What it Feels Like to be English in 2014!

Forget David Cameron’s fake debate on what it means to be British! The following clip of England goalkeeper Joe Hart at last weekend’s world cup match between England and Italy sums up in a nutshell what it feels like being English in 2014.

NB. WARNING: Before considering watching the clip please note that the F-word is uttered and uttered with great emotion.

To be English in 2014 is to be ignored, undermined and sidelined.  Scotland is due to vote on its independence later this year but England is never given a similar vote – the opinions of the English do not matter in 2014!  Joe Hart sums up both the passion and frustration of a nation.

Shield Bugs in Yorkshire


I was just looking through some photographs I took earlier this year. I came across one of a rather unusual insect that I took on 30 April 2014. Looking at it, it this exotic creature put me in mind my of the days when I studied geology – it reminded a bit of a trilobite.  I thought I would try to find out what it was so I Googled the phrase “acorn shaped insect”. I came across references to “stink bugs” and “shield bugs”.

According to an article on the BBC website they are more normal in the Mediterranean though they have more recently become established in the south of England. There have been some suggestions that the spread of these creatures is indicative of climate change.

They are supposed to be rare outside of the south of England but I took the following photo in Yorkshire. Hope it means we will have a nice summer!


How UKIP Can Win The 2015 Election Under First Past The Post


By Chris Knowles

The results of the 2014 European elections demonstrate clearly that UKIP can indeed win a national election. Many claim that this cannot be translated into 2015 General Election success due to the nature of the British voting system. However, this short paper will argue that the electoral system can be made to serve UKIP’s to the detriment of the establishment parties. This is based on 3 key facts:

  • UKIPs apparent disadvantage is based on perception rather than reality.
  • The three establishment parties are so similar they are nothing more than factions of a single Establishment party
  • The Establishment vote is split three ways while the UKIP vote is unified

The key to success in 2015 will be based on changing perceptions by demonstrating a two horse race and a three way split. The system cannot be changed but the way people think about it can and it is this that can make all the difference.

Only a question of perception

The 2014 poll demonstrated that in terms of percentages more people in the UK sympathised with UKIP than with any other political party. This is reality, the only reason this is not translated into General Election success if because people perceive UKIP defeat under the system as inevitable. As such they believe a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote and therefore do not vote on the basis of their political convictions. This creates a self-fulfilling prophesy that Establishment relies on to maintain its grip on power.

Under First Past the Post the only barrier that UKIP faces is one of perception. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines perceptions as follows:

“noun \pər-ˈsep-shən\
: the way you think about or understand someone or something
: the ability to understand or notice something easily
: the way that you notice or understand something using one of your senses” (emphasis added)

The 2014 election has gone some way to changing perceptions – people now know that UKIP can win a national election. The UKIP percentage of the vote is a reality, the supposed disadvantage of First Past the Post is only a perception. All that UKIP needs to do over the next 12 months is change the way the public thinks about First Past the Post and get them to practice conviction politics.

This can be achieved by giving them a simple choice between two options.

Two Horse Race: Establishment versus UKIP

The key to UKIP’s success in 2015 will be to present the contest as a two horse race, a race involving two parties – the Establishment Party and the anti-Establishment UKIP. If the public can be convinced that what are perceived as the three main parties are in reality three factions of a single establishment party First Past the Post can work dramatically in UKIP’s favour. This should not be difficult since, based on experience, it is clear that it makes no difference which one (or indeed two) Establishment factions is the party(s) currently in power. A vote for either of them is a vote for establishment interests and a policy of “more of the same”. In 1997 people were voting for change, they thought that by voting for the Labour Party they would get that change – they didn’t! Past is prologue.

The European Union is a central pillar of establishment thinking and it is inconceivable that anyone who has been allowed to rise to the top of an establishment party will be able to facilitate the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. In November 2009 David Cameron repudiated his previous “cast iron guarantee” to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty after he received pressure from other European (establishment) leaders. How can we trust Mr Cameron’s supposed commitment for an in-out referendum on EU membership by 2017 after such a dramatic change of policy? The only reason for putting off a referendum on membership of the EU to 2017 is to provide more time to find ways to undermine the popular will on the subject and to devise yet more excuses for continued membership. The only things Cameron’s “cast iron” guarantees yield are piles of rust! Whatever their rhetoric the establishment parties will never give up on the EU because it is so central to their world view. Indeed, the EU is the central pillar of their world view!

The UK, like the rest of the Western world is governed by a system of “Managed Democracy”, not true democracy. Under this system the establishment effectively decides who the public is allowed to vote for. The establishment media, owned by the same people who may effectively own the politicians, acts as their cheerleaders. It is not an impartial player in events but the propaganda arm of establishment interests. It presents its favoured candidates in the most favourable light and smears anyone who is a threat to the establishment’s careful management of the system. You can’t have two masters; you cannot represent the interests of the people as a whole while representing the interests of a tiny elite.

The recent showing by UKIP in the EU parliamentary elections suggests that if people were to vote confidently with their hearts UKIP could quite easily become the largest party in the polls next May. However, in 2015 when the chips are down the establishment factions, Liberal Democrat, Labour, and Conservative “parties”, will stick together. This will prove that they, together, really represent a single Establishment party. This may make the difference between Nigel Farage being Prime Minister or being Leader of the Opposition. However, once the ingrained perception about First Past the Post is broken, all bets are off because the system itself and the rules of the game will be transformed.

The political establishment will not let UKIP run the UK even if it wins the highest percentage of votes. A coalition of Labour and the Conservatives is more likely than a coalition between either of them and UKIP. This is because UKIP goes against the grain of establishment thinking and is opposed to the central establishment interest – unwavering support for the EU. We have already seen evidence of this concept in operation following UKIP’s 2014 electoral victory.
An article in the Thurrock Gazette on 29 May 2014 entitled Labour and Tories “weigh up grand coalition” to keep Ukip at bay gives us a glimpse of the Establishment blueprint for retaining power in the event of a UKIP electoral surge. An coalition comprised of the Conservative and Labour parties in 2015 is not unlikely because as mere factions of the governing class they have more in common with each other than they do with UKIP. The Thurrock situation provides evidence for the two horse race thesis.

Three Way Split for the Establishment Vote

The Establishment’s 2015 nightmare referred to above could be worse than they currently imagine. Instead of Nigel Farage controlling the biggest party while being Leader of the Opposition they could find him as the Prime Minister with more than 50% of the vote.

Once the perception nut is cracked, the logic of the First Past the Post system swings in UKIPs favour and makes such a scenario possible. In a two horse race, people are more likely to vote on the basis of their political convictions and true interests. That could be damaging to the Establishment parties because their own vote would be split three ways. Once perceptions have been changed their apparent advantage under the system is first nullified, and then turned into a weakness.

Add to this the percentage of the population that currently do not vote and the current political system becomes very interesting indeed. UKIP mentioned in the aftermath of the 2014 election that it has secured votes from people who had never voted before. It could be argued that the non-voting public are anti-establishment by definition and therefore more likely to support UKIP. Dissatisfaction with the political establishment and a feeling that they can do nothing about the situation can be a strong motivator for not voting. Such people understand the power of the Establishment and its current grip on the system of Managed Democracy. If UKIP demonstrates that it can succeed against the establishment it is likely that more will come out to vote in the future. Even if there were members of the non-voting public whose prime preference was for Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative factions of the establishment, the three way split would make them less significant under the first past the post system.

If systemic perceptions were changed, a three way split for the Establishment vote would weaken the establishment parties and strengthen UKIP.


The First past the Post electoral system can be manipulated not only to the benefit of UKIP but also to the disadvantage of established or indeed Establishment parties. The three concepts of perception, two horse race, and three way split could form the basis of a UKIP “12 Months to make a difference” campaign to transform UK politics and restore the country’s sovereignty. This would form part of UKIP’s message that would supplement its existing strategy to focus mainly on key seats based on the “Paddy Ashdown Approach” referred to by the UKIP leader after the 2014 poll. The strategy would rest on encouraging positive rather than negative voting behaviour by restoring confidence in conviction politics. “Conviction Politics” is a political technology that can be utilised to restore power to the electorate rather those who manage the system. All UKIP needs to do is to change perceptions by presenting the Establishment parties as a single party in all but name…


An updated draft of this article can be found at UKIPdaily

The EU, Democratic Peace Theory, and the Ukrainian Crisis

Congress-of-ViennaIn my previous article I hinted at the role of European Union foreign policy in the creation of the crisis in Ukraine.  I will now focus on how the EU’s aggressive foreign policy is mirrored by its erosion of democratic structures and its crackdown on dissent in its domestic policy making.

Under Democratic Peace Theory it is postulated that democracies do not wage war on each other.  The EU, as indicated by its institutional structures and its lack of tolerance for political dissent, cannot be regarded as a democracy.  Merely having something referred to as a “parliament” is not sufficient for a political entity to be a democracy.

In some ways the European Parliament is similar to the State Duma of Imperial Russia under Tsar Nicolas II which existed but had no real power.  Imperial Russia was never a democracy just as the European Union has never been a democracy.  The fact that many of the powers of EU states have been transferred to the non-democratic European Commission mean that those individual member states also can no longer be regarded as genuine democracies. According to Democratic Peace Theory this bodes ill for international peace.

I just read an article at Breitbart.com entitled “The European Commission is pumping propaganda money into Britain, trying to interfere in the elections to the European Parliament” that shows how democracy within the European Union has been and continues to be subverted.  This development arises from the fundamentally anti-democratic structure of the EU itself.  If this article is correct then state resources are being actively employed to subvert the democratic process in order to control the outcome of an election.

The dirty tricks or “active measures” against political opponents of the EU regime are not restricted to UKIP.  On 26 April 2014 another candidate for the European elections, Liberty GB leader Paul Weston, was arrested because he quoted Winston Churchill in a speech.  Prior to this the Liberty GB radio host Tim Burton was taken to court in what appears to be an act of vexatious litigation.  After the expense and inconvenience of going to court he was acquitted.  The pattern is clear, it is only opponents of the EU who are arrested and exposed to what amounts to judicial intimidation.

These episodes of political repression illustrate clearly the direction in which the EU is going.  The claimed motive for such repression may be regarded as necessary by many, but never-the-less the impact on democracy is dire.  The way a state treats its own citizens is a window through which to see how it is likely to behave with its neighbours.  Repressive regimes are more likely to have aggressive foreign policies because a population’s natural inclination for peace is more likely to be supressed by those who hold power.

This perhaps explains recent EU policy with regard to Ukraine.  The people of Europe have no interest in the situation in Ukraine, but EU leaders do.  The people of Europe have not real power to stop them from the dangerous course that they have chosen to take.  The anti-democratic basis of the EU makes a major new war in Europe more likely!  Far from blaming Vladimir Putin for the crisis, blame – if any is to be applied, could more likely be laid at the door of the commissars, apparatchiks, and enforcers of the EU.

The Ukrainian Crisis and the Role of the European Union: The Great Game in the 21st Century

Cape to Cairo - expansionism in the past.  Does the modern EU want to bestride Eurasia like a colossus from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

Cape to Cairo – expansionism in the past. Does the modern EU want to bestride Eurasia like a colossus, from the Atlantic to the Pacific?

The Ukrainian Crisis illustrates the re-emergence of Great Power rivalry in the new multi-polar world order. To blame Russia for this situation is simplistic in the extreme.

It could be argued that the European Union encouraged the violent uprising against President Viktor Yanukovich. This did, after all, follow his abandonment of a trade agreement with the EU. The EU supported the protesters of President Yanukovich because it was in its strategic interests to do so. It opposes those who protest against the new regime in Kiev for exactly the same reasons.

It could also be argued that the EU is now an aggressive expansionist power. Indeed as the Russian sphere was shrinking the EU was expanding into that sphere. Furthermore, the Barcelona Declaration adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in November 1995 could indicate an intention to expand the EU into North Africa and the Levant. This may explain the so called Arab Spring and the ongoing crisis in Syria!

Perhaps Russia is wondering what territory on its borders will be next! Maybe it worries that at some time in the future the EU may repeat the process by sowing division within the Russian Federation itself. The “Manifest Destiny” of the EU currently seems to recognize no bounds.

While the EU does not have a problem with the referendum later this year that gives people in Scotland the opportunity to vote for the partition of the UK, it does not seem to be willing to extend this logic to Ukraine. Partition in the Ukrainian situation makes sense for the sake of international stability, while with Scotland independence is a political whim. Indeed, the call for Scottish independence appears to be personal hobby horse of certain Scottish politicians. Of course having the states within its borders carved up makes the central EU authority stronger and its ‘member states’ less influential! What does this tell us about the ambitions of the EU and its rulers.

The Western media seems eager to back up the propaganda of the EU. We see within EU countries how certain stories both international and domestic are suppressed by those who control the media. We also see an EU elite, using the un-democratic EU executive – the European Commission, to trample on democratic freedoms within the EU, and demonize opponents of the regime. We see this currently in the UK with the negative coverage of the efforts of the resurgent UKIP. The EU as an institution therefore cannot argue that it somehow has more democratic legitimacy than Russia. Indeed unlike in the EU the executive in Russia is elected by the people.

The situation in Ukraine is merely the result of great powers pursuing, promoting, and defending their own self interests. No side can be blamed for that. It is unfortunate that the people of Ukraine are now pawns in a new Great Game.

Cyber Security and International Relations

Nuclear Weapon Test ApacheI have just read a short, but interesting article by Rod Beckstrom entitled ‘It’s a MAD, MAD, MAD Cyber World’.  It was particularly interesting to me because of my academic background in international relations on which it draws parallels.  The article compares the current cyber security situation with the Cold War national security concepts, particularly with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Doctrine of the Cold War.

MAD doctrine related to the concept of deterrence that kept the peace during the Cold War. Under MAD conflict between the Great Powers was prevented by making the cost so high it would be rigorously avoided.  The idea was based on the assertion that if NATO was attacked by the Warsaw Pact the response would be total rather than proportional.  This meant that any attack would result in General Nuclear War. This was understood by all the actors.

Beckstrom refers to the Internet variant MAD as Mutually Assured Disruption.  This is based on the fact that the Internet is of immense value to all nations and that if one nation attacks another the other will respond in kind.  Of course, the actors on the Internet are not restricted to nation states.  The situation is therefore far more complex than the Cold War, and rogue elements are far more prevalent.  Also the consequences of upsetting the game would by no means herald the end of civilisation. The doctrine would therefore not be as an effective behavioural control mechanism as it was during the Cold War.

Nevertheless, an interesting article which can be read at: http://dld-conference.com/articles/its-a-mad-mad-mad-cyber-world.

Uganda and the West’s Inconsistent Approach to Gay Rights

Rainbow FlagIt is good that Western leaders are criticizing Uganda for this new anti-gay law. However, where is the criticism of the West’s Middle Eastern ally – Saudi Arabia? Where are the calls for the ending of diplomatic relations with that country as well?

It seems that the concern about anti-gay laws is inconsistent.  Why is that, and is this current criticism about something else?  Does the reference in the article to “evangelical Christians” give the real game away?  The Guardian writes:

“Homophobia, supported by many US-funded evangelical Christians, has become more virulent in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa.” (1)

Does this explain the willingness to do the right thing with regard to Uganda, but the unwillingness to do the same thing with regard to Saudi Arabia.  Of course there are obviously no evangelical Christians preaching openly in Saudi Arabia!  Is this latest moral indignation just part of the Western elite’s ongoing crusade against Christianity?

If Western elites really cared about gay rights then they would be more consistent in their criticism.

(1) Uganda politicians celebrate passing of anti-gay laws, the Guardian, 24 February 2014

Great Leader Cameron, the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, Can Solve All Our Problems!

Mexican wolf

Mexican wolf

I’ve just been reading an article at Canada Free Press (Friday, February 7, 2014) about the floods in the UK and the incompetence of the government with regard to planning for them.  I felt that I had something to say on this subject so I left a comment at that site.  The article by Anna Grayson-Morley included the following quote and I used this as the starting point of my comment:

“This is all until Dave stepped in with extra money that no one knows where it will come from or who exactly is going to get it.”

Here is the rest of my posted comment:

Notice how pledges are deliberately vague.  Cameron just wants to avoid the criticism of the moment and does not care one bit about the future. What he says now is just short term political management, to distract the public.  This is just like his pledge to have a referendum on the EU in the event of changes to the EU Constitution .  When the Lisbon Treaty that amended that Constitution came along, Cameron reneged on his commitment, just as he will undoubtedly do in the future with regard to his latest pledge to allow a referendum on the EU.

Cameron is like the little boy who cried wolf and thus could never be believed or trusted again.  The three parties that make up the political troika that rules Britain as a single party state based on their shared vision and indistinguishable policies, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative, exhibit exactly the same political character flaws as well.

Government needs to make policies and devise plans over long periods of time.  A government that can’t anticipate problems and can’t make plans for the future is a government in name only and not worth the expense of maintaining.  But ultimately why should they, the people never hold them to account anyway, they believe what the media tells them and they suspend the functions of independent thought!

Increasingly we see those in power concentrate on trendy causes, which they bully people to embrace, rather than on representing the needs of the people and the country.  It is as if, in our era of globalisation, democratic governments have been stripped of any real power and have contented themselves with the petty functions of a Parish Council.  Or is it all this a manifestation of the “creative destruction” so beloved by our Cultural Marxist decision makers?

Yesterday I listened to the Jeremy Vine radio programme which was discussing whether a small percentage of money should be taken out of the foreign aid budget and devoted instead to getting the people of the flooded areas of England back on their feet.  Do-gooder after do-gooder rang in saying, oh no, don’t take money from the foreign aid budget, that is so essential!  The implication was that the people of England are not suffering enough to be worthy of aid!

What I couldn’t fathom was why the UK was getting into ever increasing debt while at the same time giving money away.  Equally, if Government is making cuts then how can it afford to give public money away. If the Government can afford to give money to countries with space programmes, then perhaps that money could be more productively used on a British space programme.  If the Government can afford to give money away then it is obviously extracting tax money that it does not need.  Aid is an individual choice – in this era of globalisation let the global elite, those who control the system and have the real power an money in the modern age, give aid and keep our treasuries intact and focused on their function of maintaining this country and its people.

The lack of planning for these latest floods reminds me of the lack of planning for the millennium bug that got governments panicking in 1999.  They were apparently so short term in their thinking that they never thought the year 2000 would ever arrive so never planned for it.

The truth of the matter is, the British government is the tool of the global elite to further their global interests.  It is not the servant of the people who elected it. Elections are just a minor inconvenience that can be got round by clever media manipulation and the psychological exploitation of an unthinking and gullible public.

The problem we face is only illustrated by the current flooding issue – it runs much deeper and covers a broader range of concerns.  The problem we face is that government is so aloof and so corrupted by global money that it no longer cares about doing the job that government is supposed to do.  It is too busy interfering in people’s daily lives, poking its nose where it is not wanted and brainwashing entire populations, as well as bulling them, to sacrifice cherished freedoms and put their trust in the principle of ‘Government knows best’!  Government should spend less time spying on its own people and more time doing its job!

Scarlett Johansson Makes a Stand Against Bullying Sanctions Movement

Israel: View from Mount Carmel

Israel: View from Mount Carmel

I’ve just been reading an article on the Telegraph website by Brendan O’Neill about Scarlett Johansson.  I feel compelled to put fingers to keyboard to commend her on her decision of to give her role with Oxfam the big elbow after the charity allegedly ‘hinted’ that she should sever her links with SodaStream due to the company’s links with Israeli settlements.

Personally I think Oxfam should focus on its charity role rather than engage in the politics of the trendy, politics which involves very nasty attempts to bully and demonise the only true functioning and well established democracy in the Middle East.  Trade Unions should perhaps do the same and concentrate on representing their members in these difficult times.

There is too much bullying behaviour by Cultural Marxist types who seem to vent their spite on anything remotely Western or democratic these days.  Oxfam’s apparent attempt to ‘get to’ Scarlett in some way seems to me to fit their modus operandi.  Israel as a functioning Western style democracy obviously upsets them.   Good to see someone standing up to them rather than being intimidated by them.

Are charities really champions of the needy, or are they champions of a the dangerous Cultural Marxist political ideology that seeks to undermine the Western world?

Well done Scarlett!

See Brendan O’Neill’s article HERE.