Nuclear War on the Korean Peninsula – Danger to Carrier Strike Group 1?

The oft quoted curse, “may you live in interesting times” certainly applies to the contemporary Korean peninsula. A US carrier battle group (Carrier Strike Group 1) led by the Nimitz class supercarrier USS Carl Vinson currently steams into the region (1) to confront the Pyongyang regime’s nuclear weapons programme. In the meantime, the North Korean arsenal is put on display in a military parade (2). Another article headline screams “US War With North Korea ‘may break out at any moment'” (3).

The Americans can be rightly proud of their military prowess. However, is the US task force vulnerable to a North Korean nuclear strike? Could the fleet be taken out with one blast? North Korea certainly has the missile technology.


Vice-Admiral B.B. Schofield C.B., C.B.E. writing in the journal of Royal United Services Institution states:

“It is true that great strides have been made in providing anti-aircraft protection to forces so engaged, but whereas an interception rate of 95 per cent, of hostile aircraft would be quite acceptable in non-nuclear war, it is no longer so in repelling an attack by aircraft armed with nuclear weapons” (4).

The 95% interception rate mentioned above article may not good enough if the North Koreans deployed a nuclear weapon as part of an intensive conventional attack that gave the fleet innumerable targets to worry about. If a nuke gets through, then the fleet’s role in the war is over and South Korea is wide open to conventional and nuclear attack, as well as massive invasion.

The Americans may therefore opt for a first strike including the tactical use of nuclear weapons. They may also need to deploy tactical nuclear weapons at the outset against an advancing North Korean army to avoid South Korea being overrun.

To delay and prevaricate might invite the disaster of a North Korean first strike on the fleet, America’s principle method of projecting its power.

Would the American’s have to embark on a full-scale blitzkrieg style invasion to accompany any attack by the carrier battle group? Or would special forces specifically targeting North Korea’s nuclear strike capability suffice?

None of this even considers a simultaneous North Korean nuclear attack against American allies in the region. How likely would it be for a desperate regime to launch such an attack on Japanese population centres? What would be the economic impact of even a limited nuclear war on the already fragile global economy?

I think an America conquest of North Korea is possible but the costs – material, human, economic and political – could be extremely high. Perhaps it would be better if the American’s gave the green light for China to officially annex North Korea and displace the current regime. That’s if the Chinese were willing! That would at least maintain North Korea as some sort of buffer between superpower and would-be superpower and maintain a state of stability and strategic balance. It would also transfer the North Korean nuclear missile stock to more responsible and rational hands.

However, after saying all this, I suspect the whole military posturing by the Trump Administration is merely a strategic bluff to be used to encourage China to act in a way more beneficial to US interests. If this is the case it may be a very shrewd gambit that could yield wide ranging benefits to the United States.

Interesting times indeed!

(1) ‘Powerful’ USS Carl Vinson Steams Toward North Korea

(2) North Korea Displays Apparently New Missiles as U.S. Carrier Group Approaches

(3) US War With North Korea ‘may break out at any moment’ (4) The Employment of Nuclear Weapons at Sea, by Vice-Admiral B.B. Schofield C.B., C.B.E., Royal United Services Institution Journal. Pages 168-171, published online 11 September 2009.


Triumph of the West and a Mutually Beneficial Celebration of Cultural ‘Appropriation’

Demonisation of the West

The demonisation of the West has become the driving paradigm of Western academics and media talking heads, as well as those who promote their own cultural preferences with as much zeal as the West ever did. We are increasingly led to believe that anything and everything that the West has ever done is always bad and what other civilisations do or have done, by the very virtue of them being non Western, are always good or, at the very least, excusable. Of course, most reasonable people acknowledge that all cultures have done both good and bad and future cultures will be the same.

In the 1980s, there was a BBC documentary series presented by Oxford Historian John Roberts called The Triumph of the West. This excellent series had a profound influence on my own intellectual development. Firstly it encouraged me to have a civilisational rather than nationalistic outlook, something that was quite uncommon in the 1980s. Since this time my worldview has always been pan European, and until very recently I was very much in favour of the European Union. After all, by having a civilisational outlook it made the heroes of other countries into my own heroes. I could accept Leonardo da Vinci, Voltaire or Nicholas Copernicus just as much as Drake, Nelson or Churchill.

I have been trying to find the series on DVD for some time, but to no avail. It probably has something to do with it not supporting the current anti-Western paradigm. However, someone has put a large part of the series (seven episodes) on YouTube (see below). It is well worth watching and a much-needed antidote to the unthinking critique of Western civilisation, philosophy and science that is promoted in certain influential circles.

Triumph of the West

The BBC series, The Triumph of the West, shows how the West was the engine of progress that created the modern world. It brought people together on a scale hitherto unknown thanks to its voyages of discovery. The series demonstrates that the West became the first civilisation in the world to abolish slavery for its own sake – for moral rather than material reasons. It shows how much of the world adopted, or as we will see later – appropriated, Western technology and Western fashion. It shows how Western communications technology transformed the world, ultimately to the benefit of all. It shows how it was the West that laid the foundations on which contemporary globalisation was built upon. These are aspects of Western history that people can take pride in.

In the days in which the series was made there was a degree of regret about the excesses of Western imperialism but not the cultural pessimism and self-debasement of the present day. The series was not presenting an hagiography of the West, it recognised the achievements of other civilisations and how the West was built upon their achievements and appropriated their ideas and technologies. It also recognised the parts of Western history for which we should rightly be ashamed but it did so in a more balanced way than is seen today. Just like with all cultures and civilisations, there are good and bad aspects. Modern documentary makers could learn something from The Triumph of the West.

Cultural Appropriation

One of the most pernicious techniques used to demonise the West the is the practice of unilaterally claiming ownership of language and definitions and using this perceived control to prevent logical debate on the issues.

A particular technique used to attack the West, that has been in the news recently in relation to the attack on Syria with tomahawk cruise missiles,  is the often-used charge of cultural ‘appropriation’. This is when someone in the open minded West dares to incorporate elements of another non-western culture. The accusation of cultural ‘appropriation’ is designed to mark someone out as somehow being intolerant or insensitive. However, it would appear that the use of such accusations is the legacy of the ‘active measures’ used by the Soviet Union against its NATO enemies during the Cold War!

Soviet active measures were not designed to promote equality and fairness, they were designed to sow division in the target country to create societal weakness and make it more vulnerable in the case of war. They were not designed to create intercultural harmony in the diverse West, they were designed to create a sense of grievance in order to create conflict. The idea of criticising cultural ‘appropriation’ would fit into the toolbox of Soviet active measures quite snugly and the technique bears the hallmarks of something that has been designed. It exploits division and makes society weaker and less cohesive. High level Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov explained the technique back in 1983:

“What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”

It is applied with a broad brush, and those who use the brush try to confuse people by contrasting it with the term ‘cultural sharing’. However, where one ends and the other begins is left deliberately vague so that the political activists using it have maximum freedom of usage. Appropriation would imply that the thing in question was taken without permission, but is culture something that it is possible for someone to own. Normally, people see an aspect of another culture and absorb it. The practice of al fresco dining, barabaques and the cafe culture was something that was adopted in England after people had experienced continental holidays. They did not get permission to do it while abroad. Adopting aspects of culture is something that happens naturally and informally.

This is what happened when some white women decided to start wearing hooped ear rings.  They liked the look of them and thought I like those and they will look good on me so they started wearing them. However, they then faced charges of cultural ‘appropriation’ and told they should not be wearing them. No patent was violated, but the grievance industry saw an opportunity to create division. It is the equivalent of someone telling Sir Walter Raleigh that the people of Europe should not be eating potatoes when he brought them back from America! After all, I bet he did not get permission spread the culinary traditions of the Americas to other areas.

So as we can see, what is being described is not theft, because the thing in question is not something that is bought or sold, it is something that just is. It is not even sharing because in probably a majority of cases in human history, like the air we breath, it was something that was simply taken. This has always being how humans learn – they see a good way to do something and they copy it. The concept of owning a culture is particular perverse in any case, but people will try all sorts of approaches to earn money and should not be stopped from being creative.

The use of the term ‘appropriation’ is therefore very misleading that is which I have put the word appropriation in inverted commas. Cultural transfer is a much clearer and better way of saying the same thing but that would not be as effective from an active measures point of view.

The use of the term cultural ‘appropriation’ illustrates how the concept is designed to create a particular political outcome – the defining factor in active measures subversion. What makes the true motives of people using this political tool even clearer is that it is related by them to another vague concept – privileged and non-privileged groups. Of course, only they can decide who is put into each category and why. The real world is far more complex and nuanced and putting people into categories like this is yet another way of generating grievance and creating conflict.

These active measures, once initiated by the Soviets, would run on indefinitely and so they continued after the Cold War ended. Self-interested opportunists have adopted this legacy, whether they are neo Marxists wanting to sow global revolution or globalists trying to control democracies via a policy of divide and rule.

How cultural ‘appropriation’ is a normal part of human development

Trade is cultural transfer in its most basic form and is something that human beings have been doing since prehistoric times. Trade has always helped augment cultures and make them more alike. It has also served to promote shared interests and peace.

Labelling such cultural transfer as appropriation defies both reality and logic. The notion implies that culture is static – something that is refuted by historical reality. The desire to put people in distinctive and unchanging categories and to play them off against each other is something that should be treated with suspicion. Cultures merge, blend and borrow from one another, they always have and always will. It is not natural for cultures to develop in isolation and attempts to create a patchwork of cultural isolation is, frankly, quite silly.

In ancient times, China was the predominant culture in the world for many thousands of years yet this did not stop the West appropriating its many fruits. It ‘appropriated’ many things including, paper, gunpowder, alcohol, tea drinking, wearing silk and many others. It did not do this out of fear, it did it because the things that Chinese culture had produced were deemed useful or better than their home produced alternatives. As such we became a little bit more Chinese than we used to be and the two civilisations had that bit more in common. Surely this is something that should be encouraged. Absorbing parts of another culture is the highest praise that can been bestowed upon that culture. It illustrates cultural strength and longevity and is a demonstration of the success and resilience of that culture. It is a recognition of that culture’s contribution to world civilisation. For instance the factory system that the British found in Bengal could not fail to have influenced the creation of the industrial revolution in Northern England. The English probably applied what they learned from it subconsciously and certainly did not ask for permission.

Just like classical Communism ignored human nature in economics, those who peddle the results of Soviet active measures in the West ignore human nature in cultural terms. Blending ideas creates new thoughts and facilitates human progress, whoever the immediate beneficiaries may be.

Many people at the time that The Triumph of the West series was made believed that as a result of all countries adopting Western modernity, the world would become just like the West. Many countries adopted the methods of Western modernity, yet failed to develop. Other countries like Japan took it upon itself to use the technology, the intellectual property, of the West but gave it a uniquely Japanese twist.  This created something new, something better, something uniquely Japanese. In turn Western countries adopted some of the uniquely Japanese components to improve their own technology and appropriated these aspects of Japanese culture. Neither the Japanese or the West asked for permission they just learned from what they saw.

A similar thing happened following the Norman conquest of Sicily. The new rulers sensibly recognised the value of aspects of the previous Arabic culture and used it. Again, this fuelled progress, and at that time a sense of mutual understanding and common purpose among the Norman and Arabic cultures on the island of Sicily prevailed. The impact of this ‘appropriation’ benefited both cultures.


When cultures are brought together, as they are today, in increasingly confined areas then the impact of ‘cultural appropriation’ will become even more intensified. This is a natural thing and a very good thing. It is when cultural appropriation does not happen that people should worry. If people confine themselves to the pigeon holes assigned to them by globalists of ‘progressive’ politicians then that is something to really worry about. If people are afraid to engage in ‘cultural appropriation’ then the result is a dangerous polarisation that could, in the end, result in ghettoization and conflict. This would be a disaster. Perhaps those who condemn ‘cultural appropriation’ are striving to create such a situation for their own self-interested political motives. The techniques unleashed by Soviet active measures should not be allowed to destroy our societies so long after the Cold War ended.

The real triumph of the West was the creation our world where all cultures and civilisations know each other and learn from each other. Throughout the period when the West was predominant it ‘appropriated’ the ideas of other civilisations and they ‘appropriated’ ideas from the West. As we stabilise into a multi-civilisational world order we will continue the very human tradition of ‘cultural appropriation’ and in so doing we will evolve into something new, different and better.

An Analysis Of President Trump’s Proportional Response To The Use Of Chemical Weapons in Syria

A Proportional Response

The US attack on Syria last night was a proportional response. The West Wing TV show did a good explanation of what this is. In the following video footage the fictional President Bartlett is speaking against the virtue of a proportionate response. It must be noted here that he had lost a close friend in the attack that his generals are proposing to respond to. He is acting emotionally which is always dangerous whether you are fighting a duel or conducting international relations. In fact an emotional response will get you killed in a duel and could get you into a major destructive war when applied to international relations. In international relations rational and calculated action is usually the least dangerous approach.

An Anti Establishment Response

President Trump is vilified by the mainstream media because his vision for the world is different from that of the globalist establishment who own that media and use it as a propaganda tool to promote their interests. Those interests are global and therefore independent of any single country. In fact individual countries, especially democratic ones, are a serious impediment to the realisation of globalist policy goals.

President Trump has been friendly towards Russia because Russia also has a vision for the world that is different to the globalist establishment. That is also the reason that the mainstream media vilifies Russia and promotes war against it. I doubt the Trump vision and the Russia vision for the world are the same but the globalist establishment is the stronger and is perceived as the most dangerous player at the moment.

President Trump was manoeuvred into a corner by the globalist establishment and had to act to restore his control of the strategic environment. A proportional response was a way to forestall the establishment desire to promote serious hostility between Russia and the United States. He has now successfully restored his personal control to the situation for the following reasons:

  1. If President Assad did indeed order the chemical attack then it will deter him from doing so again. This gives President Trump the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not a Russian pawn. This strengthens his domestic position without giving in to demands to escalate hostility with Russia.
  2. If it was the rebels who staged the attack to secure a propaganda victory and provoke a disproportionate response then that now will not now happen. Action has been taken and a line has been drawn.
  3. The mainstream media and its globalist owners clearly want to provoke American involvement in full scale war in Syria. This proportional response will nullify their campaign at least for a while.

Globalist End Game Forestalled?

We have already seen how the result of similar globalist inspired strategies in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and indeed Syria itself was to empower ISIS and produce maximum instability in the region. We have also seen how this strategy has created the refugee crisis, which from a globalist perspective is not a crisis at all but an opportunity.

A conclusion that can be drawn from the desire to continue this strategy is that the globalists want to make things so bad in the region that people will be driven from their homes and effectively be forced to become refugees. If this conclusion is correct then it would appear that the globalist grand strategy may be to deliberately create a divide and rule situation in Europe and North America in order weaken the ability of public’s in those countries to oppose their brand of globalisation that seeks to lower business costs without giving the full benefits to those territories and their people.

In the meantime, the counties in the Middle East are robbed of their most talented people. They are left as a weakened and impoverished disaster zone that can be easily recolonised in the globalist interest at a later date once their European and North American base has been tamed.


President Trump has delayed what he would regard as the globalist advance. The globalists will adapt and attempt to continue their policy in the future, but President Trump has bought valuable time and room for manoeuvre.

It might seem counter intuitive but the proportional response is not only good for President Trump, it is good for Russia and the anti ISIS elements within Syria too. In some ways it could be regarded as a victory, or at least a stalemate, for Russia because the damage caused by the information warfare that being waged against it is the most dangerous to its interests. The cold information war was reaching the point where it could have turned hot. The temporary loss of a Syrian airfield is an insignificant price to pay for a lull in the information war and a return to a situation of relative strategic stability.

There will be some vocal protests from Russia at the UN, that will make it look like the attack was more significant than it was. However, this will also improve President Trump’s credibility. Their protests will be symbolic and it will be in their interests not to further escalate the situation. In the meantime, ISIS will not have the opportunity that would arise from the fall of the Assad regime. The heat will be taken out of the situation and it will be quietly kicked into the long political grass. Politics will resume its slow march forth.

The image that the media has been trying to create for Trump is one of the warmonger with his finger on the nuclear trigger. His measured, proportional response to this crisis suggests the opposite.

Parliament in Peril – The Speakership of John Bircow

Politicians of all parties, and indeed the party political system itself, are increasingly held in contempt by the general public. British institutions are based on conventions and gentleman’s agreements, and it is the lack of respect of these that is souring public perceptions of their ‘honourable’ members of Parliament. When politicians stop behaving like gentlemen (and of course ladies) the whole system feels the negative impact. The respect enjoyed by speakers of the House of Commons is based on such convention. Since the Commons cannot function without a Speaker it is important that the conventions in relation to the Speaker’s neutrality be adhered to and respected.

Calling Time

In much the same way as the Monarch is supposed to be above the squalor of party politics, so is the Speaker. The Speaker’s recent comments on significant political issues undermine both the role of Speaker and the integrity of Parliament itself.

If the Speaker is allowed to get away with such a blatant breach of the rules, a breach that has now happened at least twice, then will Her Majesty the Queen be given the freedom to speak out directly on political issues. Will she be allowed to openly condemn politicians who she believes deserve such public rebuke?

Furthermore, since the current Speaker can no longer be regarded as a neutral arbitrator, will the convention of not standing against the Speaker at General Elections continue? Is the Speaker now merely another politician putting his own personal interest before the broader public interest? Could it be argued that the current Speaker has made it impossible for him to perform his own role?

We already have a dangerous situation in which the result of public votes are not respected, which has implications for all future elections and indeed the future of democratic governance in the UK. We also have the mainstream press regarded with suspicion due to them aggressively spinning news stories in order to make it meet the needs of vested interests – the production’Fake News’ to use the current linguistic fad. The future of the House of Lords is also now in grave doubt which adds to the current political instability. The Speaker’s remarks are Constitutionally significant and represent a deepening Constitutional Crisis!

The Speaker should recognise that he has done damage to the already weakened institution of Parliament. As such, he should now do what convention demands, he should behave like a gentlemen, he should behave like an Honourable Member of Parliament – he should step down, his personality is obviously not suitable to the demands of the role of Speaker.

Why Theresa May’s Threat To Leave The Single Market Demonstrates Political Weakness

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has now indicated that she is willing to leave the EU Single Market. While many see this as something positive, the reality of her position shows profound political weakness and lack of resolve. It shows that she definitely studied at the failed David Cameron school of negotiation.

She is obliged by the Referrendum result to not just to threaten to leave things like the Single Market but to actually leave. The British people voted to leave the EU and the Single Market is the most significant part, and in fact the central pillar, of the EU.

If the UK does not leave the Single Market then the confidence of the British People in democracy will be lost and the political class will lose all legitimacy. That would be a very dangerous condition in which to put a country that already holds the political class in contempt.

A far more effective negotiating position would be to say that the UK WILL leave the Single Market and is willing to risk a trade war with the EU if the EU discriminates against the UK with regard to trade.

The EU claims to be a force for world peace and history shows that free trade is the most significant guarantor for such peace. Recent EU rhetoric about “punishing” the UK is offensive and indication of belligerency by the EU. So much for its peaceful pronouncements!

The EU’s aggressive eastern expansionism, and its desire to incorporate the Ukraine into its imperial project, has already alienated an otherwise peaceful Russia. It cannot afford to do the same on its Western flank to a country that merely wants to be its friend and to engage in peaceful free trade.

In any case, an EU that does not accept free trade with an independent Britain is an EU that is doomed. The EU is currently in a very vulnerable political and geostrategic position and Theresa May should exploit this and call the EU’s bluff. If the EU does not achieve a favourable trade deal with the UK the the whole EU project will fail.

The EU is on the brink of the abyss and it is in no position to dictate terms! There is too much emphasis on what the EU can do to the UK in the short term. Buying into this narrative would be a serious mistake with regard to the forthcoming negotiations.

Theresa May seriously needs to up her game to get the best deal for Britain!

Trump’s One China Gambit and the Genius of Bargaining With Nothing!

New York Stock Exchange

Donald Trump claims that Mexico will pay for the boarder defences that he plans to build on his country’s southern border. Today we get a glimpse of Trump’s strategic thinking and deal making genius, that maybe, just maybe might be applied to his most noteworthy proposed building project.

A few weeks ago he caused a furore when he made a simple telephone call to the leader of Taiwan. This tiny act upset the diplomatic relations between China and the United States. Previous administrations had followed a policy of not officially recognising Taiwan as a truly independent nation. This was a wink and a nod to the Chinese claim that Taiwan is nothing more than a rebellious Chinese province, even though in every real sense Taiwan is a country like any other. Trump’s phone call implied that he would be willing to recognise Taiwan as a fully independent nation.

However, in recent remarks, President Elect Trump appears to be suggesting that the One China Policy will be left intact, but perhaps only if the Chinese make some reasonable minor concessions in trading arrangements. The subheading on an article posted today on The Guardian website makes this exact point: “President-elect also hints that Beijing will need to show good faith on trade practices for him to commit to ‘One China’ policy”

This “hint” by Trump about future US relations with China, also gives us a glimpse of Trump’s strategic thinking and deal making genius. By taking part in the telephone call he uses something that is supposedly settled, the One China Policy, disrupts it and then puts a price on returning it to a state of normality.

The costs are all on China’s side and the net benefits are all American. If the One China Policy is ended then China would lose face, something that no Chinese leader is keen to endure. It might also encourage instability in some of China’s currently “non rebellious” provinces. Trump has already resolved to adjust what he sees as unfavourable trading relations with China, what he has done now is given himself and extra bargaining chip and doing so for free. The chip doesn’t even need to be played, and probably shouldn’t be played, but nevertheless remains in play.

Trump’s One China Gambit, gives an insight into how he will make Mexico pay for “The Wall”. He has definitely mastered the art of using absolutely nothing as leverage. All I can say is that I wish that my own country had a leader with such gifts and such commitment to the national interest. But, you never know, Theresa May could still surprise us in her dealings with the EU!

Trump is showing he can play the game that China and Russia have themselves played and perfected over the years, and to do so with equal or perhaps even superior skill.

Keep Calm Folks – The World Won’t End After Brexit


Run on the Seamen’s Savings’ Bank during the Panic of 1857. Image obtained from

There seems to be a lot of worry, angst and hysteria from the Remain camp about the trade issue and what is going to happen on 24 June after we have voted to leave the EU.

They forget what the 2 year transition period is for. We don’t leave the EU at the stroke of midnight on 23 June, much as many if us would like to. Contrary to all the alarmist talk, every county in the EU that trades with the UK has as much stake as we do to make the transition work. No company wants to lose out on trade opportunities.

On 24 June the negotiations start to make things work. The last thing the EU will want is the massive disruption to trade that Bremainers are fantasising about. European and British firms will continue their primary goal – to make money.

Also after Brexit the EU will be in a much more vulnerable situation than us. We will know where we are heading, they will be worrying about the secession from the EU by other member states, especially in the east. Meanwhile EU governments are going to be under enormous pressure from their businesses to sort things out quickly and minimise any disruption and uncertainty.

Bremainers seem to have got themselves into a bit of a tizzy when there is really nothing to worry about. What happened to the British stiff upper lip? It’s a bit embarrassing to see many of our fellow citizens in such an irrational state of fear and timidity.

Perhaps the Government can make sure paper bags are on hand for them to blow into until they come to terms with the fact that everything’s fine!

Predictions of a Trading Apocalypse Are Grossly Exaggerated

Apocalípico I by Mauricio Garcia Vega (artist) – Source/Photographer Mauricio Garcia Vega. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Apocalípico I by Mauricio Garcia Vega (artist) – Source/Photographer Mauricio Garcia Vega. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Obtained from Commons.Wikimedia.

The Sky is Falling!

There are dire predictions of a trading apocalypse if Britain acts in its best interests and leaves the EU. That is if the hysterical campaign to remain in that undemocratic and economically fragile political grouping is to be believed.

The doom and gloom Remain crowd are now wheeling out globalist after globalist to scare Brits into submitting to EU rule. The people behind pointless wars, biblical scale migrations, financial disasters and undermining cherished freedoms are currently on the march again.The latest of these political ‘celebrities’ is Presidential wannabe Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It is obviously very clear that the globalists who seek to oppress us defiantly want the us Brits to remain as inmates in the open prison also referred to as the European Union – with no prospect of reprieve or parole.

Britain, the Latest US Ally to be Threatened by the Obama Regime

The other day Obama threatened to put Britain to ‘the back of the queue’, if we were naughty and failed to follow his ‘advice’. Perhaps we would end up even further back in the queue than the long suffering American people!

The Obama Administration has a reputation for stabbing its closest allies in the back as THIS article suggests. The UK is just the latest victim!

A Democrat Party Hostile To British Democracy

It is now clear that a Clinton Administration would follow the same hostile policy towards America’s closest allies. Under the Democrats America will end up without any reliable allies at a time when new great powers are on the rise. Does this confirm that Obama and Clinton want to deliberately weaken America as many commentators suggest? Perhaps it does!

The recent interventions of Obama and Clinton in British affairs is not America intervening as some maintain, it is the Democrat Party intervening. They are putting party policy before the American national interest, though that comes as no real surprise.

Britain’s Ability to Frustrate Democrat Party Global Social Engineering

The outcome of the forthcoming Presidential election is not certain but even if Clinton gets in, there is always the British veto on the UN Security Council which it has not yet given up to the EU. No legal military action can take place without Britain’s say so.

Britain could be a thorn in the side of a Democrat Party with a penchant for interventionism, nation building, and international social engineering. A Republican President would have a very different policy.

If America under a Democrat President no longer wants to be friends with an independent Britain then they would become isolated amongst the permanent members of the Security Council with only France as a *potentially* reliable partner.

Keep Calm The Sky Won’t Fall if the UK Brexits

What the Bremainers and the scaremongering, anti democratic power crazed globalists don’t understand is that people can see through their desperate charade. Everyone knows that they created, either deliberately or due to incompetence, the current social and economic crisis we see across the world. They know that following the wishes of these people will mean more of the same or worse.

The British people have a backbone and will not be tricked by these charlatans. They will not bow to manufactured fear.

The reality is that it is in nobody’s interest to start a trade war with an independent Britain. After all, such action would damage an already shaky trading system still recovering from the global financial crisis. Any of the economic sanctions imagined by the Bremain campaign would be self defeating as they would risk pushing an already fragile world economy over the edge.

One thing that has come out of the recent interference from Obama and Clinton, Brits should not feel excluded from sticking our noses into the American Presidential election. My message and advice to the American people is this, vote for anyone (even Mickey Mouse) so long as it is not Hillary!

The EU is an Obstacle to a People’s Europe


Above: Brick wall close-up view. Author: Pawel Wozniak. Source: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Original dimensions of 4,752 × 3,168 pixels, and file size of 10.24 MB has been changed to 640 x 427 pixels and 105.5K

Visceral Hatred of Democracy

I have taken part in a number of online discussions during our ongoing referendum campaign here in the UK. What has struck me most is the apparent visceral hatred for democracy by some on the Bremainers.

There is no reasoning with them, they say that Britain is not a democracy anyway. They are effectively claiming that Britain is not a democracy and as a result the EU does not need to have democratic aspirations.

Part of the reason for the absence of democracy and accountability in the UK is because MPs can turn round and say ‘beyond our control’ because of rules made by the EU.

Urgent Need for Democratic Reform

Nevertheless, if the EU was a democracy I would be one of the most committed pro Europeans. I would be in favour of having the EU as the sole law making body for the whole of Europe.

However, to be a democracy it one of two options would need to be taken. The first option would be the abolition of the unelected EU Commission and the transfer of all its powers to Parliament. The second option would  be reforming the Commission into a directly elected Senate. It is not enough for it to be appointed by people who were appointed by people who were directly elected because that prevents direct accountability.

Currently the European Parliament is elected by PR, which is the fairest system of voting. However, the Commission has the real power which renders fairer voting for the Parliament a moot point.

Currently the EU is corrupted by lobbying by the transnational elite and their corporations. The EUs current complexity and lack of transparency allows them to get away with it. A democratic Europe would look after the people of Europe.

The Non-Existence of a People’s Europe

I would be in favour of a democratic European federal state because it would be big enough to stand up to transnational corporations. At the moment they get states to compete with and undercut each other for their favour. A united democratic Europe could bar them from the entire market if they refused to pay their fair share towards society.

It is tragic that the EU is not a democracy and does not represent the interests of Europe’s population effectively. It could really be a force for good. Unfortunately its vested interests refuse to reform it as we saw with Cameron’s sham ‘renegotiation’. He could have asked for the democratic reforms that ultimately would be in the EUs and Europe’s long term interests.

The EU could have put forward such reforms on its own. However, that would not be the EU that we know, the EU that will continue to exist until it collapses under its own contradictions. It’s vested interests want to control Europe and will never hand it over to its people.

That is why I have been forced to abandon my own dreams of a United Europe, that is why I will unfortunately be voting to leave on 23 June.