Friday, 30 November 2018

Nation Revisited, # 146 December 2018

Five Questions Answered - Seth Tyrssen

We asked our readers the following questions; Who are you? What do you believe in? If you could direct government policy what would you do? What are you proud of and what do you regret? How would you like to be remembered?

So far we have heard from; John Bean, Robert Edwards, Bill Baillie, Michael Woodbridge, Eddy Morrison, Robert Best, Arlette Baldaccino, Alexander Morana, Rufus, Pete Williamson, Claire Khaw, Vic Sarson, Jez Turner, Michael Walsh, Seth Tryssen.

Please send you answers to: 

1) I'm Seth Tryssen. Long-time activists and former head of the American Fascist Party. And it's an old flattering picture; I don't look that good any more, if I ever really did. 

2) I have a wide variety of beliefs, generally based on experience. These days, I describe myself as a radical White Nationalist, fitting somewhere in between Sir Oswald Mosley and Dr Arnold Leese. Also a variety of esoteric beliefs as well, stemming from the Vril Society.

3) If I could direct government policy, I'd do everything I stated in my book, "The New Fascism: An Idea Whose Time Has Come" (, and so much for the free plug). The short form: I'd withdraw all troops from everywhere, because meddling in other peoples' countries is not what America should be doing. Maintain a strong national defense, but keep 'em at home. I'd use a lot of those now-returned troops to help set up the National Labor Front in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, and rebuild our infrastructure - which is crumbling. NOW, not fifty years from now. I'd nationalize the economy and kick out the Rothschild world bankers. I'd deport all illegals, not give them money, rights and "sanctuary cities" as our LibTarded society currently does. I'd stop building still more weapons of mass destruction, and put those billions into alternative energy research; oil is a dinosaur, and is, ultimately, controlled by international banking systems. I'd institute socialized medicine and kick the lawyers and insurance companies out of the medical business. Congress, as it exists, would be dissolved and the "two major parties" would be on the outs.

4) I'm proud of the fact that I've been a mouthy activist all my life, always thinking "outside the box", and of the assistance I've been able to give my animal friends. I agree with Goering, where animals are concerned. Consequently I've gone vegetarian, and urge others to do the same. Regrets? Krikeys, where to begin? Probably that I was too self-centered early-on, and took a long time to learn the things I know now. Youth really is wasted on the young.

5) I'd like to be remembered as a gadfly, one that actually got people to think, whether they agreed with me or not. It's a bit late to go down in history as the Glorious Evil Dictator of America, so that'll have to do.

Brexit Chaos

Ever since the 1975 referendum the opponents of European unity have been campaigning to get us out. They said that the Common Market would rob us of our nationality, but more than forty years later we are still British. They said that we would be forced to adopt the Euro, but it never happened. And they said that we would be overrun by immigrants from the mainland - that did happen but most of them found work, adapted to our society, and made a positive contribution to our economy.

We see things according to our education, our prejudices, and our economic standing. A desperately poor man is not likely to agree with a rich man about the efficiency of the capitalist system. And someone who had a good education leading to a well-paid job will probably see thing differently to an unemployed labourer of no fixed abode.

Attitudes vary, which is why we have a selection of political parties. The main parties have lost their way but usually the Tories stand for the status quo, and the Labour Party stands for reform. The Liberal Democrats are somewhere in the middle and the non-parliamentary parties are handicapped by our unfair voting system.

Successive governments promoted immigration in response to a post-war labour shortage. People came here to work and generally speaking we were pleased to have them. Some MPs, like Enoch Powell, objected, and some actually believed in multi-culturalism but most of them just did as they were told.

And it's the same with Brexit. Two years ago they were nearly all Remainers but most of them have since jumped on the Brexit bandwagon. Theresa May's plan has been approved by the EU but it stands little chance of getting past Parliament. The agony continues.

Why is Wikipedia Censoring Me - James Bacque 

(From the Nationalist Week archive: 

In 1989, I published the first in a series of books about the Second World War and its aftermath. The first, Other Losses, showed the tremendous atrocities committed against enemy prisoners in the prison camps of the US and France after 1945. The next, Just Raoul, was a biography of a hero of the French Resistance who saved many refugees from Nazi death camps. The next, Crimes and Mercies, described the full extent of all allied crimes against Germans, plus the wonderful charity work of Canada and the USA in saving 800 million people, including Germans, Japanese and Italians, from starving to death in the hungry years after 1945. The next, Dear Enemy, illuminated the attitudes of the western allies to Germany from 1945 to now.

Wikipedia reviews and criticizes only Other Losses, and in such a biased way, that I finally tried to correct their many errors. Starting in March 2006, I tried repeatedly over many weeks to correct the errors but found that within a day at first, then within hours, and finally within minutes, some Wikipedian editor had expunged my corrections, replacing them with ever more hostile and denigrating allegations. Friends of mine tried also to correct the flawed Wikipedia article but found the same situation. Finally, we decided that Wikipedia was deliberately censoring my contributions and that it was pointless to continue trying to present the facts on Wikipedia. After Serendipity (already acquainted with censorship at Wikipedia) heard of this situation I was offered the chance to publish the real story, which appears below.

Wikipedia quotes Stephen E. Ambrose as saying that 'Other Losses' is "... spectacularly flawed ..." without saying that Ambrose also wrote that "You have made a major historical discovery which will ... span the oceans and have reverberations for decades, yea centuries to come. You have the goods on these guys ..."

Wikipedia does not say that Ambrose changed his mind only after he was retained by the US Army to lecture at the War College in Pennsylvania. Nor does Wikipedia mention that in his attack on me in the New York Times, he admitted that he had not done the necessary research to reach the conclusions that he published in that same article. Wikipedia fails to mention that the Ambrose it cites as an authority admitted that he had plagiarized several other authors. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the accusations that Ambrose stole work from a graduate student, which he published as his own.

Wikipedia ignores my book, Crimes and Mercies, which goes far towards balancing the record of western actions after World War Two. The book shows the great charity extended by the western allies, chiefly Canada and the USA, towards the starving around the world after WW2, including the Japanese and Germans. Saying that the overwhelming majority of professional historians reject my work, and citing as an authority one historian who has never worked in this field,

Wikipedia ignores the support given me by the eminent US Army military historian Col. Dr Ernest F. Fisher, a former Senior Historian of the US Army Centre for Military History, Washington. Fisher, a professional historian for decades, wrote the official US Army history of the campaign in Italy. He assisted me for months in researching documents in the US National Archives, wrote the Introduction to my book Other Losses, and has supported me with public statements for the seventeen years since its first publication. He helped me for many months researching in the archives.

Wikipedia does not mention the expert editing, research help and public support given me by the eminent epidemiologist and biostatistician, Dr Anthony B. Miller, former head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of Toronto.

Wikipedia also casts aside the support given my work by Richard Overy, King's College, University of London; Otto Kimminich, University of Regensburg; Dr Alfred De Zayas, author of many books on postwar German history; Prof. Dr. Peter Hoffmann, McGill University, author of the most expert books on the German resistance; Prof. J. K. Johnson, Carleton University, Ottawa; Professor Ralph Raico, University of Buffalo; Prof. Ed Peterson, University of Wisconsin; Prof Ralph Scott, University of Iowa; Prof. Pierre Van Den Berghe, University of Seattle; Prof. Dr Richard Mueller, former head, Department of English, University of Aachen; Prof. Hans Koch, University of York and many others.

Among writers who have approved my work and supported me are Julian Barnes; Nikolai Tolstoy; John Fraser, Master of Massey College, Toronto; John Bemrose of Toronto; Robert Kroetsch, Winnipeg; and many others. My work has been published around in the world in ten languages by Macmillan, Little, Brown, Prima, Ullstein, Editions Sand, McClelland and Stewart, New Press, and many many others.

Finally, the most glaring omission is that the massive and detailed KGB Archives in Moscow have millions of documents whose evidence completely confirms the statistical work in Other Losses. The math is simple: about 1.5 million German prisoners alive in allied prison camps at the end of the war never came home, nor were their deaths reported to the German government, their families, the International Red Cross or the UN. The figure was determined by the Adenauer government in Germany, submitted to the UN, and has never been disputed by anyone. Thus when Other Losses came out in 1989, alleging deaths of about one million in French and American camps that left about 500,000 to be accounted for. They could have died only in the KGB camps because there were not half a million prisoners in any other camps in the world. Thus, in effect, Other Losses was predicting that when the communists opened the KGB archives, they would show deaths of about 500,000. And lo and behold, when Gorbachev brought down the communist rule, and the archives were opened, I went there and found the Bulanov Report which showed that 356,687 Germans died in Soviet captivity, plus another 93,900 civilians taken as substitutes for dead or escaped prisoners for a total of 450,587.

This astonishing discovery is not mentioned in Wikipedia, nor by any other of the "professional historians." Except one, Stefan Karner, who went to the KGB archives, saw the evidence piled up in enormous quantities, and said he did not believe it. Instead, he preferred to publish his own "estimates," which confirm the conventional view.

Their World and Ours - Jeffrey Hamm

Those of us who opposed Britain's involvement in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were accused of treason by people who claim to be patriots. But they were the ones wasting British lives and treasure on pointless military adventures. Dropping bombs on innocent civilians is nothing to be proud of, and destroying countries that have never done us any harm is not patriotism but jingoism.

Jeffrey Hamm wrote the following article in 'Action' in March 1991, when British forces were backing the American invasion of Iraq. But nothing much has changed since then. We are still involved in the Middle East and our politicians are still talking nonsense about 'freedom and democracy'.

Free Speech and the War

If in war, truth is the first casualty, freedom of speech comes a close second.

An extraordinary letter appeared in the 'Evening Standard' of January 30, under the banner headline: Time to Silence the Opposition at Home.

The letter recalled the operation of Defence Regulation 18B during the Second World War and argued that "this measure was implemented in order to stifle any movement that might undermine the cohesion on the home front."

The writer appeared to have second thoughts about locking up anyone who opposed war in the Gulf and lamely commented: "It will not be entirely inappropriate to consider asking certain organisations and individuals (in the nicest possible way) to keep very quiet until Saddam is defeated."

The 'Evening Standard' of February 4 published several letters in reply, headed by one from me, under the headline (in very large bold type): Britain's Prisoners of Conscience.

I pointed out that I had been one of some 800 British subjects interned (without any charge or trial) "simply and solely for opposing a war which we believed was not in British interests."

My letter continued: "I am expressing similar opposition to war in the Gulf, for the same reason."

In conclusion, I asked if the writer of the original letter really wanted to see me interned again.

In a personal letter to me, he assured me that he had no such wish. We remain good friends. 

'Action' stands for absolute freedom of speech in peace and war and will defend the right for such political opponents as Tony Benn and Bruce Kent.

In our previous issue I recorded my lifelong conviction (while respecting the views of the sincere pacifists) that a man should fight if his country, or the real interest of its people, were attacked, but for no other reason.

This attitude may be criticised as narrow and selfish, ignoring the rules of international law and morality, which might invite war against international tyranny or acts of aggression against a neighbour.

One objection to this is that its impartial application would involve Britain in perpetual war.

When the principle is applied arbitrarily, humbug and hypocrisy reign supreme.

A month after the outbreak of the Second World War Oswald Mosley addressed a packed and enthusiastic meeting at which he reminded his audience that Germany had been accused of three acts of aggression: against Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the same period, Russia had invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Mosley commented: "Apparently three acts of aggression equal a declaration of war and five acts of aggression equal one trade pact !" Why has there been no war against Russia, America or Israel, or any other aggressor? We would oppose such a war, but may we ask for a little less humbug?

Death by Dior

By Terry Cooper, Dynasty Press 2013

Terry Cooper was a precautious Dagenham schoolboy who had been seduced by a neighbour known as 'Old Mother Acid'. Soon afterwards, in 1965, he joined Colin Jordan’s National Socialist Movement. At that time, Francoise Dior (1932-1993), the French heiress, jilted John Tyndall in order to marry Colin Jordan.

Terry was not impressed with his fellow neo-nazis, he thought the Hitler-worshipping mystic Savitri Devi, looked and smelled like a gipsy. He recalls that when she met the Polish aristocrat Count Potocki they were both wearing flowing robes. The count said: "I am the rightful King of Poland" and she replied: "I am a Hindu goddess."

Following a prison sentence on a trumped-up charge of Synagogue burning Francoise eloped to Normandy with Terry, her teenage lover. He spent his time writing a never-to-be-published book which revealed the secrets of creation, and she embarked on a series of affairs with both sexes, including an incestuous lesbian relationship with her own daughter.
According to Terry, Francoise tricked her daughter Christine into committing suicide in a bizarre magical ritual. He states that he could tell even more blood-curdling tales but they would land him in prison.

This book is funny, horrifying, and tragic but it's well-written and worth reading. Some of the people surrounding Francoise were clearly deranged. But a friend of mine who is involved in local government tells me that the established political parties are just as full of weirdos. Who knows what attracts them?

‘Death by Dior’ is available from Amazon.


All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people.

Wednesday, 31 October 2018

Nation Revisited # 145 November 2018

National Debt.

ndividuals can declare themselves bankrupt but it's not so easy for nations. Argentina defaulted in 2001 and she is still suffering the consequences. The UK national debt currently stands at £1.8 trillion, which is almost as much as our GDP. The annual cost of this debt is £48 billion.

Few modern states earn more than they spend. The exceptions are oil-rich states with small populations, like Norway or Qatar. Most states spend more than they earn, particularly on fighting wars. They cover the deficit by borrowing from the banks and by selling bonds. This is known as the National Debt. Hilaire Belloc explained it in 'Economics for Helen':

"When these national loans began the Government honestly intended to pay back what they had borrowed. But the method was so fatally easy that as time went on, and the debt piled up and up until there could be no question of repaying it all: all the State could do was to pay the interest out of taxation. It remained indebted to private rich men for the principle, that is the whole original sum, and meanwhile, through further wars, this hold of the rich men upon all the rest of the community perpetually increased."

Countries with vast natural resources and reserves of gold and foreign currencies, like the United States, can function with massive debts because the banks and bondholders trust them. But countries with no collateral can only borrow more money, for as long as they can.

When countries run out of credit they are reduced to starvation, unless some help is extended. Germany's national debt was partly written off at the Lausanne Conference in 1932 and again at the London Conference in 1953. The Allies decided that it made more sense to get Germany back on her feet. At least, that way they would get some of their money back. It worked, and Germany cleared her debts as her economy recovered.

In 2000 a Canadian proposal for a debt moratorium was rejected by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but eventually, all national debts will have to be rescheduled, reduced or abolished. Creditors, including private bondholders, insurance companies and pension fund managers, will cling to the present system because they want their money back, but ultimately it's unsustainable. 

The Memories of a Blackshirt Supporter 

My parents came from widely diverse backgrounds, for my Father was a motor car tester, and my Mother was Governess to the children of a very senior army officer, I was born in the summer of 1924, and had a very reasonable education, initially at a state school, and then at ten years of age, to a well respected Grammar School in the Home Counties. At the age of 14, when I was on my way home from School, I came across a poorly dressed old man wheeling a pram on which he had fixed a wind-up gramophone and was playing a recording of a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley, who was addressing his audience as "my Blackshirt brothers". I listened intently until the record was finished, and then thanked the old man, giving him a penny from my pocket,

Arriving home, I explained to my Father what I had heard, and he told me how on one occasion he had gone up to London to make trouble at a Mosley meeting, but he had been so impressed that he had finished up cheering his support. I remember that. 

Before I was old enough to follow my Father's example, the war was upon us. I was at University, and Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley were in prison under law 18B, together with scores of his senior officers. In fact, I never wore a black shirt myself. 

After the war, they were all discharged from prison without being charged, and 'Union Movement' was formed. The new party had headquarters at an address in London and produced a newspaper called 'Action' with the front emblazoned with the Blackshirt emblem, a circle crossed by one flash, not two as in SS. 

By this time I was making regular visits to London on business and would call into the London Office, and chat at length with Mr Raven Thomson, who was Editor of the newspaper. I used to make a contribution now and then to 'Action' and kept in touch. 

We had a group called 'Friends of Union Movement', and every now and again would attend a dinner in London, with 'OM' as speaker. He always spoke well, and his following was intensely loyal. 

Of course, prompted by the Jewish lobby, things were made very difficult. We were obliged to drop 'The European Salute', and then the blackshirt emblem. The Home Office declared that the wearing of a black shirt constituted a uniform, and in spite of the fact that OM insisted that wearing the black shirt was merely to identify Party members during a commotion it was banned. 

Raven Thomson died from the long-term effects of his brutal treatment during his stay in prison, and OM went to live in Orsay, France.

All these people have left their mark, and although several splinter movements have started up to maintain the creed, none have really been able to rally the public as OM was able to do. 

This is not necessarily to do with their inadequacies, but the result of well organised, and Jewish funded publicity blocks that have prevented both reporting and any publicity leaking out, however small. 

Once the administration was changed in Germany after the war, OM adopted a slogan "Europe a Nation", which was his frequent cry. Were he to be here in 2016, he would have been aghast to note that the Jewish lobby is once again running things over there.

When OM retired into France he went there on the basis that eventually he would be called. He never was of course, which is a tragedy, for he would have been a brilliant statesman.

Nevertheless, he always kept his ear to the ground and clearly read the UK papers. This is made clear when some reporter named Peterborough reported on a rowdy meeting in Oxford, that the stewards had dealt with the rowdies as savagely as OM had done at his Olympia meeting. His reply is appended below.

"Sir, a note by Peterborough (May 14th) appears to compare the actions of stewards in defending my meeting at Olympia from attack, with the action of those recently attacking someone else's meeting at Oxford. The difference is surely clear to any impartial mind. 

Facts regarding Olympia are also on public record in contemporary Press reports and are now worth recalling. The attack on a perfectly legal meeting was openly organised and publicised for three weeks in advance, without any intervention of authority to prevent a flagrant breach of the law.

The assault of armed roughs was defeated by our young men who were accused of using their fists too vigorously. Soon after the occasion (the largest public meeting ever held in Britain) at Earls Court Exhibition Hall, was conducted in perfect order. Previously free speech had been systematically denied to anyone unpopular with Communism or the anarchic left. e.g. Sir Winston Churchill's election meeting in Dundee  when he was just out of hospital, reported in the Times under the heading "Mr Churchill shouted down."

Authority was supine during a period when free speech ceased to exist. This was the origin of the Blackshirt movement, which opponents described as my "private army". The means to defend ourselves were subsequently removed by special act of Parliament.

It then became more than ever, the duty of Government itself to maintain order, and in this duty, then and now, it conspicuously fails. In agreeing that no man should be allowed a private army, I suggest that Britain needs a Government with the will to maintain order which includes free speech for all. " Oswald Mosley, Orsay, France.


We are told by the Brexiteers that the EU is a Marxist dictatorship controlled by the 'Liberal Elite', that's robbing us of our sovereignty, and flooding us with immigrants. Anybody who doubts these 'facts' is dismissed as a traitor and an enemy agent.

But their arguments are unfounded. The EU is a customs union of 28 nation states. It's governed by Commissioners appointed by national governments and by elected Members of the European Parliament. Most of our immigrants come from outside the EU, mainly from the Commonwealth. 

The real reason why the Brexiteers want us out of Europe is that they suffer from xenophobia - a morbid fear of foreigners. This dates back to the days when raiding parties from hostile tribes came to steal our cattle and women. They also carried unfamiliar pathogens which brought disease into the camp. Today, we have progressed beyond tribalism and we heed the words of Dr Samuel Johnson who warned us that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

These self-appointed 'patriots' wrap themselves in the national flag and turn every argument into a crusade. To them hating foreigners is a sign of patriotism and not hating them is tantamount to treason. 

History is littered with charlatans who exploited patriotism to their own advantage. Some of them, like Winston Churchill, earned themselves a lavish lifestyle and a state funeral, but others, like Horatio Bottomley, ended their days in disgrace and poverty.

The Triple Alliance (1864-1870) of Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil killed 70% of the adult male population of Paraguay and completely destroyed the country. This insane war was led by the great Paraguayan patriot and military strategist Francisco Solano Lopez (pictured), who was obsessed with 'independence' and bitterly hostile to his neighbours. He was so fanatical that he encouraged his troops to shoot their own officers if they even mentioned surrender. He died fighting and shouting his defiance but he is remembered as a madman, not as a national hero.

Francisco Solano Lopez is dead but his twisted ideas live on. He never learned to love his neighbours and his modern counterparts are no different. Their arguments about sovereignty and identity are bogus, what really motivates them is an irrational fear of foreigners.

American Foreign Policy

The United States has been involved in nearly 200 military incursions since 1945. A foreign policy that was described by the great historian Charles A Beard as "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace." Before Donald Trump was elected president he promised to stop interfering in foreign quarrels, instead, he has increased his military presence in Africa, Asia and the Middle East and imposed sanctions on; China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Turkey, and Venezuela.

are really economic warfare. They prevent nations from trading and cause shortages of food, fuel and medicines that result in starvation and death. They brought down the Ian Smith government in Rhodesia, and, eventually, the apartheid regime in South Africa. The sanctions applied to Iraq after the first Gulf War destroyed Saddam Hussein's economy and military capacity. Far from possessing 'weapons of mass destruction' he was practically defenceless by the time of the second Gulf war. 

Donald Trump's 'America First' policy is enforced by economic warfare and the threat of military action. The vicious campaign against Russia is entirely political. Russia's repossession of the Crimean peninsula was entirely justified and there's no proof that they were behind the Novichok poisonings in Wiltshire.

President Trump's campaigns against Iran and North Korea are equally bogus. Those states have as much right to their nuclear programs as Israel. America's enemies are not necessarily our enemies but our 'special relationship' means that we are helping to cripple them with sanctions.

The White Rhodesians were mostly of British stock and many of them fought for the British Empire in two world wars. But a craven British government used the Royal Navy to blockade the port of Beira to enforce 'regime change' and replace Ian Smith (pictured), a highly-decorated RAF fighter pilot, with the bloody terrorists Robert Mugabe. As a result, the Whites were driven out of the country as it descended into poverty and starvation. All in the name of 'democracy'.

Those right-wingers who campaign for 'British independence', like Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, are happy to obey American foreign policy. Successive American governments tried to placate their discontented Blacks by destroying the White regimes in Southern Africa. It didn't work but it won't stop them from trying similar tricks in the future. 

Their current enemy is Iran, practically the only state in the Middle East still opposed to Israel. The powerful Zionist lobby is clearly directing American foreign policy. They have already wrecked the Iranian economy with sanctions and Donald Trump has vowed to carry on until they abandon their nuclear program. He has even threatened British and European companies who do business with Iran. This kind of economic warfare is a threat to all of us.

From the Archives - Dying For Democracy - an article from Nation Revisited posted on the National Front website April 2010 

(Britain's involvement in the Afghan War 2006-2014 was a complete waste of lives and money. 456 servicemen were killed,1,922 were wounded, and we spent £37 billion trying to defend Helmand Province against the Taliban. The government has recently announced plans for a new intervention, and if we are not careful we will be dragged into a war with Iran).
Politicians of all parties support the Afghan War and accept the slaughter of British and allied soldiers. As each young man is killed they chant the hypocritical mantra of government propaganda: "He died doing the job he loved," and "He was helping to make Afghanistan a better place." But the warmongers cannot convince us that there is any point in this aggression.

Britain's new top general, Sir David Richards, has predicted that we will be in Afghanistan for thirty or forty years. And NATO's Lieutenant General, Stanley McChrystal, has called for more men.

The general praised the UK's 8,000 plus force and said more would be welcome. He told the BBC: "I don't know a general who would not like to see more forces, particularly forces as good as the British." (Daily Mirror 13-06-09)

We can, therefore, expect to sustain heavy losses in a war that we will eventually quit; just as we did in Iraq. But before we pull out we will kill thousands of Afghans and risk bloody retaliation on the streets of our major cities. Far from ensuring domestic security, we are endangering ourselves by declaring war on Muslims after letting millions of them into our country.

Once again, a blinkered government has gone to war without a plan. They imported cheap labour and created alien ghettos without thinking of the consequences. Their foreign policy consists of blindly following America and their economic policy is tied to 'free markets' and 'open borders'.

City minister Lord Myners and London Mayor Boris Johnson have attacked EU plans to outlaw hedge funds (Guardian 21-07-09), and Home Secretary Alan Johnson says that he doesn't lay awake at night worrying about the population hitting 70 million (Daily Mail 15-07-09).

We are fighting to impose our failed system on a country that has never done us any harm. The 9/11 terrorists were not Afghans, they were Arabs who trained and plotted in the United States. We are waging war to prop up Hamid Karzai's corrupt regime of misogynists, warlords, and drug dealers who are no better than the Taliban. This war is as pointless as the Iraq catastrophe and will end in the same humiliating withdrawal.


All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share ideas with other people."