Tuesday, 30 September 2008

Jamie Oliver exposes the state of Britain

I'm just watching the new Jamie Oliver effort, where he goes to Rotherham (where I have been a lot lately) and tries to teach the locals how to cook.

Now I am a bit fed up of the Mockney, but he does shine a light on the pathetic state of this country, while not really identifying the big issues.

Already I am foaming at the mouth at what I am seeing. Jamie has found a mum on benefits (a career of choice in some places), who can't cook/won't cook. She had an army of little brats, that she decided I would be happy to pay for, with help from Labour.

So this woman is probably the type of person quoted in stats as in poverty, as are her children. Well bollocks to that. She feeds her kids take away every night and has a fridge packed full of sweets and alcohol.

This shows the cancer of Socialism at work. Her brats will grow up with the same, zero responsibility, grab all the handouts you can mentality. As long as we keep encouraging this kind of behaviour, the longer the vicious cycle will continue.

This country needs a total overhaul, ASAP.

UK Libertarian Party Publish Economic Reform Document.

Libertarian Party
LPUK Policy: Monetary Reform
WHY DO WE NEED MONETARY REFORM?

The monetary reform proposals of the Libertarian Party consist of three central planks. However, and before we can talk about what we'd like to change, we need to take a brief look at how the current banking system works, and expose the flaws that our policies seek to address.
WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM?

Most people think that the government creates all of our money by printing banknotes, and minting coins. But that is not the case. Let's start by looking at where the government gets its income from.
Government Income
Banknotes are printed by the Bank of England (BoE) on behalf of the government. The BoE then sell those notes at face value to commercial banks, who use them to fill their cash machines and to hand over to us when we withdraw money from our bank accounts. The profits from the sale of these notes by the BoE (known technically as seigniorage) is passed straight back to the government, and netted the Treasury the sum of £2.3 billion in the tax year 2007/081.

The second source of government income is well known and hated by us all—taxes.

Finally, the government gains income through borrowing. If insufficient funds have been brought in through seigniorage and taxation to meet the government's spending commitments, it sells bonds. Bonds are the equivalent of a government IOU, and promise the holder that the government will buy them back at a future date for the value of the bond plus some predetermined interest.

Raising money through selling bonds has a huge downside, though. It means that the government incurs debt. And, like the rest of us with debts (on a credit card, for example), the government ends up paying a sum of money each year simply to service those debts. Government estimates for 2007/08 put the figure that it will have spent on servicing its own debts last year at a staggering £30 billion2—over 20% of the total amount of income tax that we all paid!3

Money From Thin Air
Currently, around 97% of the 'money' in our economy isn't in the form of notes that you can fold, or change that weighs down your pockets—it's in the form of credit (or debt, depending upon which side of the transaction you are standing). So the real question to be asking if we want to understand where our money comes from is how all of this debt appears?

Our commercial banks create money as debt, effectively from 'thin air'.

Imagine a person paying, to keep the example straightforward, £100 in notes or coins into their bank account. Now, bankers know that most of the time, most people leave their money in their bank accounts; we tend to pay for goods with our debit cards, or by writing cheques to one another. Consequently, if a bank has just received £100 in cash it knows that there is little chance that the depositor is going to come along and ask for it back at any moment.

Knowing this, banks only keep on hand a certain proportion of deposited funds; the amount that they reasonably expect they will need to cover any requests for withdrawals. The amount is termed the reserve ratio, and for any funds deposited, a bank will solely keep the amount of the reserve ratio on hand, and lend out the remainder. The whole process is known as fractional reserve banking (FRB).

So, to carry on our example, if the bank that person paid his £100 into maintained a reserve ratio of 10%, the bank would accept the £100 deposit, keep £10 on hand, and lend out the remaining £90.

But what happens to that £90 loan? The individual or business who takes it from the bank will probably not just spend it straight away, but deposit it into their bank account. If they do so in cash, the whole process can start again. Assuming that their bank also maintains a 10% reserve ratio, the bank will accept the £90 deposit, keep £9 on hand, and lend out the remaining £81.

And so the process continues. In fact, if fully worked through the system, that original £100 deposit will end up having 'created' a total of £1,000 that can be spent in the real economy.

In accounting terms, no money is actually created. If each borrower were to pay back their loan in sequence, the debts would unwind until we were left with our original £100 deposit at the first bank. This is why those who defend the existing system will tell you that no new money is really created.

What these folks conveniently overlook, however, is that in real terms, as opposed to accounting niceties, new money has appeared—it's in your hands, and you can spend it. And as long as new bank deposits are being made, the process above can continue.

Keeping The Merry-go-round Turning
And what allows the entire process to continue is our central bank—the Bank of England. Remember the bonds that the government sells to raise additional funds, the Treasury IOUs? Well the BoE will, from time to time, buy bonds in the market. To pay for its purchases, the BoE genuinely does create money from thin air, and credits the seller's account with money that it has just decreed should exist.

This process injects new money into the economy, which spreads about and ensures that the fractional reserve system described above never grinds to a halt.

If it wishes to, the BoE can use the same process in reverse; selling Treasury securities and destroying the money the purchaser pays. In this manner, the BoE has a crude control mechanism available for determining how much money exists in our economy at any one time.

The BoE also sells money to the commercial banks. These banks buy money at one rate, then loan it out to their customers at a higher rate, pocketing the difference.

The above is, of necessity, a simplified explanation of how FRB operates, and the role played by the central bank. The Bank of England do not appear to have ever produced a layman's guide to these processes, but the US Federal Reserve has. Although several years old now, this document is still a good guide to the operation of a fractional reserve system, and largely applicable to the regime in the UK as well as the US. If you wish to look at the technical detail for the UK system, the Bank of England's Handbooks In Central Banking series of publications, and in particular Handbook #24 (Monetary Operations), is a good place to start.

And whilst the above is a simplistic version of the processes at work, remember that much of the complex language and obscure practice of the banking industry is designed to mask its operations from public scrutiny. At its heart, it is a simple fraud: central banks genuinely creating money from thin air, and commercial banks lending money that's not rightfully theirs to loan. As the famous economist JK Galbraith once noted: "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."
WHY HAVE WE GOT THIS SYSTEM?

The short answer is because bankers profit from it!

Remember the seigniorage that the government receives from the printing of banknotes by the Bank of England? That brought £2.3 billion into the Treasury last year. Estimates by Huber and Robertson back in 2000 suggested that the loss in seigniorage to the government by allowing commercial banks to create money was in the order of £49 billion per annum4. And, of course, the more money there exists within the economy, the greater this loss is to the government.

The big driver for commercial banks is the interest that they charge on loans. Obviously, the more loans that they have on their books, the greater the potential amount of interest that they can earn. Simply by being able to loan (effectively) the same money over and over again, they are able to develop multiple interest income streams from a single deposit. Banks also profit from the business of actually arranging loans. Most will charge a small percentage of a loan's value simply for allowing you to enter into the loan contract with them.

We've enjoyed this system—largely unchanged—since the Bank of England was first established in 1694. Seeing the obvious benefits to themselves, bankers around the world have, over the centuries, embraced a model first imposed upon the people of our nation.

But it's a flawed model. It's one built to serve the interests of the few, not the many. It's one that results in the scourge of inflation. It's one whose time has long passed.
LIBERTARIAN MONETARY REFORM: THREE NECESSARY PLANKS

To build a strong bridge from our unfair and failed banking system to an honest and prosperous future one requires some sturdy materials. The Libertarian Party's monetary reform proposals consist of three central planks.

Plank One: Sterling — A National Currency That Belongs To The Nation
Our first key proposal is to wrest the privilege of creating money from the private banking industry, and to return it to where it rightfully belongs: the Crown.

Where an increase in the money supply is required to maintain monetary value—because of a growth in the underlying economy—government will spend the newly created debt-free money into the economy in the form of financing capital works, paying the salaries of public sector workers and so on.

This money will be the money that we are all familiar with: pounds Sterling. Our national currency, it will once again become the property of the nation. Out of control inflation caused by feckless bank lending will become a thing of the past, as we will demand that all Sterling be 100% reserved. All income from seigniorage will end up in the public purse, to provide funds for necessary government activities.

Should a particular government abuse its position and create more money than the economy requires, all of us—as the electorate—will have the opportunity to do something about the situation at the ballot box. This is in stark contrast to the current position, where inflationary pressures are created by unelected private bankers; people who actually have a vested interest in causing such pressures in the first place—the more money that they create, the greater their profits.

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman once said: "Money is too important to be left to central bankers". This is a position that we wholeheartedly endorse. The private banking industry needs to be removed from involvement in the creation of our national currency and, as US President Thomas Jefferson remarked over 200 years ago: "The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs"; to the government of the nation, on behalf of the entire nation.

How To Prevent The Fractional Reserving Of Sterling?
A key point of these proposals is to prevent the fractional reserving of pounds Sterling in the future. As banks must be allowed to continue taking deposits and making loans in Sterling, this raises a potential problem.

To illustrate the problem, cast your mind back to the person depositing £100 in cash into his bank in our example above. Currently, the bank taking that deposit has no way of knowing if the money is government produced (debt-free) money, or if the person depositing it has acquired it via a loan. Without being able to distinguish between debt-free and debt-laden money, the bank cannot determine whether it should be allowed to re-lend that money.

In the days before computerisation of the banking system, this issue would have been easily dealt with. When there was a direct one-to-one relationship between money and the physical representation of it (the banknote), everybody knew where they were. However, it would be totally absurd in this day and age to return to the historic system of having fleets of security vans ferrying physical banknotes around the country between branches and different banks.

Various solutions to this problem have been mooted by different experts. Fortunately, the very technology that has largely rendered banknotes obsolete—computers, with vast amounts of cheap data storage—offer us the potential for tracking money through the banking system, to ensure that is only capable of being on loan to any one person at any time.

Those who run the banking computer systems have not had cause to give much thought to these issues to date, as they don't currently require this functionality. As a responsible political party, we intend to fully consult with private banking institutions to develop a future system that is both effective and transparent.

No matter that any such system would mean changes in the way that banks do business, we need to remember that what we are talking about here are solely implementation issues. Whether hard or simple for banks to adapt to, such mere procedural issues must not be seen as a barrier to prevent the much needed structural change from occurring. No government fails to attempt to apprehend criminals simply because it would be easier to allow them to roam free; and no government should shy away from monetary reform simply because the changes required might be arduous for the private banks to implement.

Plank Two: Pounds Sovereign — A 'Hard' Currency
In addition to reforming how pounds Sterling are created and handled, the Libertarian Party is proposing the introduction of an additional, parallel, currency: pounds Sovereign.

What gives our money today the value that it has is simply our trust that the government, and the banks, will honour it. There is no physical commodity backing Sterling: it is what is known as a fiat currency.

Our money was not always like this. In the past, precious metals such as gold and silver (the origin of our pounds Sterling) were kept by banks, and banknotes issued in relation to the amount of precious metals on hand. Such hard currencies proved remarkably resilient over the centuries, and really only died off during the 20th century with the explosion in fractional reserve banking.

Precious metals like gold have held their value—their real purchasing power—remarkably over the ages. Back in Roman times, an ounce of gold would have bought you a good quality toga, belt and sandals. Today, that same ounce of gold would pay for a quality suit, belt and a pair of shoes.

Metals, and particularly gold, are still of great value in the world economy. This is never more true than during times of economic trouble, such as that which we are facing right now. Whilst fiat money may be refused as a means for financing foreign trade, gold never is.

Back in 1999, Gordon Brown decided to sell off over half of the UK's gold reserves via auction—an act described by Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC, as "a disastrous decision"5. Not only was the decision to sell the wrong one, but trailing it in advance guaranteed that prices would be depressed prior to the auction. As Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JPMorgan, said: "I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market"5.

Gold is still key to the operations of most central banks around the world. At the end of the financial year in March 2007, the United States held 8,133 tons of gold, Germany had 2,422 tons and France had 2,710 tons. Britain, currently the fifth largest economic power in the world, at least on paper, had a pitiful 315 tons5.

The Libertarian Party is proposing to reintroduce a hard currency, one backed by gold: pounds Sovereign. Although we would expect it to be initially used largely to fulfil international trade obligations, such a currency would have the added advantage of attracting foreign investors into the UK, as it would provide a secure harbour for their money in a turbulent world market. Over time, and if both the amount of gold held by the Treasury and the demand from the public was great enough, pounds Sovereign could become a commonly used currency in all our daily lives.

Plank Three: Free Banking
Another approach to banking reform that is advocated by some is the concept of free banking. Within a free banking system, there is no government control over currency or banking whatsoever—market forces determine everything. A free bank would be able to create its own currency, and make its own decisions as to how it would operate—choosing to embrace FRB if it wished.

The idea is that you—the customer—would make your own decisions as to which banking institutions and currencies to use; with pure market forces determining which survived and prospered, and which fell by the wayside.

The Libertarian Party is committed to allowing a plurality of choice in as many situations as possible for the citizens of the UK. Consequently, allowing a free banking regime to be instituted is the third plank of our portfolio of monetary reform proposals.

If the adherents of the free banking model are proved right, and such a system is embraced by the consumers of banking services, then over time free banks will become predominant in our economic system. If, on the other hand, the system isn't well received by the public, few, if any, free banks will come into existence or survive.

That's the real beauty of a truly free market: what is ultimately available to the consumer are the products and services that consumers create and sustain a demand for.
SUMMARY

Money has to come from somewhere. Currently, money is created by the banking industry and, with the exception of the seigniorage on physical banknotes which returns to the Treasury, the profits from creating money stays within this private industry.

Our proposals for monetary reform address the issues raised above in three ways. Firstly, we will return the sovereignty of our national currency—pounds Sterling—to the Crown, with new Sterling being created, debt-free, by the government, and thence spent into the broader economy. The amount of Sterling in circulation will be prevented from being expanded through FRB, stopping bank generated inflationary spirals developing, and keeping the value of your savings safe.

Secondly, we will create a new currency, pounds Sovereign, to be 100% backed by gold. Still vital for international trade, a gold-backed currency will be immensely strong, and help protect the UK from the storms and squalls that sometimes rip through international markets. In providing a safe haven, this currency will attract investment from many overseas into the UK.

Thirdly, we will legislate to allow for the creation of free banks. If these prove popular with the market—the citizens of our nation—they will grow and prosper, with their currencies likely supplanting Sterling as the primary means of exchange on a day-to-day basis. However, and should they fail, such failure will not impact on anyone who chooses to keep their banking facilities purely denominated in pounds Sterling. In this way a genuine free market in banking will be able to be tried, without the risks being spread over the general population.

We believe that the proposals outlined above are sound and necessary. Our existing banking system has been creaking from one crisis to the next over many years, and has only remained unchallenged because of the enormous influence that those who most benefit from it—the private bankers—wield over our elected politicians.

It's a broken system. And, uniquely amongst the UK's political parties, the Libertarian Party is ready to fix it.
POLICY HIGHLIGHTS

Removal of all legal tender legislation except in [9] below
Removal of all additional (VAT etc.) taxes on precious metals
Allow free banks to operate how they like with their own currencies (enabled by [1])
Only the Government shall be permitted to perform fiat issuance of pounds Sterling. Banks must either use foreign currencies or issue their own Bank Money
Sterling held in on-demand deposit accounts to be 100% reserved by any bank handling it. Banks have always been free to create investment accounts to enable on-lending
New pounds Sovereign currency to be introduced, 100% backed by gold
Sovereign to incrementally replace Sterling as gold reserves allow
Payments to government (taxes) and payments by Government to be in pounds Sterling or pounds Sovereign
Only pounds Sterling and pounds Sovereign will be "legal tender" in regards to the obligation to accept as payment for debts
Existing pounds Sterling fiat debt to be reduced systematically within the first parliament
The various Bank Money, pounds Sterling and pounds Sovereign shall float against each other
The true value of pounds Sterling will no longer be affected by private lending operations. A "safe haven" of a 100% gold backed currency, pounds Sovereign, will be provided. Pounds Sovereign will not initially to be issued in note form. All deposits of pounds Sovereign must be recorded by the Bank of England to ensure that no fraud occurs (totals should always be as expected by the BoE). Banks will be free to continue FRB operations using their own Bank Money or foreign currencies. We expect pounds Sterling to be the main currency in day to day life.
Sources
1 Bank of England Annual Report & Accounts 2008
2 Debt servicing from table 1.15, HM Treasury Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2008
3 Income tax revenue from table T1.2, HM Revenue & Customs Annual Receipts
4 Huber & Robertson, Creating New Money
5 The Sunday Times, April 15 2007


I think the bottom line, is the current system of allowing unelected banking elites, decide how our economy is going to go, by creating money out of nothing, is a one way road to disaster (where we are heading now).

I personally favour a number of competing methods of currency. The one I would choose, is the one that provably has value. That means being backed by real wealth or commodities. That doesn't just mean gold for me (as I personally don't value gold as much as some). Other commodities could be used though and even the fiat system, as long as people are willing to trust the people running it.

More evidence that out media are establishment whores!

I'm sitting in a hotel in Yorkshire today, celebrating my 35th Birthday all alone. True, I did have a good full English, but I would rather be with my wife right now!

Anyway, I am watching the sheep fodder known as "news". The usual fear and panic over the credit crunch is on Sky News. They are almost indignant that the Congress rejected the robbery of 700 billion dollars. Yes robbery, because at no point has ANY US taxpayer voted for a party that advocated such a policy.

The shills at Sky have decided that it is the only way though. They say the reason it was rejected, is because the American people are too stupid. Too thick to understand the true nature of economics. They just don't understand how they will suffer, because of this.

Oh but I think they do. Check out Facebook. Look at Youtube and by FAR the most intelligent comment, comes from those that OPPOSE this daylight robbery. They realise that the pyramid selling scheme, based on fiat currency, huge debt and a clique of bankers pulling all the strings, is not a good system. Trusting the same morons who put us in this mess, to get us out, by papering over the cracks is not a solution.

So screw you Sky and the rest of the pathetic lap dog media we have to endure. However, I don't for a minute think this is over. Indeed, I suspect they are playing the usual games, with the same old boys knowing EXACTLY when the robbery will take place. They can play the markets like a cheap fiddle and steal a few trillion more from a gullible public that way.

Time for a revolution? You bet. We need to shake every last power whore from the tree. Every single one that thinks stealing is O.K. and that people should be told how to live their lives. Then, just then, maybe we can get back to a realistic system that rewards hard work and innovation.

Oh and by the way, yes I am watching my pensions and investments shrink. Foolishly I believed the wisdom passed down from the establishment. I don't care though, because I would rather see a world based on freedom and honesty, than the sack of shit we are being offered at the moment.

Monday, 29 September 2008

Why isn't this guy president? (Ron Paul).




Ron Paul called the crap that is happening now ages ago. If the USA wants to stay free and prosperous, they had better get his arse into the Whitehouse ASAP.

Friday, 19 September 2008

Panic, fear, scaremongering

Sorry for not positing much over the last couple of weeks. Firstly I was in Morocco, in a unique attempt to lose some weight. The way it works is that you go out there, eat some food, then come back and are ill for days on end.

Also, I have been working my arse off too, which is good, because it takes my mind off of all the mass hysteria being rammed down our throats at the moment.

This whole credit crunch has had a whiff of design to me, but then I don't trust the government with anything any more.

We never have had truly free markets or capitalism, yet that is what is getting blamed by the puppets in the media at the moment.

The fact governments are prolonging the pain, by artificially propping up the whole house of cards, with even more stolen (taxpayers) money, is hardly shock of the century.

Personally, I have lost a shit load, if I had to sell today. I don't so in reality I have lost NOTHING, so that's the attitude I am going to take. I pity those not so fortunate, who built up huge debts they can't service, but then that was always a dumb thing to do.

People who are losing their jobs I have more sympathy for. Through no fault of their own, they could be out on their ear, because of the stupidity of their companies bosses. It would be nice to see some account for these people, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They are the same people who push cash into the political party's, meaning they have nice get out of gaol free cards. Only the taxpayer can expect a good raping in these times.

Pensions are plummeting (including mine), but then I wasn't banking on retiring soon. Anyone who is just in that zone, where their funds haven't started being pushed into cash, must be feeling terrible. My sympathy lies with you. You tried to save, were robbed all your life and now will be left to beg the same vessel that put you in that position for money to live on. Big government really is just like a crack dealer. They will get you and fuck you over in the end.

Still, make the most of today's "rally", because the long term pain to pay for it will be severe, VERY severe. People might want to consider starting to make plans to get out of this country now for starters. Get your money (that you can access anyway, not like your pension funds) and run. Run like the wind, because socialist hell holes like this will be the worst. When the crack addicted layabouts who have never had to work. When the mass of public workers can no longer be maintained. When the private sector shrinks, under the strain for mass regulation and over-taxation.

This country will be like Mad Max. I don't fancy that personally, but I still can't persuade my wife that its do or die now. So see you in the Thunderdome. 2 men enter, 1 man leave.

Monday, 15 September 2008

Peter Hitchens on top form.

Daily Fail

There is no such organisation as ‘Al Qaeda’. The spooks know this, Cabinet Ministers know this and so do the ‘security correspondents’ who so readily trot out the spooks’ point of view on our broadcasting networks.

Of course, there are terrorists, and there are also fantasists, fanatics, low-lifes and camp followers who plot and attempt horrible things. Some of them even call themselves ‘Al Qaeda’ these days because they have learned that this is a good way to scare us.

But, while they are a menace, they are not as big or as organised a menace as the Government likes to make out.



Spot on. The government lives off of fear, whether that be terrorism or global warming. They love having a stick, with which they can beat the ordinary working man.

This video brings into sharp contrast what deep shit we are in.



Ron Paul is spot on as usual. Listen to the little arsehole speaking for the US government though. If that doesn't send a chill down everyone's spine, then I don't know what will.

Tuesday, 9 September 2008

At least this guy knows his Fanny from his Arse



If only we had more people who would speak the truth. America has just been raped and told it is good for them.

WAKE UP!

Monday, 8 September 2008

Sky dish out the moron fodder

I am watching Sky News this morning, who are running a pitiful segment on the NHS.

The title of the programme, is "The price of life :NHS care". They have a little ticker they put up now and then, with the cost of the NHS per minute. We are up to 7 million after an hour or so, so it really is striking home how much money is being spent on this forced insurance scheme.

However, that doesn't seem to be the focus. The focus is on a number of sad stories, where people have various illnesses, or have premature babies etc. You know the kind of thing, where your heart strings are given a real tug.

But here is the rub. They talk of the spending in a very deceptive way. They talk about it as the government spending ITS money, but never really makes it clear where the government gets this money.

Of course, the money is taken from the ordinary working man, whether you like it or not. The responsibility of you selecting insurance is removed (unless you are rich and can afford the sulplementary costs of private on top).

People who have children, seem to expect the whole of society to back their project to keep their line going, no matter what the cost. I do have some sympathy for peoples expectations, as they have had lots of money stolen over time too and expect to get something back for it. However, there are plenty who DON'T contribute and yet expect money stolen from people like me, to make sure their precious little bundles of joy are well looked after.

Well sorry, but this is a rotten way of doing things. Stealing and giving out the proceeds is creating an unresponsible society. What is worse, is the NHS is a horribly inefficient system, because it is underpinned by stolen money and doesn't have to compete like any other service in the private industry does. They piss money up the wall, beacause the money is always guaranteed.

The people who do work hard are getting pissed off with having their money stolen too. They feel like they have given enough to society and even resent it. I know I do sometimes. I look at the huge chunk of my hard earned labour ripped away from me and I ask what value do I get? I don't even feel good about helping others, because I know

a) It is being done so badly, that most of it is wasted.
b) There are some that don't deserve the help.
c) This money is helping destroy responsibility and helping create a reliance on the State and the evil puppet partys that act in it.


Sorry, I fully understand the noble idea behind the NHS, but it has failed and is broken. It is causing much greater problems in the long run and needs to be totally overhauled. Sure I don't think you can just turn it off over night, but we have to start phasing it over to a more market driven and fair system, not based on stealing.

There are many things that can be done initially, that will mean savings and therefore less stealing. As we return the money back to the hard working and careful, the more they will be happy to help others and a true competion based market system can take place. Eventually we will have a more responisble society, with a better, leaner, healthier system, with much more choice. Those who TRULY deserve help, but can't afford it, will find much better Chartities, with more genuine donations, waiting and willing to help them.

True, people will need to plan for having kids, instead of expecting the State to subsidise them.

True, you will have to have your own tattoos removed.

True, you will need to make sure you are insured for dangerous sports, or other activities that could see you injured.

You will have to be repsonsible for yourselves again. I welcome that and will be much more community minded the day it happens.

Reduce net immigration to zero, say MPs

Torygraph

A cross-party parliamentary group – the first to tackle such a politically divisive issue – says net immigration must be reduced to zero, with the numbers arriving balanced by those leaving.
The group hopes this will stabilise the swelling UK population and reduce pressure on public services at a time when immigrants are entering at the highest rate in recorded history.
"We strongly believe we must ease the pressures that immigration is placing on our public services, environment and, indeed, on the cohesion of our society," it says in a report, Balanced Migration.


Oh how I laughed when I read this. Laughed out of disbelief really, as not so many years ago, I was running for a party with this exact same policy. Well almost the same, but with one key difference, that I shall get to in a minute.

As people who read this or my previous blogs should know, I was a member of UKIP. UKIP had an immigration policy of "Net Zero" immigration up until fairly recently. They have hardened that line a bit (too hard in my book) to being a moratorium on immigration for 5 years. I certainly understand this, because people are getting very annoyed with the situation, but I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I remember the utter abuse UKIP and myself had to endure for putting this policy out. The fact is, UKIP warned what unlimited immigration would do and they have been proven right. What makes this even funnier though, is that UKIP were slagged off as being racist for their policy. Racist, even though UKIP actually didn't try and give a mainly white, EU members are allowed rule, while stamping hard on a mainly non white rest of the world.

Immigration is a tough subject, because the EU puppets in charge have made it tough. If Britain had stuck to a mix of limited, skills based immigration, combined with a fair amount of refugees, then we would not be in the mess we are today. Immigrants would have integrated much better and the existing population would not be feeling under siege as now.

I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to immigration. In an ideal world, all countries would have a free, libertarian government. Therefore, all countries would all be roughly equal in prosperity etc and if immigration did happen, it would be because society REALLY did need it. There would be no overloading the "good" parts of the world, with exoduses from the "bad".

We don't live in an ideal world though. We have a world where huge chunks of it have been gripped by the cancer of socialism. Even in the good parts, such as Britain, the idea that stealing is right has taken hold, meaning any immigrants will be seen as a drain, rather than a benefit, as it should be.

For that reason I am glad at the Libertarian Party's minarchist approach, of getting this country sorted first, before hopefully becoming a beacon to the rest of the world. Simply throwing open the doors in Britain is and has been damaging this country, while not improving any other areas of the planet. It is lose lose for everyone.

That means having a fair points based immigration system again, that doesn't discriminate depending on your colour, or region of the planet you come from. Instead it will reward individuals who work hard, want to be British and will provide benefits to this country. Maybe one day, when the playing ground is more equal, this could be loosened up a bit. I think we have a long way to go before that day becomes realistic.

Sunday, 7 September 2008

Labour pay ad agency 20 mil to sell fascism

Daily Fail

The Government is paying a top advertising agency to ‘sell’ its controversial £20billion ID card scheme to the public.

The Home Office has employed M&C Saatchi to mount a marketing blitz ahead of the National Identity Scheme’s launch in November.

ID cards will allow the Government to hold the personal details of 60million citizens - including fingerprints and iris patterns - on a central database.


Silly me. There was I thinking government was meant to represent people, not steal their money and use it to con them into accepting Hitler's wet dreams.

Needless to say, the Libertarian Party wouldn't steal a penny for this sort of thing, as it believes in freedom and a small, representative state.

Government funded (stolen from taxpayer) envirofascism

Torygraph

Shelter, one of the few organisations backing the plan to build new towns in the English countryside, said it had been given £100,000 by the Government to publish a series of 13 pamphlets, one for each proposed eco-town site.
Called "Eco-town – the facts", the publications are branded with the Shelter logo and claim to assess the impact the new homes will have in the different areas. Each one begins: "Shelter has written a series of leaflets to help clarify the facts."


This is becoming more and more of a problem. The government now tries to drive public opinion, by using public money to sell shite like this to them.

It is a bit like Saving Private Ryan. They are killing us with our own bayonet!

The government is out of control. It has grown fat and too full of its own self importance. There is only ONE party that has realise this and would put a complete stop to such folly.

Take back control Britain, before it is too late. Start by joining the Libertarian Party.

Woking hotel shows how sick British society is

BBC Biased

A soldier home on leave after being injured in Afghanistan was refused a room by a hotel when he showed his military ID card at reception.
Corporal Tomos Stringer, 23, from Gwynedd, was visiting a wounded colleague in Surrey when he was turned away from the Metro Hotel in Woking.


Needless to say, I am ashamed of this hotel and urge everyone to punish them and send them bust.

The guy had to sleep in his car because of these morons. Just saying sorry isn't enough. Maybe if they offer the armed services half price rooms from now on, I might reconsider.

Saturday, 6 September 2008

The more I see of Jesse Ventura, the more I like!

I remember Jesse Ventura, as I used to watch wrestling as a kid. When he became governor of Minnesota, I though it was funny at the time, the people showing their contempt for the government.

However, that was before I began actually listening to what he had to say. Now he has done a speech in front of the thousands at the largely unreported "Ron Paul Restore The Republic" rally. Funnily enough, Russia Today, has actually given this some coverage, while the US and British media have pretended it didn't exist. Remind me who the "free" countries are again?

Anyway, here are some clips of the guy. Clearly a Libertarian, though more of a global Libertarian than me. While I would love to see the whole planet free, I believe in doing it piece by piece, instead of in one big go. Manageable chunks, that don't see the good parts ruined, by the fact people in the bad parts simply try to jump ship and overload the good bits.

I would still vote for him if I was an American though, unless Ron Paul was his opponent (who is more in line with my manageable chunks ideology). Check this out.







Why leaving UKIP is right for anyone who loves freedom.

Daily Echo

THE UK Independence Party's Bournemouth conference kicked off yesterday with a controversial call to legalise all drugs.

The provocative statement was made by guest speaker James Whale and left many party delegates "stunned and appalled".

Party representatives were quick to stress that the former TalkSport presenter's views are not official party policy.

But they also insist they are "not afraid" to debate big issues that other parties shy away from.


While it is good that UKIP have the balls to debate the subject, their reaction to James Whale's pro-freedom comments are a shame.

UKIP struggles with its membership, because while its leader is fairly Libertarian, his membership is made up of a real mixture of people, united by their hatred of the EU. I stuck it out with UKIP for much longer than I should, because I agree that the EU is probably the single most important issue at the moment. I still vote UKIP when there is no Libertarian candidate and will still vote for them at EU clown parliament elections.

However, I became more and more uncomfortable with the alternative that UKIP would provide, if they were to form government. There are still large chunks of the party that clamour for National Service and that blowing the shit out of Iraq was good. They are old school authoritarians really, no better than the old parties.

I can't see the point in replacing tyranny on a European level, only to have it on a national level instead. It may be a slightly better tuned tyranny, but it is still one set of people, forcing others to do things against their will.

The drugs issue is simply pathetic in the world today. Let me get one thing straight from the start though, before I put my case. I think most drugs are pretty abhorrent. Anything that can make people like Amy Whinehouse and Pete Doherty into the pathetic wrecks that they are, really can't be classed as good. Indeed, you would have to be an utter moron to follow their path.

That does not matter though. It is THEIR bodies and THEIR choice what they put into those bodies. There are other drugs that clearly don't do anywhere near the same sort of harm and if people want to use them, then they should be FREE to do so.

Of course there is a caveat to legalising drugs. That caveat being that if you commit crime while on them, then you will be punished harshly. Indeed, maybe even more harshly than you would have been, if not on drugs. That way, only the people who actually hurt others will be punished and the system would have much more capacity to make sure that punishment is made in full.

So James Whale was right. I totally see where he is coming from with his views and I find it sad that party that pretends to stand for freedom, exposes itself for what it is. Just the same as the old parties, with a slightly different more local form of authoritarianism on offer.

Thanks, but no thanks and it is why UKIP are my substitute choice, instead of my primary.

You want and believe in freedom in Britain, then you only have one choice. That is the Libertarian Party.

Friday, 5 September 2008

Superb video from UKIP on energy and the environment





Envirofascism exposed. This has solidified UKIP as my party for EU elections and when there is no Libertarian Party candidate.

Check out their website for this too at

Out of control

Tuesday, 2 September 2008

A nation of abdicators!

Let's face it.

All the shit we have coming is deserved. Deserved, because from top to bottom of British society (and many other countries)- people have ABDICATED, their duties and responsibility.

Starting with the general people

Who have abdicated the responsibility of maintaining a true democracy, by becoming lazy and unthinking. They have either totally given up or allow the media to make their minds up for them.

They have abdicated their freedom, by expecting big nanny government to do everything for them. She may be a nasty old nanny, who bullies and steals from them, but it doesn't matter. It stops people from having to accept the blame for their pathetic lives.

The have abdicated the right to self rule, that generations before them put their lives on the line to retain. What a shocking way to thank them, by allowing it all to slip away, without much of a murmur.

Then we move on to the media.

They have abdicated ALL notions of a free, balance and fair press. The media are now corporate whores, who manipulate the masses, as their paymasters demand.

They have abdicated real news and replaced it with trivia. Bread and circuses to keep the masses numb and docile.

We then look at teachers.

Who have abdicated all notions of getting kids to think critically and replaced it with robot farm thinking. Kids are indoctrinated more than ever now and churned out for low payed jobs. These teachers have stopped being teachers and become unthinking, repeaters.

Police up next.

They have abdicated the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Habeas Corpus hangs by a thread, as the police turn from protectors of the public, to control drones.

Councillors

Most disappointing is what our local "representatives" have become. They have abdicated all notion of local accountability and powers, by becoming implementers. They do as they are told and pass the order on from down high. Of course they don't want to rock the boat, they have a fat gold plated public pension to look forward to.

We move on the MPs.

Who have abdicated their duty to run this country for its people. They have chosen to outsource all the real decision making, to a remote, corrupt and unelected bunch of crooks. That could be the EU as the next line of command, but ends at the people who have the real power in this world and have worked the system to make sure it stays that way.

Then we come to the Queen.

She swore a coronation oath, to protect our nation and not allow it to be given away by traitors. She has chosen to ABDICATE this responsibility and instead keep playing their game, in the hope that she will be allowed to keep her position and status.


Let's face it. We are a nation of losers. A nation of quitters and spineless pussies, who are a afraid to demand our freedom back. I include myself in that roll of shame too, because I see it all, but I am not doing enough to try and stop it happening.

We don't deserve to be free. We don't deserve to be prosperous.

We deserve to be slaves. Rule Britannia, Britannia rules at being slaves.

Police State?

Yes.

Samzidata

Your papers please.

The thin end of the wedge.

Well done the Co-op

It has been a long time since I have been to the Co-op supermarket. We have a small one in Knaphill, but to be honest, I have never really needed to go there much. Every now and then my wife will demand sweets on a Sunday evening, so I have the choice of a garage, or the Co-op.

The Co-op won this time and I am glad it did. Firstly they have jumped on the "Buy One Get One Free" bandwagon. Even better than this though, is my discovery that they are giving out FREE plastic bags.

Yes, unlike the Muppets at Marks and Spencer; Who I will never use again, they realise that people like convenience when shopping. Especially as they are too small for a weekly shop, but big enough to run in and get some last minute afterthoughts.

But Matt, won't these EEEEEEEVIL bags destroy the planet? Won't they clog our planet up and cause global warming?

No. Even if they were the old kind of bag, this planet has plenty of capacity to bury the stuff. We will never run out, because unlike what the envirofascists say, if done in the right way, they will biodegrade over time. Just leave a bag outside for a year and see how much of it survives for example!

However, to be double safe, the Co-op have used specially fast biodegrading bags. That's right, you don't HAVE to charge people extra for bags at all. Especially at massively above cost price!

You know, I wouldn't mind if M&S passed the savings of not using bags back to the customer, but they don't. Why don't they? Because their decision is hurting them and less people are using their store. "Stuff you" they say, "we'll go to Tesco instead". The people running M&S are stupid and deserve to go bust. So they don't have the money to be able to give it back to the consumer.

Meanwhile Tesco, Morrisons etc keep the customers flowing in. They give out their bags for free, meaning a fraction is added on to everyone's food bill. Co-op probably pay a little more for their bags, but not a significant amount. Well done to all these Supermarkets for sticking a finger up at the fascists.

Ron Paul still has great support, not that you would know it from the media!








You have to wonder how he would do with a fair and unbiased media.