Friday, 30 October 2009

New Poll VoteEmperor of Europe ?
Calvinist ?

Pseudo-Papist ?

Who ?

View Results

Poll powered by Free Polls

Monday, 26 October 2009


Is this article written by a soft , southern poof or a mad EU fanatic , bent on the imposition of Central European (and possibly decimal) Time ?

He's certainly a sneering , offensive (not in a PC way) bastard .

Can anyone imagine a quality Scottish newspaper , like The Herald or The Scotsman used to be , running a headline like

"Tell English Farmers To Clock Off"

Naw . It's not very likely , is it ?

The guy's thesis seems to be that Greenwich Mean Time is a Scottish plot forced on the unsuspecting English by the skiving Sweaties , deliberately to kill small English children .

Fuck him !

There was me thinking that Greenwich Mean Time was based on the latitude and longitude of Greenwich , which is not in Scotland , but in the South East of England .

Even worse , and more stupid , is this assertion

The reason Labour hasn't done anything about it can be summed up in one word: Scotland, and Scottish farmers in particular. Gordon Brown is so paranoid about losing support in Scotland that he cannot bring himself to do something that could actually raise Labour's popularity even at this late stage by improving the lives of everyone.

Let's look at this on two levels .
Firstly one small , despised group (Scots and Scottish farmers) are deliberately inconveniencing "everyone" .
Note that it is not "everyone else" , but "everyone" .
Therefore Scots and Scottish farmers , in the Guardian's view , do not count as real people . Perhaps we could more accurately be referred to as Untermenschen , rather than the more euphemistic Jocks or Sweaties .

And this is the paper which hates the BNP and Nick Griffin because they're Nazis ?

Secondly , since when has the Scottish rural lobby had any influence in Labour politics ? Here's an electoral map of Scotland (shortly to feature a lot less red).

You will note that the Labour Party doesn't have a lot of representation outside the Central Belt . Indeed , the only predominantly rural constituency it holds is Dumfries and Galloway where it expended more effort than in all the other constituencies together to unseat Peter Duncan , leader of the Scottish Conservatives . If they hold it in 2010 Gordon will be well on the way to forming another government - and we know how likely that is .
Clearly , therefore , it is the band of SNP , Lib-Dem and Tory MPs from these Scottish rural constituencies which is forcing Gordon's hand ?
What a load of pish !

Let us come , then , to the writer's solution to this Jock-inspired genocide - the imposition of Central European Time .

That is basically it .

Despite all the hatred spewed at Scotland and the Scots , all he really wants is the whole UK to be further "harmonised" with our continental friends .

The clocks will still go back and forward , we'll still have the same amount of daylight (despite his claims of "an extra hour of daylight") , it's just that we'll be exactly like the French and Germans ! Hoorah !

Euro-Federalism propelled forward by ethnic hatred and slurs against fellow Britons ?

How very New Labour ! How very European !

"The Entire Progressive Establishment"

From the Guardian .

Worth a read as it shows just how much power the Left realise that they have seized , while still pretending to be the underdog .

Vote Smeato , Or We'll Set Aboot Ye !

(Hat Tip to Rantin Rab)

Griffin , the BBC and America

As presented on American nativist web-site V.Dare -
On Thursday night, October 22, Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party (BNP) was invited by the BBC to appear on Question Time. This is the most important political discussion programme in Britain. Its format is typically a panel—Government ministers and senior representatives of the main political parties—that takes questions from an audience of the general public. It is watched every week by millions, and it has considerable influence as a shaper and as a mirror of public opinion.
Inviting Mr Griffin onto the panel was both acceptance that he and his party must be recognised as part of the political spectrum within Britain, and was a first-class opportunity for him to put his opinions directly to the largest audience he has ever faced.
Now, in reviewing his performance, I must confess that I do not support Griffin or his party. I am a libertarian, not a white nationalist. If I am inclined to vote for any political party in Britain, it is for the UK Independence Party, which campaigns specifically for withdrawal from the European Union, and is generally a sort of Conservative Party in exile.
This is not a disclaimer made out of fear that I shall somehow be smeared myself as a white nationalist, but out of honesty. I will try to be fair to Mr Griffin. Indeed, I will avoid commenting on his opinions, and stay so far as I can to the technical aspects of his performance.
Mr Griffin and many of his supporters have spent the time since the broadcast claiming that the BBC showed an open and disgraceful bias against Mr Griffin. They are right. There is no doubt that it was intended that he should be treated unfairly. The other panellists were Jack Straw, Minister of Justice, Sayeeda Warsi, a Conservative politician, Chris Huhne, a senior Liberal Democrat, and Bonnie Greer, a black American woman who has somehow been made a Trustee of the British Museum. The programme was filmed in London, which is now perhaps the most racially diverse city in Europe.
From the opening minutes, it was plain that this would not be—nor was planned to be—a normal episode of Question Time. The other panellists had conferred and brought along set speeches of denunciation, which the Presenter, David Dimbleby, both allowed and encouraged. Indeed, he joined in with hostile questions of his own.
It is unlikely that the audience had been fed questions to put. It was hardly necessary, bearing in mind the demographic profile—quite unlike Mr Griffin’s own electoral base. The questions were universally hostile. So were most of the audience comments.
Rather than Question Time, this was an hour in which Nick Griffin was put on trial before the nation, following the sort of process that a Communist police state might have envied. It was all set up to be grossly unfair.
I believe that Mr Griffin is planning a formal complaint to the BBC about bias. Sadly, he is missing the point. Whatever unfairness was meant, he was given the opportunity of a lifetime to do two things—first, to show the world that he was not a sinister crank; second, to tell the world directly and in brief what he was in politics to achieve. Judged in terms of this opportunity, his performance was an embarrassing failure.
He did make two points very well. The first was to defend his claim that Islam was a “wicked and vicious” religion. This is a claim that, astonishingly, got him into court a few years ago, and for which he might, had he been found guilty, have gone to prison for seven years. He explained himself with great authority, and the Moslems in the audience were reduced to the defence made by every religious enthusiast—that their holy book had been misquoted or misunderstood.
His second good point was to remind the world that Jack Straw might be uttering sanctimonious platitudes about “fascism” and “Islamophobia”, but was also a member of a government that had helped murder not far off a million Iraqis in a war of military aggression.
But that was it. Otherwise, Griffin squirmed and fidgeted his way through several questions and accusations that he could easily have turned in his own favour.
The most important of these came when Mr Dimbleby accused him of having denied the Holocaust. Griffin’s answer at first was that he had never been convicted of Holocaust Denial. He then claimed that he had changed his mind on the basis of some radio intercepts, and added that he was unable to elaborate because of “European law”.
When Mr Straw pointed out that there was no law in this country against denying any historical claim, and promised, as Minister of Justice, to shield him against any extradition request from elsewhere in the European Union, Griffin had no answer.
This came right at the beginning of the programme, and it told me beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Griffin either had done nothing to prepare himself for the ordeal, or had been prepared with crass incompetence. Since I would not accept the post, it is no loss for me that I am unlikely ever to be invited to advise him on handling the media. But if I had been his adviser, I would have given him the following response to the absolutely predicable question about the Holocaust:

“I came into the nationalist movement thirty five years ago. I was drawn in because I believed that it answered the question of why this country had been dragged into the sewer. I still believe broadly in that answer. However, I have now realised that how much falsehood is mingled in with that truth. I denied the holocaust without examination as part of a package. I have now looked at the evidence and have changed my mind. You can think what you like of me. But I bet I’m the only politician you have seen here in a long time who admits to having looked at facts and changed his mind on their basis.”

He could then have brought in the point he made elsewhere in the programme—his support for Israel. I suspect this would have shut down that whole line of attack. Someone might have accused him of lying about his present beliefs. But that is always a weak argument.
The second idiotic answer came near the end of the programme. Some popular singer had recently been found dead in a Spanish hotel bedroom—I understand it was drink or drugs. Some journalist had then written an article for The Daily Mail, claiming that this was proof that the homosexual lifestyle was morally corrupt.
Everyone on the panel—as is required—joined in the condemnations of the journalist. Mr Griffin began in the same tone, and then announced that many people in this country found something “creepy” in the sight of two men kissing.
Of course, this is probably correct. It is not a feeling shared by the liberal establishment—and I am, for what it may be worth, a semi-detached member of that establishment. But not everyone shares our state of “enlightenment”. Nevertheless, my mouth fell open at what Mr Griffin said.
Again, had I been advising him, this is what he might have said:

“I share the condemnation of this article. I uphold the right of The Daily Mail to publish it, but despise the idea of attacking the dead.
“But I would say that, wouldn’t I? After all, I know all about The Daily Mail’s idea of fairness. If many of the people here tonight think I am the most evil man alive in Britain, it is probably because of some smear against me published in that ‘newspaper’.”

He could then have joined to this the subsequent point he made: that BNP policy was to leave people alone in their private actions, but to forbid the preaching of homosexuality to schoolchildren.
Griffin ended by adding that he had been responsible for moving BNP policy to this from a promise to make all homosexual relations illegal again.
By then, however, the harm was done. All the predictable condemnations were washing over him even as he was insisting on his own tolerance. He could have turned his answer to an attack on one of his enemies and flattened claims that he was a sexual bigot. He did not.
Though I am not a supporter of Mr Griffin’s party, I do have much personal sympathy for him. Now that he has dropped National Socialism, he is normally an effective and indeed eloquent spokesman for millions of people in this country who feel, quite rightly, that they have been deliberately ground into the dirt by both Conservative and Labour Governments.
For being this voice, Griffin has faced the sort of persecution I would once not have thought possible in England. He has been smeared. He has been physically attacked. It was only because a jury disagreed with the State that he was not sent to prison for saying about Islam what may or may not be true, but that had always so far been classed as fair comment. And still he continues to state his opinions. For this, he deserves both sympathy and admiration.
But this does not cancel the fact that he was presented with an enviable opportunity by the BBC and failed to take advantage of it.
It may be that the sheer awfulness of his performance will encourage the BBC to invite him back. After all, the BBC is the public relations wing of the Establishment, and its job is to destroy people like Mr Griffin. It may now think that another few performances like this will see off the whole BNP threat.
Perhaps it would. I have no doubt there are people in the north of England who would vote BNP even had Mr Griffin called for the slaughter of the first born. But he is unlikely to gather in many middle class votes on account of His Question Time appearance.
On the other hand, he might do better on his next airing. Everyone has the occasional bad night, and he almost certainly has the ability to do better.
In closing, I will simply repeat what I have said in my other articles about the BNP. This is that, while the party is no longer national socialist in any meaningful sense, it is far from being a good vehicle for the opinions that it now claims to hold.
This is not because of any possibility that its leaders are hoping to lie their way into power, and then pull off the mask of reasonableness. It is simply because of what its leaders used to be and used to say. Any party that wants to roll back the Politically Correct police state now imposed on my country will face inevitable demonization. The BNP is just too ideal a target for demonization.
However much he may have brought it on himself, Mr Griffin was treated unfairly by the BBC.
On the other hand, anything that depresses his chances of replacing the Conservatives after their inevitable future collapse, increases the chance that their replacement will be UKIP—for all its faults a more trustworthy and more electable choice.
[VDARE.COM note: the London Daily Telegraph reported on Friday that its post-programme polling showed an increase in BNP support—22% would now consider voting for the BNP, and more than half felt the BNP “had a point”.

Interesting to view these things from an outsider's perspective , so I hope you don't mind the lengthy quote .

Saturday, 24 October 2009

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

More Cameronians

The Disbandment of The Cameronians(Scottish Rifles) at Castle Dangerous , in Douglas Dale , in 1967 .

Yet another reason to hate Harold Wilson .

Here is the sermon by Dr. Donald MacDonald , the regimental chaplain .

He sounds strong in The Lord .

We could do with some ministers like him these days !

Part 5

Part 6

And here they are at Blenheim in 1704 , not long after they were founded (Steenkirk in 1692 was their first battle).
Here they are flying the St.Andrew's Cross as their standard , being part of the Scottish army in Marlborough's coalition force . Before the Union , two separate army establishments under the same monarch .
We did well to beat the Jacobites' pals in these wars against despotism , but many who don't know better will just whine on about Bonnie Prince Charlie and how hard done by the MacDonald's of Glencoe were .

Scotland : distinct and proud .

As British as British can be .

While I could be persuaded of a case for Scottish nationalism in a post-British world , the revisionist "land of the bogs and the little people" mopery makes me sick . And , like many others , I'm not ready to give up on Britain and freedom yet .

The real Scotland is the Scotland of Richard Cameron and William Cleland , not the "cowardly Italian" or Mel Gibson .

The Scottish Soldier

Here's one for Goodnight Vienna .

Shame about the couple of Braveheart-esque daubs which fleetingly appear in the background and the Scot Nat slogan towards the end (over a painting of a Napoleonic battle , probably Waterloo , no less ? Have they no sense of irony ?).

There were so many good photos in the sequence - the lamented KOSB in the Gulf wearing their red roses in their bonnets to commemorate Minden ; a painting I'd never seen before of the Scots Greys at Waterloo and their war memorial on the Esplanade at Edinburgh Castle ; King Robert I and Sir William Wallace ; and what must be the most stirring war memorial in Scotland : that of The Cameronians ,even more lamented than the KOSB , in Glasgow's West End .

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Progressive Tolerance

From Michael Crick's Blog via Mrs Dale

Spot the difference(s)

Case A: Alan Bown gave a political party £363,697

1) It was his money
2) He had a business trading in this country, making him eligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year afterwards.

Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.7m
1) It was not his money, he had defrauded it
2) His business was not trading in the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.

Do you see the difference(s)?
Well the main difference is that the Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.

In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to say when, if ever, it will.

Oh yes there is one other difference:

This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and gave it new funding and powers.

The political party in Case A, UKIP, has no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).

The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71 members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).

At least those are the difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others?

Why don't they just do a Vlaams Blok and outlaw another one of their political opponents ?

Totalitarian , fascist bastards !

Monday, 19 October 2009

Thursday, 15 October 2009

Fashion Pages




Le Figaro reckons B) .

They may need the help of Specsavers .

Monday, 12 October 2009

More Nobel Analysis

From James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web e-mail -
What everyone, including this column, agrees on is that the prize was a rebuke to George W. Bush, now a private citizen in Dallas. That is why the claim that Obama has inspired a turnaround in the so-called world's attitude toward America is not only false but laughable. When George W. Bush was president, the Norwegian Nobel Committee delivered three similar rebukes: in 2002 (by naming Jimmy Carter), 2005 (Mohammad ElBaradei) and 2007 (Al Gore). The Obama award is a continuation of, not a break from, the committee's behavior of the past eight years.

Actually, it is an escalation. Whatever one may think of Carter, ElBaradei and Gore, each man at least had some sort of record on which the committee could plausibly claim to have based its decision. This Nobel Prize is a naked attack on the former president--and, by implication, on the country that elected him.

Obama's record of accomplishment consists of nothing more than a successful political campaign against, as he put it in his convention speech, "the failed policies of George W. Bush." At the time, we doubted whether running against a man who would not appear on the ballot made political sense. The outcome speaks for itself.

But whether out of political calculation or sheer carelessness, Obama has continued, in effect, campaigning against George W. Bush. He frequently laments the "mess" he "inherited"--as if he had been born into the presidency or won it in a lottery rather than seeking out the responsibility he now holds. In May he declared, "The problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place." Actually, Guantanamo was a solution to the problem of what to do with the detainees; the current problem was caused by Obama's rejecting it without first coming up with an alternative plan. In August, as we noted, the president sounded downright thuggish in blaming his predecessors for the lousy economy: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

We don't remember any president in our lifetime attacking his predecessor in this manner, or at all. We haven't exhaustively researched the question, but our impression is that you'd have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt to find one who did--and his denunciations of Herbert Hoover were for domestic, not foreign, consumption.

Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize? Because he pandered to the prejudices of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Surely he didn't do it with the Peace Prize (or at least this year's Peace Prize) in mind. He did it because disparaging George W. Bush is a cheap way of winning approval among certain constituencies, both foreign and domestic.

Until last Friday, one might have argued that this was all quite harmless. But by seeking adulation that he did not deserve, the president of the United States helped make himself into a figure of ridicule. Barack Obama did not award himself the Nobel Peace Prize, but his reckless rhetoric encouraged those who did.

Obama Wins Tour De France !

(Hat tip to Nickie Goomba)

Compare it to this and this on Unenlightened Commentary .

Sunday, 11 October 2009

Licence Is Not The Same As Liberty

An interesting piece in Canadian magazine MacLean's by Mark Steyn .

His subject - Britain's debased culture and the media's (especially the BBC's) contribution to it .
So just to delineate the Dantean circles of contemporary Brit celebrity: a BBC comedian says he masturbates to a show in which a woman says she’d enjoy farting in front of a man who calls up the grandfathers of nubile terpsichoreans and says he’s shagged ’em senseless in between their shifts as Satanic Sluts. Thank goodness Britain doesn’t have that debauched crass lowest-common-denominator Yank-style TV culture, eh? Wank wank pussy fart fuck fuck slut. Very Noël Coward.

Or , as he sums up ,

But licence is not the same as liberty.

Poor Polly

In the Guardian , another cry of pain from the demented Polly Toynbee regarding the demise of her beloved Labour "Project" .

Have a read , it's a great laugh !

As is usual with Polly's articles , the real analysis comes in the comments section below .

This one seems to hit the nail on the head .
"If you think the Tories would have done all that, you must be mad."

Just once in my lifetime, i'd really like to see what the tories would do if they inherited a surplus rather than, y'know, a vast financial hole.

It would make a change , wouldn't it ?

Saturday, 10 October 2009

Life Imitates The Simpsons

From The Wall Street Journal -

Sideshow Bob: "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?"--dialogue from "Sideshow Bob Roberts," aired Oct. 9, 1994

■"Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 [Nobel Peace] prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit."--Associated Press, Oct. 9, 2009

Wednesday, 7 October 2009

Silvio For PM !

Forget that cream puff Cameron . Let's get a leader who knows what it's all about !

(Click on the photo for the full facial expressions)

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Newsnight , Boris and Irish GDP

I saw this excellent interview on Newsnight , last night .
Excellent in that Boris was able to get the better of the odious Paxman by force of his adopted persona .

The tide has turned .

Later , on Newsnicht , we in Scotland were subjected to a hatchet job jointly on Conservatism and Euro-realism , in which the second Irish referendum was viewed through the prism of what lessons it should teach the Scottish electorate . The answer , of course , was that UKIP and the Conservatives were wild-eyed loons , the SNP were dangerous separatists and Labour was the people's only salvation .

How surprising .

What was surprising was a statistic one of the Irish Euro-drones came out with
the Irish Republic's per capita GDP is 40% greater than Scotland's .

That's Scotland with the oil ; and the industrial revolution ; and the financial services sector ; and the largest fishing industry in Europe ; and the oil .

The country which has soaked up much of Southern Ireland's excess population for the past century and a half , while being a mainstay of Britain and the Empire .

Scotland which lost 100,000+ in the First World War while Southern Ireland turned traitor and supported the Kaiser .

Scotland which contributed fully to victory in the Second World War , while Southern Ireland more or less openly sympathised with the Nazis .

What has Southern Ireland got ?

That's right , Euro-money out of our pockets .

Some would see this as reason for Scotland to declare independence and join in the Euro-gravy-train . I see it as evidence of the corruption and oppression of the European "Project".

A plague on it !

Sunday, 4 October 2009

The Repellent Mr. Ross

A review of Theodore Dalrymple's new book Not With A Bang But A Whimper : The Politics And Culture Of Decline . It'll be top of my shopping list when I get back to work !

The review also has a taster piece - the first chapter of the book , criticising Jonathon Ross and , interestingly , David Cameron as a man unfit to govern (pdf) .

A good read , and every word true .

Cherie Anoinette

From The Mail on Sunday -

Cherie Blair is expected to begin house-hunting in Brussels within weeks after Irish voters paved the way for her husband to become Europe’s most powerful man, the EU President.
The referendum result has removed the largest barrier to creating the role that Tony Blair is expected to win this year, giving his wife unprecedented influence as EU First Lady.
But there are concerns in Brussels that Mrs Blair – whose time at No10 included gaffes over property deals and freebies – could prove a liability for Tony.
A British EU civil servant said: ‘She could create a role like Michelle Obama’s, or be a distraction. The last thing anyone wants is a 21st Century Marie Antoinette.’

What benefits our masters in Brussels have brought us !

Better still is the pittance which her husband will receive as a stipend for graciously ruling over us (and HM the Queen) -

The move will mean a multi-million-pound taxpayer-funded windfall for the Blairs.
His £270,000-a-year salary – more than President Obama’s – and £40,500-a-year housing allowance will allow Mrs Blair to expand their property portfolio from their £3.65million home in London and £5.75million mansion in Wotton Underwood, Buckinghamshire.
With London two hours away by Eurostar, Mrs Blair can also continue her UK legal work and use her new base to increase EU cases.
Son Leo, nine, would qualify for EU payments for schooling in Belgium.
And Mrs Blair will have a massive platform for promoting her Cherie Blair Foundation For Women, a charity helping women entrepreneurs in countries with poor equality records.
Research by The Mail on Sunday has found that if Mr Blair serves the maximum five years – two consecutive two-and-a-half year terms – he will net a package worth £3.65million. His salary will be taxed at a special rate for Eurocrats, averaging 25 per cent.
On arrival, the Blairs will have all travel and removal costs reimbursed and receive a £45,000 ‘installation allowance’. It has not been revealed what this is supposed to pay for.
After that, the £40,500-a-year ‘residence allowance’ kicks in, allowing the Blairs to rent a home from among the finest chateaux.
Or the payments would help buy a four or five-bedroom Brussels townhouse at around the £1million mark. Mr Blair, dubbed ‘Boney’ Blair after the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, also has a £15,663-a-year ‘personal entertainment allowance’ and chauffeur-driven limousine.
Then there is a £6,727-a-year ‘household allowance’, a £5,652-a-year payment per ‘child in higher education outside Belgium’ and a £2,826-a-year payment per child at school.
When he steps down, Mr Blair will receive a £22,500 ‘resettlement payment’. There will be three years of ‘transition allowance’ payments, totalling about £135,000-a-year.
He would also receive a £57,600-a-year pension from the age of 65 for his five years’ service.
Since quitting as Premier in 2007, Mr Blair is estimated to have made £15million from public speaking, which he will have to drop as President

Thanks Ireland !