Monday, 14 August 2017

What was Germany like in the 1930s?

What was Germany like in the 1930s?

The question is extremely relevant and especially today when vested interests give you a completely falsified image of Germany in that period of history.

Look at his picture, for example. Do they look any different from youngsters you could see today? The answer is no. This is not the image of a repressive society. Quite the opposite.

They went around having fun and making the best of what they had. Such image doesn't fit in with the stereotypes the mass media and other interested parties are feeding you on a 24/7 basis. Why is that?

Today's mass media and other operators want you to believe that National Socialist Germany was all about aggression, violence and racism, all about salutes and hostile marching individuals. Nothing could be more different from the truth. They want you to believe their misrepresentations because their misrepresentations suit their political agenda. They demonise Germany in the 1930s and promote today's depravity and degradation as images of progress.

The so called Multicultural Society, filled up with drugs and lack of moral values that lead to social disintegration is nothing to be proud of but, the mass media and the political elites want to believe that this so called Multicultural Society is marvellous and anybody who rejects social degradation and depravity is called Racist and ultimately a Nazi or Neo Nazi or Fascist.

To start with, there never were any Nazis. Nazis didn't exist. If you want to use the real name you should say National Socialist. They were National Socialist. That was the proper name and the party that promoted National Socialist ideas was the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

It is fundamentally important to distinguish between Germany before what we call World War Two and Germany during and after World War Two. The people who supported National Socialist Germany wanted jobs, families, education, health, a good and decent life. They didn't think about going to war or enslaving other peoples. They thought about the goodness of living together and helping each other as one big family and because of this they showed enormous enthusiasm and this is why they supported so much the ideals of National Socialism.

The people who voted for Tony Blair in 1997 thought about a Labour Party that was offering new and better alternatives and this is why the Labour Party had such an enormous electoral success in 1997. What happened afterwards? What happened after Tony Blair took the country to war against Iraq? How did the political picture change? The people who supported the National Socialist German Workers' Party in the 1930s were not much different from the people who believed in Tony Blair in 1997. They wanted change. They wanted something better. We cannot blame ordinary people when all they wanted was a better life.

After the First World War, Germany was decimated. Germany was completely demoralised and knew extreme poverty. Suddenly, in the early 1920s came a time of apparent prosperity but it was a prosperity based on borrowing. When by the end of the 1920s, Germany was struck by the crisis in Wall Street and loans were recalled by American banks and the country once again was faced by mass unemployment and extreme poverty. As this was happening came a group of people led by Adolf Hitler that promise them bread, jobs, families, a return to a life of normality after a life of deprivation and they believed in him because they needed to believe that a better life was possible.

Modern mass media specialise in insulting people and distorting history and reality. The Germans of the 1930s were people like you and I, trying to make ends meets, trying to enjoy life to the full. War and violence happened along the way but it wasn't something they were looking for. If they had known that there would be war and that much of their country was going to be destroyed and occupied they wouldn't have supported the party and the man leading such political party. They didn't vote for war and violence. They voted for a better life.







Sunday, 13 August 2017

British National Party: What next?

British National Party: What next?


The talk has been that a weakened United Kingdom Independence Party would lead to the rise of the British National Party once again and there is something in the air looking at what is happening to UKIP and what is happening in Nationalists ranks.

Electoral defeat is sometimes an eye opener to show to - at least the grassroots - that division is not conducive to victory. There is a less confrontational approach regarding factions within the Nationalist Movement.

Just a few days ago, Richard Edmonds, who started his political life in the National Front and is back in the National Front after spending quite a long time in the British National Party of which he was at one point Acting Leader - delivered a speech surrounded by a congregation of members of the British National Party.

There is a certain rapport between grassroots of different Nationalist groups and this is critical, especially taking into account that the Leadership of the British National Party is practically invisible. The old hands of the British National Party are still very much at work - as they have always been - while party Leader Adam Walker and Deputy Leader Clive Jefferson are nowhere to be seen.

High ranking former members of the British National Party are now acting as go-between with a myriad of other groups and organisations including National Front and London Forum.

What has changed? British National Party policies were adopted by so called mainstream political parties and many of the issues raised by the British National Party are no longer taboo. What is more, many of the issues are the core of the debate in Continental Europe. Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary were taken to court by the EU because their governments opposed flood immigration and hold strong views regarding economic migrants that some class as asylum seekers and refugees.

Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary also raised issues about the cultural and religious background of those entering the European Union - something the British National Party talked about practically from the very beginning.

Therefore, although the stigma regarding membership of the British National Party persists, British National Party policies are now very much mainstream. Even Trevor Phillips, former foe of the British National Party, is saying what the BNP has said all along and here is an example of it:

"Trevor Phillips attacks political correctness for failing to tackle Muslim child sex gang"

The World has changed. Britain has changed. There is growing discontent against Political Correctness and the British National Party finds himself vindicated after being persecuted for telling the truth about what now has become public knowledge.

Having said that, in order to re-invigorate itself to play once again a protagonist role in British politics, the British National Party would need to change the way it operates and most importantly would have to go for a change of Leadership, a Leadership that has been practically invisible for far too long.

Although no one has expressed openly that they are ready to rock the boat, discontent with the present Leadership is all too obvious. In the past, Midlands would have been the most important region of the British National Party. Nowadays, London is the most important region after Midlands was gradually dismantled.

Mike Jones, Paul Sturdy and John Clarke - long standing organisers - have kept the movement alive. Financial dependency is no longer what it used to be and local branches are very much self-sufficient.
The bone of contention is that Central Office (the top administrating unit) still has the power to nominate candidates and can use disciplinary procedures as a deterrent.

Vince Cable - once again Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament and now Lib Dem Leader - spoke about the need for a new centrist party. The same applies to Nationalism where it has become increasingly obvious that a new political force could rise joining all the pieces of the Nationalist puzzle.

Thursday, 10 August 2017

North Korea Vs USA or the trigger to end all games?

North Korea VS USA or the trigger to end all games?

When you see wild animals foraging inside urban areas, looking for whatever edible that they can find, you know the game is over. More and more urban areas are taking over ecosystems and many species are on the way to extinction.

When you hear that a country like the United Kingdom can only feed 59% of its population and has to import the remaining 41% of the food that it consumes, there are alarm bells. It is not vast areas of Africa that are being affected by 'not enough water, not enough food'. Robert Malthus spoke about population rises and talk about War, Starvation and Disease being demographic control factors.

When you think where the World is heading to with vast expanses of our oceans becoming deserts totally deprived of life, when you see animals that die of asphyxia due to contaminants including plastics, you know the game is over.

Maybe this new chapter of International Affairs is a necessity. Planet Earth has had enough and whatever is happening regarding International Affairs is part of a chain of events that will lead to widespread depopulation.

One can foresee that if two of the most populated countries in the Asia region - India and China - and most of the Western World were to be affected by massive doses of radiation combined with social, economic and political disintegration and upheaval that will spread across the entire World, the World as we know it today will come to an end and that it will take an extraordinary amount of time to rebuild whatever is destroyed.

The World as we know it today will no longer be recognisable. There will be new poles of economic and military power and rapports that we take for granted today will no longer be a reality. For a very long time organisations like the Organisation of the United Nations will not be around. All Human Rights Legislation will be part of the history books. The strong will prevail - or shall say the survivors will prevail? Will this be a new opportunity for thousands of others species to survive? Will this lead to the rise of new species via mutations? If the World suddenly becomes worse than Chernobyl, will Humans survive as a species or affected by strong radiation will they become infertile and simply vanish into thin air?

An article published on The Independent Newspaper refers to rising infertility, something that many believe is related to our lifestyle.Are we Humans about to experience a Dinosaurs moment? If our food becomes contaminated or is so scarce that the lack of food leads to mass starvation, if the economic system built to support a growing population is no more, we have reasons to worry about Nuclear bombs but we have even more reasons to fear the consequences of chaos across the entire Planet. Without viable economics, political instability and violence with be rule and not the exception.

Like chess players, World Leaders should focus on the long term implications of a military confrontation of such kind. If the Rule of Law becomes one of the main casualties, the words "Sauve qui peut" will be the norm.

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Religion is absolute utter nonsense

Religion is nothing more than absolute utter nonsense







Since time immemorial, millions of peoples have believed in gods, Heaven and Hell in one way or another to try and explain what they could not understand or to try and have some kind of comfort when faced with the barbarity of something we call Life on Earth.

To make matters worse, following the chosen Faiths, human beings have gone on the rampage injuring, torturing, killing and enslaving those seen as non believers and many words have been coined to deal with the struggles generated by a collective act of madness.

But putting aside the struggles of man against man, a quick look at how what we call Nature works, shows us examples of the utmost cruelty. We can say that Man is Wolf of Man, but what about the rest of what we call Creation. Creation is a show of cruelty in which A eats B, B east C and C east D. Millions of lives are being destroyed every second, every minute, every hour to maintain what we call the Cycle of Life. How could a Loving God have created such monstrosity? Until our own demise occurs, we see millions of deaths including many millions of deaths to keep us alive.

The Cycle of Life, a cycle of continuous destruction and pain is nothing to be proud of and I don't think that we should thank anybody, including the entity that we loosely call God, for having generated such a diabolic reality.

I see wars. I see people starving. But I also see that in order to stay alive we are constantly destroying lives. We did not create the rules of this that we call Life. If such Life was created by some super-being, the said super-being is certainly a sadistic monster.




Teachers having sex with pupils: rising number of cases

UK: Rising number of teachers banned from teaching because of their sexual involvement with pupils

Hardly a day goes by without yet another case of teachers banned from teaching because they have become sexually involved with their pupils.

Why do they risk their professions and their reputations and also risk being sent to jail? What is actually going on?

Just a few days ago, an impressive research was published in the United Kingdom that indicates that 20 per cent of adults in the United Kingdom never engaged in sexual activities.

But there is yet another problem. Everything seems to end with people banned from teaching. Where is the research to try and determine why they become involved with their pupils? There must be some fundamental reasons why an adult individual in a position of authority decides to throw everything away for the sake of sexual gratification, the kind of sexual gratification that ruins lives - their own lives and the lives of countless others.

The time is long overdue to have a closer look at psycho-sexual health in the United Kingdom. Behind a veneer of respectability and taboos, there is an underworld, a sub-reality, that spreads across all layers and segments of British Society.


Thursday, 3 August 2017

This is what Liberalism had led to

Liberalism has promoted drug abuse

The doctrine of Laissez-faire, Laissez-passer has led to generation after generation of drug abuse that has produced damaged offspring and led to criminality and anti-social behaviour, low productivity and mental illness.

There is not such a thing as Class A drug, Class B drug and class C drug. All drugs are class A and should carry the same penalty.

Damaging your brain and your body via the use of drugs including alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. Excessive eating might for some be what they call comfort-eating but the damage done to individuals and to society as a whole is immense and is irreversible. The lack of something useful to do leads to all kinds of evils. The cost is astronomical both in human, social and economic terms.

Monday, 31 July 2017

The Wider World, the Unknown World

A Latin American writer wrote some time ago a book entitled "El Mundo es ancho y ajeno" "Broad and Alien is the World" (Ciro Alegria - Peruvian writer). The title comes to mind when we try to focus on policies and on trying to make peoples' lives better. Never mind the world outside the country in which we live. Never mind the country in which we live. Never mind the city or town where we live. How much do we know about the people living next door? How much do we know even about our own families, our relatives and about ourselves?

Most of the time we make abstractions, or all the time we make abstractions, of the world in which we live, making working assumptions, to issue policies, to design strategies to get things done because in fact we know very little. What we don't know, replace with statistics and presumptions and ideological stances. We are guessing. And politics is - most of the time - about guessing what can be done and how it can be done. When we get things wrong or not nearly as exactly as we wanted them to be, there is always somebody or something or both to blame for the outcome of our endeavors. And this when and if our intentions are honorable.

When our intentions are based on vested interests, never mind statistics, abstractions and presumptions. We are just single minded about what we are trying to achieve come what may with total disregard for the likes of those who are bound not to benefit or even suffer the consequences of what we are trying to do. And this is politics too.

So there is everything in the political garden, including flowers and weeds. The ones who try to do good for all and the ones who with intent try to benefit merely themselves and some vested interests. But behind it all there is a great amount of ignorance about what is the real world and therefore the chances of success in any case are a mere gamble.

Behind words like 'I don't believe in politics anymore', 'I don't trust anyone' and the like there is the overwhelming reality of 'we know very little about the world in which we live' and 'we know very little about what people actually want and how they are going to be affected by the things we do'.

We must reflect then on the words of Rudyard Kipling, his poem IF, for many of the things that happen in our lives in terms of success and content, are the direct consequence of what we do and what we don't do as individuals. Our perceived success is very much the outcome of what we do, what we don't do, the personal and working relationships we have got, but our collective good and our collective evil are still attached to our perceptions about the world and about the political world. People celebrate/complain when a certain political party wins an election and at this point Politics is a bit like Religion - you either believe or you don't believe - because there is very little factual evidence to prove that our celebrations and our lamentations are justified. We still need to believe because life without hope is unbearable.

Elections are a step into the unknown, a leap of faith, and most importantly elections are about abstractions and we come to the point to know why people vote for a certain political party. We go straight into the field of presumptions. We presume that if a certain political party wins, the said party will do this or that. We also presume that the thing we want a political party to do will be beneficial either for the common good and/for ourselves and for those whose aims and needs we identify with. Elections are also a blank cheque. There is no written guarantee. There are just beliefs, hopes, wishes and expectations.

What we call Democracy is a blend of uncertainties, of don't knows, of blank cheques. We celebrate Democracy, even when most of the time, people don't really have real knowledge regarding what they are voting for. We do have expectations. We have beliefs. We have presumptions.

Even when choices might be made to appear as simple options, a single change can be bring about a chain reaction with many unexpected consequences. Let's say that you are a navigator and that you are about to make up your mind about the direction of travel. Should the course be 30 degrees or 31 degrees? The difference between 30 degrees and 31 degrees might appear to be minimal but, as time passes and the length of the journey increases, you could end up somewhere far away from the desired destination if you choose the wrong direction.

Whatever your intentions, to sum up, politics is about faith. Politics is about believing that you are making the right choices. The world is too big a place for us to be able to have a real understanding of it.