Category Archives: Politics

I look at the politics of the UK mainly. I express right wing views, euroscepticism and libertarian views.

Lauren Southern should not have been banned from the UK ==========================


Who is she?

Canadian. 23

you tube star. rebel media

hard hitting, fast talking, eloquent, oracular


Her views

accused of being far right. close to white supremacist

the thinking man’s tomi lahren

looks don’t hurt

took aim at rape alarmism

she vituperates islam

she has taken on the far left. seen her pals assaulted in london


allah is — protest

tommy robinson. EDL

police asked ehr to leave

police said they may need to cofniscate her sign

fear, distress or alarm

police do not make law.

public order.


terrorism act. she is against too much immigration!

she should be allowed to express her tendentious opinions.


Say ”no” to Poland’s Holocaust complicity law. ==================


The Polish Government has passed a law making it a crime to say that the Polish Nation or State participated in the Holocaust.

There is no doubt that millions of Polish citizens were killed during the Second World War. About half of those were Jewish Poles and half were Christian Poles. These Polish people of either faith were shot, gassed, worked to death, starved or they died from insanitary conditions deliberately created by the Third Reich. The Poles experienced the most unimaginable suffering during the Second World War.

Much of the Holocaust took place in Poland when it was under German occupation. The Holocaust did not simply victimise Jews. Gays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, political dissidents, the disabled, Soviet Prisoners of War and others were also murdered.

Some Gentile Poles behaved with the utmost heroism to save Jewish people. A small number of Poles murdered their Jewish compatriots.

This law allows an exemption for artistic expression or academic research. Even so this is an unnecessary abridgement of freedom of expression.

I perceive how galling it is for Poles to read about ”Polish extermination camps” and so forth. Some ill-informed people could easily fall under the misapprehension that Polish people were chiefly responsible for the genocide that was perpetrated in their land 1942-45.

One of the reasons to oppose this law is that it could lead to erasure of the role of certain Polish individuals who took part in the Holocaust.

This piece of legislation also feeds a dangerous misconception. That is the notion that nations can be guilty or innocent. Guilt is an individual thing. Groups can be guilty but only insofar as individuals choose to take part in a crime. Nations being labelled as bad or good is what leads to racism.

Discourse can be irritating and misleading. There is a copious amount of misinformation around particularly on the internet. It is offensive to many Poles to see statements which attribute this genocide to their nation. But no people is entirely blameless or culpable.

Official versions of history protected by law is the sort of thing that totalitarian governments create. This law is well-intentioned but where will it lead? Is the Polish Government really going to imprison people for saying things which many find unpalatable?

I oppose laws that criminalise statements about history even when such statements are fallacious. Holocaust denial laws are the prime example. No other genocide is so enshrined in law. It reaches a stage when historical debate is criminalised. Holocaust denial law advocates also want the trivialisation of the Holocaust to be a crime. It is as though the figure 6 000 000 is sacred. What if it were proven that the true number is closer to 5 000 000? The Holocaust would still be what it is. A number is not a principle. Would stating that the scale of this mass murder has been exaggerated be tantamount to trivialising it? It is asinine and distasteful to make certain versions of history legally endorsed. This includes when one outlaws fallacies.

In briefest summary , this Polish law is part of a wider assault on freedom of expression. This chauvinistic government has shown a tendency to clamp down on dissent. This authoritarianism ought to be sternly resisted.

What is the point of posthumous pardons for suffragettes? ========


Posthumous pardons do little good. These women were convicted for misdemeanours in the period leading up to the First World War. They would have got away with paying fines. They refused to cough up on principle. This led to their incarceration which is what they wanted.

One can fully agree with the objectives of the suffragettes while still opposing this pardon. Who now disputes that women should be permitted to vote?

There are many contentious issues today. Does that make it permissible to break the law in order to achieve one’s goals? Everyone who has a cause believes that it a just cause.

If someone were wrongfully convicted of murder then a posthumous pardon might be therapeutic for that person’s relatives. This case is different. No one doubts that suffragettes did what they were convicted of doing. The argument is that their cause was righteous. That is not a matter of contention. Why therefore pardon them? Striking from the archives their criminal record will do nothing to enhance the worthiness of their cause.

A pardon for these people would not be woeful. It is not something one should vigorously oppose. It is futile. It is also a green light to those who would break the law for political reasons. At the very least this measure is a waste of parliamentary time. There are many more urgent issues to address.

It is bitterly ironic that feminists want suffragette convictions to be annulled. Yet these same people seek to severely circumscribe the right of pro Lifers to protest. No one tried to prevent peaceful protest by suffragettes at the relevant place – outside Parliament.




Gennady Zyuganov was born in 1944. He grew up in a city called Orel. His father and grandfather were both teachers. He chose to follow in their footsteps. Zyuganov also became a pedagogue. He served in the army too. G Zyuganov was later awarded a doctorate. He married in his 20s and sired two children.

In his 30s Mr Zyuganov became a full-time organiser for the communist party. In the 1980s he was totally against the reform package initiated by Mikayil Gorbachev. Zyuganov was adamant that the communist system must be maintained without innovation. He was deeply suspicious of marketization.

In 1991 the communist party was outlawed. Zyuganov was politically adrift. In 1993 the ban on the party was lifted. Several communist parties were founded. The one that Zyugannov founded flourished. The others withered on the vine.

Economic upheaval in the 1990s caused immense hardship. People began to pine for the certainties of the old order. In 1996 a presidential election was held. Zyuganov challenged the office holder – Boris Yeltsin.

Anti-communists were very worried about the traction that Zyuganov was gaining. They donated billions of dollars to the Yeltsin campaign. Anti-communist propaganda was disseminated on television. In the first round Yeltsin came out on top with Zyuganov running him a close second. Yeltsin had not won over 50 per cent of the vote in the first round. It went to a second round. Yeltsin narrowly beat his rival. There were some very, very surprising results. Curiously Zyuganov’s support was stronger along the southern border.

Comrade Zyuganov was elected to the Duma. He leads the communist group there. He has cordial relations with the president. He leads protests. He pays tribute at memorials to Lenin. He has also established a warm relationship with the Orthodox Church. He described the USSR as ”the most humane country ever.”


  1. In which year was Zyuganov born?
  2. What is his Christian name?
  3. What is his highest qualification?
  4. What was his original profession?
  5. In which town was he raised?
  6. What is his nationality?
  7. How many children does he have?
  8. Which political party does he belong to?
  9. What was his attitude to Gorbachev’s policies?
  10. When did he become leader of the party?
  11. In which year did he give a strong showing in the presidential election?
  12. Who was president in 1996?
  13. Which legislature does he serve in?
  14. What is your opinion of him? Five marks.


The President’s Club Party ===================


party all male. young female waitresses. skimpy outfits

flortiation. what do yu expect. groping . how stuid would one have to be not to expedt banter?

ome woman sat on boys; laps. some were hookers going off with makes. femal witress spoke to Emily maitless

some famles enjoyed it

mother of a waitress calle dpolice. no crime to insitae# that waitress wnet back

womenw ere boiggt – jess phulips. lie   totally acceptbale.

at we no longer allowed to be hetero?

appreciate femla beauty. aesthetic pelsure and  sex appeal. puritan get out. bigotry po faced prudes.  a free society.  ptuty the club has closed. I would want to got  such a party.  some people had a bad day at work.  dislike work. someone said bo to you.

no clear deifntion of sexual harassment.

most men are attarcte to wkne. get over it. say no to judgmental feminists. do not go to sucha  party ifyouo do not like it. do not do sucha  job. chouces# feminsust like choice.  men wer eepxlotie dby high price

s have your own paryt. all female dinner. chip en dales.

Trump’s Islamophobic tweets are shameful =========


Trump stokes anti Muslim

emetic . rebarbative.

usig info from Britain first,#

American first. isolationist fascist slogan. trump is no itnernvetionist

far cry from country first of McCain. hyper interventionist.

usa needs muslim co operation to win

why hug king of Saudi. muslism key allies.

playing to bigoted gallery# US arms sales to muslim countries.

make America hate again

muslims belong in the USA. growing fast.

images not from UK. we do not know if they show Muslims

they do not typify Muslim

# Christian do wrog too

intervention in UK poltivis.

what f UK did the same?

bigger problems for USA to solve

mulims essentua part of UK and Europe.