I weep for Mother England

Just a few decades ago England was caught up in the wrath of socialism. Almost everything was nationalized. The coal industry, the gas industry, rail, telecom, you name it, it was all owned and operated by the UK government. Britain was in deep decline, its Empire packing up, its debts soaring, it truly was ‘the sick man of Europe’.

Then came along Margaret Thatcher, who turned socialism on it’s head, privatized the major industries, sold off government owned homes and put Britain back on track toward prosperity. What a decade the 80’s were, and what a decade the 90’s were, riding on the previous decade’s coattails.

Alas, after 11 1/2 years of Thatcher, and 18 years of conservative government, along came the socialists with their ‘New Labour’. House prices soared, gas prices soared, and many, including myself fled in despair.

After 13 years of socialism, Britain was beginning to fail again, and while there is now a coalition government headed by the conservatives, these politicians are weak kneed and not nearly as principled as they need to be. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said that he does not have many convictions, and is a ‘liberal conservative’. This is the man that stands against a far greater threat to British sovereignty; the rise of ‘Red Ed’ and his Marxist policies. Ed Milliband, the leader of the Labour party, has pledged to re-nationalize industries, and punish those that make a profit. His ideology stems from his father, who was a preacher of the philosophy of Karl Marx, and who is indeed buried in the same cemetery, only a few feet from his beloved (albeit insanely wrong) prophet.

Back to the future with Marxist Miliband: If Britain falls for Ed’s socialist farce, it really will be a tragedy

By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

PUBLISHED: 17:06 EST, 23 September 2013 | UPDATED: 17:26 EST, 23 September 2013

Whatever’s wrong with modern Britain, the solution isn’t socialism. We tried that and look where it got us

So now we know Ed Miliband’s master plan. He wants to bring back socialism. No great surprise there, then.

Miliband’s late father was one of Britain’s most prominent Marxist ‘intellectuals’. In other words, he was spectacularly wrong on every single major issue.

My old man’s a Marxist,
He wears a Marxist’s hat,
He wears old corduroy trousers,
And he lives in a £2 million flat.
(In Primrose Hill).

Pity Ralph Miliband isn’t still alive. I’d have loved to hear his views on Labour’s proposed ‘mansion tax’. But clearly some of his discredited ideas have rubbed off on his youngest son.

Whatever’s wrong with modern Britain, the solution isn’t socialism. We tried that and look where it got us.

I’m not talking about the blood-soaked socialism which led to gulags and genocide in Eastern Europe and China. Or the sociopathic socialism which has turned North Korea into a Mad Hatter’s prison camp.

Let’s consider the particularly British brand of socialism, which still has plenty of devoted disciples in the Labour Party, including its weird leader.

The idea that the State could and would provide has been tested to destruction. Rampant socialism turned post-war Britain into a bankrupt basket case.

Nationalisation robbed industry of the incentive to modernise. For decades, Britain turned its back on the free market economics which once made us the richest nation on earth.

Unions exercised a stranglehold on the means of production and distribution. In the name of the ‘workers’, stroppy shop stewards called strikes at the drop of a hat.

Most of the union leaders on parade in Brighton this week salivate at the prospect of turning the clock back to that era of debilitating, daily disruption.

When I was covering British Leyland in the 1970s, there was a grand total of 27 separate strikes across the company on a single day. When the toolmakers went back to work, the delivery drivers walked out. At Longbridge, workers on the night-shift were literally sleeping on the job.

Billions of pounds of public money was poured into subsiding products no one wanted to buy.

I’ve written before about the taxpayer-funded excesses at British Steel. On the day the corporation’s chairman, Mr Pastry-lookalike Sir Charles Villiers, announced a record £1 billion loss, he threw open the doors to the executive dining room and invited Fleet Street’s finest to join him in a sumptuous feast from an all-you-can-eat buffet, groaning with suckling pigs, whole salmon, roast sirloins of beef and vintage claret.

Had Labour won the 1979 election, inefficient, loss-making coal mines would still be open and Arthur Scargill would be sitting in the House of Lords

Still, what’s a couple of grand on a jolly-up when the taxpayers are already lumbered with a billion-pound tab?

And what was the upshot of all this largesse at the public’s expense? British Steel and British Leyland both went bust because they couldn’t withstand the chill winds of foreign competition.

Back then, it took six months to get the Post Office to install a telephone in your home. Try telling that to a generation who upgrade their mobiles every five minutes.

If you wanted a cooker, you could buy one only from the nationalised electricity or gas boards and then wait obediently until they could be bothered to hook it up.

Council tenants couldn’t even paint their front doors without permission in triplicate from a gauleiter at the local authority.

Had Labour won the 1979 election, inefficient, loss-making coal mines would still be open and Arthur Scargill would be sitting in the House of Lords. At least we might have been spared all those hideous wind farms cluttering up the countryside.

The 1997 New Labour government was forced to accept Lady Thatcher’s settlement. But the Left resented her with a toxic hatred, which came bubbling to the surface when she died

Commuters moan about the private rail companies, but if the railways had remained nationalised they’d still be running filthy, dilapidated rolling stock and Bob Crow’s RMT union would be on strike most of the time.

Old Labour presided over a siege economy. At one stage, you weren’t allowed take more than £50 out of the country when you went on holiday. The top rate of tax was 97 per cent, the standard rate 35 per cent. Someone had to pay for all this glorious socialism.

Mrs Thatcher changed all that. The 1997 New Labour government was forced to accept her settlement. But the Left resented Thatcher with a toxic hatred, which came bubbling to the surface when she died.

The hardline socialists didn’t disappear, however. They simply mutated into local government and the institutions.

Brown’s creation of a vast, supplicant state was the imposition of socialism by any other name. The end result was bankruptcy, as it always is under Labour

Those organisations still under the yoke of socialist bureaucracies — such as the NHS and most Town Halls — are notorious for centralised control, waste and almost total lack of accountability.

Whereas once the socialists wanted out of Europe altogether, they now embrace the EU and all its works as a device for imposing their will on an unwilling public. The EU itself is a socialist construct, top-down and anti-democratic.

After the nationalised industries went belly-up, the socialists set about nationalising every aspect of our daily lives, through quangos such as the Health And Safety and Equality Commissions and the ‘human rights’ racket.

The entire ‘diversity’ industry is a socialist front aimed not at eradicating discrimination, but persecuting individuals and criminalising Christianity, which has traditionally been socialism’s sworn enemy.

In the name of ‘equality’, Labour smashed the grammar schools, hobbling social mobility and harming the very people it claimed it was trying to help.

Gordon Brown’s creation of a vast, supplicant state was the imposition of socialism by any other name. He paid for it by letting the banks run riot rather than raising income tax. But the end result was bankruptcy, as it always is under Labour.

Ed Miliband hasn’t yet spelled out his vision of our socialist future, but the policies we know about give us a reasonable idea.

Labour’s answer is a re-run of the tax-and-spend disaster movie which got us into this mess in the first place.

The modern face of socialism manifests itself in the shape of the same old ‘bash the rich’ politics of resentment, a war on wealth creation and a shopping list of generous ‘giveaways’ funded by reckless borrowing and higher taxes.

Ed Miliband’s father could have reminded him of his beloved Karl Marx’s observation that history always repeats itself, ‘first as tragedy, second as farce’.

If Britain falls for Miliband’s socialist farce, it really will be a tragedy.

Marxist Milliband is leading the charge back toward decay in Britain, with his rallying call of ‘yes I’m bringing back socialism’ to his misguided followers.

‘I’m bringing back socialism’: Miliband’s boast as he unveils plan to increase minimum wage and tax the rich more

By MATT CHORLEY, MAILONLINE POLITICAL EDITOR

PUBLISHED: 06:34 EST, 21 September 2013 | UPDATED: 06:13 EST, 22 September 2013

Master plan: Ed Miliband said his party would tackle unequal pay in Britain as people on the minimum wage are worse off

Ed Miliband today declared he was bringing socialism back to Britain as he unveiled a raft of left-wing policies.

The Labour leader promised to increase wages for the lowest paid, force schools to stay open for longer and monitor how many women appear on TV.

Taking part in an open-air Q&A session in Brighton,Mr Miliband was asked when he would ‘bring back socialism’.

The son of Marxist think Ralph Miliband replied: ‘That’s what we are doing, sir.

‘It is about fighting the battle for economic equality, for social equality and for gender equality too.

‘That is a battle that is not yet won in our country.’

He warned that people on the minimum wage are more than £860-a-year worse off because of the rising cost of living.

The Labour leader unveiled plans to dramatically increase the guaranteed rate of pay to reverse the impact of inflation in the last three years.

Mr Miliband hit out at global banks who make huge profits but claim they cannot afford to pay their cleaners ‘a bit more’

It is no secret that I love my mother country, but I despair at how far she has fallen. Once the most powerful nation on the planet, Britain is now being strangled by bureaucrats, and decay is again setting in. I only hope that the UK has its own Tea Party of sorts in the near future to put itself back on track before it is too late.

Resource Wars

I think the global warming myth is a sedate way of saying that we are out of oil and need to find alternative energies, after all, if politicians admitted that we are almost out of easily accessible and cheap oil, prices would skyrocket and economies would tank.

Why are US politicians so friendly with Israel, but not with other middle eastern states Is it because of oil?

We are currently in a time of peak oil. The US military actually published a report about this:

US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015

• Shortfall could reach 10m barrels a day, report says
• Cost of crude oil is predicted to top $100 a barrel

The US military has warned that surplus oilproduction capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

“By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day,” says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: “While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.”

The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with “an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments.”

The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk.

The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance.

Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East.

But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that “a chance exists that we may experience a decline” of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming.

Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on.

“It’s surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on,” he said.

“The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was “decades away”. In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?”

The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. “One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest,” it points out.

For over 100 years western countries, particularly Britain and America, have had major interests in the middle east. This three part documentary, explains our obsession with oil in the Middle East over the last century:

But now we are running out of oil:

Peak Oil would explain our current foreign policy in the middle east, and the rising prices at home at the pump. The sad part is, is that we’ve known about peak oil for years:

So should we not now be focusing on new technologies?

There are two technologies which could have a massive impact against crude oil, and become a viable substitute for it in the future. These two forms of fuel are Algae Oil:

And Hydrogen:

So along with bad foreign policy, bad home policy, and all the silly controlling and nudging that goes on from congress. Should we not be concentrating on bringing our troops home, drilling at home, constructing the pipeline from Canada, and developing our own American resources? Resources that we could then sell to the rest of the world.

Think about it, if we develop hydrogen, and algae oil, and once again became the world’s largest oil and energy producer. Do you really think we’d need to have any influence in the middle east at all? Not only would our economy boom once more and return jobs to the US. We could also once again become the heart of freedom in the world and restore our republic. The US with all its own military might would still be the most powerful country in the world, but it would no longer have to strike fear into other nations as an imperial entity.

The Tactics of Fear

The sun was beginning to set behind the clouds in the distance to the east of the old school building in south east England. The last glimmer of light shined off the science room windows. A young lad around the age of 19 swept up the last remnants of the discarded bits of paper, charcoal and dust from the day’s classroom experiments. Upon rounding the the door to scoop up the last of the day’s debris and dump it in the nearest trash can, a science teacher named George flicked the light on in the tea room and almost bumped into the young lad. “Oh! Hello Paul, I didn’t see you there”. “Hi George” Paul replied, smiling. “Would you like a cup of tea?” George asked. “Sure, replied Paul “Have you decided which country you want to move to yet?” George then replied “I think I’m going to move to New Zealand”. “Wow, New Zealand is a beautiful place, but why not Canada or the USA?” Paul asked. “Well..” replied George “…I’ve lived in Canada before, and it’s an awful lot of paperwork just to get over there, I’ve lived in so many different places now, it would take months just to get all the paperwork sorted out”. “But what about the US?” asked Paul. “Well, don’t get me wrong, I love the US, but their visa’s are hard to get, and I wouldn’t be making as much as I am here. Plus I always get a sense that people live in fear in the US”. Perplexed, Paul asked “why’s that?” Having been on numerous trips to the US over the last couple of years, Paul was beginning to become quite an expert on all things USA related. George then replied “Well, they’re always worried about something…the commies are gonna get you, the terrorists are gonna get you. There’s always a boogie man around every corner for them, and they take it way too seriously. I wouldn’t want to live in that environment. Plus I’ve visited there before, and New Zealand will be a fresh start for me”. Paul mused over this interesting new information “hmm, that’s interesting, I suppose you’ve got a point. I’ll keep that in mind. Anyway, I hope you enjoy your new start in New Zealand”. “Thanks” replied George, “I hope you get to move out there and live with your girlfriend in America soon”. Paul finished up his cup of tea and bagged up the trash. He then walked town the hallway, down the stairs and out into the cool late evening air. The sun had set, and the street lights had come on. Paul mused over this information as he walked back to the main school building to clock out for the day. It had been a long work week, and he now had enough money saved up for his next trip back to the states, where he would end up proposing to his long time girlfriend.

Five years later, that young man is now a US citizen, and has experienced many changes to this country since he started living here. I have witnessed the election of Barack Obama, the rise of the Tea Parties, the Glenn Beck Program, the Occupy Wall Street crowds, and all the bias news from the various different media outlets. And now, on reflection, I can say that the US does live in fear. Fear of its economy, fear of other nations, fear of Muslims, of things we don’t know. So many Americas, while being very proud of their nation, its history, and their personal liberties, do not understand the world around them, and are very afraid of what they do not know. I suppose I can’t blame them, the world is a very large and complicated place, and there are bad people out there who will take the chance if they have it to kill you. But those people are few and far between. Most people want to live in peace and live happy lives with their families. The idea of bombing another nation, imposing sanctions, and driving them into the ground, because we are afraid of what they might do is ludicrous.

I recently had a debate with one of my friends on here about Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Iran and Ron Paul. Many people think it is naive to leave Iran alone. Where as I agree with Ron Paul that we should make peace with them. That is not to say that we should trust them entirely. But at least resume trading and doing business with them. How can you call this country a free democratic republic when we dictate toward other countries? Iran has posed no threat to us. Sure some of their leaders have spewed rhetoric about Big Satan and Little Satan, in reference to the US and Israel. But to them, with the way that our countries have acted toward them over the last few decades, I can see where they would get that idea. But are we also forgetting that many of our leaders have mentioned turning Iran into glass?

I do not fear a great evil from the middle eastern countries. As master Yoda once said; “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. Fear is the path of the dark side.” This mythological term used in Star Wars plays true in reality and in today’s society. Our actions in the middle east and other parts in the world, are beginning to mirror that of empires past, and we are beginning to become a totalitarian society, ruled over by shadowy figures, and left to grind about our daily lives in fear of what might be, instead of living in freedom. Safety and freedom do not go hand in hand. Is this not the land of the free and the home of the brave? Lately I’ve seen many who now live in the land of the debt slaves and and home of the fearful.

Personally I live by the Jedi code:

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

If it comes to an actual attack on us by another nation, we will respond to it. But preemptive military strikes, mirror that of the Nazis resolve during 1939. If you want a war with Iran, I suggest you go sign up at your local recruitment office and go make your fight in the desert. I want nothing to do with it. I have my own firearms. I’ll only ever use them if I am personally attacked in my own home, or if somehow another military power comes marching down my street. That is the whole point of an armed citizenry; to defend and protect, not to attack and dominate.

Could you really blame Iran if they did acquire a nuclear weapon? They know that if they acquire nukes, that we will leave them alone. The more we provoke them, the more likely they are to acquire them.

As of right now, Iran does not posses nuclear weapons technology. But how many nuclear weapons does Israel have? And which country threatens whom the most? From what I’ve read; Israel is being the most aggressive and threatening to bomb Iran.

And why is it that US politicians speak so highly of Israel, even though Israels leaders use the tactics of fear to control their population?

Is it not Israel that should be feared in the middle east? They and they alone have the power to wipe out the entire middle east. Is it not dangerous to let them continue this way? Or should we be equal in allowing every country to do what it wants?

Why is it that we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes to politicians and issues? Why is our media so obsessed with talking points instead of investigative journalism? For all those who are preaching ‘anybody but Obama’, I would question you; ‘were you not upset with the Bush administration’s patriot act and Guantanamo Bay?’. You forget that Obama only came about because of the disastrous Bush policies. Neither party right now has our best interests in mind.

It appears that both the US and Israel use the tactics of fear to control the masses. The media is highly controlled and bias, and uses slanted news headlines to help promote lame candidates and to encourage us to vote for the lesser of two evils during elections.

Do you really think that we can survive another decade or two of bad presidents and policies? The days of Ross Perot were a long time ago, and how much has our country improved since?

So where do you stand? Will you vote for another lame candidate who will do nothing to better your freedom? Or will you vote for a candidate who will reverse the trend?