A TANGLED WEB

Eye of the Dictator

Under Ian Smith it was one of the economic showcases of Africa.  Under its present 'leader', Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe is a hopeless basket case - with inflation rocketing into the stratosphere and an economy that has contracted by an incredible 30% since 1999.

Mugabe has, inter alia, penalised the food-producing white farmers of the country by purging them from land their forefathers farmed for generations.  Thus, we now see a country mired in atrocious poverty.  In addition we see AIDS on the meteoric increase; and an average life expectancy of 33 years for a male.  That's what you get when you substitute competent government for a dictatorship under the auspices of politically correct democratisation.

I am not defending white minority rule under Ian Smith for the sake of it.  After all, nobody was more against the apartheid system in South Africa than I.  What  I wish to highlight is the indisputable fact that Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) was a relatively stable and prosperous polity.  Smith was no panacea for societal ills - far from it.  He was not shy in condemning 'British interference' using language every bit as strident as that employed by Mugabe today.  He too lost some of the support from the principal backbone of the white farming community.  In fact, immediately prior to the Lancaster House negotiations of 1979/1980, Smith had actually started to haemorrhage the support of the agriculturally-based white minority. 

Nevertheless, Smith not only presided over a reasonably good economy, he also eventually countenanced the idea of black majority rule.  He was encouraged to do so by none other than the then Prime Minister of South Africa, B.J. Vorster.  Compare the attitude of a past South African government riddled with the moral encumbrances of apartheid declaring the inherent 'injustice' of minority rule, and the unblemished support given to Mugabe today by Thabo Mbeki.  It would seem that ethnic solidarity is even more bigoted and biased under black leaders than it was under their Caucasian counterparts.  Yet methinks the Left will stay strangely silent on that one.

Mugabe's roots in electoral fraud are nothing new.  He was suspected of using fraudulent tactics to defeat Bishop Abel Muzorewa in 1980.  As the weary voters of that benighted country go to the polls today, perhaps the West should think about using similar methods against this wicked, brutal man (Mugabe) as they did against Saddam Hussein.  The citizens of Zimbabwe - black and white - deserve no less.

The Pips are Squeaking

Dennis Healey was famed for his ambitions to 'soak the rich'.  Gordon Brown has gone one step further.  New Labour's swingeing tax rises on 'Middle England' have led to the first fall in take-home pay in the United Kingdom for well over a decade.  According to the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) the average amount of British disposable income fell by 0.2% in 2004.

It doesn't take a genius to work out which demographic groups feature strongly in this government's protective policies.  If you've sat on your arse for the last 20 years and produced a small army of children, there's no limit to the financial treasures on offer from Mr Brown.  If, on the other hand, you are (like me) a single male with no offspring, you might as well be dead as far as this lot are concerned.

Despite the academic spin put on the ideological basis of the Labour Party post-1997, there is no doubt that the shibboleths of old-style socialism are slowly but surely coming to the surface.  Taking copious quantities of people's hard-earned pay, throwing them at bottomless pits of bureaucracy, and rewarding individuals for a talent of unabashed indolence is what the party of Dennis Healey was all about.  What has changed in the last three decades apart from a temporary lurch towards supposedly 'neo-liberal free marketism'?  Bugger all as far as I can see.

Feeney Watch - 31.03.05

There are two overriding objectives as far as Ulster goes in the forthcoming UK election.  The first is to maximise the number of Unionist MP's returned to the Commons; the second is to thwart, by whatever means necessary, the electoral ambitions of IRA proxies.  Whether or not the first consideration will be realised is down to the likelihood of an entente cordiale emerging between the principal players within Unionism.  Dampening the arrogance of terrorist frontsmen is only possible if Sinn Fein is denied success both in Fermanagh and in West Tyrone.  In the latter constituency, democratic parties should be analysing whatever avenue is necessary to deny the odious Pat Doherty his second parliamentary apotheosis.

For some however, throwing in the towel in an already unwinnable contest is just not cricket.  Bigoted Bri is one of those who take this line.  For Feeney, the sight of the SDLP standing aside to facilitate the possible victory of independent candidate, Dr Kieran Deeny, is too much.  He'd much prefer an all-embracing contest guaranteed to hand the constituency prize to an apologist for murdering shitehawks (and an IRA Army Council member to boot), than a tactical abdication.

'The SDLP is "considering standing aside" in west Tyrone to give the so-called hospital candidate a free run. We have it from Mark Durkan. What a gaffe. It doesn't matter now how long the 'consideration' lasts because the very fact of that consideration means the SDLP has given up the ghost in west Tyrone. They've admitted they can't win the Westminster seat and they're not even going to try.'

Too right the SDLP can't win West Tyrone.  They'll be lucky to win any seats thanks to the radicalisation of a sleazeball separatist electorate poisoned by nothing more than the same 'peace process' you and your media cronies have panegyrized all these years.  By raising the profile of, and appeasing into the bargain, those for whom weapons are their only true negotiating tools, successive governments have abandoned the centre ground.  Unlike Unionism, which has an 'extreme' party mercifully bereft of guns, thuggery, criminality and a resume in mass extermination, nationalists now slaver over the images of hardened killers masquerading as political representatives.  Keeping them out of power should be the primary concern for all right thinking people.

'This time his lollipop board looks like it's going to say 'Stop Sinn Féin' because he claims, on no evidence at all, that people are fed up with abstentionist MPs.

No, he doesn't mean SDLP ones.

So, since his party can't beat any Shinners he prefers to consider supporting someone who might not beat one but at least with the help of unionists could stop one being elected. That's a policy?'

In terms of 'abstention', it is way beyond the time when legislation should have been introduced to ban people who will not take the Oath of Allegiance.  Contrary to popular belief the Oath is not specifically about pledging loyalty to the Queen.  By legal implication it extends to cover the country of which she is Head of State.  If people seek election to a national legislature, they should pledge to uphold its traditions and integrity.  Otherwise they should be out!

'Besides, a general election is not about a hospital in Omagh. It's about how to implement the Good Friday Agreement and that's a matter for political parties, the units around which the Agreement is constructed.'

No, actually the General Election is about 'who governs Ulster'.  The Belfast Agreement  - for all intents and purposes  - is dead and it's not coming back.  I know separatists and insurgents together like to pretend their crusade to tear Ulster from the Union will somehow re-invigorate itself, but the truth is very different.  Northern Ireland is part of a British democracy: a democracy whose people are fed up with seeing a pampered, bleating minority of rebels systematically dybbuked by prolific murderers.  May 5th will be an opportunity to say so.

The Road to Serfdom

Sinn Fein have been at their whinging best again.  In front of a crowd of republican serfs a convicted bomber, Gerry Kelly, said the attempts to criminalise criminals were emanating largely from Dublin politicians fearful of the rise of unmitigated fascism.

If so, what's the problem?  I suppose any group of peaceful adherents of law and order within their own state would be concerned about the electoral appeal of unadulterated dross destined to do nothing other than corrupt and poison the democratic institutions of which they are members.  At this juncture it does not matter that successive Irish Governments are responsible for inadvertently propelling the growth of the IRA's psephological appeal.  The question remains on how future Dublin administrations are going to deal with the threat.  Are they going to bury supine heads in the sand behind a disingenuous veil of sine qua non inclusivity?  Or are they finally going to wake up to the profound threat: a threat whose desperate aim is to eat away at the fabric of the Irish State from within?  The choice is theirs.

Exonerating Plebs

'This is not a court of Justice young man, it is a court of Law!'

Oliver Holmes Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Life is unfair.  We all know that.  If it wasn't, that talentless anorexic with a penchant for giving her offspring utterly stupid names (Victoria Beckham) would not be a millionaire.  For most of the time we bury our heads in the sand and subsume our contempt for injustice beneath the cloak of necessity in getting through each day.  Nevertheless, once in a while there comes a story which has the power to provoke the oceans of emotion we all store inside.  Today I found an excellent example.

Linda Walker is a former teacher of children with behavioural disabilities.  From what I can gather she was a teacher with a proven track record of excellence and commitment.  Unfortunately, her private life was ruined by the activities of local youths who took it upon themselves to vandalise her house, car and other assorted precious possessions during a six-month ordeal of mental torture at her home in Urmston, Manchester.  Eventually she took it upon herself to deal with the youths in the only way she thought effective.  She fired a pellet pistol at the feet of one of the principal perpetrators, Robert McKiernan, after he fled the scene in the face of her exploding ire.

Let's look at this case in the round.  We have a respectable woman who, no doubt, attempted to explore every legal angle as part of her quest to see these mindless pillocks atone for their criminality.  Presumably she got none from a police force far more dedicated to the achievement of presentable statistics and ethnic minority deference than law enforcement.  In the final analysis she could take no more.  Believe me, everybody has a breaking point.  As a counsellor I should know that better than most.

Linda Walker is not a feminine incarnation of David Berkowitz.  She did not reach for the pistol because she had a passion for firearms.  She resorted to such measures through nothing other than desperation.  Good on her, I say.  Perhaps next time she should use something slightly more appropriate on McKiernan and his comrades-in-arms (a 44 Magnum perhaps!!(LOL)).

As a consequence of her actions, Walker now has to serve 6 months in prison.  To add insult to injury she has also lost her teaching post with Salford City Council.  Meanwhile the evil, stinking bastards who compelled her to endure months of emotional strife will now be free to continue their nefarious activities regardless.  This story reminds me of a quote by Hunter S. Thompson:

'We live in cheap and twisted times.  Our leaders are low-rent Fascists and our laws are a tangle of mockeries. Recent polls indicate that the only people who feel optimistic about the future are first-year law students who expect to get rich by haggling over the ruins... and they are probably right.'

How true.

Our House

Am I talking about the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song from September 1970?  Unfortunately not!  This article refers to the property being bought by our favourite evil scumbags - the Provisional IRA - in mainland Britain using the cash stolen from the Northern Bank heist last December.

According to the UTV report, the money was 'broken up' into smaller parcels to make it easier to launder.  At the time of the robbery, the usual republican coterie was exhorting the authorities to specifically link the IRA to the biggest bank raid in British history.  As was to be expected, there was no way the intelligence community was going to risk compromising the safety of operatives in the field.  That said, the actions of the perpetrators in the aftermath of the robbery, the methods used to launder the money, etc, suggest more and more the culpability of Europe's most prolific terrorist killing machine.

Questions have to be answered by HM Government.  The most pertinent relates to the answer the IRA has collectively given to those in political circles who implored that same organisation to desist from criminality and pursue purely political methods.  Don't they realise that the answer has already been given?  The Provisionals have no intention of morphing into something of a less sinister nature until their constitutional demands have been met.  And considering such a prospect is not in sight this side of eternity, the best course of action open to the British State is to act in a way it has never considered acting before.

For people who say internment was a disaster, I would reply that an eminently sensible idea was implemented incorrectly by soldiers of a relatively novice disposition.  Had it been thought through and enacted with streamlined precision, I believe internment would have crippled the republican movement in the early 1970's.  Of course we'll never know, as successive UK administrations have sought to placate domestic terror instead of eradicating it.

I can honestly say I'm of the opinion that certain areas of Northern Ireland are in need of daisy cutters a la the military modus operandi used in Afghanistan.  It doesn't have to be wholesale communities targeted by sophisticated weaponry.  I'm talking about known terrorist places of political organisation, agitation and support.  The only thing terrorists understand is a greater degree of violence sustained against them than they are capable of mustering themselves.  Anything else is academic, theoretical 'coffee house' crap!!

A second line of attack against republicanism is to rule out the prospect of ending the Union.  Minority positions in the rest of Europe have been settled principally because those minorities have had to reconcile their position in the country to which they territorially belong.  Only in Northern Ireland, where subversive bastards are satiated with the prospect of eventual constitutional change, is there a situation of perpetual instability.  If one wants to argue a counter point using international law as a pretext,  I would reply that the whole basis of international law is predicated on the apparatus of recognised polities with fixed boundaries.  If a 'united Ireland' through the context of the Belfast Agreement was to become a reality, could it not be argued that the foundation of international law wold be upset by a 'domino effect' stemming from the invigoration of other minority groups on the 'wrong side' of borders?  To put it another way, if the possible outcome of an agreement resulted in a situation where the whole basis of international law had to be re-appraised, is that agreement/treaty actually 'legal' (in the international framework) in the first place?

UNreal!!

If anyone here has taken as much of an interest in the Miners' Strike of 1984 - 1985 as I have, they will be doubtless aware of the Lightman Inquiry established in 1990.  Barrister Gavin Lightman QC was commissioned by the NUM to examine two specific allegations:

1. That the NUM had received money from Libya with the imprimatur of none other than Colonel Gadaffi.  The funds were said to have come from the proceeds of terrorism.
2. That Arthur Scargill and Peter Heathfield  (the militant firebrand leader of the Derbyshire NUM) had allegedly used monies taken from donations to the strike fund to pay off their mortgages.

On the latter issue, Lightman (aren't the bigwigs of the legal profession such noble individuals?  They would never dream of defending the indefensible purely to be kept in the manner to which they have become accustomed - ho, ho, ho!) found no evidence to substantiate the accusation.  On the first point, he concluded no clear correlation could be found between money from Libya and its presence in the NUM accounts - presumably because money becomes extremely difficult to trace once it enters the system.

I am not in a position to judge whether or not the Lightman Inquiry was a whitewash.  I am merely pointing out that 'internal housekeeing' is, for the most part, counterproductive.  It is in this context that I wish to severely question the findings of the UN report into the 'virtuous virginity' of UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

Please don't misunderstand me.  It is not for me to make allegations against a man who has been found to be largely innocent of the charges levelled against him.  My point centres around the anticipated exoneration which largely follows investigations commissioned by organisations to whom the accused belongs.  In other words, did we really expect either Lightman in 1990, or the aforementioned UN report, to give anything other than a decree of exculpation?  It is rather like asking a neck-tattooed skinhead if he finds the works of Voltaire interesting.  He could genuinely find intellectual enrichment in Voltaire's writings, but the chances are he won't have even heard of the man.

Summarily I suggest a little more external transparency into allegations of misdeeds in future.  Scargill and Annan could be as pure as the driven snow.  However, will everybody believe findings related to internal investigations?  I think not.

Shit Happens

'Shit happens' goes the refrain.  It certainly does.  If you happen to live in Ulster you see the largest collective parade of human detritus every Easter; when thousands of the worst specimens of humanity on the planet parade behind their Provo-fronting deities in an effort to thumb noses at the democratic world.  This year the assemblages of human scuzz took place in a number of locations across the island of Ireland.  The maestro of terrorist veneration, Gerry Adams himself, spoke at the murderers' fling in Londonderry.  As one might expect, the Lord and everything in His creation - save for the IRA - came in for criticism.

Adams must have been in fine fanatical fettle to keep the subversives salivating and mentally masturbating as the genocidal thoughts of exploding bodies flashed through their so-called minds.  This year, his chosen bete noirs were members of the Irish Government who, notwithstanding efforts to keep these filthy curs in the negotiating loop at every opportunity, came in for sustained abuse due to their lack of will in carrying out republican demands.  As the barbate bastard stood before the mass of willing scum before him, he said the following about his erstwhile ideological chums in Dublin:

'Partitionism, self-interest and incompetence are the factors underlying the Irish Government's current approach to the process.  Since December the British and Irish governments have sought to reduce all of the issues to one that is the issue of the IRA even though they know that the IRA is not the only issue.'

Really Gerry?  Pray tell which other mainstream participants in this terrorist appeasement process have harboured illegal guns and explosives; gouged out the eyes of Robert McCartney as he lay dying on the pavement; sought to aid narco-terrorist in Colombia; and sent spies to track the movements of Irish government ministers?  I'll tell you: NONE!!  The IRA is the only problem left.  And, as I've said repeatedly, the IRA will only disappear once it is crushed by the forces of the State.  My opinions obviously will not go down well in nationalist Ulster - the most morally repulsive demographic in the land.  However, they have yet to be tried and tested.

1701 Overture

All things being equal, am I against the repeal of the 1701 Act of Settlement?  This law, described as an 'anachronism' in today's Daily Telegraph, prohibits the British Monarch of the day from being anything other than a communicant member of the Anglican Church.  Furthermore, it specifically prevents a Monarch here from marrying a Roman Catholic.  In its editorial, the DT states:

'Imagine a religion that was once considered so abhorrent that a country's head of state is still forbidden not only to belong to it, but also to marry anyone who does. Moreover, even his or her distant relations become ineligible to become head of state if they marry someone who adheres to this faith.

The country is modern Britain; the religion in question is not a sect of hooded satanists, but the world's largest Christian Church. The legislation barring "anyone who should profess the Popish religion or marry a Papist" is the Act of Settlement of 1701, which was intended to be - and remains - profoundly offensive to Roman Catholics.'

In one respect the editorial is entirely correct.  The Act was invoked at a time when Protestantism was at its political and idelogical apogee here in the United Kingdom.  The 18th Century was marked with spasms of severe anti-Catholic sentiment culminating, of course, in the infamous Gordon Riots of 1780.  The riots were provoked as a response to the Relief Act, passed by Parliament in an attempt to revoke some of the harsh anti-Catholic practices of the 17th Century.  Although the Gordon Riots represented the biggest outburst of Protestant absolutism, they were not the only incidents of unrest.  Similar violent demonstrations had also taken place in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

In a modern society, precluding the Monarch from marrying an adherent to a branch of Christianity followed by 5 million Britons is, on the face of it, supremely anachronistic.  Yet it is no more demode than the arrogant position consistently upheld by the Catholic Church on the status of the various tracts of Reformed Faith.  Officially Catholicism still views the Protestant churches and their members as aberrations of true Christianity.  For example, if my mother (who's a practising Catholic) wishes to receive communion at an Anglican worship, she can do so.  Simultaneously, I would be barred from participating in the Eucharist at her Catholic place of worship simply because that church does not recognise my Protestantism as an equal doctrine of Christianity.

Thus, in response to the opening question, I am in favour of repealing the Act of Settlement.  But only when the perceptively uni-dimensional theologians of the Vatican and elsewhere start treating us Prods as equals.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Lake Placid

I love the Lake District.  I have been so many times I can hardly count them all.  It is, without question, the most picturesque area of England.  For people outside the British Isles who are unaware of its multitudinous charms, the Lake District is a National Park (England's largest) set in the heart of Cumbria.  It has numerous lakes covering its vast 2,300 km2 - ranging from the ever-popular Windermere to the tranquil outposts of Ennerdale Water and Wast Water.  The park also includes a section of coastline from Selker Bay to Ravenglass.

When I venture there I tend to avoid the area around Windermere.  The lake is the largest by far in the Park, and tends to be the hub of most boating activity.  For peace and quiet it's much better to visit the smaller lakes - Bassenthwaite, Hawes Water, Ullswater or Coniston.  By doing so everyone is happy: those who wish to speed along Windermere in their power boats are free to do so, whilst those among us who have a desire for a more ataraxian state of mind can find solace in the relative quiet of the aforesaid destinations.

That is, of course, until midnight.  Tonight the National Park Authority, in the true authoritarian spirit so widespread in today's Left-wing Britain, imposes a 10mph speed limit on Windermere.  Several years ago power boat enthusiasts were banned from their enjoyment on every lake bar Windermere.  They were told that the largest lake in England would remain sacrosanct as it was sufficiently capacious enough to cope with the volume of traffic.  Now, under a welter of excuses appertaining to health and safety considerations, people sailing on the lake will have to travel at this ridiculously slow speed.

That rot has set in.  We are blessed with levels of officialdom who primary raison d'etre involves the gradual curtailment of liberty and leisure.  Gone are the days when compromise was the preferred option.  Contemporaneous manifestations of regulation are rules designed to prevent anything outside the narrow cosseted confines of Big Brother's interpretive acceptability.  Hundreds of people have already expressed their desire to flout this latest exemplar of blatant silliness.  I wish them the very best of British luck in their endeavours.