Category Archives: Uncategorized

Review of 2018

What has changed over the past year?


Immigration to  the First World is the most important political issue. It remains very high, for example, net UK immigration  to June 2018 (the most up to date figures) shows net immigration to be  273,000.  That is worrying enough but it  does not tell anything like the  full immigration  story  because 625,000 was the total number of immigrants, i.e., the number people who actually came to live here,  the vast majority of whom were foreigners rather than British people returning after a period living abroad.  This means the UK is undergoing a radical and rapid. transformation of the nature of its population if this scale of replacement of native British people continues. If it does 6 million or so immigrants would arrive in the UK  over the next ten years.

What is happening to the UK is  being replicated throughout the West. The rise of so-called populist movements (in reality simply native populations in the West acting out of desperation as they see their countries being threatened by immigrants ) arise from the scale of migration to the First World.  As yet, with a few exceptions such a Hungary building a fence,  little has been done by Western Governments, especially those of the largest countries, to stop or even severely reduce the flow of migrants from the third world.

What needs to be done is (1)   change the public language about mass immigration to the West  and identify it  for what it is, invasion, and d(2) disabuse immigrants  of   the idea  that they have any right to migrate to the West.


The behaviour of the Remainers over the past year has been both sinister and contemptible.  However, it was not unexpected, because once the Remainer Theresa May became PM and appointed a majority Remainer Cabinet  the writing was on the wall, namely, that Remainers would do everything they could to subvert the referendum vote to leave the EU.

May’s demeanour has been much commented upon because despite engaging in persistent  and obvious lying she has remained surreally calm. This is easily explained, she is achieving precisely what she set out to do, namely, sabotage Brexit.

May   will  probably see herself variously as St Theresa the  Martyr  and Agent May in enemy territory (the UK) carrying out OPERATION  QUISLING on behalf of the EU.

What the behaviour of the Remainers has done is shatter utterly the idea that the UK is a functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, an elite in the UK whose general political ideas are largely shared by the various competing parts of that elite.

It is no surprise that democracy is being thwarted. The German sociologist Robert Michels in the early years of the twentieth century  developed what he called the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

Michels was particularly interested in  the way that organisations such as social democratic parties and trade unions which purported to exist to promote the interests of the working class invariably ended up serving the interest of those who came to wield power in such bodies, whilst becoming progressively  more authoritarian and bureaucratic.

But although Michels had a special interest in leftist organisations the Iron Law of Oligarchy is generally applicable to any organisation or even any informal social group. The  historian of 18th Century English politics Lewis Namier estimated that Britain was ruled by a few hundred families when the population was less than 10 million. The depressing reality is that probably today Britain is effectively ruled  by no more than a few thousand families today. Look at the mainstream media, the politicians and with great wealth and the same families pop up over and over again.

The long march through the institutions

The treacherous behaviour of the Remainers is an object lesson in  how internationalist elites have become dominant  in Western politics  since  1945.

A German student leader of the 1960s  Rudi Dutschke put forward the idea of the Long March Through the Institutions whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be sufficient of such people to change the  policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones.  That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full  flower.

The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit  and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures , denigrate their own societies,  traduce  the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious  totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism”  (in reality anti-white racism)  at its heart.  The last brick  in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who  refused to toe the politically correct line , treatment which is increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.

The idea of the Long March through the institutions  has several emotional appeals. First, it has the allure of a conspiracy, of being part of something both bigger than its individual members  and  something terribly important.  The fact that it is a long term project does not matter because each individual member of the conspiracy can see themselves as helping to build towards the promised end even if that end is not achieved in their lifetime.

It is no surprise that Marxixts of  various hues have been attracted to it because Marxism works on the same principles of working towards  a utopia without any certainty that it will happen in a particular individual’s lifetime.

Robotics and AI

The lack of action by politicians throughout the world and in particular in the First Word is  staggering. It is quite clear that robotics and AI systems development is rushing ahead. When  it reaches the level where most jobs can be done by machines the game is up for capitalism as we know it because huge and rapid unemployment will inevitably result and that in turn will cause a catastrophic drop in demand.

The fact that politicians routinely bleat out  the claim that as with all previous technological innovations new jobs will be made to replace the ones taken by machines shows how far away they are from understanding what is happening, Intelligent machines will not only take existing jobs they will be able to do the new jobs which arise.

For a worked out idea of what will happen when most jobs can be done by machines see my See my  Robotics and the real (sorry Karl you got it wrong) final crisis of capitalism.

Free expression

Free expression is a straight  forward concept , you either have it or a  range of permitted opinion, a range which may be altered at any time.  No country has ever had true freedom of expression but some, especially the Anglophone countries, have  had a very wide range of permitted opinion. No more . The range of permitted opinion in Britain and the West has  rapidly  declined, largely driven by the  tentacles of political correctness  being spread ever further and more tightly.  That creed routinely requires reality is to be denied, for example, schoolchildren are now to told that boys have periods and judges insist that  transsexuals  appearing in court must be referred to as she (in the case of a transsexual man)  or he (in the case of a transsexual  woman). What difference is there between such sinister nonsense and Winston Smith in 1984  being forced to say he saw five  fingers when  only four  of  O’Brien’s fingers were held up before him?

That is the real killer about political  correctness. It  requires a constant denial of reality whether that is something as crass boys having periods or the more subtle pressure to disregard reality which comes with the demand that racial and cultural diversity  in a society  is a good in itself.

It is universities in the West which are most publicly driving a general  intolerance of ideas which fall outside the internationalist left’s concept of what should be permitted.  To those end students clamour for “safe spaces” where nothing which offends the politically correct is allowed  and any speaker with a contrary view is  refused a hearing in what is known as no-platforming.

This mentality is also prevalent throughout schools  where even the most unlikely subject such as maths can be dragooned into the service of political correctness. Hence, by the time pupils reach the age of 18 they have been well and truly indoctrinated with the “right” politically correct views.

The ideological justification for  such behaviour is found in the concept of Repressive Tolerance developed by Herbert  Marcuse :

“  Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

“Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”

China,  Russia and India

All my adult life I have cleaved to the idea that China and Russia (or the USSR)  should be kept at arms length. This is  because by their very nature and , in the case of China also by  her  very size ,they represent  threats to the West. Instead, naive Western politicians, who are almost all  politically  correct fantasists by now, have not merely engaged with China and Russia but have done so on the comically mistaken  basis that by engaging with the Russians and Chinese  they would change  Russian and Chinese ways to that of the West as they discovered the supposed benefits of free markets and “joys of diversity.”  The result has been that both Russia and China,  far from  succumbing to Western cultural values, have become increasingly powerful.

They represent different dangers.   Russia has all the characteristics of a gangster state but one with  a formidable number of nuclear weapons and the Chinese are  ever more aggressive and assertive generally. It bodes very ill for the future, especially in China’s case , for that gigantic country has extraordinary ambitions as is shown by  their belt and road infrastructure project to provide roads and waterways which will allow China  to have access to much of the East . Their disregarded for anything resembling a justice system is seen by the subsequent arrest of  three Canadians – see here and here  –   in response to the Canadians arresting  Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer of the Chinese  electronics giant Huawei. Meng’s  arrest was at the request of the USA for extradition to the US for breaching sanctions imposed on Iran.  The arrest of the three Canadians so soon after Meng’s arrest is best seen as hostage taking by China.

India is  showing signs  of mimicking China in it attitude towards the West. However, India is far less monolithic than the former, for whereas China  as a country and culture has a  genuine  historical identity ,  the state of India is a creation of the Raj. Before the Raj the  territory  which comprises modern India  was simply a geographical expression just as Europe is. Consequently, being so  much more fragmented than China and lacking a centralising controlling power , there is a much less uniform  response to the West by India than that of China to the West.

Africa and Latin America

No real  change. Africa has been as brutal as ever and Latin America, although superficially more sophisticated that Africa, is still remarkably violent and disorderly.

The shrinking of democratic control

Throughout the West there is growing  serious opposition to mass immigration and internationalist politicians who generally ignore the wishes of their electorates.  The internationalists have only themselves to blame if their political correct ideals are trampled on because they are the ones with their incontinent approach to immigration and the realities of human nature who have wrought this change.   If the world is headed for racially and ethnically based repression at best  and ethnically and racially based civil war at worst  they are to blame.

Democracy is a tricky concept which is best thought of as a measure of control over the elite rather than an absolute quality . The hard truth is that there is only one important general political question in any society, namely, how far are the masses able to control the naturally abusive nature of the elite?

The best form of control the masses have is representative government based on a full adult franchise. If  the country also has a written constitution  with protection  for things such as freedom of speech and assembly  with a  means of holding  voter instituted referenda so much the better. Of course, like every human institution it can be perverted but any other political arrangement will  make elite abuse much easier for then we are in the realm of dictatorship.

The reality is that countries which have a long lasting  and unbroken tradition of  political representation on a broad franchise (and consequently a respect for freedom and individual rights) are remarkably rare. The UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the outstanding examples.  All have avoided both civil war and occupation by a conquering power for over 150 years.

In continental Europe there is not a major state with such an unbroken  record of avoidance of civil war and occupation better than better than the 73 years since the end of the second world war. Most cannot boast a record of  even 50 years (think of Spain and the divided Germany).

Even amongst the more   Minor European states it would be difficult to find others who have had a long and unbroken record of representative government.. Switzerland  was successfully   invaded  during Napoleonic times  and did not give women the vote until 1971; Denmark, Sweden and Norway were all absolute monarchies  until well into the 19th  century (although  intermittent representative  activity in these countries occurred) , with Denmark and Norway .being invaded during the Second World War.

In  Asia and Africa the idea of representative  politics where it exists, which is not very often,  is at best a very corrupt  version of what we call democracy.

Latin America has seen many attempts at  Bolivarian inspired democracy,  but almost as many failures and the area  is really not better than Asia or Africa in its actual way of  conducting politics.

It is interesting to compare the effectiveness of the English derived states – USA, Canada, Australia and NZ – with the fallibility  of the Spanish  derived states in Latin America. England and Spain were the two colonial powers who settled large numbers of their own people in colonies  which later became independent states . The difference in the political success of the English and Spanish in  England and Spain was replicated in their heavily settled colonies.

The European Union has be a great dissolver of democratic control in the First World  since 1945.

The world becomes ever more disorderly

I cannot do better than quote my words from 2017:

“Contrary to Steven Pinker’s view that the world is becoming more peaceful,  if civil conflict is included things are getting worse.   Formal war may be less easy to identify , but ethnic  (and often religious ) based strife plus repression by  rulers  is so widespread outside the West that it is best described as endemic. Globalisation =  destabilisation because by making the world’s economic system more complex , there is simply more to go wrong both economically and socially. Sweeping aside  traditional relationships and practices is a recipe for social discord.  All of economic history tells you one thing above all else: a strong domestic economy is essential for the stability of any country.   The ideology of laissez faire, is like all ideologies,  at odds with  human nature and reality generally and its application inevitably creates huge numbers of losers when applied to places such as China and India.”

The death of free expression in England

Robert Henderson

The convictions in 2018 of Jeremy “Jez” Bedford-Turner and Alison Chabloz  for simply saying things our politically correct elite do not want to hear set a new benchmark for the imposition on England of the totalitarian creed which is political correctness. It is a totalitarian creed because (1)  it touches on all aspects of life through the application of the non-discrimination or equality principle and (2) its followers  insist that there is only one permissible view, the politically correct one.

The convictions

Mr Bedford-Turner has been found guilty of inciting racial hatred in a speech he made  outside of  Downing Street and sentenced to  12 months imprisonment, of which half will be served on licence.  The main thrust of the  speech was his concern about  the close  relationship between the Metropolitan Police and a  charity Shomrim which acts as a private Jewish  security force.

Ms Chabloz, a singer and musician,  has been convicted of three offences relating to the use of a public electronic service. These arise  from three songs she had written which were placed on social media and  deemed to   be grossly insulting to Jews.

Ms Chabloz was  sentenced to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years, given 180 hours of community service plus a fine, victim’s surcharge and  costs. She is also banned from using social media for a year. Moreover, the conviction will  continue to hinder her both socially and professionally  after the  two years  are spent because it will make it difficult or  impossible for her to enter countries, especially places  such as the USA and Canada.

The Crown Prosecution Service  (CPS)

Both  trials eventually came about through the initiative  of a charity the Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA). The Bedford-Turner case was originally turned referred to the police and the CPS by a charity which promotes Jewish interests and offers physical security  services called The Community Security Trust (CST). It was turned down  for  prosecution  by the CPS for not meeting their evidential standard.  The CAA then sought and obtained a judicial review of the CPS decision at which point the CPS caved in before the judicial review was heard and reversed their decision not to prosecute.

The Chabloz case involved the CAA taking out a private prosecution against her after the CPS had initially refused to act. After their caving in over the Bedford-Turner complaint  the  CPS took over the private prosecution. It is a reasonable assumption that the CPS did this as a result of their failure to defend the judicial review of  the Bedford-Turner case.

The fact that the CPS were unwilling to  fight the threatened judicial  review is  disquieting because it  means that a prosecution can be potentially secured by an individual or group with the means to fund both the application of a judicial review and the judicial review itself. This disqualifies the vast majority of people in the UK from pursuing such a course because of the considerable legal costs involved. That in turn creates a de  facto  two tier criminal justice system divided between the haves and the have-nots.

It should be noted that the CPS has  not meaningfully explain publicly why they did not fight the judicial review or why they changed their minds over the  likelihood of securing a conviction  in  both Bedford-Taylor and Chabloz cases. (the CPS evidential test for prosecution requires  a better than 50% chance of securing a conviction)

The judges   

Jeremy Bedford-Turner

The behaviour of  the judge David Tomlinson  in the Bedford-Turner case gave serious cause for concern.

This trial was held before a  jury. Tomlinson began by refusing a  defence request to put two questions to jury members, namely,  are you a member of the CAA?  and  are you a member of the  Community Security Trust  CST?

Tomlinson’s reason for  the refusal was that he is a strong supporter of the principle of random selection for jurors. However, if it is  legitimate to refuse such obviously pertinent questions to check whether a prospective juror is compromised it is difficult to see what test of a juror’s impartiality could not be refused.  That is not to say the chances of a member of either the CAA or CST being put forward as a prospective juror was high, but it was a  risk which if it had transpired could have been enough to halt the trial.  In addition, if the questions had been asked it would have given both the defendant and the general public an assurance that the jury was not patently biased.

Once the trial was underway Tomlinson  repeatedly sighed and grimaced when politically incorrect points were made and capped his  performance by effectively taking over the prosecution’s cross-examination of Mr Bedford-Turner on several occasions to challenge  Mr Bedford-Turner’s evidence, that is, the judge  intervened not to elucidate a point for himself or the jury but to refute what Mr Bedford-Turner was saying.

During this passage of the hearing the judge said with noticeable  distaste that it was shocking that such an organisation as the CAA needed to exist but that was the way of the world.

The  other thing to note was the way both judge and prosecuting counsel treated  opinion as fact and were seemingly oblivious to what they were doing, namely,  enforcing the politically correct  view of the world.

Did Mr Bedford-Turner have a chance of acquittal?  He  had a jury trial so  that gave him some chance of a  not guilty result. Had it been a trial without a jury he would almost certainly have had  no chance of being found innocent   for  it is very difficult to imagine in  our present politically correct charged circumstances that a judge sitting on his or her own would have found Mr Bedford-Turner not guilty.

But even with a jury the odds were heavily against a not guilty verdict. In the minds of jurors must be the fear of being called a racist which has been so successfully inculcated in the general population of the UK  that it produces a reflex of panic and fear  when someone is faced with the possibility of the label of racist  being  stuck on them. Consequently,  any juror faced with a case such as this must have it in the back of their minds that to return a not guilty verdict would be to risk being called a racist.

There is also the sheer shock factor of hearing politically incorrect views being unashamedly spoken in a society which has been conditioned to associate such words with danger to those who might express sympathy with them or even be thought not to have condemned them enthusiastically enough.

In the event the jury was out for less than two hours and returned a unanimous verdict of  guilty. For the record,  on the jury there were two black women and one black man on the jury.  The rest were white.

Alison Chabloz

The original judge in the Chabloz case was the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate), Emma Arbuthnot. Arbuthnot is married to Baron Arbuthnot of Edrom, PC,  who was a Tory MP  until 2015 and who now sits in the House of Lords.

Both Lady Arbuthnot and her husband are members of  the Conservative friends of Israel and have received hospitality in Israel.  Lady Arbuthnot  did not stand down on her own initiative,  but  did so when confronted with her  membership of the Conservative Friends of Israel.  Her replacement as judge was John Zani.

The Chabloz case then took an  extraordinary twist. A onetime schoolmate of Zani at Highgate School wrote to him, viz:

“Hi, John, I’m an OC [RH  Old Cholmeleian – an OB of Highgate School] you may remember me – maybe I am a bit older than you (64) – I was in the public gallery – I fight antisemitism, I have a blog on Jewish News.

“[redacted by the court]

[This is an] “Important case for us . . . . . and as you said, a path breaking one.  (I’m not a lawyer, I’m an economist).”

The writer was Jonathan Hoffman, a well known Zionist. Quite properly Zani called in Ms Chabloz’s  barrister Adrian Davies and  prosecution counsel Karen Robinson and revealed to them that he had received an  email which compromised him. (Zani was reportedly noticeably distressed during this meeting).

The only rational interpretation of the text of the email is that the sender was attempting to improperly influence the judge. The email  was consequently both a contempt of court and a clear attempt to pervert the course of justice.  It was a potentially extremely serious action because the case was being heard without a jury and the verdict was  Zani’s  alone to make.

Because of the letter Zani offered to stand down from the case, but this offer was refused by the defence.

Before her trial Ms Chabloz  wrote to the Attorney-General asking for  the criminal law to be  brought to bear on Hoffman.  A reply came from the office of the Solicitor-General refusing to act without giving any plausible explanation of why such a blatant attempt to influence a judge could not be prosecuted. I reproduce the letter in full:

Dear Mrs Chabloz,

I write in relation to your letter of 3rd July, addressed to the Attorney General in which you asked that consideration be given to bringing contempt proceedings against Jonathan Hoffman as the result of an email that he sent to District Judge Zani at Westminster magistrates’ court.

The Solicitor General has now considered the matters set out in your letter, as well as the documents you attached. In reaching his decision the Solicitor General has borne in mind that, for contempt proceedings to succeed, he would need to satisfy the High Court beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. the criminal standard of proof) that the content of the email sent by Jonathan Hoffman created a real risk that the criminal proceedings brought against you would be prejudiced or impeded. He has concluded there is no realistic prospect of proving to the required standard that the email created such a risk and has therefore decided not to institute contempt proceedings.

For the sake of completeness, the Solicitor General also considered the content of the postings about your case, which you drew to his attention, that had appeared on Mr Hoffman’s Facebook account between December and February. In relation to those, the Solicitor General has also concluded that there is no realistic prospect of contempt proceedings succeedings.

Thank you nevertheless for bringing these matters to our attention.

James Jenkins

Head of Casework

Unadulterated waffle sums  up Jenkins’ reply. Indeed, it is  insulting in its  inadequacy – no attempt is made to present any argument  for the decision not to prosecute or even investigate. All that is offered is a bald lordly statement from the powers-that-be that they judge  that  Hoffman  cannot be successfully prosecuted.

Whether or not Hoffman’s intervention was likely to have any effect on Zani’s behaviour is irrelevant. The offence is the attempt to influence a judge, which is a very serious crime carrying a potential life sentence.

The impossibility of defining grossly offensive 

The question of what is grossly offensive has not been properly examined in either Mr Bedford-Turner or Ms Chabloz’s case.  It has two facets. The first is the inherent impossibility of defining  what is grossly  offensive in a way which makes the judgement other than  an expression of opinion.

The second  facet is the  obvious fact that what is grossly offensive to one person can and often is either only mildly offensive or not offensive at all. Indeed, the same person may find the same material offensive in one setting and inoffensive in another. For example, the telling of a risqué joke in mixed company may make  a man uncomfortable,  but hearing the joke in all male comp-any will probably make the man unselfconsciously laugh.  Another example would be telling sick jokes. These may be highly offensive when seen written down in a court of law but in normal life they often appear innocuous.   This is what should happen in a free society, social custom regulating behaviour without the intervention of the law.

There is also the awkward fact  that  truths are often “grossly insulting”. The implication of the prosecution’s case in both trials is that some  truths could be judged illegal because they are either grossly offensive, frightening or arouse feelings of racial hatred. That is a very dangerous road to go down for any statement about a matter of importance could be suppressed on such grounds.

Value judgements 

Both judges have relied on value judgements made  by others which they then obtusely or dishonestly (take your pick) treated as objective facts. For example, Zani in his   written judgement (para 112),  gives a test for what is grossly offensive which is  not only a value judgement but a straightforwardly ideological statement made in the politically correct interest, viz:  ” Put shortly, this court is satisfied that the material in each of the songs is grossly offensive as judged by an open and multiracial society -as opposed to, for example, merely offensive.“

Tomlinson used a very similar statement  during Mr Bedford-Turner’s trial to validate his prosecution.

The fact that Tomlinson and Zani have cited the definition of other  judges and authorities does not give those definitions any  objective validity. All they have done is shift the burden of defining what is grossly offensive onto other shoulders.

Free expression and democracy

But the real question is not whether words are grossly offensive or just offensive. The important thing  is  the fact that it is impossible to have a democracy if there are legal restrictions on what  can be said  because the essence of democracy is the ability to debate and change anything. Indeed, the idea that there can be limits to insult or offence  in a democracy is chilling. Moreover, there is a long tradition in England of the most devastating political insults most notably in the cartoons of the likes of Gillray and Rowlandson.

Take away the freedom to be as insulting as you like and British politics would become a constricted fearful business. Indeed, this is already happening for political correctness generally is being imposed through a mixture of the criminalising of opinions which oppose the dictates of political correctness and the non-legal penalties such as being driven out of a job.

Threats of violence and incitement

Ah, but what about threats of violence? I can hear readers saying.  The way to deal with these  or incitement to violence (or any other criminal act)  is not to ban the words per se,  but rather to examine the circumstances of the threat and decide whether there is a credible threat of the threatened violence – who has not said I’ll kill X or I’ll kill Y?  -or if there is  incitement to see the incitement  as being credible enough to form a conspiracy between the inciter and incited.

The CPS and Zani’s judgement

In Ms Chabloz’s case there is a curious mismatch between the CPS’ original decision that the case did not reach the CPS evidential standard  of a better than even chance of a conviction and Zani’s emphatic judgement that she was unreservedly and obviously guilty.

There was also a distinctly odd element in Zani’s  sentencing. When Zani gave his verdict on 25th May he emphasised  two things, remorse and the fact that he judged Ms Chabloz  had comfortably passed the standard of offensiveness required for a custodial sentence.

On remorse Zani said this in his written judgement (para 108) : “Far from there being any real remorse for or appreciation of the offence that this court finds will have undoubtedly  been caused  to others, Ms Chabloz remains defiant that her claim to free speech trumps all else and that any attempt to curtail  her right would be quite wrong…”

The impression left was clear: Ms Chabloz must express remorse if she wished to escape a custodial sentence. This she could have done when she attended a meeting with a probation officer who compiled a report before sentence was given. However, according to Zani   Ms Chabloz did not express remorse when she met with the probation officer.

Bearing in mind these remarks on remorse and sentencing it was somewhat of a surprise that Zani imposed a suspended sentence.

What was going on here?  To my mind the  most plausible explanation is  that Zani never had any intention of sending Ms Chabloz to prison and  his performance on the 25th May was simply  to intimidate her into collapsing in heap and saying she was sorry and that her  actions and words had been very wrong.

Why would Zani have been unwilling to give a custodial sentence?   For an explanation of that one must look at the reason for prosecutions such as this. Our politically correct elite (which includes the mainstream media  and academia)   want the convictions to frighten the general public  (and maintain politically correct discipline within the agencies of the state who enforce political correctness). But what  our politically correct elite do not want is widespread mainstream media coverage of trials which reveal what is going on, namely, the criminalising of  a very wide and ever expanding range of views.

As an aside on this point it is worth mentioning that a  striking thing about  both the trials  was the paucity of mainstream media comment. The  coverage was  either simple reporting of the proceedings or, where it entered into comment,  invariably unfavourable to the defendants.  It  might have been thought  that the mainstream media would have jumped all over such contentious trials but the only mainstream press regularly attending the trials  was the Press Association. Why was that? I suspect it was because the politically correct mainstream media did not want the politically incorrect nature of much of the evidence to come before the public’s eyes.

Politically correct doublethink

Our politically correct elite- or at least the true believers in political correctness –  have arrived at a state of  Orwell’s doublethink in which they  sincerely believe in two contradictory things, in this case they wish at one and the same time  to censor whilst maintaining a claim that they are in favour of free expression.

There was a marvellous moment in his sentencing  when Zani dilated on the necessity and value of free speech in a democracy before saying in the next sentence that  there are limits to free expression. Tellingly, he showed  absolutely no embarrassment when putting these contradictory statements together.

The reality of  free expression is that it is a beautifully simple  concept: you either have it or you have a range of permitted opinion which can be altered at any moment.

‘The standards of an open and multi-racial society’

The claim by the  judges and  prosecution in both the trials  of  Mr Bedford-Turner and Ms Chabloz that their words were to be judged ‘ by the standards of an open and multi-racial society’   is in itself an unequivocal statement of political correctness. It assumes that the standards of political correctness on the subject of race and ethnicity  are shared by the overwhelming majority of the UK population, for unless such values are shared by most they cannot be the standards by which UK society operates.

There is strong objective evidence that “the standards of an open and multi-racial society”  are not the standards which the large majority of the UK population shares. Polls on immigration consistently show a solid majority of those polled concerned about immigration and its effects. Indeed, this concern played a strong role in achieving the Brexit vote. Research by the think tank British Future published in 2014 as How to talk about immigration  found a strong majority for ending mass immigration and 25% of those questioned wanted the removal of all immigrants already in the UK (see p17 of the report).

Providing a legal defence in “race hate crime” cases

There is a general problem with  these  type of cases which means an orthodox defence is effectively worthless. It  is next to  inconceivable in the present politically correct public atmosphere  that a judge sitting without a jury will  find   a defendant not guilty  on all charges.

With a jury a defendant might have a very slim chance of being found not guilty, but the odds are, especially with  a jury chosen from the population of London, that a jury would be  very likely to convict on these type of charges for the reasons I have already given.

In the light of this general problem, which has been emphatically demonstrated in  both Jeremy Bedford-Turner and Ms Chabloz’s cases, unorthodox methods should  be used.  These methods are simple:  embarrass the complainants (such as the CAA), prosecuting authorities, the courts and politicians  in the hope of prosecutions either not being started or dropped if they have been started.

There is a fair chance that any judge will have publicly compromised their impartiality in dealing with these types of cases  through their judgements and membership of organisations by expressing politically correct views relating to race and ethnicity which are publicly accessible.

In cases where accusations of antisemiticism are  involved there is more than a fair  chance that a judge will have  some Jewish connections. That was the case in Ms Chabloz’s  prosecution. Getting Emma Arbuthnot to  recuse herself  because of her association with the Tory Friends of Israel was a good start. If  Zani’s offer to stand down because an old school friend  sent him an inappropriate email  had been  accepted there is an outside chance that  would have killed the prosecution stone dead. But even if it did not it would have offered the chance of finding some compromising Jewish connection on the third judge.  If that had  happened I think the prosecution would have collapsed.

If  a  trial goes ahead I suggest that the defence is built around the  principle of free expression being a sine qua non of a democracy and a necessity for the defence of personal freedom.

Witnesses for the prosecution should be subjected to questioning to get them to explain what they find grossly offensive or frightening  in whatever the offending words or images are the cause for the trial. They will almost certainly not be able to give a coherent account of what they feel.

The background of prosecution witnesses should  be vigorously examined especially with regard to their social media. If the witnesses have engaged in social media contributions which could conceivably come within the present definition of hate crimes make a complaint to the police.

Make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act  to any organisation which is involved in a prosecution of you. That will not only probably make things awkward  for the organisation and possibly get useful data, for example, indiscrete emails about you, but also show the people involved that you are not going to collapse in a  heap.

Something very sinister is happening

What has been made very clear in these two trials is that we have an elite  which is hell bent on squeezing the range of permitted opinion ever more tightly into a politically correct shape. A good example of how far we have gone down that path is the College of Policing’s operational  guide to  hate crimes  which is  frightening in its breadth. It defines these groups as being subject to hate crimes:

3.2.1 Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities

3.2.2 Asylum, refugee and migrant communities. 

3.2.3 Antisemitism.

3.2.4 Anti-Sikh hate crime

3.3 Religious hate crime

3.3.1 Anti-Muslim hate crime.

3.3.2 Other types of religious hate crime

3.3.3 Sectarian crime

3.4 Sexual orientation

3.5 Transgender hate crime.

I will cite the College of Policing’s examples of what constitute anti-semitism  to give a flavour of how broad and unexpected can be their guidance on “hate crimes” (see p37 of the College of Policing guidance for the full details) :

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in

the religious sphere could include, but are not limited to:

  • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion
  • making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as individuals or the power of Jews as a collective, including especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions
  • accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews
  • denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (eg, gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)
  • accusing Jews as a race, or Israel as a State, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
  • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel could include:

  • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour
  • applying double standards by requiring behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
    • using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (eg, claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis
    • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
    • holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

    Hands up anyone who thinks they would be safe from prosecution with this  police guidance in play if they criticised Jews or Israel. Or ask yourself how the well known journalist Peter Oborne  would escape being caught in the police net for  his Dispatches programme Inside Britain’s Israeli Lobby?

    Of course it is very unlikely that a journalist such as Oborne would be prosecuted at present because the  laws relating to “hate crimes” are rarely if ever applied to  those with power and/or influence, something which is a serious  ill in itself because it undermines the idea of equality before the law. But  that could change in the future for when a system of ideological censorship is  in place no one is entirely safe  however slavishly the party line is followed. You can go to bed one day thinking you know the “party line” only to find it has changed by the following day without you knowing with the result that you unwittingly transgress.

    It is also  important to understand that the British elite’s desire to enforce political correctness is by no means exhausted. Penalties for politically incorrect transgressions could be about to become even more penal because the  Sentencing Council which advises government on sentencing has recommended that penalties for inciting racial hatred and suchlike should be raised to a maximum  of six years.

    Where does this leave us?

    The  short answer is in a very perilous place. Free expression is essential to democracy and political freedom. Take it away and oppression soon fills the void. Freedom of expression is also necessary for  personal liberty to exist because without it no element of personal freedom is safe from obliteration by censorship. Free expression also has a tremendous general cultural value in that it stimulates thought and debate.

    The  damage censorship does, not least in the paranoia it generates, is wonderfully portrayed in the recent film release The death of Stalin, a very funny but also extremely sinister film. See it if you can.

    Censorship always means the censor has no solid argument for their position. I will leave the last word to John Milton who more than three centuries ago understood the power and utility of free expression when he wrote:

    ‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areopagitica].

Inventing trouble

Robert Henderson

Someone is trying to kill me. Or to be more precise a number  of people are trying to kill me. Or to be utterly exact  various professional killers employed by sundry powerful  men are trying to murder me.

Why are powerful men trying to kill me? Because  metaphorically speaking I invented a better mousetrap. Mark  Twain was right was right; the world does beat a path to  your door when you invent something useful. Unfortunately he  was under the misapprehension that the world beats a path to  the inventor’s door to make him rich. What the world actually does is beat a path to the inventor’s door to  kill, maim or cheat him. How did I get into this  predicament? I went to a patent lawyer who…no that’s moving  the story on too fast. Let’s get back to the why.

What have I discovered? Nothing less than the engineer’s  version of the philosopher’s stone, free energy. In  approximately two seconds of conscious thought I invented a  perpetual motion machine. You just set it off and it goes on  and on and on without any further power input until you want  to stop it. No fuel needed and precious few moving parts to  break.

Hell! the machine’s so neat it won’t even cause heartbreak  to the scientific gentry because it doesn’t transgress  the most biblical of scientific writs, that infuriating old  first law of thermodynamics which won’t allow more energy to  come out of system than goes into it. Bit of a shame that,  not outraging the boffins, but at least it means they won’t  be able to say in their canting obscurantist way that the idea’s nonsense because it breaks a scientific law.

The basic invention is such a damn simple thing. If you saw  the machine you would say how the devil didn’t anybody  think of that before! I did myself at first, but I got to  reflecting on how I was forty nine when I came up with the  idea and how that idea came out of nothing. Pure serendipity.

Happens every now and then. A young boy inadvertently  invented the centrifugal governor for Watt’s steam engine  by casually hooking up a lever to a valve and a distracted  Archimedes comprehended specific gravity whilst staring at  his bathwater. My idea was that easy and sudden.

Strange how people have these ideas. Watt’s boy did it to save himself the trouble of minding the steam engine so that  he could play with another lad; Archimedes did it to please a  king. Me? I don’t rightly know. I’ve always had a fascination  with the way things are, not why they exist you understand,  but how they’re made, how they function. But that’s not an  explanation in itself. Perhaps it’s because I’ve a mind which  works primarily on logic. That means I’m naturally inclined  to understand processes rather than cold data. Ask me to  memorise a list of names and I couldn’t do that to save my  life. Ask me to memorise a complicated process using the same  names and they would slip into my brain as easy as ABC. Come  to think of it, perhaps it’s the logical structure of my mind  which gives me my interest in the form and function of  things.

Anyway, whatever the reason, there I was one evening less  than a year ago, feeling old, flat broke, sitting in a  rented room with cheap furniture and even cheaper wallpaper,  staring blankly at a couple of common or garden objects  owned by the stranger who rented out the room. Suddenly I  thought you put this here and that there, join this to the other and bingo! there it was, an idea to turn the whole  world through eighty degrees. Suddenly I’m thinking that I’m no longer booked on a one way ticket to Palookaville with no  chance of a refund.

I’ve had a small model running nonstop for near on nine  months. As I write this I could hold out my hand and touch  it. I knew the machine must work when it was only an idea  in my head. But being intellectually convinced is only half  the battle, so I made the machine to pay heed to my emotions. I needed to see it working to believe.

It’s a very basic thing this model I’ve made, but in  principle it could go on for ever. However, parts will wear  out and materials deteriorate and accidents happen, so at  some point it will fail. As things stand I reckon that it  could take a thousand years or more to break down. With  better materials perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps  millions of years. Eventually who knows? Prevent the  materials deteriorating, avoid accidents, let the Earth  remain much the same and it’s forever. But even a thousand  years is as good as infinity for the individual man, so for  all practical purposes it’s a perpetual motion machine as it  stands. And the additional beauty of the thing is that it  takes precious little energy to start and next to no energy  to stop.

How does the machine work? It…well, that’s my big  problem, that’s why I’ve got all these people after me. I don’t dare tell anybody until I’ve got a few things right side up in my head, number one being how do I keep alive. But  I’ll describe it in general terms so someone reading this can understand what is making powerful men so angry and desperate that they want to kill a man without money, power or influential friends. Just hang onto your concentration for paragraph or two and you’ll get the general idea.

My miraculous engine uses a simple natural phenomenon to  produce motion which in turn is linked to another example of the selfsame phenomenon and the synchronised reciprocating action of these two phenomena sustains the motion of each other. Ergo, a self sustaining cycle is formed. Ergo it need  never stop. Now motion equals power, mechanical or electrical to your choice. So you can either use my machine  to drive something directly – a ship’s propeller say – or link it to a generator to produce electricity.

The power it generates is unusually stable. Because it  doesn’t use fuel, you need never worry that you’ll get an  irregular performance from supposedly similar fuel and it  isn’t overly dependent on the immediate weather conditions  like wind and solar power or naturally inconsistent in  strength like running water or wave power. My machine just  starts off at a pace and never changes unless gravity,  pressure or temperature alters.

Gravity and pressure aren’t a problem because neither vary  significantly on the Earth’s land surfaces, so that leaves  only temperature to fret about. That’s a theoretical problem  because the lowest natural land temperatures can make the  natural phenomenon impossible. In practice it’s no problem  because most places will never get cold enough most of the  time and, in those that do, the problem could be overcome  easily enough by insulation. Come to think of it, I could  overcome the difficulty by substituting the machine’s normal  primary material with one which reacts differently to heat.

At the worst, one of my machines might run a fraction faster or slower as the temperature goes up or down. In any case  if you want an absolutely stable power flow, all you need to do is put the machine into a pressure and temperature controlled environment which, of course, you can create  using power from the machine. Beautiful ain’t it!

Producing virtually free, stable power is recommendation  enough, but my machine has other flag waving advantages which say BUY BUY BUY ME. The materials needed to build it are plentiful and easy to work. It doesn’t use fuel. There is absolutely no pollution so there are no gas emissions, no chemical leaks, no nuclear waste, no interference with the  environment such as you get with wave power and no noise. You don’t even have the aesthetic problem of ugly equipment such as electricity pylons. In fact, my machines could be built in a way which made them part of the natural landscape.

Best of all the machine depletes no natural resources other  than those required to build the machines and is permanently sustainable. Sounds like fairy gold, don’t it? But there’s  more.

My machine could provide the power for most human needs at  the point of use. Imagine a world in which each building,  each home, each business, each factory had its own machine to  generate power. Out goes the great paraphernalia of  electricity lines and gas pipes we now have, out go the great  power generating plants. Even if a few public generators were required for undertakings such as the railways, they could be built using my machine.

The practical effects of the machine would have profound political consequences. All countries would have access to power so cheap as to be virtually free. No country could be utterly held to ransom by the oil and gas suppliers. Because pollution is zero, even the lowest tech economies could run it safely. In theory any country could industrialise.

If you’re thinking that the contraption sounds too good to be true, relax, no machine was ever built without a drawback or three. This one has two. The first comes from the stability of the natural process producing the motion. This stability means that power can only be generated at one rate by a particular machine.

Now that just goes to show the value of working things out on paper. Just after I wrote that last paragraph I thought of a novel way of gearing the machine to produce differential motion by restricting the opportunity for the motion producing phenomenon to occur. How easy it would be in practice is another matter, but as the gearing is a simple mechanical device I don’t foresee any great problem. A bit of tinkering here and there to discover the most efficient way f setting the gearing mechanism but that’s all. But even if the gearing did not work, all you need to do to produce differential power is store the electricity the machine produces and use it as required at what power level you want.

Goddamn! I’ve just thought of an even better way to gear the machine. I’ll use different materials to alter the rates of flow. So let’s say the machine has only one real drawback, size.

Even if I can make a machine which produces different levels of power, I am still constrained by its upper power limit. To alter its power I can only subtract from its maximum energy output. So what you say, the same applies to all powered engines. But with other machines you can improve their fuel or adapt their structure to gain greater power from the same size of mechanism. Unless I can find materials which act more efficiently than those I know of, I can’t make any significant improvements in power generation to my machine, because the natural phenomenon I utilise will only produce a given amount of motion in a given amount of space.

I could use greater pressures to speed the natural phenomenon, but that would be pointless because I would run into the old conservation of energy problem. The energy required to increase the pressure would cancel out any increased energy output from the machine. It really gets up my nose that conservation of energy law!

So the long and the short of it is that my machines will have to be on the large size for substantial power generation. Certainly too big to power a car or a plane because the power/weight ratio would be impractical. For the technically virginal, that’s just a fancy way of saying the machine would not generate enough energy to move its own and the vehicle’s mass.

But if my machine could not propel cars and planes directly, it might power a large ship. And even cars could be powered by it indirectly if electric propulsion becomes not merely possible, but at least as convenient and efficient as petrol driven engines.

How big can my machines be? In principle any size above the microscopic. The beauty of the machine is that it can be linked to any number of other machines or the process of the natural phenomenon could be replicated infinitely in a single machine. As for machines going the other way on the size scale, there is a limit because another natural phenomenon kicks in at the microscopic level to prevent the perpetual motion process happening. There’s probably a way round that as well, but I can’t think of it as yet, although I suspect the answer lies in using materials of different density.

Sounds like I’m a lucky man just waiting to coin as much money as a man could conceive of doesn’t it? Wrongity wrongity! There is a positive forest of stricken circumstantial oaks across the road to my fame and riches. After I had made my first machine and had it running for long enough to convince me that it was stable, I sat down to think about how I would bring the idea to the market. The trouble was that the more I thought about it the more impossible the business seemed.

To begin with I thought about patents. To patent an invention all over the world costs about thirty grand. I won’t keep you in suspense, I didn’t and don’t have thirty grand. But that thirty grand is only the beginning because you are bound to get pirating, and that’s particularly so when the machine is cheap and easy to produce. So you need more money for patent infringement law suits, lots and lots more money, boy! do you need money to keep lawyers happy. And the funny thing is it doesn’t matter where you go in the world, lawyers all have the same three principal character traits, greedy, greedy and greedy again. I was tempted to throw in idle, incompetent, dishonest, ignorant and cowardly before greedy, but that would be unfair to lawyers. Idle, incompetent, dishonest, ignorant and cowardly indubitably score just below greedy on the lawyer personality chart. And it’s been ever thus. First let us kill the lawyers! wrote old Will Shakespeare. I can’t say I’m utterly opposed to the idea.

Those are your legal problems with patents. Your other more pressing slings and arrows – let’s be polite and call them extra-legal difficulties – come from those countries which either don’t recognise patents for foreigners or do but don’t if you know what I mean. It’s a sorry truth that most countries don’t have a meaningful legal system, they being more than a little remiss in providing such things as due process and the right to independent legal representation.

And in any case I sincerely doubt whether a foreigner ever gets fair treatment before a foreign court anywhere. So legal action is not really a paying proposition anywhere unless your indecently rich.

Some wiseguys might tell you the way to deal with such unobliging states is to bribe their rulers. The wiseguys who tell you that will even offer to hand over your money to the  said rulers. You would be better employed donating the money to your favourite charity. If one thing is certain in this world, you never can trust a man who takes a bribe. Either he will be willing to take another one to betray you or he won’t have the power to deliver his promises.

When it comes down to it, your only real safeguards against having an idea stolen are technical sophistication and cost. You need to produce a product which is either too technically sophisticated for easy production or so expensive that bootleggers can’t afford to produce it.

Generally if you have the first you have the second. Sadly my machine doesn’t exactly fall into the category of technically sophisticated although it could utilise a lot of high tech stuff to maximise its effectiveness. In fact, my machine is so simple in principle that your average cackhanded technophobe bozo could construct a basic model in his kitchen and that basic machine could power a 60 watt bulb. So that makes effective patenting more than a mite difficult.

But patenting was just the beginning of my worries. I also had to find the money to either start up a company to manufacture the machines or persuade a big company to fund the project. Well, I sure as hell couldn’t do the first and I was damn sure that no big company was going to look at somebody they didn’t know from Adam. But hopeless as that seemed I played make believe to progress matters. I asked myself to suppose that I could get the money for the patenting and persuade a big company to finance me.

I could just about believe that some lawyer with an eye to the main chance might do the patenting work on a contingency basis. In the small hours I could even see some big business taking me under its wing. But what was there to stop either a lawyer or a company taking me for a ride? How could I trust the lawyers and businessmen with whom I would have to deal?

How could I protect my idea? In the end the answer I came up with was the only sane one: I had damn all ways of guaranteeing that I wouldn’t be shafted and the idea stolen. But before I got to that inescapable, indigestible conclusion I tied myself in knots trying to close down all the alleyways and thoroughfares which a lawyer or a business could scuttle down. I created positive sheepshanks of logical reasoning and half-hitches of practical actions to lash everything down. I’ll give you a taste of the way I went, twisting and turning till my head was near breaking. My mind would work something like this.

I need to prove that the idea was mine. Therefore I’m going to send myself a number of letters with the plans of the machine inside. The envelopes will have stamps over the sealing flap of envelope. That way the point of entry into the envelope is date stamped by the post office. A court will accept that as proof of my knowledge of the machine at the stamped date.

Damn! but that doesn’t prove that I invented the machine, it merely proves that I knew about it by a particular time. So I shall send a letter to the patent lawyer describing what the machine does in general terms but without describing the machine. This letter will be sent by recorded post so again I have a date stamp. But what if he says that he never received the letter? I shall send the letter to his home not his office. That will mean that either he or his wife signs for the letter. But that won’t prove that I sent the lawyer a particular letter. So I shall videotape myself putting the letter into envelope before I send it. But that still won’t prove that I sent that particular letter. Hell!

Or I might be thinking about meeting the patent lawyer. Then I would go along like this. What am I going to do about the meeting? The lawyer’s got to come to me. That way I can control the physical circumstances. Then I can record the meeting. But I mustn’t rely on just one record because that the recording might be faulty or the man’s face be turned from the camera so his lips can’t be seen. So I shall videotape the meeting with four video machines placed at 90 degrees to one another. Just for luck I shall run half a dozen tape recorders as well. I can’t afford to buy the video recorders but I can hire them.

Shall I tell the patent lawyer I am recording? Indubitably yes because if I don’t as sure as eggs are ovoid objects he will go scuttling off to the patent office or a manufacturer or both and sew up the patent for someone else. If I didn’t have the recordings I would…jeez you see what this sort of thing does, it signposts the way to a home for the barking.

Finally I got thinking about the practical effects my machine would have on the world. Just imagine what would happen if a source of energy was given to the world which required no more than the initial outlay for the machine. All right, you could factor in the costs of security for the biggest machines and there will be some piffling maintenance costs for the moving parts, but whichever way you look at it, the cost is minuscule compared with any current means of power generation.

The problem is that my invention is not like any other in the history. Other forms of power have come upon the scene. Windmills competed with watermills. Steam competed with wind and watermills. Oil superseded steam, electricity competes with oil and gas. Nuclear energy vies with all these. But in those cases the change was never immediate nor complete.

Steam may be almost dead as a serious primary power source but it took two centuries to become moribund. As for the others, they all have their niches. What I have is the means to make all of them, except petrol for vehicles and ships and planes, obsolete in a matter of a few years, perhaps as little as ten. And if decent batteries can be invented for cars, then most of the oil used in cars will become redundant.

Now sit down and think of all the powerful men whose place in the world is dependent on power generation. Think of the gas companies, the electricity generators and the oil companies.

Think of coal and gas. Think of the oil dependent cars. Think of all the people employed in all those industries. Think of all the other people who live off the general expenditure of the energy producing people. Think of the politicians who tax and spend. Think of the economic and social disruption a form of energy so cheap that its cost becomes negligible could cause. Think of what the likely response to the man who has invented the machine which creates virtually free power.

What do men do when they are threatened. They become either aggressive or submissive, the Uriah Heap syndrome. When they are powerful men, they invariably become aggressive. When they are really frightened they will kill. So I thought there would be more a fair chance that someone would want me dead if I tried to patent the machine.

After all that thinking and conjuring of demons, there I was sitting on this wonderful idea which could change the world and I couldn’t see a way of through the thicket to the open fields beyond.

I tried to shrug my shoulders and tell myself to forget about it. But the idea was so strong in my mind that I couldn’t leave the thing alone . However hard I pressed it down it kept clambering back to my frontal lobes until it became a mental sore.

I knew that it was Lombard Street to a china orange that I would be cheated. I knew that the machine could cause great social dislocation. I knew that the machine could threaten the security of the powerful. I knew that I was putting myself in danger. But it didn’t make a damn bit of difference, that’s the God’s honest truth. I didn’t care about anything but the machine.

It wasn’t even the prospect of money which was uppermost in my mind. What was sitting there was the sheer cleverness of the thing and the fact that I had invented it. If a philosopher ever made a more profound observation than David Hume when he said that the heart has its reasons that reason knows not of, I would sorely wish to know it.

Well that was six months ago. What did I do? I found a lawyer who agreed to apply for patents in Britain, the US, Japan and the EU. I reckoned that would cover enough of the countries who could not afford to be without the machine to make me a fortune.

True to form the lawyer just couldn’t resist the temptation to go to an oil company. Needless to say he didn’t register the patents. I know the lawyer went to the oil company because they tried to buy me out. But the trouble was they wanted to suppress the machine. And my trouble was that I couldn’t bear that. So I said no. The oil company offered more and more money but I kept on saying no. Eventually the oil company stopped offering.

I was just about to look out another patent lawyer when the first attempt to kill me happened. A car swerving up on the pavement. I just managed to get into a side alley in time. It could have been an accident but it looked deliberate and I don’t believe in coincidences. Another car tried to run me down the next day. Caught me a glancing blow and I ended up in hospital for a couple of weeks.

I can take hint so I didn’t go back to my room when I came out of hospital. I simply left everything I had and ran. Where am I now? Sitting in another rented room with cheap furniture and even cheaper wallpaper, feeling old and flat broke. I’m even staring blankly at a couple of common or garden objects owned by a stranger.

Any difference from a few months back? Yeah, I’m scared, but I’m even angrier and angry trumps scared any day. And I’ll tell you the damndest thing about my anger. I’m not  angry because I’m not making a fortune. I’m not even angry because people are trying to kill me. No, I’m angry because the machine’s a truly beautiful idea and if I’m killed it will be gone.

So what do I do? Shall I patent it as best I can? Shall I do what Alexander Fleming did with penicillin and give it to the world for free? Or shall I simply let the idea come silent with me to the grave? I can’t even console myself by thinking that if I don’t make the invention public then somebody else will soon discover it. The natural physical phenomenon I utilise for my machine has been known for at least three thousand years. We have had something approximating to a proper scientific method for at least four hundred years and a respectable technology for far longer. Yet in all that time no one sat down and looked at this phenomenon and put two and two together. So why should I believe that someone will discover what I have discovered? In fact, I reckon it’s even less likely now than it was three hundred years ago because our scientific erudition and technological brilliance has blinded men to simple processes.

One thing is for sure, when shove comes to push nobody can stop me from making the idea public knowledge. If all other roads come to dead ends, I can release the genie by uploading the details of the machine onto the Internet.

Well, I reckon shove has come to push so I put this lead here and that lead there, join this to the other, switch on, log on , upload and bingo! there it is, an idea to turn the world through eighty degrees, singing through the ether of the worldwide web. I wonder which big company will be the first to apply for a patent?

Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik

Robert Henderson

The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik  in Oslo is truly remarkable. It is not Breivik who is fearful , but the Norwegian political mainstream trembling  their way towards what they hope will be a  politically correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:

“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison, despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to be criminally responsible.

But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in the trial.” (

Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be so politically incorrect.

Liberals are desperately  struggling  to fit  the man into their fantasy world  where everyone is wondrously  multicultural and gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass immigration or the denial of human nature  and difference which is the essence of political correctness.  This entails  a blind refusal to engage with Breivik’s  declared motives and general criticism of modern  Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world generally) . In a nutshell, they  do not know how to rationally respond to a  man who challenges everything they believe in and can only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who can be viewed  in the same way that the audience for  a nineteenth century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.

The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public  singing during the trial  of a  song which Breivik claims is part of the indoctrination of Norwegians. The song , Children of the Rainbow,  contains lyrics such as these:

“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see

An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?

Together shall we live, every sister, brother

Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”


In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian children to sing that and the  Hitler Youth leading renditions of  the Horst Wessel song ?

Three  tactics have been used to negate the danger   Breivik represents: say he is insane,  seek to censor  his testimony  on the ground that he  will use the trial to promote his political ideas or  attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person.   This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere.  Consequently, even outside of Norway  there   is precious little attempt to present  reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead  liberals generally have  offered  feeble personal abuse of his person,  bald assertions that his arguments  are  wrong and delusional and claims that he must be mad.

Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has raised? Because they  know in their heart of hearts that their declared  political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite decades of politically correct propaganda  and the punishment of those who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal sanction’s such as  loss of employment,  humans  still feel what they have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and territoriality.    Liberals know this in the most certain way because they , like everyone else,  have the  feelings which lead human beings to naturally think in terms of membership of a group and to favour those like themselves. This commonly makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching,  a trait most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant settlement.

It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy of avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their  ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in England)  a very white and very English world . (The favourite  white liberal excuse for  denying themselves the  experience of the joy of diversity  is that it is a matter of  class  which causes them to  end up well away from the diversity. This , the white liberal claims, is   because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity.  It is an argument which does not seem to  provide an adequate garment to  cover the hypocrisy of the  likes of the leftist folk singer Billy Bragg  who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became invaded by  ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the whitest and most English of counties).

When people support an ideology  which they know is false  or at the least not objectively demonstrable,  they invent excuses for reality not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a consequence of social conditioning.  They then follow the logic  of that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals) harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts to  re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail,  as they always do,  the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the required alterations in human behaviour.  This provides an excuse to continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian restrictions on how people may behave.  The liberal’s  chosen vehicle for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political correctness or, to  the politically and academically inclined, cultural Marxism.

But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are supposed to be according to the politically correct canon,  liberals, even the most committed believers,  also have a terrible fear that if people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a revolution which might, at best, overthrow what they fervently want or, more venally ,  could result in  dire consequences from  themselves as the rage of those who have suffered  from the enforcement of political correctness and mass immigration is let off the leash.  At the very least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of political correctness would vanish.  This would remove the livelihoods of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political correctness and even more  from those  who pay lip-service to political correctness  simply to obtain one of the politically correct sinecures.  There is a very large vested interest in maintaining political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with power.

If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become  the elite ideology of most of  the Western world.  That makes it toxic and potentially dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism.  It is  catastrophically pernicious because it is totalitarian in its nature  for  it reaches into every aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any situation is the politically correct one.

The ills of mass immigration and  the enforcement of multiculturalism require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those  who either cannot  fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or  will not assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral culture ,must of itself be immediately divisive  and, eventually, if immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the original population becoming a minority in their own land and their own culture, at the least,  badly mangled by that stark change in fortune.

The state  promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of  indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a homogeneous society, but   this may be an effect rather than a cause of the mass immigration.  Rather than being  the result of a conscious plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has happened, control  native dissent and attempt to deal with the inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy such as multiculturalism which pretends  that  there is no such thing as tribalism in the human DNA  and  everything is consequently  for the best in all possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it provides the elite with  a narrative for what has happened  which diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.

The ill effects of political correctness as it relates to issues other than those arising from race and ethnicity are less immediately obvious.  The ever growing censorship of what may be said or done  is obvious enough, but  there are other more subtle effects. Because its tenets run directly contrary to the way human beings naturally behave as individuals and in the mass , political correctness  will never gain general acceptance, but what it can do is inhibit the normal  social relationships  of a society by making it dangerous for individuals to behave naturally.  By definition, this must undermine the efficient functioning of any community because people are being asked to behave in a manner which is alien to their natural function. .

The idea that discrimination – the Great Satan of political correctness – is self-evidently and always wrong is a literal nonsense.  Humans like every other organism have to make choices. Choice  requires discrimination.   We discriminate in finding people sexually attractive; in liking them as people;  in choosing someone because we believe they are competent  to do something and in a myriad  other ways. People have to discriminate between people many times a day.  All of these things are matters,  like race, over which individuals have no control because the judgement is made by others not themselves.   Except for a few very advanced cases of political correctness, liberals make no complaint about such discrimination. The choice of race, gay rights and sexual equality as the great forbidden subjects of discrimination  is arbitrary, no more than an ideological whim.

When the state interferes in the necessary and natural use of discrimination, which includes the exercise of preference for those who most resemble ourselves ,  they  distort society.  Breivik’s prime complaint apart from the effects of multiculturalism generally  and  Islam in particular is that Norwegian society has become feminised.  There is  force in his argument. Norway has probably gone further than any other country in forcing through the use of law  and incessant propaganda women into areas where they were considerably  under-represented, most notably in politics ( business (

Breivik believes that the changes in male roles and the straitjacket of feminism on Norway has emasculated Norwegian men. He has a point.  The films of the  Stieg Larsson Millennium trilogy (set in Sweden not Norway, but Sweden is a country which is part of the general Scandinavian appetite for feminism)  show us a very strange world in which men are all viewed as potential rapists unless they have been  emasculated by feminist propaganda, women revenge themselves on men with violence  and women  play the  authority roles in the same way that blacks do in Hollywood films (   Looking at the personnel  involved in the Breivik trial, it is eerily reminiscent of the world depicted in the Millennium films. The senior  judge and  one of the leading prosecutors  are women.  The men who appear ,  such as Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippstad ,  commonly have a strangulated  emasculated manner .  Interviews with many  of the Norwegian men speaking about the  Breivik killings also  display this quality.

Why does this matter?  There are fundamental,  and   to everyone other than liberals,  obvious  reasons  why men are normally masculine and women are feminine in their behaviour.  That is the way Nature has crafted their  respective general personalities and behaviours.  Male dominance is the norm amongst mammals and it would be extraordinary if it was not present  in human beings.  Even if it was possible to remove the trait through conditioning, it would beg the question of whether it would be wise to do so. At best it would be a reckless gamble.    Human beings need to feel that their lives have purpose. Take away the natural roles of men and women and most will at some point in their lives feel that their natural purpose has been subverted.

As for women,  the fact that they bear children of itself writes the general  script of both their lives and personalities.  There will always be women who do not want children or who fail to display a strong maternal instinct if they do have them, but the great  majority will naturally behave in a feminine manner.

The natural instincts of Norwegian men  and women have not been abolished, but men  entering the Norwegian elite will tend to be those who are less strongly masculine and this trait will continue for as long as political correctness is the dominant ideology.  Any human group selects new members from those who most resemble the group.  In the case of Norway there will be the strongest selection pressure for emasculated men to be selected for  the elite because so many women, most of whom will be  strongly feminist because that is the mentality which pushes them forward in modern Norwegian political life, will be within the group.  Any man who is  both naturally masculine and espouses masculine behaviour,  will be excluded.    Below the Norwegian political elite will be the men who retain their masculinity, but even they will be hamstrung by the cloying feminist dominance.

Exactly what sort of society will emerge in such circumstances is problematic, but it is worth noting that the  predominance of feminism in Norway creates a situation potentially more immediately  destabilising than that of  immigrants because  women, unlike immigrants, already form more than 50% of the population.   There is a majority with a vested interest in perpetuating and expanding   feminist privileges at the expense of men.

In the longer term a situation of great irony could arise in Norway, with the demands of feminism clashing with those of  other groups created by the politically correct,  especially Muslims, to crush feminist policies.

The management of the trial

While they are refusing to engage with Breivik’s complaints against what the Norwegian political elite have done – permitted mass immigration and unceasingly promoted multiculturalism in particular and  political correctness generally with their consequent profound changes to Norwegian society – liberals everywhere are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulation about how civilised  it all is, a positive model of  a modern liberal society which shows how morally superior is the politically correct view of the world.    Ralph Waldo Emmerson’s “The louder he talked of his honour/the faster we counted the spoons”  comes to mind, as well it should,  for when  the claim  of liberal rectitude and beatific  self-restraint is looked at in detail it rapidly  collapses.

From the time of the massacre the Norwegian authorities have carefully controlled  the narrative.  Until the trial began , apart from brief court appearances  Breivik was kept under wraps, most of the time in solitary.  His only conduit  to the outside world has been his defence lawyer Geir Lippstad , a man who radiates permanent  liberal angst and  puts in the shade British barristers representing those deemed to have “racist”  or  “far right” views  who routinely  trot out something along these lines:  “My client is utterly despicable but you must put that out of your minds and judge him on the evidence”.   At his first press conference after  agreeing to represent Breivik,  Lippstad   blithely stated that his client was mad (a claim he later withdrew).  Before the trial began Lippstad was wringing his hands again about the defence he was being asked to present and made it quite clear that it was both repugnant to him and nonsense.

The trial is  being  very carefully stage-managed .  Parts  are being broadcast, but the court has ruled that neither Breivik’s testimony  – both his statement and cross examination – or that of his witnesses can be broadcast. (   This allows the liberal dominated mainstream media and politics to give their version of what Breivik is and stands for.   They wish to show him at best as a contemptible  and negligible person who is not worth listening to and at worst a strange creature so far from the norm as to be beyond any consideration other than that of a monstrous curiosity.

As so often with modern liberals, personal abuse is freely offered against those who refuse to accept the politically correct view of the world, despite the fact that the politically correct   supposedly hold that a person’s appearance is utterly irrelevant and derogatory mention of it  a prime example of  the liberal’s Great Satan: discrimination.   Here is a good example from David Blair of the Daily Telegraph : “The voice gave little away, but the killer’s eyes, posture and physique spoke volumes. As the days wore on and he became unsettled by the prosecution’s questioning, white specks of dandruff flecked Breivik’s dark jacket, beads of sweat glistened on a face pockmarked by acne, and a motionless comb-over grew more slicked and gleaming.” (

As the public cannot watch Breivik in action, no one outside the court has a clue whether the reports of his behaviour, looks and words are a truthful representation of what is going on.  For all we know He  might be wiping the floor with the prosecutor and any other hostile questioner.  The same will apply when the witnesses  for the defence are called.

The management of the proceedings is further heightened by the broadcast of the evidence from witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, you get the other side of the story in full and directly ( – 2.31 pm).  With Breivik’s  evidence there is not only the missing personal behaviour,  but the quotes which appear in the media are selective, concentrating not unnaturally on the more sensational of his words.

Amongst the self-congratulatory  liberal tosh about what a model of liberal restraint the trial is can be found the contention that Breivik would not have been given such licence to put his views in many other Western  jurisdictions including that of England.  I doubt whether that is true. Breivik is arguing that he acted in self-defence, the danger to himself (and the rest of  Norwegian society) being the policies of  allowing mass immigration,  the promotion of multiculturalism  and the strangulation of  any  public dissent through the rigorous application of  political correctness  which he feared would lead to the destruction of Norwegian culture  and that this would effectively leave any Norwegian at the mercy of  forces inimical to Norwegian  values and customs,  in his eyes most especially  Islam This  would at best  leave Norwegians as a subject people in their own  ancestral homeland or  at worst result in their complete obliteration as a people .

Those are of course political statements,  but that does not disqualify them as reasons why someone  should have a rational fear of what is happening and that the consequences of what is occurring   – mass immigration and multiculturalism –  could plausibly lead to a mortal threat to Norwegian society and by extension to Breivik.  The fact that they are so politically dangerous  for the political elite would make it difficult for any legal system anywhere to simple refuse  such a  justification of  a plea self-defence. This was the case  with Breivik because before he  was allowed to read his statement  there were strong hints that he would not be allowed to read it even if it was not televised. (

There is also a question mark over whether Breivik is pleading self-defence in the sense that it would be understood in an English court:

“8.05am Before the court started, journalists were spoken to by the translators who said that “self-defence” was a misleading translation for the grounds for acquittal Breivik is invoking. A better translation would be “necessity”, they said as the clause he’s referring to is about defence of property and defence of others, not solely about defence of your own person.”

08.28am While we wait for a decision, more on the clarification from the translators regarding Breivik’s defence of “necessity” rather than “self-defence”. In Norway section 47 of the penal code states:

No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone’s person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.”


The charges brought against Breivik also potentially provide grounds for challenge.  Here are the salient parts of the indictment:


hereby indict Anders Behring Breivik, born 13.02.1979 currently remanded in custody before the Oslo District Court, pursuant to section 39 of the Penal Code, for sentence to be passed for his transfer to compulsory mental health care, cf. chapter 5 of the Mental Health Care Act, for having in a psychotic state committed an otherwise punishable act, namely in violation of:

Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letters a and b, cf. sections 148 first paragraph first penalty alternative and 233 first and second paragraphs

for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 148 of the Penal Code, first paragraph, first penalty alternative (bringing about an explosion whereby loss of human life or extensive damage to the property of others could easily be caused) and of section 233 first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.

II Section 147a of the Penal Code, first paragraph letter b, cf. section 233 first and second paragraphs

 for having committed a terrorist act in violation of section 223 of the Penal Code, first and second paragraphs (premeditated murder where particularly aggravating circumstances prevail) with the intention of seriously intimidating a population.” (

Consider the passage “with the intention of seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority or seriously intimidating a population.” Breivik was certainly not “seriously  intimidating a population”. Rather, he was seriously intimidating the ruling political elite by attacking the generation who were being trained to become the political elite.  As for  “seriously disrupting a function of vital importance to society, such as the executive authority”, it is true the bomb attack was meant to harm members of the government including the Norwegian Prime Minister,  but  in a representative democracy even the death of a Prime Minister should not  “seriously disrupt a function of vital importance to society”.

Breivik’s mental state

The calls for Breivik to be considered mad  unambiguously show  the  authoritarian  nature of  the modern liberal mind.  Compare their  calls for him to be judged insane with the  treatment of others who have killed for political reasons such as   Islamic fanatics and IRA bombers. They were and are not treated by liberals  as deranged but as terrorists at worst, although plenty of liberals will always find ways of qualifying even that judgement because of the terrorist’s supposed motives and environment.  As Breivik observed  if he was a “bearded jihadist” no psychiatric investigation would have been asked for. (1.11 pm

Breivik is really in the same bracket as such people. Indeed, it could be argued that his motivation is  far more rational that, for example, the Jihadist who believes he will go to paradise with 72 virgins to use as he sees fit.  He has real fears about the future of his country and a clear idea of what he is doing, viz:

“10.28am Prosecutor Engh asked Breivik if he thought there were any parallels between what he had done and a war situation.

Breivik replied that it was “not a war but a political attack …. and I was trying to prevent a future civil war. Not just me but other political nationalists – we believe that this will happen” (

Moreover,  ostensibly at least,  Breivik has not killed on a whim, as an exercise in sadism, to  revenge himself for  personal  slights or injuries or because he has a proven mental disorder such as paranoid schizophrenia with voices in his head telling him to kill people before they killed him.  He has no psychiatric history and , despite the best efforts of the first set of psychiatrists who examined him to diagnose him as a paranoid schizophrenic,  this judgement was contradicted by a second examination which found Breivik to be sane. The other strong pointer  to his sanity is the fact that he  successfully executed a meticulously planned and complex attack.

Breivik cooperated with the first psychiatrists who adjudicated on his sanity  but not the second.  Could it be that the first psychiatrists, faced with the physical reality of someone saying all the things they as, as politically correct believers, could not bear to think anyone who so contradicted their views was  sane? The second set of psychiatrists were not confronted with such a reality made flesh and  came to  their judgement simply on his known views and behaviour, a much less emotionally involving business.   Perhaps ominously for Breivik,  the Daily Telegraph reported on 23  April that at  “2.43pm The judge has read to the court comments from the Norwegian commission for forensic medicine, which has asked for “further work” to be done on the second psychiatric report into Breivik. This is the report which found he was sane.” (

If this were an English court  it is difficult to see how Breivik  could  meet the test of insanity required by the McNaghten Rules. These  rest on whether a person accused of a crime knew they were doing something wrong or were suffering a defect of reason through mental illness,  most commonly paranoia, which drove them to commit the crime in the belief that it was necessary to commit it , most probably because of a belief that they or someone else was in danger. Clearly Breivik  is aware of what he was doing and how it would be viewed by society. That leaves only the question of whether he was acting under a delusion. That test would fall because manifestly what he fears, the objective threats to his society from mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness and Islam, are concrete facts. How far they could be judged to be mortal threats is another matter, but no one could reasonably argue that, in particular,  mass immigration and Islam are not real and substantial  threats to the nature of Norwegian society.

Compare the political positions of Breivik and the  politically correct:

Breivik points out the inevitable ill consequences of mass immigration; the particular threat from Islam and the enforcement of the totalitarian ideology political correctness.

The politically correct  ask human beings to  pretend that  that there is no difference between people of  varying races and cultures;  to willingly allow the invasion of their  territory  by strangers;   pretend that life is enriched by changing  from a homogenous to a fractured heterogeneous  society through mass immigration;  accept all sexual relationships as equally natural and socially useful and ignore the very obvious differences in interests and biological function between men and women in the name of sexual equality. The ideology requires people to behave as if they were not human.

Who is more divorced from reality?

Breivik’s ideas

How bright is Breivik? We are not talking Immanuel Kant here,  but neither is he a complete  clod.  His 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence   lists his concerns and programme for action as:

1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe

2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began

3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)

4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades

5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts

The  complete manifesto can be found at

There are aspects of the ridiculous about his ideas,  most notably the guff about the foundation of a latterday  Knight’s Templars of which he describes himself as  “ Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement” and his truly embarrassing obsession with uniforms.   Breivik also shows  great obtuseness in thinking that a political manifesto of 1,518 pages  is a practical instrument to get his message across to a wide public, which was presumably his intent.  To the length of his writing can be added  the  barrier of  the quasi-academic style of  much of the content.  This prolixity and user-unfriendly style is unsurprising,  because he appears to be an autodidact  and an inability to understand an audience or edit out the marginal from the directly pertinent  often comes with that territory.  But that does not make what he has to say unimportant merely difficult  to access.

In his manifesto Breivik  is overly obsessed with Islam, although interestingly,  in his statement to the court  it is reported that: “09.32am The statement makes no reference to his crimes, his belief he is a Knight Templar, or, interestingly Islam. Instead, it’s a rant against left-wing multi-culturalism. “ (

The threat to Norwegian society posed by Islam is not to be underestimated,  but it is  a subset of the larger general threat from immigration generally, especially in countries other than Norway.   It could be argued that if it was only Muslims which constituted a threat, then the danger might be both better appreciated and more easily dealt with,  because it is only the multiplicity of competing ethnicities which allows multiculturalism  –   a classic divide and rule strategy – to be peddled.   (The  same applies to the  entirety of political correctness, because that also  relies on creating sectional groups who can be similarly manipulated ).

Nonetheless,  it is true that Islam  represents  the most coherent, immediate  and obvious threat  from immigrants  in Europe  because of the numbers involved – estimates of Muslims in the EU are around 20 million – (  and the nature of the  religion itself which provides plenty of unambiguous injunctions to use force against non-Muslims to enforce Islam  and  is generally  implacable in its drive towards domination.    In judging  Breivik’s fears they should be put in the context of the fact that Norway has a population of less than 5 million (  Mass immigration is  a  vastly more pressing matter  for Norwegians than it is for a country with a  population of, say, 50 million or more.

How many  Muslims are there in Norway?  No one knows for sure because the Norwegian statistics office does not count people by religion.   Estimates by non-governmental bodies  give figures such as 144,000 in 2010 ( and 163,000 in 2009 (Islam in Norway .) These figures would not seem unreasonable when placed against the Statistics Norway 2010 figure for first and second generation immigrants:

“Immigrants and those born in Norway to immigrant parents constitute 655 000 persons or 13.1 per cent of Norway’s population, among which 547 000 are immigrants and 108 000 are born in Norway to immigrant parents. 

Broken down by region, 294 000 have a European background, 163 000 persons have a background from Asia, 60 000 from Africa, 18 000 from South- and Central-America and 11 000 from North America and Oceania.

 57 100 of those born in Norway to immigrants parents have an Asian background, 29 000 have parents from Europe, 19 500 from Africa and 2 600 have immigrant parents from South- and Central America.  “

It would be a fair bet that the large majority of the Asians are Muslims.

Despite these substantial shortcomings, Breivik’s message is  most powerful and (for liberals) a tremendously  dangerous.   He  strikes directly at  the social  poison which lies at the heart of not only  Norway but  much of the First World: the pernicious consequences of mass immigration and the ideological justification for it – multiculturalism – which Western elites have developed to justify both the immigration and the authoritarian measures employed to prevent  public dissent  at its permitting.  In addition, by condemning political correctness generally he strikes at the other sacred cows of  political correctness ,  gay rights and feminism.   If Breivik is widely  judged to be right in his core  views  (not his actions)  the immense edifice of  political correctness  erected in in Norway  (and elsewhere)   over the past half century is under threat.

The eternal crime of treason

Most deadly for the liberal elite is Breivik’s  attack on mass immigration.  He  is accusing the Norwegian elite of  collective and sustained  act of  treason  which he believes  will obliterate  Norway as a recognisable nation

The idea of treason is so  potent  because it is one of very few crimes which exists in people’s minds  regardless of whether a law enshrining it is on the statute book.  Indeed, it could be argued that it is the only crime which commands such universality of natural recognition because even crimes such as murder and theft are open to considerable differences of definition for example, killing by vendetta has been morally sanctioned in many societies and theft by conquest lauded.  But treason  is always treason, the betrayal of the tribe, clan or nation.  It is even more fundamental than that,  because its roots  rest in the anger and dismay felt by any human being if they are let down by another whom they trusted.

A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a country  and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice (and increasingly in theory) , and the  coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under  threat – see

Liberals have been conditioned to eschew a sense of nation. Breivik has not. Here he is explaining why he wept at his trial when watching one of his videos :

“Because my country is in the process of dying – it was the sorrow over seeing my country … deconstructed. Especially the songs, combined with the message” (

There will be few in the West who will  espouse Breivik’s actions but many who will in varying degrees sympathise at some level with  his complaints about mass immigration, the demands of Muslims within Western societies and  the strangling of human nature by political correctness. A good parallel  for British readers is the relationship between Irish nationalists and the actions of the IRA.  Support for the IRA varied from outright glorification of terrorist acts to those who adopted what might the called the “I don’t agree with their methods but… ” approach whereby they supported the ends but not the means.

What  liberals everywhere should be doing is questioning why the imposition of their  political ideology  could drive someone to do what Breivik did. Such massacres are rare to  the point of almost  non-existence in modern Western  society.   The only real parallel is the bombing  of government offices carried out  by  Timothy McVeigh in the USA ( .

In both cases the perpetrators – Breivik and McVeigh  – were men who lived in societies which provided for their material needs.  They were not driven to do what they did by poverty. They were not fighting against an occupying power or an overt dictatorship.  Both men could  have continued to live what, by the standard of most places in the world , were extremely comfortable lives. Yet both chose to leave that security and engage in acts which by any standard were wholly exceptional  and deeply disturbing.   Moreover, the acts  are disturbing not just for the slaughter  which occurred, but also for their  causes.

Norwegians who buy into the multicultural, politically correct propaganda which has been  pumped out  for decades ought to be examining the type of world their rigid adherence to political correctness has created.   It has produced  the sense of  social claustrophobia common to overt  totalitarian states  whereby people find the range of opinion they are permitted shrinks and shrinks and instead of behaving naturally they are constantly thinking is it safe to say this? It is a mental gaol.   Breivik described  the symptoms graphically:

“09.46am I’m not scared of the prospect of being imprisoned. I was born in a prison and I have spent my life in a prison… this prison is called Norway. It doesn’t matter if I am locked into a cell, because you know that all areas will end up in a multicultural Hell that we call Oslo.

Above all liberals need to ask themselves why, if Breivik’s ideas are so absurd, so outlandish they are afraid of them. The poet John Milton had the answer to those who wished to censor:

‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

If Breivik is as irrational and delusional as liberals wish to make out,  and liberals believe sincerely in what they say,  they would surely let their perceived truth go into battle with Breivik’s perceived truth. The reality is that liberals at best do not think that their ideas are practical or palatable to the majority  at present  and at worst they have ceased to believe in political correctness but cannot say so for fear of the consequences to themselves.

A sociologist and professor at Oslo university, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, has been called to give evidence for Breivik.  He has yet to give evidence but in the,  to English eyes,  rather curious world of Norwegian criminal justice, he has spoken to the media about his coming evidence (there appears to be little if any concept of sub judice in Norway) :

“I expect that they want me to help them substantiate the claim that he was not insane, what I can say is that his world view, or large parts of his world view are fairly widely shared… And this world view exists, not shared by a majority but by a fairly vocal and potentially dangerous minority,” Eriksen said. (

There you have a liberal coming as close as they are likely to get to an admission of what they all fear:  that Breivik’s views (although not his actions) are shared by large numbers of people, especially his views on immigration and Islam.   Prof Eriksen  is wrong in one respect:  it is not a “dangerous minority” but humans generally who have these feelings, including, as mentioned previously,  liberals.  People may have been brainwashed  but that does not means normal human instincts have vanished or  that people generally  believe in the propaganda. Instead people  develop a fear response  which drives them to shun views which clash with the ideology and to give evidence of their belief in the ideology in public situations by paying lip service to it.

While an ideology can be enforced,  the public will display behaviours ranging from a servile adherence to the ideology to promote their interests  to lip service just to remain safe.   But once the means of enforcing the ideology are removed these behaviours will rapidly vanish.  The societies liberals have built in the West are houses of cards just waiting to be knocked over if the stranglehold of the politically correct can be broken.

I will end with a question, What is the non-violent means to break the hold on power of elites  who would destroy the societies they come from through mass immigration, obsessively enforce  political correctness  and  ruthlessly suppress  dissent to what they are doing  through the criminalisation of  ideas which run counter to those  of the politically correct?

A libertarian party is wrong in principle.

Political parties can exist under two general conditions: they can be based on a well-defined ideology or be coalitions without any rigid ideology, which at best are driven by an unfocused desire to “improve things” and at worst are primarily vehicles for the careerism of politicians. All modern British Parliamentary parties fall into the latter category, which might be best described as parties of vague expediency.

Libertarians are excluded from the ideological category not because they lack ideology  but because libertarianism it is not a neat, single set of ideas. It is not even, as Marxism or Christianity are, a system of thought which has started from a central point of authority and then worked itself into various forms. Rather, it is a multitude of  different and frequently contradictory ideas which arise from the simple human aspiration to take responsibility for your own life whilst living as free as possible from the suffocating attentions of both the state and overweening private authority . In all its forms libertarianism is the pursuit of the ideal of freedom not the mechanistic working towards exact ends such as is found in Marxism.

Because freedom is essentially subjective – one libertarian’s negative freedom may be another libertarian’s positive unfreedom and vice versa. – and because the means by which even a defined and agreed free end may be realised is uncertain, the variety of movements which fall within the libertarian fold is legion. To take only the major divisions, there are the  rights theorists (who eschew force) and consequentialitists (who permit it), the Right and Left Libertarians who dispute over property, minarchists (minimalist state) and anarchocapitalists (no state), those who call themselves libertarians and those whom others call libertarians but who repudiate the term themselves, most notably Objectivists.

Any ideological libertarian party would be faced with two choices: either produce a mish mash of ideas which wholly satisfied few if any libertarians or  allow itself to be captured by ideologues who would tolerate only their form of libertarianism, which behaviour would be the antithesis of libertarian ideals.

The reason why libertarians cannot go down the road of vague expediency is simple: libertarianism is the pursuit of an idea, the ideal of freedom. A party which did not have that ideal at its heart, which did not frame its policies with the intent of realising that ideal, would by definition not be a libertarian party.

There is also the nature of those who are attracted to libertarianism . As a philosophy (in all of its strains) it will tend to attract those of independent character, people who are naturally unwilling to compromise their beliefs and will tend more than the
ordinary run of humanity to want their own way even in non-ideological matters such as party organisation. . The propensity for fission within a libertarian party would be great and this trait, together with the diverse nature of libertarian ideas, make it probable going on certain that if one libertarian party was formed others would arise to compete with it.

Still not convinced? Very well, let us suppose that a libertarian party was formed. On what policies would the party run for office? Well, a “pure” libertarian party could seek power with the intention of disbanding the state entirely. A middle-of-the-road  libertarian party would remove from the state responsibility for health, the provision of benefit for disability and employment, education, the roads and railways, power generation. All that would remain is a minimalist state providing police, a justice system, armed forces and possibly a skeleton diplomatic representation. A moderate libertarian party would accept the minimalist state and in addition attend to basic infrastructure such as roads and take the Hayek line on subsistence support, viz.: “We shall again take for granted the availability of a system of public relief which provides a minimum for all instances of proved need, so that no member of the community need be in want of food or shelter” (The Constitution of Liberty Routledge pp 300-301).

The implications of having no state or even a minimalist one would seem to most Britons to be at best dangerously naïve and at worst a philosophy designed to promote the interests of haves. (A thorough-going libertarian party would be asking the British electorate to go into the unknown because no such party has ever obtained a seat in the Commons let alone formed a government). It is unlikely any party putting forward no state or a minimalist state would be treated as anything other than political eccentrics.

Even what I have defined as a moderate libertarian party would tend to scare the electoral horses. The public would be asking what would happen to the poor or the unfortunate? Who would pick up the social pieces in an emergency? What would happen if parents cannot afford to pay for their child’s education? Doubtless when pressed during an election representatives of a moderate libertarian party would say, because no electorate would begin to listen to them otherwise, “we would not be so extreme, we would take care to ensure that a bare minimum of welfare was available to stop people starving or dying from cold, we would not allow the infrastructure of the country to be left at the mercy of market forces, we would ensure every child was educated“.

The problem with such responses from libertarians is that they sell the pass on the minimalist state. Instead, they have become part of the mainstream political debate. The only question left for them to dispute is how much should be spent on welfare, education and so on. The argument that there should be nothing spent by the state, that it should all be left to private charity, has gone.

Democracy presents an insoluble problem for libertarians because most people are not wholehearted libertarians. In fact, most people are anything but libertarian, hence the depressingly frequent polls which show large majorities in favour of identity cards and CCTV, the banning of personal weapons, restrictions on free expression and  ever more draconian restrictions on drugs. But the reluctance to embrace libertarian ideas goes far wider than those iconic libertarian issues. . Most people in Britain enthusiastically approve of the Welfare State; and it is a fair bet that most would approve of protectionism and closed borders. if they were ever asked to vote in a referendum on such matters because it is a natural human instinct to protect one’s own territory and “tribe”.

There is also the practical difficulty of a new party succeeding within the British political system. In the three centuries or so in which parties have existed in the modern sense only one new party has managed to form a government, the Labour Party. Moreover, they managed it in the highly unusual circumstances of the aftermath of a World War in which members of their Party had been co-opted into Government and thus gained a public profile. It is noteworthy that no new political grouping since the extension of the Franchise to universal manhood suffrage in 1918 has succeeded in gaining permanent representation in the Commons. It is most

In opposition the position of the party would be simple: it could act as a platform for disseminating libertarian ideas: in power it would have to deal with the ugly realities of making decisions. It would have to force those who are not libertarians to live in a libertarian world., thus negating the idea of libertarianism being built on voluntary association. The fact that governments of a different colour force libertarians to live in ways they do not wish to live is neither here nor there, for that is something done to libertarians by those who are not libertarians. Libertarians cannot respond by treating  non-libertarians in a non-libertarian manner for that would negate their libertarian ideals.

Does this mean that libertarians should eschew political action? Not a bit of it. They should make every effort to promote libertarian ideals through other parties, especially the existing mainstream parties which have a chance of power. They should join such parties and argue from within and lobby individually and as groups. They should try to obtain jobs in the mainstream media. They should lobby the mainstream media. They should In short, they should attempt to do what the liberal internationalist left has done over the past sixty years, infiltrate the positions of power and influence.

Being a libertarian should be about ends not ideology because what the libertarian wishes to achieve can be reached by more than once means. Any person who imagines there is a set of objectively necessary ideas to be a libertarian is by definition not a libertarian because they wish to reduce the world to their black and white version and exclude all other voices. The sort of self-described libertarian who believes such a thing is the type of person who can be heard wondering to themselves “what is the correct libertarian position on this?” sadly oblivious to the fact that they echo the mentality of the Marxist.

Even amongst those who describe themselves as libertarians there are few  who subscribe to the “pure” libertarian menu. Most recognise that a minimalist state is necessary, that society cannot be left entirely to voluntary association and agreement. Many go further than the absolute minimalist state and recognise that some state intervention beyond the basics of defence, justice, policing, public health and sanitation and foreign policy is necessary for the maintenance of a stable society.

Most libertarians have something in common with the mass of humanity: they are libertarian on some issues and not others. Let me take myself as an example. I am pure  libertarian on issues such free expression (no censorship at all because it is an absolute: you either have it or you do not), drugs (legalise them all), the ownership and carrying of weapons (you should be able to buy a gun as easily as a pound of carrots) and self-defence (you should be able to use whatever force you choose if attacked), public surveillance by the state or others (an outrage), petty state interference with private life (an absolute no, no).

On other issues such as immigration and free trade I take a non-libertarian position because I believe the ultimate consequences of these  policies is to undermine the ends which libertarians seek because they create circumstances of pernicious competition, both ethnic and a simple scramble for scarce resources. The more fractious a society is the less libertarian it will be because when a society becomes more disordered those with power seek ever more authoritarian means to control the disorder. Libertarians may wish this was not so but it is a contingent fact that it always happens. .

These views provoke a considerable variety of responses from those who call themselves libertarians. Nor is the response of any individual libertarian I have ever encountered consistently libertarian. . One person may disapprove of drug legalisation while being utterly opposed to surveillance; another be in favour of free trade but against open border immigration. Interestingly, the most general resistance I have encountered is on the issues of freely available drugs and weapons, support for which one might have imagined would be naturally close to all libertarian hearts. .

The fact that few libertarians do follow a wholeheartedly libertarian ideological line means that most will not find it emotionally impossibly to engage with other parties. They will have even less difficulty with single issue movements. The individual libertarian will be able to pursue his or her particular libertarian passions within such contexts.

Should libertarians be downhearted at the idea that there should be no libertarian party or any likelihood of a full-blooded libertarian programme being brought to reality? Most certainly not, in fact, they should rejoice. Libertarians should never wish for a perfect libertarian society because one could only exist if all other competing forms of political thought and action were suppressed by authoritarian means, for it is certain that never would there be circumstances where most let alone all would subscribe to the full gamut of libertarian ends. That inescapable authoritarianism would undermine the principle at the heart of libertarianism: voluntary association. All that would exist would be a perfect libertarian society in form not content and even the form would be ephemeral for all tyrannies fall sooner rather than later.


Poems of Existence

God’s Ennui

The press of moments

The dullness of the present

The synthesising of existence

The ending of doubt

The quietude of knowing

The staleness of omniscience

The desire for oblivion

The impossibility of nothingness

The sadness past the mending

The blind wall of the futile

The eternal engine of isness

All becomes part of a whole

Nothing has distinction.

The viciousness of being.


The ineffable   

A flower opening, a man thinking;

A mole burrowing, purblind only in sight.

Wings beating an ageless rhythm,

Generations uncounted.

Normal is as normal does,

Abnormal is as most don’t,

Undigested otherness.

Purpose always inherent

In things which are,

Yet where to seek or glimpse

A semblance of certainty?



I am the perceiver.

I have the power.

I know the ending.

I was the why.

I am the now.

I will complete.

I shall say enough.



Logic is the god of isness,

The cranking engine of being.

Every possibility, every was

Or might or maybe

Ground hard sure to facts

By the mill of must,

If this then that, not perhaps.

The universe thralled

To laws which chide

Green doubt to oblivion

And fashion certainty.

All is one thing or another,

Gorgeous simplicity.


The building of illusion

An ultimate point of mass,

Expanding, none knows why,

To a  state where particles

Shimmer into simple atoms

Which transmute to complexity

Through mere existence.

Ten a world discordant,

Settling to a unity of form

Which accidentally births

The amoeba  from flinty inertness,

Disrupting entropy accidentally

But signifying nothing.

An eon or two of isness

And a being who thinks

Tat here is free will,

An untrammelled desire,

No chance agglomeration;

The building of illusion.



Screech, screech!


Screech, screech!


Screech, screech!

Undecided being.

Screech, screech!


Screech, screech!


Screech, screech!


Screech! Screech! Screech!



Existence equals competition.

Competition equals events.

Events equal results.

Results create conditions.

Conditions are existence.

Existence equals competition.


Motion to energy, awareness or unnoticed isness.

Where is proper explanation and analogy?

Things which are, have been or linger for futurity

Through the aperture of consciousness.

But give no lasting truth

Because of chaos.



Like times were never seen

Nor perceptions made,

But in the sanctum of my mind

Where all creation’s laid.


The ascribing of value.

The judging of the unbounded

The pounding of the moments

Upon the skein of mind

The sharpening of sense

At the knowledge of error.

The sin of hearing things

Above the commonplace.

The pestle of being

Grinding to madness

The understanding.



This press of being which grows within

This shaking of the mind

This maddening of me

These falling leaves of experience

Which flutter to nothing

In the vice of time

This debris of a life

Littering my conciousness

Ex nihilo I came

Ex nihilo I go.


The world after the Euro

Robert Henderson

Amidst all the gnashing of liberal internationalist teeth and  prophecies of doom if the Euro collapses a question goes unasked in the mainstream media : could the collapse of the Euro leave Britain in a better position than if  the currency  survives or could  its failure even be positively beneficial for Britain?  Sounds mad? Well, consider this, Britain may be far better placed to survive the shock than any Eurozone country because of two things:  the fact that we have our own currency and our position as a  world financial centre.

The Euro’s collapse would  cause a good deal of economic riot  within the Eurozone because of the difficulties of assigning values to the newly formed marks, francs, drachmas  and so on, both in terms of establishing the new currencies and the adjustment of contracts, loans and other  financial instruments  which are drawn up  in Euro values. Most of the contracts and loans in the Eurozone countries will require adjustment.  That will involve a massive administrative cost and make Eurozone countries less competitive.

Britain will have none of the costs  and disruption of re-establishing a currency. She  will be affected where British contracts  and loans have been drawn up with the Euro as the unit of value or financial instruments are denominate din Euros, but unlike the Eurozone  members that will affect only a small minority of British financial agreements because most of British economic  activity is within and for the British domestic market .  The lesser costs will make British business more competitive relative to the Eurozone countries.

In addition, while the administrative changes and the task of valuing the re-established currencies in terms of the value of the Euro  is proceeding, those wishing to enter into contracts from outside the Eurozone  may be reluctant to do so with Eurozone countries until the currencies are fully re-established. This could drive non-Eurozone foreign contracts to Britain which might otherwise have  been placed with Eurozone businesses.

While the turmoil of changing from the Euro to the re-established old currencies continues ,  there would almost certainly  be a reluctance to buy the sovereign debt of even the likes of Germany at reasonable rates of interest . That would make British issued bonds more attractive and  keep  the rate of interest paid on them low. The difficulty in raising finance would also affect non-governmental  corporate bodies  such as companies, charities and other not-for-profit organisations.

There is of course the possibility  of a substantial diminution of Britain’s trade with the Eurozone during the initial upheaval  when old currencies are re-established and values assigned to contracts and so on;  a much lesser chance of lost trade with rest of the EU which remains outside the Eurozone (and like Britain retains national currencies)  during the period of adjustment and a  lesser chance still of disrupted trade with  members of the European Economic Area (EEA)such as Norway and Switzerland.

How much might Britain lose?  Claims of  Britain having 50% of  its exports going to the EU are misleading because they are inflated by “….two quite separate effects. The first, the Rotterdam-Antwerp Effect, relates to exports of goods and commercial services to Holland and Belgium. About two thirds of these pass through the two biggest ports in Europe, Rotterdam in Holland and Antwerp in Belgium, on their way somewhere else – some to other EU countries, the rest outside the EU.

“The second, the Netherlands Distortion, relates to Income. This often flows through Dutch “brass-plate” holding companies which offer tax advantages. As a result, much of the investment and income flows recorded in the British statistics as going to or coming from Holland in fact go to  come from somewhere else, very often outside the EU altogether.” (

How much of an inflation of UK exports to the EU it is difficult to say, but it would  probably  be reasonable to knock the amount of our exports which go to the EU overall down to 40%.

Would Britain be ruined if the Euro collapsed?  It is worth remembering that only around 18% of UK GDP is devoted to exports.  UK GDP in  in the financial year 2009/10 was £1453billion ( and exports of goods and service came to £260 billion ( or 18% of GDP.  If only 40% of UK exports go to the EU (or strictly the European Economic Area),  that would mean around 7% of the UK total economic activity would be at risk.

Of course,  no such wholesale loss would occur because stricken or not the Eurozone countries (and even more so the other continental EU countries not in the Eurozone) would not suddenly lose most of their economic activity.  Moreover, it is conceivable that the re-establishment of national currencies could   stimulate the economies of those involved remarkably quickly because it would allow them to trade on reasonable terms.

It is also probable that the UK financial sector would  pick up much of the business involved in the break-up  of the Euro as companies and governments both in the Eurozone and the wider world look to the financial expertise of the UK to help unravel the mess.

The problem of the Euro as a reserve currency

It is one thing to be a currency  which is a national currency and little else: quite another to be the second largest reserve currency in the world which is the fate of the Euro. Extremely problematic  questions arise from that status most pressingly, what will the holders of the Euro as a reserve currency receive if the Euro collapses? ?

The conversion of Euros to new national currencies of the Eurozone is in principle (but not in practice) straightforward, because the Euro holdings within the Eurozone could be converted to whatever the exchange rate of the each new currency is deemed to be, for example, a one to one parity for the Euro and a new German Mark and three to one parity for the Euro and a new Drachma (the  conversion ratios could be achieved either by negotiation within the Eurozone members or by allowing the new currencies to float for a few months and  then using their market valuations).

The position of the holders of the Euro as a reserve currency who are not Eurozone members  is completely different for they will not have a new currency to which to  convert. All would want the new  Mark and none the new Drachma.  I suppose that they could be offered a basket of all the new currencies with the contribution of each weighted to a criterion such as the population of each Eurozone member. However, that would be tantamount to a substantial devaluation of their Euro holdings.

Running parallel to the position of the reserve currency holders is the status of private individuals and organisations outside of the Eurozone holding Euros. How will they be treated if the Euro ceases to be?

These are all questions  which wait to be addressed . They are capable of causing immense tensions not merely in the EU but   worldwide as holders of the Euro face massive losses.

Will the Euro survive?

The intense desire of the EU elites to preserve the Euro to provide the glue to maintain the greatly expanded union and as a platform for further federalisation is not at issue.  A collapse of the Euro would both reduce to rubble the EUs attempt to project itself as a superpower and  leave the EU subject to economic sanctions by countries outside the EU which had lost out through the Euro’s collapse.  That alone would provide the most pressing reason for the Eurozone elites to maintain the currency, even to the point of engaging in large  capital transfers  from richer to poorer Eurozone members.

But the  will of elites  cannot keep a political system in place if the fundamentals are wrong.   In the Eurozone they are wrong both in terms of the vicious absurdity of the Euro and  the profound lack of democratic control.  Ironically, the agent of immediate destruction will be a god  of the Western elites own creation, globalisation, which has allowed that most truly supra-national of  entities, the financial markets, to come into being.

If the Euro does fall, it could herald the end of the EU. That would be a savage irony because the Eurofantatics would have destroyed that which they most desired by feeding it on too rich a political fare.

The nation state: the only platform for democratic control

Democracy in the literal direct sense does not exist in the modern world, indeed for practical reasons cannot exist in a state of any size. What we have is what political scientists call elective oligarchy, a political system whereby the electorate is offered a choice ever few years between competing parts of a society’s elite.

That paints a dismal picture for the masses. However, even within an elective oligarchy, they can exercise considerable control given the right circumstances. What the masses can do and have done for most of the past century and a half in Britain is exert an ever increasing control over the elite through representative institutions. But they have only been able to do this because the representative institutions have operated within the context of the national state. Elites as groups have been forced to take heed of the masses because they relied upon their votes to be re-elected and the system worked by and large because the major political parties offered a meaningful alternative on the most of the great issues.

In the past thirty years our political circumstances have changed dramatically. Two things have happened. The freedom of action of the Government and Parliament has been greatly reduced and the political parties have become ideologically aligned.

Entanglement in the EU has resulted in a majority of British legislation ultimately originating not in Parliament but within the European Commission, while various treaties have removed whole swathes of political choice from the electorate, ranging from proper control over foreign policy and border control to the pursuit of a national economic policy. Most profoundly the European single market agreement and the GATT treaty arrangements and membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have left British parties with no choice of economic policy, for as things stand they have to support the notions of free markets and free trade. Any party wishing to offer protectionism and state intervention in the economy cannot do it unless they commit themselves to withdraw from the EU and WTO.

The consequence of the our membership of the EU and our other treaties is that our politicians in practice can offer very little difference in policy to the electorate. And, of course, our politicians find it convenient to use our EU membership and other treaty obligations to excuse themselves from responsibility for unpopular measures or as justification for forcing through vast amounts of detailed legislation which Parliament, let alone the electorate, is barely aware is being passed into law.

The position is worsened by the careerism of the modern politician. This has always existed to a degree, but what we have now is of a different order of magnitude. The really depressing thing about the House of Commons now is the sheer narrowness of experience of the members, many of whom have never had a career other than their political one. Hence, once on the political career bandwagon they cannot afford to get off. The current bandwagon is the internationalist one.

Internationalism dissolves national sovereignty. The left may cheer this but they are discovering by the day just how restrictive international treaties and membership of supranational groups can be. As things stand, through our membership of the EU and the World Trade Organisation treaties, no British government could introduce new socialist measures because they cannot nationalise companies, protect their own commerce and industry or even ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent in Britain with British firms. As far as economics is concerned, a British government can have any economic system they like provided it is largely free trade, free enterprise.

The Right are suffering the same sickness with different symptoms. They find that they are no longer masters in their own house. They cannot meaningfully appeal to traditional national interests because treaties and EU membership make that impossible. Control of national borders has gone.

A reversion to nationalism need not be a party political matter in Britain, but the modern British left are unfortunately conditioned to believe that the national state is at best outmoded and at worst xenophobic, racist even. This ignores both the history of the mainstream British left and mistakes form for content.

The Labour Party for almost all of its existence has been strongly protectionist and hence de facto in favour of the nation state. Indeed, Blair in the late 1980s was still an economic nationalist. Moreover, for most of the time Labour has been consciously in favour of the nation state and of Britain’s independence – few could give the likes of Attlee and Bevin lessons in patriotism.

As for mistaking form for content, it is simply a matter of empirical fact that the nation state does not produce a uniform behaviour – take Switzerland and Iraq from the present day as examples of that. The idea that nation state equals aggressive, xenophobic, badly behaved warmonger is a literal nonsense. In particular, there is good empirical evidence that where there is significant democratic control within a nation state, this makes aggressive war much less likely than where a dictatorship exists.

It is also true that supranational bodies are not noticeably better behaved than nation states. Worse, they have a large element of the sham in them, being invariably dominated by the more powerful component states, for example, the UN being heavily manipulated by the USA and the EU broadly controlled by its major members. Supranational bodies are not simply vehicles for the normal process of power-mongering, but, in practice, that is their prime function. That they give a spurious appearance of international agreement and legitimacy adds to the ability of the dominating states within them to exercise control over weaker states by direct threats, the withholding of money and, most insidiously, the development of bureaucracies which carry forward the policies forced on the supranational bodies by the most powerful members. (It is often said that the UN has no power. This is utterly mistaken. It may not have an army but there is a vast web of agencies which allow a great deal of control and influence to be exercised over states which seek their assistance. Some such as the IMF and World Bank control client countries from the outside, while others such as UNHCR permit direct internal interference on the ground.)

What should be provided indirectly by the state?

Just because something is a necessity does not mean that the state must or should provide it directly. In fact, the less direct provision the better, because in a free society government should only touch that which it needs to touch. For example, whereas there are not many possible suppliers of air traffic control systems or railways, there are many possible suppliers of food. Government may safely leave food distribution to the private supplier and provide assistance where it is needed through payments to those in need. It should be noted that it is not the market or private enterprise which provides the general provision in cases such as food but the giving of taxpayers’ money to those who need it which provides the general provision.

Service is really the crucial criterion. Governments should become directly involved in industrial work very rarely – the exceptions are defence suppliers, utilities such as water, gas and electricity because of their status as natural monopolies and their immense importance. No nationalised industry making or extracting anything has ever been an economic success. Governments running manufacturers, farming or the extractive industries such as coal mining are neither necessary nor desirable, because private enterprise will always do the job adequately and more efficiently provided the economic circumstances are right, that is, vital industries are protected through tariffs, quotas or subsidies to the extent necessary to make them profitable.

But such vital industries are the Government’s business because they have both a strategic and a social and economic value. Consequently, governments do have is a responsibility to ensure that they are maintained.

Any country which cannot feed itself, produce all essential manufactured products and services, is not self-sufficient in energy and does not have substantial reserves of essential raw products such as iron ore, is constrained in what it may do both nationally and internationally and the greater the reliance of imports, the greater the constraint. Of course any advanced industrial state will not be completely self-sufficient, but it is possible for a country to have a large degree of self-sufficiency in the essentials especially food. With modern crop yields and modern animal husbandry, Britain could feed itself at a pinch if her market for food was protected to allow reasonable profits to be made by farmers using not merely the best or most convenient land, but the more marginal land as well.

Where a country is severely dependent on imports, as is the case with Britain, they are utterly at the mercy of international blackmail and events. Even the most powerful state in the world, the USA, is much restricted because of its reliance on imported oil. Such constraints have the most serious of consequences. Would George Bush have invaded Iraq if the USA was not reliant on Middle East oil? I doubt it.

The free trade dream of buying where a product can be produced cheapest is based on the absurd premise that never again will international circumstances arise which will place any country at risk of war or blockade. There is also the question of what happens when raw materials run short and the scarce materials either remain in the countries of origin or go to the richest and most powerful countries with the rest left to go hang. Free trade is not merely a fantasy but a dangerous one in the long term.

There is also the economic and social case for protection. Cheap imports from countries which have labour costs many times below those of the mature industrial states, goods made cheap by state subsidies and plain old-fashioned “dumping” means that no company in the West is able to compete with the imports. The effect of allowing such imports is twofold: either the workers in the importing countries must take lower wages or, more probably, watch the obliteration of the domestic industry.

The same thing happens where mass immigration is permitted. If the immigration did not occur the wages for the type of jobs which immigrants take would be higher. That in turn would lessen or end the shortages of native workers willing to do them. For most jobs all that is needed to solve a shortage of labour is a wage sufficiently competitive with other employments to attract enough applicants. A good example in Britain are nurses: a shortage of native applicants a few years ago has been turned into a surplus now by a substantially increase in their pay.

The loss of jobs and suppression of wages through cheap imports, outsourcing, or large scale immigration has considerable social and economic effects. Those who lose their jobs either remain unemployed or take jobs which pay much less, are less secure and have lesser benefits. Those who remain in their jobs but whose pay is suppressed suffer similar difficulties. Both groups find their spending power is reduced. They pay less tax. If they are unemployed the Treasury is a net loser. New immigrants compete for scarce public goods such as free healthcare, education and social housing. Most particularly they compete most directly with the poorer native members of society who have most need of such social supports. Poor pay, insecurity, unemployment and competition from mass immigration all place a severe strain on the social cohesion of a country.

Neither the Left or Right need recoil in horror at the idea of a judicious protectionism and a strong immigration policy. The Labour Party has been strongly protectionist throughout most of its history. The Tory Party was protectionist before therepeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and protectionist again between 1931 and the advent of Margaret Thatcher. For most of their history both parties have been in practice opposed to mass immigration.

No 10 ‘interfered to push through £600m plan for virus superlab’

London Evening Standard
Mark Blunden
20 Jan 2011

Campaigners against a maximum security “superlab” in the heart of London are calling for a parliamentary inquiry claiming that there was political interference in the bidding process.

The UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, behind the British Library in St Pancras, will be capable of containing flu viruses, malaria, tuberculosis, cancer cells and HIV.

Residents living close to the centre are calling for an inquiry into the £600 million project after Cabinet Office emails, seen by the Standard, revealed that the previous government was keen to “make it happen” before the tendering process had closed.

They also claim Camden council failed to inform residents fully of the severity of the diseases to be tested at the 3.6 acre site and is stonewalling their questions.

Today, it can be revealed that in July 2007, Jeremy Heywood, a Cabinet Office civil servant, emailed officials, including the Department of Health and the Chief Scientific Officer, stating: “The PM (Gordon Brown) is very keen to make sure the government departments are properly co-ordinated on this project – and that if there is a consensus that this is indeed an exciting project, then we do what we can to make it happen.”

The email, released under the Freedom of Information Act, was sent the week before the first bids were due in and six weeks before the shortlist was finalised.

Other documents reveal that among 27 competing proposals for the site were a multi-faith centre and hundreds of affordable homes in a borough with 18,000 people on its housing waiting list. Both of these proposals complied with Camden’s brief for the site, but it is alleged the superlab initially did not.

Resident Robert Henderson, a retired civil servant, 63, said: “Camden went against their own original plan for a mixed-use development.

“There’s been political interference with the bidding process as well as the grave security issues. There should be a parliamentary inquiry because £250 million of public money is at stake.”


Letter sent to Evening Standard 21 Jan 2011
I can expand upon Mark Blunden’s report “No 10 ‘interfered to push through £600m plan for virus superlab'” (20 Jan) .  
I am the person who obtained the evidence of Brown’s interference using the FOIA. I have a mass of documents showing that Brown was pressing for the sale to UKCMRI before the formal  bidding process had ended and afterwards before a formal decision was made. Here is an example of the documents: 

  Sent: 27 November 2007 13:09


Cc: _[40]_____________

Subject: RESTRICTED – Land to the North

 Hi Nicholas,

 Jonathan spoke to Jeremy Heywood this morning. Jeremy said he needed the bid to be agreed by next Wednesday – 5 Dec (or Thursday latest) as PM wanted to get MRC in then (or possible public announcement.

Jonathan explained that there are two issues from our point of view: .No revised formal offer has been received by DCMS .HMT are not being helpful of recycling returns – without an improved offer from HMT JS said it would he v hard to justify.

JR said he thought the offer was sent to us yesterday – have checked but nothing in JSs post or email – JH will chase. JH also said he would go back to HMT to see what  more they can do, but that ultimately PM may have to arbitrate.


 Private Secretary  to Jonathan StephensDepartment for (Culture, Media and Sport 2-4 Cockpur Street, London SWlY) 

  This was a public bidding process. The decision was supposed to rest with the the Minister heading the DCMS. Brown as Prime Minister should have played no role in the decision. There were 28 bidders of whom 9 were placed on the short list. It would be interesting to know how they feel about the conduct of the bid.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

See also

%d bloggers like this: