Where Next For Brexit?

Now the referendum is over, there are many things to think about going forward. The referendum may have been won, but there is still a long road ahead before Brexit becomes a reality.


48% of the UK voted to Remain (well at least discounting possible fraud – questions have now got to be asked of the pencil system (1)). How many were swayed by the Remain propaganda in the media we won’t know. The disgraceful use of Jo Cox’s murder in an attempt to tarnish the Leave campaign was an example of how low the Remain side of the argument were prepared to stoop, and how lacking of good arguments they really were. Many of those who voted for Remain were the believers in big government, and opponents of “austerity” (also known as prudent financial restraint). We must work harder to convince these people that governments have to balance the books, just as individuals do. Some of these voters seem to have been genuinely under the delusion that the EU was a sort of money tree, generously handing out money to the needy people. Did they really not understand that we give money to the EU and then they give some of it back to us, if they feel like it?


The fact that the BBC does not represent the people of Great Britain came even more starkly into focus during the campaign. All through the campaign they were confidently predicting a Remain result, until the evidence became too overwhelming. I wonder if the vote for Leave would have been even more decisive had the British people not been subjected to their constant stream of pro-EU propaganda. Now the vote is in they are wailing and doom-mongering about the future, as if they are anxious to prove that Leave cannot work. This organization must be renamed and privatized. It is not British it would be better renamed as the EUBC. Let it survive in the free market, if it can.


Theresa May must also resign. As the architect of “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders” she clearly does not understand the principle of freedom of speech, or why it is so very fundamentally important. A democracy cannot function without freedom of speech.

Furthermore, in the run up to the referendum she seemed to be hedging her bets in a very calculated political move. At first she seemed to be on the Leave side when she gave a seemingly strong speech against unrestricted immigration. However, not long after this speech she announced for Remain. The fact that she is now (again) being touted as a possible Tory leader despite supporting Remain, after a Brexit vote, just speaks volumes about how out of touch most of the prominent political pundits currently are.


I’m going to study the candidates for a while before making up my mind about that. I’m tempted to think Michael Gove might in fact be a better candidate than Boris Johnson at the moment. We are trapped in a two party system, so who leads the Conservatives really matters. We also need to consider democratic reform (see related posts). The two party system is inherently undemocratic.


This may seem like none of our business, as we voted to leave altogether. However, Europe is on our doorstep, what happens in Europe matters to the UK whether we are in or out of the EU. So, to those on the continent, think about his “leadership”, what has he accomplished? The union he is supposed to be leading is showing signs it may break up altogether, a number of other countries are now considering holding their own referendums. He has done nothing at all to stop a massive illegal influx of people into Europe, a phenomenon that is likely to lead to great instability in the future. Since the majority of these illegal migrants are Muslims coming from Muslim countries it is likely that they will undermine the very European way of life, since their culture is antithetical to the freedom of the West. He declared that there will be no debate with “populist” parties, even if they are democratically elected by the people of their countries (2). If the voters of Europe cannot dislodge this anti-democratic nitwit, then it seems to me the EU is no longer a viable union at all, if it ever was. As long as the EU is in existence, the people of Europe need to press for better leadership than this. These migrations are happening right now, they will be very difficult to reverse. It is very easy to let people into your country, it is very hard (and very expensive) to eject them once they are in.

If you’re still not convinced, here is a clip of the man in action:

The Merry Leader of Europe


62% of the Scots voted for Remain. Of course now there are calls for another Scottish referendum to leave the United Kingdom. I would be sorry to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom. However Scotland is in the grip of the socialist delusion that big governments can solve all of everybody’s problems. Just like the Germans blindly follow Mutti Merkel in Germany, the Scots cling to Maw Nicola’s skirt like they haven’t properly grown up yet. Both of these seemingly well-intentioned leaders are like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading the children away from reality.

The glitter of black gold in the North Sea (in any case receding) is a very short-sighted reason to break up a centuries old union. We need to work hard to convince the people of Scotland that the EU is not their friend. The EU will suck their blood. Do they also think a small country like Scotland will be favourably looked on by the EU, when Spain for example has a desire not to encourage break-away regions? If the much larger UK could not get its voice heard in the EU, what chance does Scotland, less than one tenth of the total UK’s population, have of being heard?  Scotland is better off remaining in this much older union of kingdoms within our island.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, Hadrian’s wall will have to be rebuilt. This might sound like a joke but its really not. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues in Brexit voters minds was unrestricted immigration. We must have control over our borders. If the “nationalist” SNP are determined to remain in a European Union that is determined to allow free movement of people, then Scotland will otherwise be an easy route for the people smugglers.


Already the powers that be are making noises that sound a bit like they think we might be better off with an “associate” EU membership, whatever that means. Boris Johnson has always been in favour of mass immigration, his almost last minute switch to supporting Leave seems a bit suspicious. The Leave campaign is not over, yet.


(1) Possible counting fraud?

(2) http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/24/eu-vows-use-new-powers-block-elected-far-right-populists-power/

Related Posts:

“Representative” “Democracy”
Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

The Door Marked Brexit

I woke up this morning with a feeling that I could breathe more freely. The UK has voted to leave the dreadful blood-sucking, incapable, bureaucratic encumbrance known as the European “Union”. Hopefully this is the beginning of a move away from big government, nanny-statism, state censorship of dissenting opinions and is the start of a revival of the free West. The EU has not been unifying Europe it has been trying to destroy its very soul.



The above comment was removed from this article:



I really doubt it was Breitbart. I suppose it could have been removed by Breitbart or Disqus at the behest of some shadowy state official.


The EU particularly but also national governments in Europe are becoming increasingly inclined to interfere with freedom of speech, one of our most fundamental freedoms. It seems to me they are particularly anxious to suppress criticism of immigration and of the Islamic religion. Right now the EU is proposing to crack down on “illegal hate speech”. But what, exactly, do they mean by “illegal hate speech”?


One of the bullet points in this document:

“The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

Have I fallen victim to this Orwellian directive? Would those enforcing this directive err on the side of “caution” and delete first, ask questions later? Is there any appeals process, any way of publicly questioning the judgement of those enforcing it? Will those enforcing it be accountable in any way whatever? Will there even be public acknowledgement of what they are censoring?

The largest objection I have to this kind of censorship is that it is going to be hard to convince others that we really are being censored at all. “Are you sure dear?” “Maybe you deleted it yourself by mistake?” Well when you delete a Disqus comment yourself it just disappears, you don’t see the red “Removed” icon in the picture above. So no, “dear”, I did not imagine it. There is the evidence.

Some people will be intimidated by this sort of censorship, because it will remind them that they are being watched by big brother and that big brother does not approve of what they are saying. Those people might have very valid and useful things to say. There is also the implied threat that if the state does not approve then they may be fined or even imprisoned for what they are doing.


Certainly, but I feel that its important to document such incidents to see if a pattern can be identified, to find out whether other people are experiencing similar, and most importantly because there may be some sort of very deliberate state censorship going on. Also, since the EU is currently devising these “hate speech” directives for social media companies, it really isn’t fanciful to suspect state involvement. I have had very few comments removed to date, only a handful. In most of the other cases (perhaps all) it was clear that the comment had been “Flagged as inappropriate” by another user, because the status of the comment was “Pending”, not “Removed” as is the case in this comment (see text in red in picture above).


I fear it was a bit vague in the sense that it wasn’t clear which migrants I was talking about, rather hastily written perhaps. However in the context of the article, and the current migrant crisis, I think I could be allowed to let people put two and two together. I also specifically mentioned Islam so I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to Muslim majority countries. If there was anything wrong with the comment, people were free to question it, and challenge it with reply comments.


Quite what constitutes commonplace is subjective I think, but a brief search in google immediately points towards quite a lot of evidence that I was justified in making the remark. There is a Wikipedia article devoted to the subject of Islam and domestic violence for example:


For example, there is a claim in this article:

“According to HRW 2013 report, Afghanistan has one of the highest incidence rates of domestic violence in the world. Domestic violence is so common that 85 per cent of women admit to experiencing it.”

Before anybody questions my linking to Wikipedia, please note that this article is backed up with many references to its sources, so please read those instead of just dissing Wikipedia.

Mistreatment of women among the migrants has been reported by Breitbart themselves quite a few times:


It seems unlikely to me that this would be happening if such treatment was particularly uncommon in their countries of origin.

Evidence of a bad attitude in Islam towards women can be found in the Koran, for example 4:34 which condones wife beating. Many other examples exist, documented much more comprehensively by people who know more about it than I do, so I have provided some links at the end of this post for those who wish to learn more.

There is also significant testimony in the above of the suppression of information about the mistreatment of women in these countries. Who for example is going to report a rape if the Islamic requirement is for 4 male witnesses? How many rapes are going to be calmly witnessed by 4 male bystanders who are later prepared to testify against the perpetrator? If they objected to the rape then these 4 males would surely intervene?

Furthermore, mistreatment of women in Islamic culture is so ingrained that women may not even regard it as mistreatment. For example, many women in Pakistan believe that the Koranic justification for beating a “disobedient” wife mentioned above is correct. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is sometimes carried out by women.


It seems to me that if you make a statement that is demonstrably true then you cannot be accused of incitement. The comment was not in any case at all inciteful, but plainly descriptive. I did not say, so and so is the case and therefore people should hate the group I’m talking about. I wasn’t even thinking like that. I’m just concerned that the migrants in question have been brutalized by the culture of their country of origin, particularly in their attitude to women.


In the current migration crisis, the principle countries of origin are all Muslim majority countries to my knowledge, and include:

Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, countries of the Maghreb. Mistreatment of women under the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is of course particularly brutal, I hardly need mention all the rapes of Yazidi women and stoning of “adulterers”. Mistreatment of women is well documented for Pakistan and Afghanistan. Here is an article about Syria:


Countries further south in Africa that have featured significantly in the number of migrants include Gabon and Eritrea. Female genital mutilation is practiced in Eritrea (1).



I think this experience illustrates exactly what is wrong with trying to suppress “hate speech”. Just what constitutes hate speech is highly subjective. We should be able to talk about groups of people without automatically being condemned because there may be features of that group, such as their religious beliefs, that incline them to behave in a particular way. I believe that the Islamic ideology is deeply flawed and a danger to freedoms of all kinds, but particularly to women’s freedom. If we can no longer discuss this in public without facing censorship and possibly even arrest, then freedom of speech is truly finished in Europe. The claims that freedom of speech will be protected in the EU directive document above are then merely empty words. Also if internet commenters like myself are being censored like this today, how long will it be before the state starts interfering with the supposedly free press when they try to tell us facts about the migrant crisis?


(1) http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#women_affected


Click to access Afghanistan_brochure_0913_09032013.pdf







The Myth Of The Hard Working Immigrant

Globalists and large corporations favour immigration because the first wave of immigrants are willing to work long hours for lower wages. They are prepared to do this because the wages in “Western” countries are invariably significantly higher than in their countries of origin. Subsequent generations however often soon acquire the habit of taking from the state, as they become wise to what is on offer from the state purse. This does not particularly reflect badly on those people, because immigrants who came to do the lower skilled jobs will tend to have stayed poor and be living in the poorer areas. The education available to their children will also have tended to be of poorer quality.

The bill for supporting these future generations comes to the ordinary taxpayer, because the globalists and large corporations are expert at tax avoidance. Thus there is an incentive for the globalists to keep promoting the idea that “immigration is good, because immigrants work hard and do the jobs the natives are not prepared to do”. In reality of course immigrants are human beings like everyone else, they respond to incentives.


If we look at Muslim immigration into the UK, this gives us a good example of this pattern. It all started when large numbers of Muslims came from Pakistan to work in mills in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Nowadays a majority of them are unemployed because those industries closed down not long afterwards and very little new industry has been created since in those areas. Then over the years their numbers swelled as they brought in spouses from their countries of origin, often while they were unemployed and while their spouses had no prospects or intention of finding work either. They were coming from cultures which had not in any case acquired the habit of female employment.


British workers are only not prepared to do the jobs the immigrants do because they know there is an alternative, namely the welfare system. Relatively recently, benefit sanctions have come into force which penalize those who do not actively seek employment. If these were being applied equally across the country, the myth of the “lazy British worker” would quickly become a thing of the past. However I suspect that they are not being applied equally across the country. Also there are simply fewer vacancies in some parts of the country, so it is a lot easier in those areas to appear to be looking (or actually genuinely looking), while never actually finding work. So far at least there has been no attempt at imposing a fixed time limit on welfare, so there is little incentive for welfare recipients to seek work in areas further afield.

The UK government is now proposing to stop giving welfare to new immigrant arrivals (the welfare will only be available after a certain period of working). The incentive for governments to continue with open doors immigration policies will remain therefore, because new arrival immigrants will have a much greater incentive to work than those born here. The myth of the “hard working immigrant” will therefore be REINFORCED. Thus, what is sold to the voters as a government policy to discourage immigration, is actually an incentive for governments to continue allowing high immigration levels.


Immigrants on low wages benefit from free healthcare, schooling, better justice. Those immigrants on low wages do not have to foot the bill for these things, it is higher wage earners who have to foot the bill. Once again the globalists and large corporations are the winners, because they benefit from the lower wage immigrant workers, while their armies of expert tax accountants ensure that they pay as little tax as possible.


The idea of “the hard working immigrant” has been used in the propaganda war around the current illegal immigration crisis. However it is quite clear that the current wave of illegal immigrants are not motivated in the same way that normal legal migrants are. These are opportunistic migrants, taking advantage of a humanitarian crisis in a war zone which is far away from them in most cases. Legal migrants are more likely to have qualifications and skills, because those are needed to gain entry in the normal process, especially when coming from outside the EU.

The current wave of illegal immigrants are prepared to live in squalid and dangerous camps, they do not have high expectations. Quite what their expectations are is difficult to know, and very few journalists seem interested in discovering the truth. Some of them may be motivated by pure hatred of the “West” and a desire to spread the Islamic religion, some may even be actual terrorists, but who knows how many. Hopefully some brave journalists may eventually pluck up the courage to try to find out. I have to admit I suspect these illegal immigrants are more likely to exploit our hospitality in every way they can than conform to the mythical stereotype of the “hard working immigrant”.


It is the welfare system that drives high levels of immigration, but not for the simplistic reasons that are normally given. First waves of immigrants are often not motivated by our generous welfare system, but rather the lure of higher wages and a better general standard of living. British unemployed people are no more lazy than anyone else, they respond to incentives just as the immigrants do. They are not motivated to do unpleasant jobs for low wages because they have an alternative, to remain on welfare. The myth of the hard working immigrant – actually a product of government incentives, is likely to remain a feature of government propaganda on immigration policy until those incentives are questioned by ordinary voters. High mass immigration levels are good news for globalists and large corporations who have the resources to exploit the situation to the full. They are bad news for the ordinary people, who suffer from the pressure on housing, school places, and the tax burden. Ordinary people also suffer from a feeling of alienation and a breakdown in community, because the immigrants are usually in much higher numbers in the poorer areas.

A Clash of “Civilizations”?

There has been much talk, especially since 9/11, of a “clash of civilizations”. Osama bin Laden said that it was his intention to stoke division between the West and the Islamic world, and spark a great conflict. In this post I am going to examine this idea and ask whether such a clash is likely and what form it might take. Could it in fact be more ideological than actually physically violent?

Many, almost all in fact, of the leaders of Western countries have hastened to claim in the wake of terrorist attacks, that these attacks are “Nothing to do with Islam”. Publicly at least, it seems that they are worried their own non-Muslim populations may become hostile to the Muslims within their own countries, and such a violent “clash of civilizations” might begin.  Privately perhaps their concerns may be rather different.

Of course George W Bush and his accomplice Tony Blair did appear to react in a knee-jerk fashion when they launched the ill thought-out invasion of Iraq in 2003. In reality it may be more likely that foolish world leaders would start such a clash, rather than ordinary people.


Those readers who have visited my blog before may have noticed that I put a lot of words in quotation marks. In putting the word “civilization” in quotes in the title I am pointing to the fact that this is hardly a clash of civilizations, but rather a clash of modernity and medieval-ism. For example, the stoning to death of adulterers, life threatening punishments for those who merely dare to question the Islamic religion, legalized wife beating (Koran 4:34), none of these things are the marks of a civilization at all. Since the very phrase therefore irks me, I will refer to the idea of a “clash of cultures” instead.


I think the answer to this question may depend somewhat on who is doing the criticizing. If leaders of non-Muslim countries were to begin loudly and publicly criticizing the religion, then I suppose that could lead to a clash, perhaps even full-scale wars, especially if they spoke in a derogatory or unduly offensive fashion. My suggestion therefore is that the world leaders behave in a diplomatic way, and leave the criticisms of religions to other people who have more time to think about those religions in depth.

I firmly believe however that the current practice of these leaders of pretending that any violent behaviour of Muslims has nothing to do with Islam is a *very* bad idea, and they should completely desist from doing that. These denials are just making the work of explaining the true nature of the religion to the majority more difficult. They are also emboldening the jihadists who conclude from it (with justification), that the Western leaders are very foolish. In this way the current leaders are actually increasing the risk of violent conflict rather than reducing it. The best hope of reducing the risk of a violent clash is in fact to allow the citizens to peacefully encourage as many as possible to reject/renounce the religion by revealing its many contradictions and faults. No Islam, no problem.

If ordinary citizens of “Western” countries can no longer criticize Islam without risking violent conflict either in their own countries or abroad, then freedom of speech is in very grave danger. If Western leaders resort to silencing such criticisms then they are really betraying freedom in their own countries to appease Muslims at home and abroad. I feel very strongly that it is essential that Westerners must continue to exercise free speech by criticizing Islam regardless of the consequences. If we fail to do this we are effectively allowing ourselves to be ruled by a foreign culture, we are effectively taking the first step towards submitting to Islam.

We cannot know if our criticisms will lead to a violent reaction from Muslims or not, we cannot predict the behaviour of others, but we must take the risk in order to preserve our own culture. I do not believe that an ideological clash will necessarily lead to violent confrontation. If Muslims do feel compelled to react to mere vocal criticism of their religion with violence, then that violent behaviour is their fault, not the fault of those that merely criticize. The Muslims in that case would be the ones initiating the violence. Western leaders MUST STOP blaming the non-Muslims who dare to merely criticize Islam for the violent actions of Muslims.


The publication of a book by Salman Rushdie called “The Satanic Verses” was possibly the first major polarizing event in recent times. The decision of Western countries to provide sanctuary and protection to Mr. Rushdie no doubt had some impact.

After the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo magazine’s cartoonists, there was a great outpouring of sympathy in the West for those killed and a great show of solidarity with even the leaders of France, Germany, the UK (among many others) appearing at a march in Paris. Some numbers of Muslims in the West protested against this show of solidarity. For example there was a sizable protest in Whitehall (1).

Clearly the Hebdo event has done something to increase tension between the cultures. Other attempts to kill cartoonists who mocked Islam in the West seem only to have increased the resolve of some to continue drawing such cartoons. A group hosted a cartoon drawing competition in Garland, Texas for example, and they were violently attacked although fortunately their security team managed to kill the assailants before they could get inside the building. All these events could doubtless be seen as evidence of increasing polarization.

A huge atrocity later occurred in Paris when 130 innocent people were massacred quite randomly. Was there a connection between this event and the Hebdo magazine publication? Did the magazine’s publication increase the tension in France particularly or would the later massacre have happened anyway? It is impossible to be sure. However the fact that another atrocity occurred in Belgium not long afterwards, where no such prominent magazine was published, suggests really that these atrocities are much more motivated simply by hatred of “Western” civilization and are an attempt to terrorize non-Muslims into submission or spark violent conflict.

While there can be no doubt that polarization is taking place, the relationship between this and acts of violence is not direct. Acts of violence may also have more political motivations. Terrible though the atrocities so far committed have been, the scale of violence could also scarcely be described as a violent clash of cultures.


Thanks to modern mass communication technology, TV, radio and now the internet, things we say in one country can fly round the world and upset people who are very easily upset on the other side of the world in an instant. Since the Islamic religion cannot survive in a critical environment, this does pose a problem for the Islamic countries that want to remain Islamic. However much they repress their own populations with harsh punishments for speaking against the religion, they cannot currently repress non-Muslims in far away countries.  Perhaps then an ideological clash is inevitable in our interconnected modern world.  Consequently I suspect that Muslim countries will increasingly try to censor and restrict internet access within their own countries.  It is not surprising that the Muslim president of Turkey, Erdogan, said recently at a press conference that ‘I am increasingly against the Internet every day’ (2).

Probably mindful of this increasing inter-connection, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been trying to pressure the United Nations into enacting a worldwide law preventing the criticism of religion. However in the “West”, we have long regarded freedom of speech as a very fundamental right. The suggestion that we should no longer be able to criticize religions in our own non-Muslim countries is in very real and direct conflict with this right. There is a huge, unavoidable conflict of ideas here. We can expect therefore that there will be more such attempts to destroy our freedoms in future.

If we want to protect our freedoms then we must protest loudly against both existing blasphemy laws and proposed new blasphemy laws. We must be vigilant and prepared for these laws to appear in many guises. An example of such a law that already exists is the law in Austria against “denigration of religious beliefs”. A far worse law, because it could encompass practically any criticism of anything, is the UK government’s proposed “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders”. We must oppose all laws that increase the limits on freedom of speech.


Those that have studied Islam in any depth know that it is in fact a supremacist ideology that does not tolerate those with conflicting ideologies, including those who have no faith. Even if everybody in the world were to refrain from criticizing or mocking the religion, the demands from the Islamic world might increase regardless. Islamic leaders might begin to call for laws requiring everybody in the world to convert to the religion. Could there come a point where majorities in “Western” non-Muslim populations begin to object to this? Could a violent clash of cultures come about in this way? The possibility cannot be dismissed lightly.

It is certainly increasingly difficult for the followers of other faiths to openly practice their religion in Islamic countries. If the birth rates in Muslim countries continue to stay significantly higher than replacement level, and the huge migrations from Muslim countries into the “West” are allowed to continue, while the non-Muslim birth rate stays so low, these demands will very likely begin to be heard.  Erdogan, for example clearly believes that Islam has a mission to dominate the whole world. (3)

Islamic influence can best be seen as a combination of peer pressure, fear and intimidation. The more Muslims there are in an area, the stronger this influence becomes. As the pressure grows, eventually the choice inevitably becomes one between submission and opposition, and Islam dictates that any opposition, any “mischief” be dealt with very harshly with violence.


In conclusion, I believe that there is in fact a very real ideological clash going on, that it is escalating steadily, and that, thanks to modern communications technology, such an ideological clash is inevitable in the modern world.  Human thought is vastly more inter-connected than ever before.

If the leaders of “Western” countries truly believe in freedom of speech and democracy, as they claim to, then they must know they have a duty to stop Muslim immigration.  This must continue at least until there is evidence of sufficient numbers of Muslims becoming apostates so that the influence of the religion in the “West” begins to decline dramatically. The leaders also have a duty to reform welfare programs because currently there is every incentive for those on welfare to have large numbers of children, and this is fostering the increase of Islamic influence in the West. If they fail to take these steps it will be them, not the concerned critics of Islam, who are responsible if the ideological clash escalates further into violence. It is simply a numbers game. The more Muslims the more risk some will resort to violence to try to impose their ideology on others.

In short, the best way for the world to avoid the ideological clash escalating into something more dangerous is for the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds to be separated and segregated physically as much as is practical. Of course we can care about what goes on in Islamic countries, but the pressing need today is to stop the increasing influence of Islam in our own countries in the West.


(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11398967/Huge-crowd-of-Muslim-protesters-picket-Downing-Street-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkish-president-erdogan-tells-conference-i-am-increasingly-against-the-internet-every-day-9772048.html

(3) http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/30/erdogan-renews-anti-birth-control-campaign-muslims/



Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders