Lord Justice Neuberger: The Judiciary and the Ethnic Oppression of White Males

Lord Justice Neuberger: The Judiciary and the Ethnic Oppression of White Males

Written by Tim Heydon

November 2011

‘(Herrnstein and Murray’s) ‘The Bell Curve’ is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85% per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score an average 100. (East) Asians score more…the ‘Bell Curve’ authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow.’ - Lee Kuan Yew,. Prime Minister /Minister Mentor Of Singapore (Quoted in the Official Biography). Should we be surprised that the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Neuberger has demanded that more women and ethnic minorities should be appointed to the judiciary, at the expense of white males? Should we heck. Does Neuberger at some Level think he is protecting his Ethnic Interests as a Jew? As a Jew, Neuberger is of course himself a member of an ethnic minority. It is perhaps not surprising that as such he should want the majority population to be elbowed out of such positions. Stripping the majority population of its majority rights is generally seen by ethnic minorities as an excellent thing in itself since it confers power on themselves and so (they think) makes their own position in the country more secure. That is why they tend to be leftists and liberals like Neuberger. This attitude is selfish, unfair and ultimately likely to be dangerous. What Democracy is For The Greatest Happiness of the greatest Number Politically Correct Liberals like Neuberger tend to forget or try to ignore what democracy - rule by the majority - is for. It exists in societies such as ours because in them the guiding principle is fundamentally the utilitarian one of the greatest happiness of the greatest number (or some variation thereof). Majorities have superior rights to enforce their interests or ought to have them simply by virtue of being majorities. The Replacement of Force in the Exercise of Power Even more important perhaps is the fact that the democratic process is a device for replacing force in the getting and wielding of power. While they insult and work to destroy the democratic rights of the ethnic majority at every turn with Marxoid ideologies and devices such as ‘Human Rights’, liberals simultaneously rely on that majority’s aquiescence and good will without which their liberalism would not survive for a week. When these are not readily forthcoming, as increasingly in this country, they rely on Political Oppression including the championing of the existing sham of a democratic system which works to their advantage and the systematic , calculated demoralisation of the majority. When Democracy Disappears, Force will Reappear But when majorities see that their interests are consistently and as an act of policy being deliberately overridden in favour of those of minorities, the result in the end might very well be explosive. That is, in the right conditions including the manifest absence of true democracy as orchestrated by an unrepresentative political class, which is increasingly widely being recognised as the case in Britain now, the majority might revert to violence including political extremism to enforce its interests. Harsh Economic Conditions and Oppression of the Majority are the Seed Bed of Violence That is especially the case in the harsh economic climate that stretches ahead into the indefinite future. This is the danger, or one of them, that those like Neuberger who advocate ‘affirmative action’ ie anti-native British discrimination and oppression, run in advocating this course. There are already rumblings along these lines in this country. At the present rate it won’t be so very long before they burst out into serious civil disturbances The Farthest a Fair-Minded Majority will go Equality in terms of appointments on merit alone is as much as the majority ethnic group is likely to want to put up with in the long run. Affirmative Action means Loss of Prestige Another danger for the Neubergers is that, as in other areas of our national life where the policy of ‘affirmative action’ is practiced, ethnic and female members of the Judiciary will lose prestige because there will always exist the suspicion that they came by their appointments ahead of white males who have better claims themselves, even if they are said to be ‘equally qualified’. Institutionalised Anti-White Male Bias And that suspicion of bias will not be without foundation because contrary to what Neuberger asserts, no two candidates are ever going to be identically qualified academically, by experience or by character . Further, the structural bias which demands that when there are two ‘equal’ candidates, the ethnic or female candidate will be chosen, will in practice undoubtedly be compounded by an enhanced fear of accusations that ethnic / sex bias is being shown if white males are selected. This will result in a double bias against non-ethnic males. (Incidentally, when both candidates are female presumably the ethnic female will be chosen ahead of a white female as scoring more points on the PC scale of ‘oppression’). The False Premise of Equality of Ability and other Characteristics If Neuberger’s proposal and the Legislation he refers to has any claim to fairness it must be that it is based on the actual equality of ability and inclination of all. But the idea that minorities and women are equal in every relevant respect to white males and should be more fully represented in the judiciary, ideally in proportion to their numbers is as in other areas of life is without foundation. And because it is, it is the basis of oppression of the more able white males who are then excluded from their just rewards. Neuberger’ s own family history ought tell him that while family culture undoubtedly plays a part, ability is largely hereditary. Neuberger’s own Family History is an Indication of Inherited ability Wikipedia tells us that he was ‘born on 10 January 1948, the son of Professor Albert Neuberger,[2] Professor of Chemical Pathology at St Mary's Hospital, University of London, and his wife, Lilian. His uncle was the noted rabbi, Herman N. Neuberger. All three of his brothers are now professors: James is Professor of Medicine at the University of Birmingham, Michael is Professor of Molecular Immunology at the University of Cambridge, while Anthony is Professor in Finance at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick.[3]’ It’s not just Individuals who inherit Ability, it is Ethnicities. Further, the make –up of the Supreme Court ought to tell Neuberger that it is not just himself and his siblings who are the beneficiaries of inherited ability. It is the Jews as an ethnic group, as with other ethnic groups. The high proportion of Jews in the upper reaches of the British Judiciary matches their presence in the other professions and is entirely in line with what we would expect from what we know of their high level of average intelligence, which is in the range 107.7- 113 (native British 100). (Richard Lynn, The Global Bell Curve pp 94, 95. Washington Summit 2008). The Average Woman is not as Intelligent as the average Man. Further, Wikinews tells us. ‘In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman. Since women are not as intelligent as men, especially at the higher levels, have a natural role in bearing and raising babies and because of this natural function have emotional abilities and needs and therefore attitudes to work etc that differ from those of men, the assumption that they should be present in the same proportion as men at the higher reaches of the professions is ludicrous and the product of mere ideology rather than the plainly observable facts of life which that ideology tries to-dismiss. The Ethnic Origins of the Judges of the Supreme Court Lord Phillips President of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, KG Jewish Lord Hope Deputy President of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Hope of Craighead, KT Scottish . Hope seems solidly Scottish Lord Walker Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe English. Walker went to Downside School, a Catholic Indpendent School Lady Hale Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond Hale’s provenance is not certain because there are few readily available clues on this point. She went to a Christian school, but her name, Hale, appears on a list of possibly Jewish surnames. She looks like a typical Jewish mother. Her second husband Julian Farrand has a name which can be thoroughly Jewish and has very Jewish looks. Further, the Farrands have strong Jewish associations. For example, we learn that they attended ‘a reception in honour of Dorit Beinisch, president of the Supreme Court of Israel, and the other Israeli judges and academics who were in London as guests of their British counterparts. The reception, hosted by the Jewish Lord and Lady Pannick, was held at the House of Lords. In his address Lord Pannick joked that with six Israeli judges in the room there would be at least seven opinions. Baroness Hale said: “We learn so much from these exchanges.” Lord Brown Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Jewish. Brown is the son of Denis Baer Brown and Edna Elizabeth Abrahams. Lord Mance Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Mance English . But 'Mance' can be Jewish. His first name is Jonathan, favoured by Jews. He was introduced to the House of Lords between two Jews, Lord Hoffman and Lord Brown (See above). His wife’s father was a partner in a firm of solicitors founded by the Jewish Abel Morrall. Lord Kerr Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore Ulsterman. Kerr is an Ulsterman. Most likely Catholic (He went to a Catholic school in Northern Ireland). Lord Clarke Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon the Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony English . There is not much information on Clarke, but there is no reason to think otherwise. He has a very English name and face. Lord Dyson Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Honourable Lord Dyson Jewish . Dyson stepped into the vacancy left by Neuberger, himself a Jew of course, when the latter became Master of the Rolls. Dyson was a chairman of the British Friends of the Hebrew University's legal group. Lord Wilson Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon. Lord Wilson of Culworth English – apparently. Not much information on ethnicity available. Again, he has an English / Scottish name and a very British face. Jonathan Sumption Newly appointed Justice of The Supreme Court English (probably). Sumption is an old English name but can be Jewish. It has been suggested that it is a variant of the given name "Samson," from the Hebrew "Shimson", a diminutive of "shemesh". The first name Jonathan is obviously favoured by Jews. However as a Historian Sumption wrote extensively on Christianity in the Middle Ages although this does have relevance to Jewry. So at least three of the 11 present members of the highest court in the land ie 27% (more or less) and possibly others are Jewish. Given that the present population of Jews in the UK is about 290,000 ie 0.5% of the whole , this disproportion is quite extraordinary. If Neuberger is after proper ethnic proportionate representation in the Judiciary, there should be no Jews in the Supreme Court , or in other high positions – ever. For surely ‘equal treatment’ as claimed by Neuberger means that, not just ‘under representation’ but ‘ over representation’ should be rectified Or does Neuberger have a strictly one-way process in mind? The fact that Jews, a tiny minority in the country, are in such numbers in the upper reaches of the Judiciary as in other areas of life in Britain is a proof that that there is no barrier to ethnics of ability. The artificial attempt to increase their representation and that of females by what amounts to affirmative action is a gross oppression of white males. It will not be tolerated in the long run. (Note: This article assumes that the Judiciary including Neuberger subscribes to the formula in Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and another [2000] QB 451 There, a specially convened Court of Appeal bench stated that: “We cannot … conceive of circumstances in which an objection [of apparent judicial bias] could be soundly based on the religion, ethnic or national origin, gender, age, class, means or sexual orientation of the judge.” The bench was emphatic that a judge’s particular religious convictions or cultural background or associations would not and should not be thought to influence his or her decisions on matters of law’ Your writer regards this statement as a pious fiction. But that is a subject for another article).

Turkey: The Sleeping Giant Of Islam

Turkey: The Sleeping Giant Of Islam

fromworldaffairs journal.org

---

Today is a turning point in history. Nothing will ever be the same again.” So said Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan shortly after nine Turks aboard a Turkish ship died in a May 2010 clash with Israelis. The ship had challenged Israel’s embargo on terror-related goods bound for Gaza. Some observers said that the prime minister shook visibly as he spoke that day.

Erdogan was indeed marking a historic turning point. But not in Turkish-Israeli relations. Rather, he should have been seen—and in fact has been seen throughout the Middle East—as signaling a much broader and more ambitious regional agenda for Turkey, one that will impact its relations with Iran. And to the degree that this agenda succeeds, Erdogan’s words will be seen as prophetic: nothing hereafter will be the same.

Among Turks there seems little doubt that the Erdogan government was complicit in the “flotilla affair,” and that the prime minister looked forward to a confrontation that, one way or another, would show him dramatically standing against Israel. Under his leadership, Turkey’s once firm relations with Israel had already decayed. The Turkish radicals on board the ship heading toward Gaza were not surprised when an Israeli ship interdicted them; violence seems to have been in their plans. Investigations are under way. But this is a region resistant to the niceties of depositions; it sees a higher truth in this affair.

The Middle East has known for some time of Erdogan’s determination to change the nature of his country’s strategic vision. Under his tightening leadership, Turkey is distancing itself from a century of Western orientation and half a century of Western alliances. It pursues a patient and careful course toward a leading, or even dominant, role in the greater Gulf region, and perhaps in the universe of Muslim-majority countries more generally.

No explicit declaration marked this change, for none was wise or needed. Erdogan still calls Turkey a bridge to the Muslim world and tells Westerners that he will be an honest broker between them and it. But the Muslim world understands very well that Turkey has tilted toward the East. Until recently, Erdogan had quietly pursued this shift in three main ways: positioning Turkey to benefit from the decline of the Arab states whose leadership of the region has dramatically deteriorated in the past decade; reaching out to Iran, the most openly aggressive claimant for regional leadership and standard bearer for hostility toward the West; and slowly redefining Turkey’s domestic priorities and politics. Few expected the EU to embrace Turkish membership, but Erdogan adroitly used the EU rejection to undermine Ataturk’s Westernizing legacy. There is a certain artistry, if not originality, in plotting behind the brim of Ataturk’s Western ideals to favor the headscarf.

There have, of course, been less subtle signs of the shift eastward. In 2003, Turkey barred the passage of US troops into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In 2005, Erdogan honored Iran’s newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the halls of Istanbul, despite Ahmadinejad’s calls for genocide. And in 2006, Erdogan embraced Hamas after its victory in Palestinian elections, and then Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, despite his indictment for war crimes in Darfur. Even before the flotilla sailed for Gaza, Erdogan’s criticism of Israel had already grown shrill. But the change in Turkey’s posture toward Israel has in large part been a tool to advance the country’s reorientation, rather than in any sense its cause.

Erdogan’s comments following the flotilla affair marked a new stage in his quest rather than a change in his goals. He has declared Turkey’s intent to step to the fore as a leader of angry, threatening, anti-Western elements that seek to control the Islamic world. “Turkey’s hostility,” Erdogan pointedly proclaimed in his “turning point” speech, “is as strong as its friendship is valuable.” It was an advertisement for Middle Eastern consumers: we will be the enemy of your enemies, a shelter to our friends.

In the Muslim realm, radical and jihadi precincts included, Erdogan’s message was understood and applauded. Arab publics cheered Turkey as a new leader of hostility against Israel. The deputy head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, taking for granted Turkey’s role as chief instigator of the flotilla, urged the heirs of the Ottomans toward even more forceful action against Israel—advice he has repeated since. Zawahiri recalled with praise centuries of “Turkish” rule of the Muslim world.

Al-Qaeda’s endorsement confirms Erdogan’s push to be seen not merely as a leader of the Muslim world, but the leader. While he had previously played merely a supportive role to Iran, with the flotilla affair Erdogan pressed Turkey’s case. One of the many subtle implications of his “turning point” remark is that Turkey and Iran are now rivals, as well as collaborators in the drive to create an internationally more aggressive Middle East. It is unlikely that Ahmadinejad missed this nuance.

This development should not be entirely surprising. Once Erdogan and his party chose to redefine Turkish identity in a more Islamic, and perhaps Islamist, way, and once Turkey set its eyes east and south toward the ancient Muslim heartlands, a rivalry with Iran was likely.

Iran’s regional ambitions are hardwired into the theocratic regime both by its revolutionary doctrine and the limited legitimacy of its rulers. This is especially true now as different factions of the mullahs’ ruling elite compete for ownership of the “revolution.” As the Arab states’ power and influence in the region has declined, Iran has sought, with some success, to take their place. These ambitions have been advanced in the short term by the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and by the erratic recovery in Iraq and continuing conflict in Afghanistan, but far more by Iran’s unchecked pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran draws, too, upon the attraction of its enormous proven reserves in natural gas and oil (second and third largest, respectively, in the world). But the mullahs’ regional ambitions wash up against Iran’s ancient rival, Turkey.

In the form of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey for centuries led the greater Middle East. Today its population and economy are slightly larger than Iran’s, and its economy and conventional military are stronger. Despite limits in its democratic processes, Turkey’s government enjoys substantially more stability and legitimacy at home and abroad than Iran’s does. In addition, the Iranian political elite must deal with a traditional “quietist” school of Shiite Islam, now prospering in neighboring Iraq, that scorns theocratic rule. By contrast, as a Sunni country, Turkey may more readily garner support in a largely Sunni Middle East. Indeed, the country has historically invoked its role as the natural leader of the Sunnis to buy peace at home and fend off pressures from abroad. In Ottoman times, it did so in the aftermath of a losing war in the eighteenth century, and again in the late nineteenth. In that era, Sunnis as far afield as India responded positively to that claim; the recent statements of al-Qaeda’s Zawahiri show that Turkey may again attract such support.

The emergence of a Turkish-Iranian rivalry was somewhat delayed by the political problems Erdogan faced when he took power in 2002 with only a minority of the electorate behind him. Turkey’s longstanding secular political tradition meant that he had to move cautiously and cleverly in pursuing the domestic redefinition of Turkish identity. For Erdogan knew his history: the Turkish military had repeatedly thwarted previous Islamist-oriented parties, including, only a decade earlier, one in which Erdogan was a leading figure. So he pursued, initially, the safe course of leaning more toward Iran, and following its lead, albeit at a distance. Hence the warm reception accorded Ahmadinejad and other friendly gestures.

But Erdogan’s party was reelected in 2007 with an increased plurality and a greater majority in Parliament. Since then, he has further weakened internal opposition. While it will not be easy for him to gain and keep broad Turkish support for his plans, there are signs of his progress so far. He recently rejected with virtually no protest several of the military’s candidates for senior promotions; and civilians, not the military, will draft the new National Security Document—both changes from past patterns. Meanwhile, the opposition press has been systematically muzzled—a dash of tax intimidation, a touch of party-supported competition, a measure of prison for alleged seditious activity. Most recently, the constitutional referendum held in September passed with an unexpectedly large majority. Several of the amendments it approved significantly enhance Erdogan’s power. One of them will allow him to take greater control of the heretofore independent judiciary, which had remained a source of opposition; a second reduces the military’s control of its own criteria for membership, especially its power to exclude soldiers on religious grounds. Moreover, the referendum sets the stage for a complete rewriting of the Constitution, which had already been proposed.

In the meantime, Erdogan’s government is pursuing the prosecution of high-level officers for their role in an alleged coup planned in 2003. There are increasingly credible claims among Turks that this is a fraudulent prosecution, knowingly based on forged documents. This might cause Erdogan some domestic difficulties, but the appearance of ruthless dishonesty may confirm for both supporters and opponents alike the depth of his desire for control.

Having fewer constraints on the bases of his power, the prime minister can act with a freer hand in the foreign sphere. Indeed, the two areas at this point may be mutually reinforcing. Erdogan’s behavior in the flotilla crisis won him massive domestic demonstrations of support as he headed into the referendum campaign and positioned his party for the next general elections in 2011.

It is perhaps only a historical oddity, but still a curious one, that a modern struggle for leadership of the greater Middle East and its ancient Muslim heartlands brings to mind rivalries there five hundred years ago. Turkey and Iran are the diminished heirs of two great Muslim Empires of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: the Sunni Ottoman Empire and the Shiite Safavid Empire. The Ottomans’ four-hundred-year rule (1517–1917) of vast, especially Arab, Muslim lands arose amidst its rivalry with the Safavid state, a state founded on the basis of new, radical Shiite teachings. Indeed, the Shiite Safavids claimed a particularly close connection with the divine. Their soldiers believed the Safavid leader a divine incarnation, and they attacked the Ottoman border with millenarian utopian fervor, fomenting Shiite rebellions in Anatolia. The present border between Turkey and Iran roughly tracks the border that emerged from Ottoman-Safavid wars, and this rivalry led to long-lasting changes throughout the region. Before the conflict, the Ottomans were more preeminently a European power with an Anatolian hinterland. Afterward, Ottoman ambitions had expanded, and by a chain of events they had not only defeated the Safavids but found themselves quickly in control of present-day Iraq, Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. From that time forward, the Ottomans became the standard bearer of Sunnis and put forward a claim, often accepted, to the ancient and prestigious title of caliph.

The defeated Safavid Empire left its own lasting legacy: the conversion of Iran from a majority Sunni to an uneasy Shiite land. The essentially theocratic Islamic Revolution of 1979 revived radical Shiism and its ambitions, toppled a regional order based on the Shah, and projected power into Syria, Iraq, the Gulf, Lebanon, Central Asia, and more recently the Palestinian community. In time, Shiite-Sunni conflict intensified, infamously in Iraq but also in Lebanon and Pakistan. The political and military struggle between Sunnis and Shiites, Turks and Persians, for preeminence in the ancient Muslim heartlands, especially Iraq, may not determine the Middle East’s future, but its influence has stalked this region’s politics for centuries.

Atop these ancient layers lie more modern sources of rivalry created by the current regional framework of states and their particular characteristics. For example, Turkey remains interested in having an influential role in Azerbaijan. A high-level Turkish delegation recently visited and concluded agreements there. Azeris are Shiites, but they are ethnically Turkish and Turkish speaking and maintain a tense relationship with Iran, which must remain concerned with Turkish-Azeri relations because approximately one-quarter of its population is Azeri and rests uneasily under “Persian rule.”

Iraq, too, presents an arena of competition because of its genuine desire to protect itself from Iranian ambitions, the internal Shiite-Sunni divide, and the Kurdish question, which looms large in Iraqi and Turkish politics, and even in Iran, with its own large Kurdish minority. (Recently there have been notably violent attacks on Iranian officials and soldiers in Iran’s “Kurdistan,” though the provenance of these attacks is not clear.)

Lebanon and Syria present yet another Muslim arena for competition. Lebanon is nearby and riven internally, not least along a Sunni-Shia divide. In the recent past, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s support for Kurdish separatists led to an actively hostile Turkish-Syrian border. Turkey has in the last few years undertaken a rapprochement with Syria. Nevertheless, both Syria and Lebanon have increasingly become satellites of Iran. Turkey must inevitably be concerned about further consolidation of Iranian influence near its borders—for example, through the enhanced power of Hezbollah.

Ahmadinejad’s recent state visit to Lebanon (his first) and the enthusiastic reception he received have real as well as symbolic implications. The trip endorsed, and provided support for, the ever-growing power of Hezbollah but also declared how far the ruling mullahs feel that Iranian writ may run. Iran is in effect claiming an “imperial sphere” that reaches across Turkey’s southern border. Iranian flags lined Lebanese roads and signs declared, “Welcome to the protector of Lebanon.” A Lebanese politician observed that “Lebanon will become an Iranian base on the shores of the Mediterranean.” Moreover, Ahmadinejad made the centerpiece of his visit the declaration of renewed hostility to Israel and the United States, saying, “Our world today stands on the verge of change, a change that is starting from our region. Lebanon is an example . . . for the unwavering resistance to the world’s tyrants and a university for jihad.” Ahmadinejad thus announced his own version of a “turning point” and emphasized, as he has in the past, an abiding goal that the “Zionists be wiped out.” Although his visit served several of his own purposes, including domestic ones, one of its most important initiatives was to renew a claim for the leadership role that Erdogan sought to grab through the flotilla affair.

Conflicting interests can be resolved; history is not destiny. The course of Turkish-Iranian relations and the region remains unknown and subject, in part, to Erdogan’s domestic goals, the agendas of others (including the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons), and the roles the Great Powers play.

In the near term, Erdogan may revert to a more cautious mode. He might be satisfied with “profit taking” after the flotilla affair. (One indication of this is the next installment in the Turkish film series Valley of the Wolves—very popular in Turkey and elsewhere—which will open with a flotilla scene. As a Turkish film critic recently said, the film will thus capitalize on Turkey’s regional popularity. Erdogan will capitalize, too.) He has sent a high-level delegation to Washington to reaffirm Turkish-American ties. This fits his ongoing claim that Turkey has not turned decisively to the Muslim East and remains a “bridge” between the West and Islam—a claim that is no longer easily credible, but which serves his other ends. Erdogan continues to seek more control over domestic Turkish politics—further rewriting the Constitution to enhance his power, curbing Kurdish separatists, and controlling the military with measures like the prosecution of officers for alleged conspiracies. In the long term, Erdogan may find that it will not suffice merely to bring the military under control; he may want to put his imprint on it and incorporate it into his foreign and domestic designs.

Erdogan has reasons to prefer a cautious approach, but history reveals, especially in the region, that it is hard to tame a radical agenda: Others act on their fears or hopes; Erdogan must know that the prestige of being Israel’s greatest enemy exposes him to crises created by others. The consolidation of control by Iran’s most revolutionary elements may permit, or even force, him to adopt a more aggressive policy to stay in the game. Hamas or Hezbollah may act for reasons of their own. Erdogan may find it tricky to limit entanglement without jeopardizing his desired role. In the spring of 1967, Syria sparked an escalation of Arab threats and military preparations that soon swept Egypt and other Arab states into an unwanted Six-Day War for which they were ill prepared. Events may not follow Erdogan’s chosen course or calendar, despite caution or cleverness.

Erdogan may even see some advantage in Iran’s determined drive for nuclear weapons. Assertive heirs of the Ottomans may not welcome Iranian nuclear weapons, but after observing diplomacy between Ahmadinejad and the West, Erdogan may well conclude that only a successful Israeli strike will slow Iran. By joining Brazil to mediate a transparently unacceptable nuclear deal with Iran, Erdogan raises his profile and hedges his bets: If the West falters, or if it succeeds, he has not weakened the Muslim world or exposed Turkey to Iran. In the near term, there are other opportunities for Turkish regional gains: Iran’s nuclear bid has weakened its economy and stirred up opposition among Sunni states; in the wake of an Israeli strike, should one occur, Turkey will raise its public voice in anger, even if among its leaders there is some private relief.

But Turkey’s own nuclear ambitions—and not just Iran’s—loom in Erdogan’s maneuvers. In the shadow of Iran’s headlong rush, Turkey has quietly pursued a nuclear course of its own. In 2006, Erdogan revived the country’s long-delayed plans for nuclear power; in 2007, the Turkish Parliament acted affirmatively; in 2010, Turkey and Russia agreed to build a nuclear plant in Turkey this decade. Nuclear power may or may not make economic sense for earthquake-prone, resource-poor Turkey, given that it straddles major energy transit lines. Nuclear technology presents an entirely separate strategic calculation. The Iranian example shows that nuclear enrichment capabilities are best won quietly, a task for which Erdogan is well suited. But as Turkey seeks a leading and aggressive Muslim identity, loosening Western ties, will Erdogan see Turkey’s safety or prestige ensured by having nuclear weapons only in the hands of Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, and Western powers—and likely Iran’s as well?

Today Turkey and Iran pursue their regional ambitions with a watchful eye on the interests of greater outside powers. At the moment, there is a powerful and growing belief in the region that the United States is withdrawing—not only from Iraq, but from any forceful role in the region. This may not properly reflect President Obama’s policy; and even if it did, some may claim it is not possible for years to come. However, there is enough ambiguity, for example, in our policies toward Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Israel, to inflame our enemies and cause uncertainty among our friends. They know the perversity of this region where persistent efforts may win gains, while lesser efforts likely fail. On the occasion of Ahmadinejad’s Lebanese tour, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “We would hope that no visitor would do anything or say anything that would give cause to greater tension or instability in that country.” Many in the region share that hope, but they will be most interested in what deeds accompany our words.

Looking at Western European states, the Middle East cannot help but see rising domestic Muslim constituencies and declining interest in international efforts that might clash with determined Islamist aims. It also sees Russia, China, and India becoming more assertive, not to mention more willing to bargain for their own ends. This reflects not only these nations’ growing power in the world but also their increasing interest in energy resources, transportation infrastructure, and the heightened regional roles of states closer to them—states like Turkey and Iran.

So the Great Powers offer (or just as importantly, seem to offer) the leaders of Turkey and Iran new pieces in a game long played in the lands that stretch from the Bosphorus to the Straits of Hormuz. For example, the new Turkish national security strategy reportedly will remove Russia from its list of enemies, and Russia and Turkey are focused on pipelines critical to both that would have enormous strategic impact on Europe. Meanwhile, Iran has used Russian and Chinese interests to forestall UN sanctions. Even in earlier days, the Ottomans or Persians time and again allied with Russia to struggle against one another. The region is practiced in such maneuvers.

Turkey and Iran may yet follow anti-Western paths more similar than not. American problems might deepen if Turkey or Iran manipulates outside powers for support. Recently Turkey staged one of its regular “Anatolian Eagle” joint military maneuvers. This time, atypically, American and Israeli forces were absent, replaced by Chinese planes and pilots. The Chinese reached Turkey by flying, with Tehran’s permission, through Iranian airspace.

Dealing with this new configuration of power and ambition calls for a determined policy by America, one that deals realistically with the landscape we face, not the one we wish for. There are prospects for us in this landscape, but diplomacy, however adept, will accomplish little if, correctly or incorrectly, the region doubts our will to follow through.

In the 1930s, Ataturk admonished Turks to free their public life from dysfunctional ways. He warned that the choice was not ideological or aesthetic but pragmatic. “Civilization,” he said, “is a fearful fire which consumes those who ignore it.” And fire spreads—especially when fed by a volatile mix of gas, oil, religion, and ambition.

Petrol Prices Fuel Our Radical British Nationalist Alternative

Petrol Prices Fuel Our Radical Alternative

Posted AT BNP IDEAS on Nov 2011

By Mark Pritchard.

With prices at petrol pumps having tripled in twenty years, far above the rate of inflation, and now at record levels, and the Government set to slap another 3p tax on a litre of fuel in January, MPs responded by indulging in a futile debate on fuel prices on Tuesday afternoon.

A debate that may give the public the impression intended, that the politicians care about the increasing suffering this is inflicting on ordinary families and will do something. But which will result in nothing being done. Because the issues around fuel prices are much more fundamental, and will require much more radical action, than fiddling with a penny here and there on fuel duty.

Fuel duty is certainly significant: 58p of the price you pay for every litre goes in duty. Plus another 22.4p a litre on average for petrol and 23.1p for diesel in VAT. Craftily the taxman charges VAT on the rest of the price of the fuel, including duty, so you are paying 20% tax on tax!

The actual cost of the fuel, including refining it so it can go in your car, amounts to only 46.7p a litre on petrol and 52.6p a litre on diesel. This incidentally is pretty constant across the country – the wide variation in prices charged at the pumps is simply opportunistic profiteering by the multinational corporations on whom you and I depend to put fuel in our cars.

Those multinationals do not do at all badly out of it. Profit margins on fuel average 25% after tax, which is a very handsome profit margin as any businessman will tell you. Given that the UK rate on fuel companies’ profits is 62%, it is clear that their profiteering from our forced purchases of petrol and diesel is considerably greater than the 25% they get to pocket.

This is as far as the debate, very largely, has gone.

The AA and RAC on behalf of the hapless motorists bewail high tax rates and the Government, this one and the last, justify these on the basis of needing the money thus raised to reduce the massive level of public debt they have run up. The latter means neither Tories, Labour or LibDems will do anything much about the ever rising prices we pay at the pumps. They cannot afford to.

Public debt and what should be done about it is a separate debate. But in fact it is irrelevant to the real issue. As is arguing about the rate of tax on fuel.

The real problem causing the real pain to us ordinary Britons isn’t that an awful lot of the price we pay for petrol and diesel goes in tax and oil company profits. It always did. The real problem is that that price itself just keeps on rising ever higher, faster than inflation and, most importantly, faster than incomes rise.

Filling up our cars, and distribution companies filling up their trucks and vans, is getting steadily more expensive in real terms. It is this that is the real issue causing the real pain. Both directly at the pumps and indirectly as higher fuel costs feed through via higher distribution costs to put up the price of food and other goods in the shops. It is this that is the real issue.

The root cause of this, the real issue, is that the price of crude oil, the underlying raw material, is rising inexorably. Whilst pump prices go up pretty much in lockstep with the underlying oil price.

We are paying three times what we paid for fuel twenty years ago because the price of crude oil has itself tripled over this period. There have been fluctuations – the Bankers’ Crash of 2008/09 reduced demand for oil globally, the price of crude fell and so, briefly, did the price we paid at the pumps.

Also and as usual the nefarious and parasitic antics of global market speculators have temporarily distorted prices from time to time. But the underlying trend is inexorably up. In the long run, if things go on like this, we are going to be paying ever more – a growing fraction of our incomes, on fuelling our cars, vans and trucks. Whilst ever more of these costs will also put up the price of food, clothing and other necessities.

It is this, the inexorable long term rise in real oil prices, that is the fundamental problem, and the one the MPs’ bickering, shouting, making inane jokes and scoring party points as ever in Parliament assembled most certainly never really considered, let alone addressed.

So we must, especially as we are not burdened by the immediate pressures of Government or Opposition.

Why are oil prices steadily going up? The answer is basic economics: supply and demand. The supply of crude oil is not keeping pace with rising demand worldwide. This must and does drive up prices on the global oil market. Because we are in that global market, that means we get to pay more. And more, and more.

Why is demand rising? Mostly because India and China are massively increasing oil consumption. Partly to run industries dumping their cheap goods in our home markets thanks to the global market economy.

Partly as the profits of that exploitation and undercutting of Western peoples fuels greater consumption and especially car use amongst the exploiting classes in countries like India and China.

Whilst children and poor peasants work long hours for derisory pay in the sweatshops churning out their cheap goods, a growing class of bosses, managers and Capitalists is getting richer and swapping their bicycles for cars. Which need petrol. With economies growing at several percent a year these countries will keep on wanting more and more oil.

In theory, this rise in demand pushes prices up in the short term which in the long term creates more supply, as new suppliers are attracted into the market by the higher prices. In practice, oil is a limited good.

Higher prices do make previously uneconomic sources worth exploiting, but the cost of finding and extracting it steadily rises, so that these new sources do little or nothing to bring down the cost of oil. For example, a barrel of oil costs at most £2 to get out of the Saudi sands. It costs over £40 a barrel to extract from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada.

Matters are made worse by the fact that most of the world’s oil that is cheap to extract is in politically unstable and dangerous places, whose rulers seek to exploit the undeserved power the oil gives them.

The producers’ cartel OPEC has in the past consistently used monopoly power to keep prices artificially high – although now it no longer, interestingly, needs to do so. It has always been outrageous and immoral that British families needing to fuel their cars have been exploited by super-rich Islamic sheikhs who neither made, found, extracted nor used the oil beneath usually uninhabitaed and waste tracts of their domains.

As oil prices rise there is a strong case likely to be made in the short-term for an alliance of Western powers confiscating this undeserved asset and the wealth exacted from it. The more so as the oil states are swept by Islamism and political instability – the Saudi sheikhs are looking shaky indeed these days!

The replacement of bandits driven by greed with fanatics driven by hate in control of the oil supplies on which the West has become dependent would be a disaster demanding and probably getting urgent, and doubtless military, action. At least British soldiers would not die in vain in Arabia defending our country’s short-term energy supply as they do in Afghanistan defending nothing of the least relevance to Britain.

However, secret as the sheikhs keep the size of their stash of remaining Black Gold, it is no secret that it is limited and will sooner or later run out. Sooner, as global demand fuelled by China, India and their ilk, rises inexorably. The same is true of all oil reserves, at some point. Some probably not too distant point, in fact.

Although there is a great deal of crackpot nonsense spoken and written about “Peak Oil” (especially by those who choose to surround themselves with unthreatening cranks!) it is a truism universally acknowledged that the supply of oil is finite – the Earth is essentially a stone in the sky with a molten metal middle rather than a giant floating oil droplet, after all!

Also whilst in theory ever-more difficult and inaccessible oil deposits can be exploited as prices rise, eventually a limit is set by physics, rather than economics.

If it takes more energy to extract the oil than is released when it is burned, it is not worth extracting. And the energy cost of extraction is a physical cost, comprised of effort, not an economic cost denominated in money. Once we have to put in more energy per barrel of oil than we get out of it as fuel, further extraction is unsustainable. The oil has run out.

Long before then, demand rising faster than supply will have forced prices to unaffordable levels at the pumps. In theory, this would cause users to seek more affordable alternatives.

This is the theory behind the “fuel duty escalator” which was meant to control oil consumption by gradually reducing demand in favour of alternatives.

The problem is there aren’t any alternatives today, in practice. Public transport has been privatised and, over much of rural Britain, closed down. The railways, neglected for decades in favour if what Margaret Thatcher once famously called “our great car economy” are now inadequate to cope with demand, overcrowded, and, again, subject to the parasitic removal of corporate profit from their operations, further starving them of resources.

The transport infrastructure is now totally built around motor vehicles. The subservience of both Labour and Tory politics, nationally and locally, to economics in the form of huge corporations’ money has led to the replacement of local small High Street shops in walking distance of most homes with giant out-of-town malls of Tesco superstores etc., only really accessible by car.

The breakdown of community and the feeling of safety on the streets it brings, combined with the rising flood of cars making streets physically dangerous for children, has fuelled the motor-driven daily “school run” in place of children walking or being bussed to school.

The result is that most people have no realistic alternative to the car for personal and family transport. Nor do most businesses have one to using vans and trucks for distribution. The result in turn is that in the British – and other Western – markets demand for petrol/diesel is in economic terms “price inelastic”.

Raising price does not reduce demand, because people have no alternative but simply to pay more. As price rises people are forced to go without less vital goods in order to afford to get to work, school and the shops. Small transport businesses go bust.

But there is no significant move out of cars. Until a break point is suddenly reached – we can only speculate what that is: £5 a litre, £10, £50?—when suddenly most of the public cannot afford to fill their tanks, therefore do not go to work, and the economy and society collapse catastrophically.

That is what will happen eventually unless our rulers stop tinkering with a penny on or off fuel duty here and a VAT rate change there and start addressing the real underlying issue.

We are not the only people to see this: on the day Parliament had its futile safety valve hot air release, Richard Hebditch, of the Campaign for Better Transport, rightly said the “big problem” is that Britons are reliant on their cars and dependent on foreign oil supplies, which are “quite risky oil supplies.”

He went: “What we need to do is take the money from fuel duty and invest it in giving people real alternatives and modernising our transport systems so we aren’t so dependent on foreign and risky oil supplies.”

Mr Hebditch is right. We must go further – in the long run we have to aim for sustainable energy independence. An economy in which we meet all our energy needs from within our own borders and the territory we control.

It would have been easier if the oil we did have in the North Sea had not been sold off by Labour and Tory alike to foreign multinationals, who have flogged it all off for a fast buck. Instead we should have kept it in the hands of our own people, and husbanded it for maximum use, as Norway has done. Now we are importing oil, and gas, again.

As long as we can still afford to do so as we have to pay ever more bidding against the billions of India and China on the global markets.

We don’t need to forever. Oil itself is basically only a means of storing energy and moving it about until it can be used, normally to drive an internal combustion engine.

In terms of energy per unit mass it is very efficient. The main current alternative, electrical batteries, store much less energy per unit mass, which is why electric cars struggle to become established in the market.

When oil gets a lot more expensive or if batteries become a lot more efficient this will change. Especially as batteries can store energy captured from many sources – sun, wind, and water as well as by releasing energy from sunlight captured and stored by plants millions of years ago as with coal and oil.

We should, for example, now be funding massive research on new and better ways of storing energy, better batteries and making oil from coal (which we do still have in abundance). There are lots of other ideas we should be developing now against the day we will need to achieve energy independence.

This is what we as a country should be doing. As a Party, we should be explaining the real cause of dear petrol at the pumps is the fact that we are dependent for supply on a global market in which prices will keep on rising faster than people’s incomes.

We should be arguing the case for a radical alternative based not on 2p off fuel duty but on energy independence. Indeed we should be arguing the case for as much as possible sustainable economic independence in which we not only produce our own fuel and generate our own power but feed and clothe our own people from our own territory. Autarky rather than the global market.

At this point some more conservative with a small “c” – but no less patriotic and nationally-minded-Nationalists will argue that such radicalism will scare the horses and lose us votes.

They would and do argue we should not openly advocate a radical alternative to the global market Capitalist system – even though they must privately admit that if we came to power tomorrow it would expel us in a wave of sanctions etc. whether we wanted to leave or not.

Precipitating a massive economic crisis and very probably the collapse of our Government, the more so if we had not suggested any such break with globalism beforehand. They argue that economic autarky is politically damaging and should be dropped as a policy. We will never win power on such a platform, they fear.

In the short term they are right. But in the short term we are not going to be anywhere near power anyway. We will not win power on any platform for now.

In the short term the present System mostly sort of works and most of the public are mostly sort of happy with it. And therefore mostly sort of happy with the Parties that run it.

There may be ever more lumps in the bunk mattress, the cabins may be cleaned less frequently and well, and dinner may be worse and worse cooked. There may even be the odd fly in the soup. But the passengers are not anxious to leave the luxury liner for the lifeboats, and are happy to trust the Captain who says the ship is unsinkable rather than the weatherbeaten and disreputable old matelot who says they should be looking instead to the condition of the lifeboats. Until the iceberg hits…

Then they will remember – and in that hour heed and turn to – the bloke who knew about the lifeboats. Rather than the more civic-minded seaman who shied from mentioning icebergs and lifeboats because it would scare the passengers, and instead just moaned about the failings of the Captain and the First Mate.

The endless long term rise is the price of petrol isn’t a dirty cabin or a fly in the soup of the system’s liner. It is one of a number of approaching icebergs, a dial heading inexorably toward the red line beyond which something will fail catastrophically.

There are others – food prices, the ethnic/demographic issues around immigration and relative birth rates, the increasing instability of the global economic system, manifest in the Bankers’ Slump and now the Sovereign Debt/Eurozone Crisis, and so on.

In all such cases we need to sound the alarm and advance a radical nationalist alternative. We need to let it be known we will be offering a lifeboat, not another bucket to bail, when the ship starts to sink.

Not a lifeboat the passengers need yet. For now they simply need to see a sensible locally-based alternative able to help them with day to day issues. We have shown we can offer that, win significant local and even European representation doing so, and build a credible small national party.

We can do that again. In that task our view on global markets and autarky should be no significant hindrance, provided we are careful to avoid crankiness.

We should be saying, sotto voce to some extent in public for the present but saying nevertheless, especially to our own members, that we think the current global market economy is unstable and unsustainable in the fact of growing global pressures of rising population and economic activity pressing against limited planetary resources – a view in which we are much less alone, and in which we have more and sometimes surprising allies, than some may think – and that we do have alternatives ready for the aftermath of its collapse when they will be needed. And wanted, desperately.

For they will be needed and wanted. The global market alternative is to fight harder and harder for less and less in a world of more and more people. Not just in energy. We cannot be sure when we will reach Peak Oil. But sometime this century we will reach Peak People.

When the global population reaches and then exceeds the total available planetary resources of oil and other energy. And, more basically food and water.

Like germs in a bottle of sour milk, humans have fed and fed and fed and bred and bred and bred until the food and resources are gone. Then, as with the bacteria in the bottle, our numbers will die back and crash catastrophically.

Our mission is to ensure as many of our people as possible come through that dieback alive, and our nation is still afloat at the end of the great civilization-shattering historical storm that will happen when the System’s ship founders.

Then, and only then, will our fellow passengers look to see and flock to those who can offer them a lifeboat. Then will come our hour of destiny.

We must not hide the fact that we have a lifeboat just because at the moment it upsets passengers who don’t see, as we do, that we are on a sinking ship. Far from never coming to power on a radical platform, we will only come to power on a radical platform. When desperate times demand the desperate measures we and we alone offer.

Asian spat in face of poppies girl Beth

Asian spat in face of poppies girl Beth

Maybe this will wake some sheeple up and encourage them to vote for a British Nationalist Party?

The Sun reports - A YOUNG yob spat in a girl Army cadet's face as she sold Remembrance Day poppies in a city shopping centre, it was revealed yesterday.

One of the three Asian hoodies — all said to be aged about 12 — took a poppy from a box held by Bethany Holmes and spat on it before spitting into her face three times.

In a separate incident, two teenage girl Army Cadets faced a barrage of verbal abuse for selling poppies — because they were Asian.

Others sellers in Bradford, West Yorks, were threatened and attacked.

Poppy Appeal organiser Barbara Allsopp said: "I feel sorry for the cadets. These yobs should hang their heads in shame."

Bethany's mum, Christine, added: "I want to make them apologise. They are disgusting, the lowest of the low."

Police in the city were studying CCTV in a bid to nail the yobs.

Chris Bryant MP - lABOUR Pervert and Politician of the Year

Chris Bryant MP - Pervert and Politician of the Year

Written by Green Arrow

November 2011

I was reading over on some news site or other, that the homosexual Member of Parliament for Rhonda, Chris Bryant had been voted Politican of the Year by the nasty and dangerous homosexual lobby group Stonewall. It was at their sixth annual awards - where they pat individuals who have made a positive impact on the lives of homosexuals, on the back or maybe even on the bottom. Their citation reads: "Politician of the Year - Chris Bryant MP. Chris Bryant has been garlanded with plaudits from across the political spectrum for his tenacious campaign against News International phone hacking. The judges were impressed with 'the resolve and tenacity' that Chris has demonstrated, as an equality advocate, in the last decade." Now I am not a big fan of homosexuals but providing they do not start "fisting" and "rimming" each other in public and homosexuality is not promoted in schools as being "normal", they can do what they like in the privacy of their own closets. However, that does not stop me being curious as to how their minds work - clearly not in the same way as mine or most normal decent people I suspect. Remember this photograph and story about Chris Bryant? Can someone tell me just how this creatures behaviour is anything other than obnoxious and reduces the reputation of the Houses of Parliament even further - if that is possible. Bryant, as to be expected from a creature that poses in soiled underpants on the internet soliciting for sex, is a former London Manager of Common Purpose - an organisation that according to BNP Ideas is just a harmless charity. Bloody intellectuals - thick as planks the lot of them. How posing on the Internet in grubby pants makes for a positive contribution to the homosexual cause, I am not sure. Neither am I sure that Bryants involvement in the disgusting pigs in the trough scandal of MP's fiddling their expenses should have qualified him as making a positive contribution to anything. Then again, homosexuals clearly have different values to most normal people and so let them get on with their irrelevant awards. Oh there was one laugh at the awards. The obese mountain of lard, Vanessa Feltz, who was voted Journalist of the Year at the awards, said "If I get another caller saying "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" I will shoot myself in the heart". If anyone has gigantoes number can they please give her a call on my behalf and say those magic words that would cause her to go and make all decent people happy. You may be interested in this other article concerning Chris Bryant - Politician of the Year. Chris Bryant is not a panto dame - he is a pervert.

White teenage mother stabbed to death by Asian Cowards

White teenage mother stabbed to death and dumped in canal 'after her married Asian lover rejected her child'

• Laura Wilson, 17, killed three days after she revealed to the families of Ishaq Hussain, 22, and Ashtiaq Asghar, 18, that she had had affairs with both men
• Asghar 'sent text to Hussain day before she died which read: "I'm gonna send that kaffir bitch straight to hell" '
• No Stephen Lawrence enquiry likely here I guess!
• Read the Daily Mails version of this awful Anti British Anti White racist murder here
  

Scottish National Party threatens England

Scottish National Party threatens England

Written by Gary Raikes: Britain First Scotland

November 2011

Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister for Scotland, speaking in Qatar, was at his belligerent best recently, arrogantly saying that England’s lights would be dependent on Scotland’s renewable energy in the future. It is a complete fallacy to believe that England, our largest customer by far, would be dependant on Scotland for any product or service. As for North Sea oil being an answer to all our problems, Salmond omits to tell the truth that it is thanks to the Barnett formula that Scotland gets the same amount raised in oil tax back to spend in Scotland. The truth of renewable energy is also glossed over as a major bank warned this week that electricity bills will more than double under Salmonds plan to build an independent Scotland on green power. Citigroup claimed bills would soar by an average of £875 per household if the country goes it alone and pursues SNP plans to invest billions in wave and wind power. A select few are lining their pockets as ordinary Scots face crippling fuel bills. The big power companies continue to rake it in posting profits that have climbed to billions every single year. The main driver for this is the ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) and feed-in tariffs that throw money at power companies and landowners. This is the reason that Scottish landowners are keen to have their farms and estates industrialised by wind farms. Sir Alastair Gordon-Cumming will earn £435,000 annually from 29 giant turbines on his Altyre estate while The Duke of Roxburghe will net £720,000 a year from his 48 400ft high turbines at Fallago Rig in the beautiful Lammermuir Hills. In an attempt to conceal yet more truth from the people the SNP Government refused a Freedom of Information request to release its legal advice on an independent Scotland’s position with the EU, giving the reason that the answer would “prejudice substantially” the SNP administrations conduct and it would be “contrary to the public interest”. The fact is that there is increasing academic and legal reasons that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU. Accession states must accept all aspects of the EU. Not only would Scotland have to adopt the Euro, we would lose all the UK’s opt-outs thus finding ourselves in the same basket-case situation of Greece. The SNP continue to show they are not nationalists who care about the ordinary people but just like the other parties spend time courting bankers, big business and rich landowners. Mr Salmond’s disrespectful attitude to Great Britain, the United Kingdom and England in particular is frankly embarrassing. Footnote by The Green Arrow Gary Raikes is the Scottish Coordinator of Britain First, so if you live in Scotland and care about Scotland and wish to know more, then you can find his contact details here, along with an interesting bit of news about a new Britain First Group being set up in Fife.

LIBYA - THE MEDIAS LIE'S AND BANKERS AGENDA

LIBYA- THE MEDIA LIES AND THE BANKERS AGENDA

Many of you should seek the truth and not just accept what the bankers run media tells you , just watch to see what really went on in Libya!

Our British jobs and industry need protection

Our jobs and industry need protection

• Written by BNP Ideas
• font size
• 
  
• E-mail
• 
  

28th October 2011: Yesterday lunchtime, just before leaving the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Andrew Brons had hoped to make this contribution under the 'Catch the Eye' procedure to a debate on the conclusions of the European Council held the previous Sunday.
Disappointingly, he wasn't called to speak.
Andrew would have said:
"I refer to the report on Sunday's meeting (which was the agenda item).
The laudability of a stated aim does not mean that the chosen means are either appropriate or likely to be successful.
Merely to say that you are in favour of sustainable and job-creating growth should not be enough to put you on the side of the angels.
The Single Market might be beneficial to large businesses always seeking cheaper factors of production but do not presume that everybody is a winner and that there are no losers.
The EU promising to reduce the overall regulatory burden is like a recidivist criminal promising to do something about crime. He will do something!
Tucked away in paragraph 4 is a eulogy of the Euro Plus Pact. Under the headline Competitivenes, in the Pact, is the advocacy of abolition of wage indexation. Real wage cuts, we are told, will increase competitiveness - this is the price we pay for embracing Globalism. European countries do not need international trade liberalisation; they need protection for their industries and their jobs."

mmigration - now it’s the British elderly who are expected to pay the price!

Immigration - now it’s the elderly who are expected to pay the price!

Written by Richard Barnbrook

November 2011

A shock report issued by the newly formed, left-wing pressure group, Intergenerational Foundation, is out to make war on one of society’s softest targets: the elderly. In their unashamedly ageist attack on senior citizens, whom they consider to be fair game, the Foundation, launched by Labour’s Tessa Jowell, has issued a report that is blatantly draconian and hostile to the interests and well-being of the elderly - all in the name of ’fairness’, of course. The proposal is that because of the current housing shortage, older people should be taxed out of their family homes in order to make room for younger families. On the surface this might seem to be a sensible suggestion, but when seen in the light of the fact of the net figure of over a quarter of a million immigrants entering the country last year, the implications become far more sinister. As I have been saying for a long time, large numbers of newcomers need to be both serviced and accommodated somewhere - because it’s a fact of life that you can’t squeeze a quart into a pint pot. (And I make no apologies for using imperial measurement!) So, where shall we put them all? Where indeed! According to the Intergenerational Foundation, the answer’s quite simple - turf out all those lonely oldies living in three bedroom houses and push them into accommodation that is ‘more suited to their needs,’ to make way for younger families! So much for the age-old saying ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’! When, oh when will the British public wake up? How much longer will they be prepared to sit back and watch their birthright being stolen before their eyes? Our national sovereignty has been hijacked by Brussels so that we can’t even make our own laws any more. Our politicians ignore our wishes, even though we elected them to represent our interests. Our children are being sold short in the education system, health tourists from abroad exploit our already over-stretched NHS, and our own people can’t get jobs, which are being given to foreign nationals. And now, senior members of society, who deserve respect and the dignity of some space in their declining years, having worked all their lives to earn it, are blatantly being told to move over because they are in the way! Even to make such a pointed and offensive suggestion is indicative of how far some politicians are prepared to go in this full-scale attack on the interests of the people of this country. The only comfort that I can draw from this disgusting and shameful attack on the elderly is the fact that Tessa Jowell herself is clearly no spring-chicken! In the not too distant future, she may live to rue the day that she affiliated herself with such a barbarous bunch of ageist bigots!

The Euro Creating Penury for UK and Europeans

The Euro Currency: An Incompetent Disaster Creating Penury for Europeans

Posted at BNP Ideas on Nov 2011

By Andrew Moffat.

“Euro-realists” have long warned of the dangers that would arise from the single currency. Simply put, different countries have evolved dissimilar economies. Those economies reflect varying economic models, trading patterns and infrastructures. They also function at diverse degrees of efficiency and are, to a significant extent, a product of their peoples.

The advent of the European currency has stripped the governments of the 17 member nations of their rights to determine their monetary affairs. By ‘monetary’ affairs, we mean the ability to set interest rates – usually via their Central Banks – and to determine the value of their currencies, usually via the markets.

The prevailing interest rate and the value of a currency, in general terms, reflect the health of a nation’s economy.

In recent years, the Bank of England has cut interest rates to record lows, currently at 0.5%. Sterling, the UK’s currency, has lost approximately 20% of its value, reflecting the condition of the UK economy and its yawning trade deficits. Had the UK joined the single currency in 2005, say, the UK’s interest rates would have been set by the European Central Bank (ECB) and would now stand at 1.25% – following the ECB’s recent cut. There would, moreover, have been no depreciation to Sterling; the UK economy would be locked into the value of the Euro currency, against which Sterling has devalued in recent years.

One of the principal difficulties afflicting the single currency, amongst the 17 nations who comprise the Eurozone, is differing rate at which the individual economies grow.

In general terms, the northern economies, particularly Germany, are dynamic and efficient. In the south, the reverse is generally the case: these economies are less dynamic and inefficient. As this gulf widens, so do the economic strains between the two blocs.

Up until the advent of the Euro currency and since the 1950s, the German economy has only ever revalued upwards its currency. By contrast, the southern member nations always devalued their currencies.

Such revaluations are no longer options. This means that as the German economy, for example, becomes more efficient, its exports grow more competitive on world markets. Unlike in the past, there is no mechanism by which an equilibrium can be reached, simply because there is no longer any Deutschmark which can be revalued.

In the south, the opposite is true. The Italians and Greeks, for example, whose economies are becoming more inefficient against their northern competitors, cannot devalue their currencies. Nor can they reduce their interest rates, now determined by the ECB.

What can be done? The answer is that to become more efficient are regain their competitive edge under the current system, the southern economies must reduce their costs. This means they must also reduce their wages.

This is easier said than done. If wages are to be decreased instead of increased each year, how do families pay their mortgages, debts or rents?

If wages are reduced, where does the money come to pay the taxes the government requires to maintain its spending? Indeed, where does the money arise to keep the economy in shape and industry healthy?

The answer might be found in this interesting statistic. In all of the past 10 years, the Italian economy has grown by less than 1%.

Wage levels are still enormously out of line and there is a wide divergence in costs with the more dynamic northern economies. A cut of some 25% in Italian wages would be necessary to restore competitiveness, given there is no Italian Lira to devalue and restore competitiveness.

The backdrop is even more ominous because the Italians possess a vast national debt of some Euros 1.9 trillion. Simply put, there is no growth in the economy to pay off this debt and the Italians are instead running structural deficits where the national debt keeps rising.

The Italian dilemma, rather like the bigger Euro-currency dilemma, has not been lost on the markets. The perceived inability of the Italian government to address its deficit has resulted in its government’s bond yields rising from less than 4% in recent months to more than 7% last Thursday.

Some readers may recall that these were levels that precipitated crises in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, causing their bail outs by a combination of the EU, the ECB and the IMF and, in the case of Ireland, by the British taxpayer. The UK, of course, also contributes to the IMF.

The difficulty last Thursday involved merely Euros 4bn of Italian debt. Next year, the Italian Government must refinance Euros 300bn of debt, which it needs to roll over to later maturities. How will this be possible? Certainly, at a coupon of 7%, it will be unaffordable to finance this level of debt.

Who owns the Italian national debt? For the most part, other banks own this debt, especially Italian banks. Should these banks fall into difficulties, the Italian Government will have to bail them out and raise further funds on the bond markets to do so – creating a further downward spiral in the value of its existing bonds, held by the same banks!

Greece is a forerunner of the type of predicament in prospect. Its economy is a fraction of the size of Italy’s and the country has become entirely dependent upon bailouts from the ECB, the EU and the IMF, with its bond market no longer operable and its existing bonds trading at high double digit yields. Greece has therefore had to re-schedule its debts – a form of default.

In order to balance its budget, to pay for its bailouts and its rescheduled debts – largely owed to the banking system – Greece will be placed even more firmly through the EU’s wringer. As one commentator stated recently: “Greece has been subjected to the greatest fiscal squeeze ever attempted in a modern industrial state, without any offsetting monetary stimulus or devaluation.”

The EU is, in effect, repeating the mistakes of the Federal Reserve between 1929 and 1932, during the great depression. Unlike the USA, however, the EU is not a nation.

Monetary stimulus is impossible so long as Greece remains within the Euro currency. In other words, Greece has lost its monetary sovereignty and, as a result, its fiscal sovereignty.

The constraints it has had to endure are prescribed because it is a member of an internationalist political scheme, overseen by unelected EU Kommissioners, which has resulted in its economy contracting by some 15% since its problems began. Its debts ill magnify to over 180% of GDP next year and even after re-scheduling, will stand at 120% of GDP by 2020.

In other words, future generations of Greeks will become wage slaves to serve the ideal of ever ‘closer political union’.

There are several measures the EU may take to facilitate the continuation of monetary union. It could, for example, create a system whereby the wealthier northern nations guarantee or purchase the debts of the poorer nations. It could also encourage a new competence, whereby the EU gains the right to tax the citizens of the ‘Union’ and it could require that the tax revenues of the wealthier countries be used to finance the borrowing or some of the expenditure of the poorer countries. By means of compensation, the EU would tightly regulate the budgetary policies of the poorer nations and oversee the regulation of their economies.

Another possibility is to provide the ECB with more flexibility.

Currently, the ECB has been purchasing the bonds of the afflicted member nations in an attempt to support their prices and maintain or reduce their yields. Invariably, it has suffered colossal losses. The ECB is backed by the subscription capital of the EU member states, including the UK. Ultimately, if the ECB experiences financial difficulties, it will be backed by the taxpayers of the member states.

The ECB could be provided with the right to create new money to buy the bonds of the afflicted member nations. This would be the equivalent of the Bank of England’s programme, known as ‘quantitative easing’ (QE). Like the other possibilities, this proposal is opposed by Germany. The German Government sees no reason why its taxpayers should rescue the economies of the afflicted member states. It also considers ‘QE’ to be akin to a sticking plaster, that fails to address the underlying causes, whilst risking the spectre of inflation – which it experienced in extreme circumstances in the 1920s.

There are, of course, some alternative solutions which will not be countenanced by the EU.

Germany could leave the Euro currency. It would regain its Deutschmark, which would soar on the currency markets. The Euro would fall in value without the German anchor and the southern nations would then become more competitive.

The southern nations could also form a separate currency bloc, which would align their interests more closely. This possibility has already been discussed by Germany but it would create a two-tier system, which is unattractive to the Kommissars of the EU.

Better, Greece could leave the currency union and recreate the Drachma. The Drachma would plunge on the currency markets but the Greeks would again become competitive and would, after a year or two of upheaval, enjoy economic growth. Clearly, Greece would have to re-price Euro debt into Drachma debt, to avoid paying devalued Drachma’s to redeem more expensive Euro debts. Such a scenario would entail a further default on its Euro debts. On the other hand, the Greek Central Bank could again issue its own currency, a right it lost when it joined the Euro – which partly explains why it is now dependent upon EU bailouts to keep its economy afloat.

Whilst the UK remains outside the Eurozone, the UK Government is obliged to produce annual budgets that meet the convergence criteria of the EU, with a view ultimately to joining the single currency bloc. Andrew Brons, MEP, obtained this information in a Question he put to the Commission recently, which can be found here and here.