschilds have probably never described him as a ‘killer of a man’.

That was Saif Gaddafi’s take on the former Business Secretary. After Labour’s election defeat, Mr Gaddafi said: ‘It’s bad news for the UK that he left because he is a killer of a man. It’s a loss for the UK.’

The two men met briefly last summer at the secluded cliff top mansion compound of the Rothschild family on the holiday island of Corfu.

Curiously, their stays overlapped by one night and came only a week before the announcement-that the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing could be released from prison.

They ‘fleetingly’ discussed the fate of the bomber Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi but Lord Mandelson’s spokesman said he was ‘ completely unsighted’ on the impending release.

Last November, Lord Mandelson spent more time in the company of Saif during a shooting weekend at Waddesdon Manor, Lord Rothschild’s mini-Versailles in Buckinghamshire. Cherie Blair was also a guest.

Earlier this month, the former business secretary was seen zipping around the Swiss ski resort of Klosters in Nat Rothschild’s £250,000 Ferrari convertible.

An Anglophile, Col Gaddafi’s likely heir Saif studied for a PhD at the London School of Economics. He has a £10million London home.

The International Money-Merry-Go-Round.  I wouldn’t mind so much if I got to see some of the cash, yet nine times out of ten, it is the underclass who carry the burden.

Nothing gets in the way of business, be it Libyan dictatorships or Burmese juntas.





Israeli Fallout | Hasan Nowarah

2 06 2010

Over a hundred and twenty failed peace activists have been released, and I say failed as they have achieved the complete opposite of what they intended.  Saying that, only one British National was released with many claiming that they had either left or destroyed their travel documentation.

Mr Nowarah was released due to injury sustained in the badly planned, badly executed military assault upon the flotilla.  Now back in the safety of Her Majesty’s Islands, proceeds to tell all and sundry of the ‘orrible hospitality he received when trying to break another man’s barrier.

“We were completely swamped by soldiers.

They came alongside us in boats and as soon as they boarded our ship they started hitting us.

We were trying to push them back but they started shooting us with paintball guns. Some people were shot in the face.

The soldier retaliated by hitting me in the back with the butt of a rifle, which knocked me to the floor.

Then when I was down, he smacked my ankle with his gun. I’m in agony now and my leg is completely black from the bruising – I can’t walk.”

He pushed a soldier and is surprised that the soldiers retaliated.  Now my only experience of military men is one of admiring the training of professional soldiers, and considering said training, the last thing I would want to do is push them.

Brains of a rocking horse this one if he expected a more homely response from such an encounter.





Google | Sorry, we’ve been evil

16 05 2010

The largest and most powerful corporation on Earth with the world-famous motto “Don’t Be Evil” has been forced to apologise for ‘hijacking’ WiFi waves then proceeding to hoover up all data within the catchment area indiscriminately.  All with the aid of the very mobile fleet of Google-endorsed Street View Cars.  Those motors with the special cameras taking photos of your valuables.

Google apologises for collecting personal web data

Google has been forced to apologise after admitting it has been wrongly spying on people’s internet use for more than three years.

By Roya Nikkhah, Telegraph.  Published: 9:45AM BST 15 May 2010

The internet giant’s Street View cars, which were launched last year to take photographs for its Google Maps service, have mistakenly collected information sent over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

Information gathered by the cars’ antennae could include parts of an email, text or photograph or even the website someone may be viewing.

About 600 gigabytes of data was taken off Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries. Google said it plans to delete all the information as soon as it gains clearance from government authorities.

The admission will raise more privacy worries about the company, which issued a public apology on Friday.

Google said that it only recently discovered the problem in response to an inquiry from German regulators, who began to examine why Google was using the cars to collect Wi-Fi data at all.

A month ago, Google said that it was only collecting the name and location of local Wi-Fi networks, information, it argued, that was publicly available and which would help improve its location services.

The company said that as soon as it became aware of the problem, it grounded its Street View cars from collecting Wi-Fi information and segregated the data on its network.

Google is now asking for a third party to review the software that caused the problem and examine precisely what data has been gathered.

In a blog post, Alan Eustace, Google’s senior vice president of engineering and research, wrote: “Maintaining people’s trust is crucial to everything we do, and in this case we fell short.

“The engineering team at Google works hard to earn your trust – and we are acutely aware that we failed badly here.”

Google said the problem dated back to 2006 when “an engineer working on an experimental Wi-Fi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast Wi-Fi data”.

That code was included in the software the Street View cars. “Quite simply, it was a mistake”, said Mr Eustace.

He added: “This incident highlights just how publicly accessible, open, non-password protected Wi-Fi networks are today.”

Dan Kaminsky, the director of penetration testing for security firm Ioactive, said that there was no intent by Google.

He said: “This information was leaking out and they picked it up. If you are going to broadcast your email on an open Wi-Fi, don’t be surprised if someone picks it up.”

John Simpson, from Consumer Watchdog, an American consumer group, said: “The problem is [Google] have a bunch of engineers who push the envelope and gather as much information as they can and don’t think about the ramifications of that.”

The launch of Street View cars last year prompted widespread protest, with critics claiming that the information provided on Google Maps would invade the privacy of home owners and help burglars.

The Information Commissioner’s Office cleared Street View of any breach of the Data Protection Act earlier this year.

With Corporations like Google, who needs Dr Evil.






GE10 faux pas | Bigots and Racists

28 04 2010

Pensioner who claims she was a life-long Labour voter asks Brown how he would tackle the country’s record deficit, east European immigration, pensions, university tuition fees and anti-social behaviour.  ‘Flash’ Gordon reels off some tractor-stats, lessons learned and how the EU relationship is so beneficial to the economy which currently resides in the gutter.  So far, so Brown.

Then thinking he is out of earshot but forgetting the Sky microphone still attached to his jacket, labels the questioning granny as a ‘bigot’.

The delusional monkeys that call themselves Parliamentarians just do not get it.  Opposing the invasion of ones’ ancestral homeland by economic migrants is not bigotry or racist, it is common sense.  How would any of these Stooges like their home transformed into Little Lagos, Little Warsaw or Little Pakistan?

To bleat on about fairness and equality then deem it racist and xenophobic to oppose mass immigration and Eunification is one thing.  To do so while pandering to the Government ‘sanctioned’ and ‘approved’ Black Minority Ethnic groups is just plain hypocritical.  How can we achieve equality when the EU stooge Establishment are attending a supremacist Black Britain Decides event organised by Operation Black Vote?

Leaders to vie for black votes at London rally

(Reuters) – The three main party leaders will appeal to over 1 million black voters on Wednesday in a bid to woo ethnic minorities who may hold the balance of power in some parliamentary seats.

They will speak at a rally in central London organised by Operation Black Vote (OBV), who say the event is the largest of its kind in recent history and could make a “defining impact” on the election outcome.

The three leaders will address an invited audience of 2,500 voters by video-link at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster at 6 p.m, but will reach a broadcast audience of well over one million.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg will each have 15 minutes to speak.

Their respective deputies, Harriet Harman, George Osborne and Vince Cable, who will attend the event in person, will then field two questions each.

“Never before in British history has the black and minority ethnic vote been so crucial,” said Simon Woolley, OBV Director.

Woolley said ethnic minorities in Britain were not a homogeneous block and that tackling race inequality within education, employment and the criminal justice system were paramount.

“Which leader can best provide the solutions for these important challenges will be closer to winning this election,” he added.

OBV’s own pre-election research into the power of the black vote shows there are 113 seats in which the black and Asian voting-age population is bigger than the 2005 election notional majority.

It says 54 of those seats would now be considered very marginal due to the “Clegg factor” during the election campaign but that all 113 could be won or lost by an active black vote.

Other speakers at the event, called “Black Britain Decides,” will include black leaders from faith groups, business, politics, the arts and education.

(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Steve Addison)

The joys of cultural enrichment, brought to you by the Establishment for the simple reason of keeping YOU in your place.





Dr Rankin | Antifascism and Vested Interests

28 04 2010

A rather lengthy read from Dr Aidan Rankin expanding my earlier post regarding the Government-financed, Union-supported, Third-Party rent-a-mob in the Unite Against Fascism Freedom brand.

Although I do not agree with it all, there are plenty of interesting points made.  More importantly, it is from someone who has the Dr moniker.

‘ANTI-FASCISM’ IS THE NEW FASCISM

When I hear the word ‘fascist’, I do not think of the assorted pub bores or the few full-blooded bigots who are the stereotypical activists of the ‘far right’. Nor do I think of half-drunk, testosterone-driven skinheads in tight-fitting jeans or combat trousers, bawling out anti-immigrant slogans richly spiced with obscenity. Least of all do I think of the thousands of disgruntled Labour supporters, ordinary men and women in working class enclaves, who have given the British National Party its newfound electoral clout. None of these people are fascists, in any meaningful sense of the word. They are victims rather than aggressors – victims of failed liberal social experiments, heartless economic programmes and, above all perhaps, of betrayal by a Labour movement that was set up specifically to defend them.

The left, and many being present liberals and Tories with them, would like us to visualise fascists as aggrieved, poorly educated working class whites – white males in particular, since they are a double negative for the Politically Correct. Such progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion. Likewise, the true heirs to fascism are not skinheads, bigots, or BNP-voting former socialists. They are the BNP’s sworn enemies, the ‘anti-fascist’ shock troops of the left, whose slogans of contrived defiance, melodramatic gesture politics and emotional blackmail reach far beyond the Marxist coteries where they originate.

At Burnley, where the BNP made its strongest local government gains this year, the paradox of anti-fascism was apparent in a demonstration by the Anti-Nazi League, images of which were widely disseminated in the press. Piously anti-racist and inclusive, the protesters were overwhelmingly white and middle-class. Proclaiming the virtues of tolerance, their eyes shone with the purity of hatred that is the prerogative of extremists the world over. In that almost archetypal left-wing demo, the chants and clenched fists of the scruffy young men, the screams and hot tears of the even scruffier women, the banners calling for political parties to be suppressed (in the name of tolerance, presumably) expressed something larger than a Lancastrian quirk. For anti-fascists base their campaigns on a sense of outrage that anyone, anywhere should dare to disagree with them. In their appeal to feeling over reason, force over argument, such activists resemble most those phantom Nazis they are claiming to ‘fight’. This is why, in a stroke of post-modern irony, anti-fascism is the new fascism.

There is, in British – and especially English – political culture, a rich vein of sentimental radicalism, to which anti-fascist slogans appeal. It is from this section of politics and society that anti-fascist campaigners derive emotional (and, crucially, financial) support. Unlike working class communities, they do not see the violent, arrogant face of anti-fascism, any more than most of Germany’s Mittelstand witnessed directly the violence of the Brownshirts. This strand of radical thought, ironically, has its origins in the imperial epoch, amongst a burgeoning middle class influenced strongly by evangelical Christianity, which believed that it had a duty to ‘save’ benighted natives. The missionary impulse usually placed concern for the Empire’s subject peoples, and their material or spiritual well-being, well above concern for the indigenous working class. Typical of such philanthropists is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of looking seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like many a modern liberal, Mrs Jellyby neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the (fictitious) African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its ‘development’.

The world of Non-Governmental Organisations is replete with Mrs or ‘Ms’ Jellybys. But in a post-colonial age, the phenomenon of immigration has brought their concerns closer to home. Today’s Ms Jellyby is just as likely to work for the race relations unit of a local authority as for a Third World NGO. For ‘ethnic minority communities’ have become the new Borrioboola Gha. They are to be patronisingly helped and pitied, even given special rights, but their members are not to be treated as individuals and the reality of their cultures is to be ignored or scorned. As the white liberal person’s burden, the black or brown skinned citizen is supported as long as he reads from a Politically Correct script and shows gratitude and obeisance to those pressure groups that ‘care’ about him. It is into this Jellyby Syndrome, a legacy of the missionary age, that anti-fascist groupings successfully tap. Guilt-ridden liberals confuse the violent cant of anti-fascism with humanitarian concern, much as the violent cant of fascism was once confused with appeals to tradition and order.

But the missionary impulse does not end with ethnic minorities. In anti-fascist campaigns, there are vestiges of earlier evangelical missions, aimed at the indigenous population, with a view to controlling and pacifying it. Working class communities are treated by anti-fascists, and their liberal apologists, as benighted white tribes to be civilised and subdued. The evangelical fervour present in anti-fascism accounts for the lachrymose quality of its activists, whose tearful appeals are often a prelude to acts of violence or demands for censorship. This is a characteristic they share with fascists, who were the most emotional and least reasoning of political campaigners. Like evangelical temperance campaigners of a bygone age, anti-fascists appear to be trying to save working class people from themselves. Their particularism, expressed through opposition to large-scale immigration, is labelled as ‘racism’ and treated as a new form of vice. Their patriotic gut instincts, and their wish to preserve the traditional character of their neighbourhoods, are dismissed as ignorant prejudices, from which white working class men and women must be emancipated just as their forebears were emancipated from drink.

Like evangelicals, anti-fascists seek to liberate by a combination of moral pressure and legal force. Anti-fascism is, however, a radical secular ideology that allows no possibility of repentance or absolution. The evangelical Protestants who joined temperance or anti-vice campaigns were often oppressive and insensitive, but their zeal was frequently held in check by a concern for individual souls. Anti-fascists, by contrast, have no such concerns. They seek to save communities, by changing their collective consciousness or forcing them to conform. Their ideology allows for no concern for individuals, except for attack or denunciation. This contempt for the individual, the white, male worker in particular, allows the anti-fascist to reconcile two contradictory demands – for civil disobedience (including violence) and for the massive extension of state power.

Anti-fascist propaganda makes frequent address to the history and mythology of the left, to which the movement volubly lays claim. Searchlight, anti-fascism’s house journal, make frequent reference to the Spanish Civil War, carrying photographs of heroic resistance fighters and carrying interviews with stalwarts of the International Brigade, now elderly and impressive. Other photographs evoke the memory of ‘The Battle of Cable Street’ and similar events where in the 1930s when working class Jewish communities stood up to the Blackshirt followers of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. There is in these images an explicit and false assumption of continuity. It is false because in both the Spanish Civil War and Cable Street, a high level of working class self-organisation was involved, and with it a genuine aspiration towards a just society.

Searchlight, by contrast, bases most of its activities on accusation, smear and incitement to hatred – often class hatred directed at working class racists. This was not always so. Its founder, Maurice Ludmer, was a thoughtful ex-Communist Party member for whom the education of working class communities was important, and who believed in freedom and dignity for individuals of all backgrounds. Anti-fascist campaigners today, including Searchlight, refuse to concede to their opponents – especially working class opponents – any sense of human dignity. Working class racists are described routinely as scum or products of the sewer, in a curious echo of the Nazis’ twisted denunciations of Jews and other ‘enemies’ of the Volk. Searchlight still, on occasion, carries intelligent, thoughtful commentaries, especially on events abroad, but in its refusal to compromise with or attempt to win over its opponents, it perpetuates conflicts of a social and racial character.

This latter attribute it shares with the Anti-Nazi League, which is far more explicit in its advocacy of violence and its hatred of the white working class. At one level, the ANL sets itself up as a secular missionary organisation for anti-fascism. At another, its overwhelmingly bourgeois or petty bourgeois activists set out to create an atmosphere of intimidation and violence when they descend on areas such as Burnley. Like a fascist movement, the ANL is explicitly committed to the abolition of free speech. Its activities make it the heir less of the Cable Street battlers and more of the BUF interlopers. Like the Blackshirts, ANL protesters assume the ‘right’ to descend on working class areas, threaten and harass their inhabitants, incite and engage in violence.

The Anti-Nazi League is linked intimately to the Socialist Workers Party, the best known and most aggressive far left faction in British politics since the demise of orthodox Communism. Unlike the Communist Party, the SWP is opposed to the parliamentary road to socialism and advocates violent revolution. The SWP worldview regards all existing political institutions as outgrowths of ‘capitalism’. Neither capitalism itself, nor its institutions, can be ‘patched up’ or ‘reformed’. The party’s struggle, therefore, is as much against ‘reformist ideas and leaders’ as against the capitalist economy:

The state machine is a weapon of capitalist class rule and therefore must be smashed. The present parliament, army, police and judges cannot simply be taken over and used by the working class. There is, therefore, no parliamentary road to socialism.

This rhetoric of class warfare disguises a critique of parliamentary rule identical to that of the Italian Squadristi, Mussolini’s foot soldiers who closed the Italian parliament and installed a fascist state. To Mussolini, parliamentary rule was so corrupt – and, indeed, ‘bourgeois’, that it could not be patched up. The fascist ideal of the Corporate State was based on representation by trade. This policy finds strong echoes in the SWP, which seeks to replace Parliament with a series of ‘workers councils’. It also resembles the modern anti-fascist obsession with group rights, whereby racial minorities (and all ‘oppressed communities’) are represented collectively by activist pressure groups that claim to speak for them. Whilst resembling fascist politics, the SWP’s position differs dramatically from that of Marx, who especially in his later years strongly favoured the parliamentary road. Even Lenin, who was always a pragmatist, believed in the use of any expedient institutions, including parliaments. In ultra-left groupuscles he saw only an ‘infantile disorder’.

Another far left faction that has had a seminal influence on the anti-fascist movement is the International Marxist Group (IMG), whose luminaries included Tariq Ali. Long defunct now, the IMG played an important role in the student agitation and violent demonstrations of the late 1960s, many of which called to mind the behaviour of young Stormtroopers in the colleges of Weimar Germany. Crucially, the IMG rejected the white working class as hopelessly reactionary and saw the new revolutionary elite as students, ethnic minorities and feminist women. The ideology and tactics and ideology of anti-fascism today owe much to the IMG’s profoundly anti-working class and anti-white prejudices.

These far left groups have based their politics on interpretations of Trotsky’s ‘permanent revolution’, a purist doctrine of continual change akin to that of Mao’s Cultural Revolution – and Hitler’s Third Reich. To the Führer, the Nazi ‘revolutionary creative will’ had ‘no fixed aim, … no permanency, only eternal change’. On the left, anti-fascism has risen to prominence at precisely the time when socialism lacks permanency and continuity, whether as an ideal or a practical programme. In their strident emotionalism and ritualistic denunciation of opponents, anti-fascist campaigns act as a substitute for a coherent left-wing ideology. The same was true of fascist movements, which aimed to replace the left by appealing to more basic psychological impulses of fear, envy and hatred.

Anti-fascism shares with its alleged opposite a belief in the cleansing or redemptive power of violence. They share as well an obsessive preoccupation with race. Indeed it could be said that organisations like Searchlight and the ANL do more than even the BNP to keep racial awareness alive. Both fascism and anti-fascism are uncompromisingly modernist movements, concerned with narrow categorisation and so unsuited to a post-modern age of complexity and permutation. Searchlight, for example, was horrified when some Hindu and Sikh community workers refused to be classified alongside Muslims as ‘Asians’. Here were ethnic minorities daring to defy the pressure group definitions. In reality, the violence and nihilism of anti-fascist activists are almost laughably remote from the conservatism of most ethnic minority populations.

It is easy, and tempting at times, to dismiss anti-fascism as a peripheral fringe interest, irrelevant to our lives and thoughts. However its crocodile-tear appeals are in some ways more effective than those of the more traditional far left. Anti-fascists claim to be opposing a political evil. In so doing, they evoke memories of that evil and the wrong done to millions of our fellow human beings. Many people of good will, therefore, fail to see that they are being manipulated. This is why ritual denunciations and balkanising ‘group rights’ are in danger of pervading public life. The subjectivist definition of a racist incident in the MacPherson Report – any incident that the victim or anyone else ‘perceives’ as racist – has all the totalitarian characteristics of anti-fascism, yet few dare to describe it as totalitarian for fear that they might be smeared as ‘racist’. Likewise, the attempts of New Labour apparatchiks to unearth political ‘information’ about the Paddington rail crash survivors had all the furtive and perverse instincts of a Searchlight campaign. Such influences have touched conservative politics as well. In the interests of inclusiveness, the Tories tend increasingly towards reverse discrimination and group rights, forgetting that many black and Asian people want freedom from racial politics.

Anti-fascism, like its fascist precursor, is primarily anti-human and misanthropic. It despises its supposed constituents as much as its sworn enemies, and has a vested interest in promoting racial conflict. When we recognise that fascists and anti-fascists are as one, their rhetoric of hatred will lose its power.

Aidan Rankin is co-Editor of New European. His book, The Politics of the Forked Tongue: Authoritarian Liberalism was published in 2002 and is available from New European Publications, 14-16 Carroun Road, London SW8 1JT, price £9.

copies of this document may be obtained from

Cliff Edge Signalling Company
P.O.Box 36, Rye, Sussex, TN31 7ZE England
Tel/Fax: 01793 226397
Email: orders@cesc.net

And judging by this earlier article, actually expands the point further.

Gays should come to live in Yorkshire

Aidan Rankin, New Statesman. Published 08 May 2000

Aidan Rankin speaks up for the provinces where he can still be just “not the marrying kind”

In my Yorkshire market town, the greengrocers, a family from just across the Lancashire border, refer to me as “not the marrying kind”. That’s because I am in my mid-30s and have never been seen with a woman on my arm. They’d never call me “gay” or “homosexual”; but then, the worst encounter I have experienced in the three years I have lived here was with a middle-aged religious fanatic who wagged his finger at me in the pub and spat that “London was a hotbed of sodomites”. Then I bought him a drink and he quietened down.

In Yorkshire, we gays get on with our lives. We do not need to heed the activists who wish us to throw discretion to the wind and drop any form of restraint. We do not have to listen to gay rights organisations such as Stonewall, which see us as an “identity” rather than an individual.

That Yorkshire is a gay-activist-free zone may explain why I encounter practical tolerance there – a tolerance that would be more widespread were it not for the arrogant activists who threaten the tolerant compromise between majority opinion and minority preference on which civilised life depends.

You can see why Stonewall and similar groups must operate the way they do: if we stop thinking about “gay issues”, the need for professional lobbyists disappears. This is why they must codify everything, classify everyone, identify new forms of “prejudice” and “combat” them.

Metropolitan liberals, who know nothing of quiet provincial tolerance, side with the activists because that is easier than thinking about real people. To them, “gays” who refuse to co-operate with the equality agenda are akin to those ungrateful poor relations who turn up their noses at token recognition in a will. Politicians, Tory as well as Labour, now proclaim that equality is more important without tolerance. But what is the use of equality without tolerance? What use is “partnership registration” at the town hall if such gestures break up friendships, or if they work against the grain of local life?

It is a moot point, anyway, if “equal rights” enforced by law work better than the many informal structures of tolerance. The uproar over the repeal of Clause 28 suggests otherwise. It is rumoured, too, that the Equal Opportunities Commission will issue guidelines for employers (written by Stonewall) recommending “gay and lesbian groups” at work. Such moves are vigorously supported by trade unionists and Labour politicians, who do not even ask us if we want such “groups”. Were they to do so, they would make an ideologically inconvenient discovery: most of us find the idea an intrusive nightmare.

In similar vein, an ex-RAF friend told me that he, and homosexual colleagues, opposed the presence of openly gay servicemen. They respected those officers who kept their sexuality to themselves far more than those who knowingly broke the law and “ran to Europe”. Group rights are like the Procrustean bed: comfortable only after the individual has been twisted and chopped to fit in.

I was barely a year old in 1967, when homosexuality was legalised between consenting adults. Yet I acknowledge this legislation as one of the civilising moments of 20th-century politics. Crossing the boundaries of party, it represented British liberalism at its most generous and humane. It was based on individual freedom under the rule of law. More than that, it reflected an ideal, Voltairean in origin, that freedom means the right to cultivate one’s own garden, to pursue one’s own interests in peace. It was the product of a tolerant society, secure in its values as rural Yorkshire is today, but as London is not.

Stonewall’s campaigning, by contrast, rejects this liberal ideal of privacy. It also shows the gay rights movement’s bossy, pedagogic tone. The current obsession with single-issue “rights” is rooted in the expansion of higher education and, with it, the triumph of simplified theory over accumulated wisdom, “professionalism” over practical expertise, and easy slogans over complex human problems.

Stonewall announces itself as working “for lesbian and gay equality”. In plain English, this simply means “equality” between male and female homosexuals. This is a meaningless concept, and does little except draw attention to the gay movement’s uni-sexism: the assumption, utterly unfounded in practice, that homosexual men and lesbians are part of a common culture.

Whereas consenting adult laws are about individual freedom, “gay rights” are about herding disparate individuals together into an ersatz ethnic minority with self-appointed leaders. There are genuine minority groups, based on shared ethnic origins, religion, region or even a shared hobby. But who would think of lumping together Tony Benn and Ian Paisley, or Ken Livingstone and Frank Dobson, as members of the “heterosexual community” and judging them accordingly? That is what homosexuals are expected to accept.

Just over a year ago, a disturbed young man placed a murderous nail bomb in a Soho gay pub. His action reminds us all that prejudice can kill. Yet there is also a fearful symmetry between the nail-bomber’s logic and that of “politically correct” liberalism. The violent bigot and the PC ideologue alike do not see individuals, only members of groups to be respectively reviled or given neatly packaged “rights”, whether they asked for them or not. To fight prejudice, we must go back to liberalism’s founding principles: freedom and privacy. Rights-conscious metropolitans should go to the countryside to learn about tolerance.

The writer is a research fellow in politics at the London School of Economics

Another article written by the good Dr also in the New Statesman is ‘Escape from UKIP‘ regarding his time as a member of said Party, and it isn’t good for Ukip.

As always, it is good to listen to different perspectives.  Bad to enforce them and too much trouble to bother unless we have everyone electronically monitored.

So we need to find middle-ground or keep our daggers sharpened, and I don’t fancy going through life looking over my shoulder.  Did that once already.






Media Quote | Islamic Vote

22 04 2010

The ‘special interest’ groups, whether it’ll be the incoming tribes that follow the Islamic way of life or our native mincers whose only wish is to be able to prance along the street, are very important to the Establishment.

What better way to divide the political spectrum than to impose Political Correctness?  And there is no better stick to beat the Nationalistic nature out of man than to deem it inherently evil to be so.

The Double Standards of identity Politics

Pandering to the indigenous natives who feel displaced and aggrieved by the rate of change is condemned as ‘pandering to racists and fascists’.  Echoed by the Establishment, thrid-party groups such as Hope not Hate and also the leftarded expendables that make up the UAF mob in an effort to dehumanize the bereaved to remove the argument.

Yet it is fine and dandy to pander the Black Minority Ethnic groups to dilute the Nationalist vote.

For some MPs the Muslim vote will be vital

Muslims are a small minority nationally but their votes will swing certain seats, and local issues will be key

HA Hellyer, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 April 2010 13.15 BST

The Muslim vote in the UK is not large. The last census taken indicated there were 1.58 million Muslims in the country, and even taking natural growth since then into account, they probably constitute no more than 2-3% of the entire British population. Not particularly significant for politicians in this election.

But that 2-3% is concentrated in particular urban areas, and as a result, it becomes proportionally much larger when considered part of a constituency population – in some cases, 40% in a single constituency. And then, they become very significant for politicians.

The Muslim population of the UK is incredibly diverse – it cuts across racial and ethnic lines, as well as class. It’s almost pointless to talk of a Muslim bloc vote in such circumstances – but there are some key common aspects. For one thing, Muslim Britons are generally (not exclusively) blue-collar, and the majority started to become very politically active in the early 1980s – a time when a party that specifically focused on the working class was in opposition, and wanted to swell up their ranks. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Labour managed to command the Muslim vote for so long.

This year is a different ball game altogether. Just like any predominantly migrant community, over time they have diversified in their voting patterns, with some switching to the Conservatives as they move up the economic ladder. Yet, Muslim community lobby groups have not yet built the same quality or quantity of bridges with the Tories, and are unlikely to do so for a while, particularly as there is a strong current of suspicion that exists on both sides.

On the other hand, the Iraq war, and the securitisation of Muslims since 2005, particularly through the Prevent strand of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, has further alienated some Muslims who would have otherwise voted Labour, benefiting the Liberal Democrats. The issue for the Lib Dems is to find another issue, such as the Iraq war, that holds the Muslim community’s imagination – which so far, they have not managed to do. And as they have learned, Muslim voters might emotionally bring in a Liberal Democrat MP over a Labour one, owing to foreign policy issues – only to vote against the MP later, because of local issues.

Perhaps most fascinating about this election, however, is the level of interest that is taking place within the Muslim community. There are a number of dedicated websites urging participation – Muslim Vote 2010 and You Elect, for example. All of them, it must be said, are non-sectarian and non-party political – but apathy towards politics is at an all time high in Britain as a whole, and it could mean that the Muslim British community does not turn out to vote in very large numbers.

In this election, all bets are off – anything could happen. But what is definitely likely is that local issues are going to be particularly important, perhaps more than foreign policy – the rise of the far-right, with parties such as the BNP, could encourage Muslim communities to get involved in strategic voting to keep out the far-right.

All in all – it is going to be very interesting to see how this community votes come election day. One way or another, this will be a new era for Britain, and a new era for its Muslim community – for better or for worse.

No wonder the Establishment so like their pets.  The joke is on the immigrant though, for if my own kin can sweep me under the carpet, do the newcomers truly believe they will be treated better?

Diversify the population and you divide the people.  It isn’t rocket science.

Who should ‘We’, as a nation, please?