Tapestry Talks

Rifkind's Eurology Demeans

I'm not a 'sceptic' - one who doubts. 

I'm not a 'phobe' - one who fears. 

I'm an opponent - one who resists. 

The ancient Greek for 'opponent' is POLEMIOS.

That makes me a Europolemicist, and my opinions Europolemic.

By calling us 'Phobes', the pro-EU section of the debate hopes to belittle us and make it appear that we all suffer from an ailment similar to agoraphobia ( fear of open spaces), or arachnaphobia (fear of spiders).  We don't wish to be put to bed and given counselling.  On the contrary we want to stop Britain from being subsumed in the EU, and we are fighting against the pointless destruction of European democracy.

A Phobe is someone incapacitated by their mental state.  I can assure the members of the pro-EU faction that we are very far from incapacitated.  We intend to actively resist.  Hence the need for a new and more accurate term.  Polemic is what we are, not Phobic.

As for the term 'Europhile', it implies a great love and fondness for the European Union.  If the pro-EU were in reality so ecstatic, they would be able to give speeches not attacking those who are against the EU as Phobes, but inspiring the love they feel so strongly into the hearts of others. 

But they never advocate the EU in positive terms.  They merely try to dismantle the efforts of those who would resist by deception, and name-calling.  I see and feel no love from the likes of Malcolm Rifkind.  I see someone who has got stuck inside the system, and cannot see any way out.

It's as if he's been programmed, brain-washed and is only able to see one side of the argument.  They show no love or happiness.  They are just lodged in the place they are at, and are immovable.  The term which suggests itself to me, for people like Malcolm Rifkind, Ken Clarke and others is 'Eurocast'.

If they insist on using the word 'europhile' despite its inappropriateness, you could, if you wished omit the 'h'.  In many languages p and f are interchangeable, as they are here for example in the Philippines where I am writing. 

Why not modernise the terminology of this debate, and make it more accessible around the globe?  The word Europile would be pronouncable by billions more people.

But in preference, we need new terms.  Let's be either 'eurocast' or 'EUpolemic'.  It sounds much more grown-up. We're either lodged inside the system, or we're resisting.

'Sceptic' and 'phobic' are too adolescent and I'm afraid to say, soooooooooooo.....Malcolm Rifkind.

EU President Must Have Known About Portuguese Paedophiles

The Portuguese Police seem to be preparing to abandon the false accusations against the McCanns as they clearly are not working. The idea of making the allegations was presumably to buy silence, and draw away the attention of the world's press from Portugal's uniquely appalling record of paedophilia, where for years the rich and powerful have abused children while the police and the Portuguese Government did nothing to stop them.

One Portuguese Prime Minister who must have known what was going on all those years was Jose Barroso, now President of the EU Commission.

With the media in the UK no longer willing to keep silent about Portugal's record of permitting politicians to abuse children, it is becoming a waste of time for Portugal's paedophile protectors to carry on with the false accusations.

The accusations are not working in buying silence, and merely making people frustrated, puzzled and angry.

It's time to stop harrassing the McCanns and instead go and ask Jose Barroso, the President of the EU commission, what he knew about Portugals' disgusting record on paedophilia when he was Portuguese Prime Minister, and why he never acted or spoke out to try to stop what is going on there.

If the man at the top cannot answer questions and be accountable, it is not surprising that the rest of the country is a dangerous place unfit for civilized and trusting people like the McCanns to visit.

People will only be reassured when they see someone taking the rap, being prepared to take some responsibility. If Jose Barroso merely washes his hands, and hides himself away Gordon Brown-style, then the Mail should carry on publishing to the world what they know about the goings-on in Portugal.

Only with the truth coming out will any justice be possible, and kids might start to get the government's protection in Portugal, instead of the paedophiles.

It would only be right for the world to know if the new Europe is going to be paedophile-accommodating like Portugal and Barroso, before they bring their kids over. If the McCanns had had any inkling, I doubt they would be where they are now. The media should not remain silent any longer.

Real McCann Story Goes Mainstream - Nearly

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

I've been writing regularly since 9.9.07 about the McCann tragedy on this blog, prompted by the injustice of the Portuguese Police accusing Kate McCann of involvement in her own daughter's death. I've had thousands of visitors who've come to read about the problems Portugal has with paedophiles, with its leading politicians' personal involvement in paedophilia, and the unwillingness of any of them to bring the powerful paedophiles to justice.

This weekend, at last a major British newspaper has decided to start making the same revelations that I've been making here for the last two months.

The only thing is, the Mail could have made even more revelations about which politicians were involved in covering up the paedophilia being practised in Portugal. The ex-PrimeMinister of Portugal, Jose Barroso is now the Head of the EU Commission. Long suspected of corrupt practices - (Roger Helmer MEP was unjustly suspended from the EPP and the Conservatives for challenging him about corruptiion in the EU parliament), questions have never been asked in public as to how far his involvement in covering up for paedophiles went.

It would seem fitting indeed that the new nation of Europe should be started with a corrupt, paedophile-sympathiser at its head. As he refuses to answer any questions about alleged corruption, or involvement with paedophile cover-ups, and as he is assured of blanket media support, given hs powerful position, the media will probably not cover this aspect of the Portuguese paedophile story.

But those interested in how the McCann fiasco ever happened in the first place, will be interested, as would the public of the world, if only they knew. What hope is there of a civilized society, when the political leaders in power over us are so compromised, and unwilling to speak out to protect the innocent such as Madeleine McCann, or listen to her cries?

The Media Awakes To The Duplicity Of Gordon Brown

I wrote yesterday that all we have is MPs standing between us and the termination of our country. It is true that only a majority in Parliament - 325 MPs - can stop Gordon Brown from carrying out his desire to push the Constitution through. But there is another factor.

The media have universally been hopeless in their risk assessment of a Brown Prime Ministership. Murdoch's media invariably described Brown as a 'genius' before he assumed the leadership. Commentators like Lord Rees Mogg in The Times described him as a eurosceptic, and many writers and commentators actually believed there was a good chance Brown would bring an end to Blair's selling out to the EU, despite the clear evidence that Brown was a europhile, merely acting as a eurosceptic, produced over many years by people like Dan Hannan.

Rees Mogg now says that it is 5 minutes past midnight now as regards the EU Constitution, and its ratification, and shows no remorse that it was commentators such as himself misreading Brown that has contributed to the fiasco that Britain now faces.

It is now though, as if all the blinkers have been removed, and the media are seeing Gordon Brown clearly for the first time, and they at last see the danger he represents, apart from the BBC of course, which was lost to reason many years ago, It is such a big change to read in the media the things that eurosceptics have been saying ever since Maastricht and before. Take for example this exract from Rees Mogg from today...

Last week Mr Brown accepted the reform treaty but he has backed out of his party’s commitment to a referendum, on the false pretence that the two treaties are different. This is not an action in good faith. If he persists in it, he deserves to be removed from office. For a man to obtain an advantage by a trick is inherently dishonest. For a prime minister to do so destroys his covenant of trust with the people he is governing.

Most of the parliamentary gossip is not concerned with the morality of the Prime Minister’s conduct, though there is a moral issue. In the lobbies they ask the pragmatic question: "Can he get away with it?" I am not sure that he will. It is quite unusual for a prime minister to be distrusted or despised by a significant part of the population and regarded essentially as a cheat.

Why has it taken so long for the media and the intelligentsia like Rees Mogg to see what is happening, when many lesser minds could see what was in store years ago?

It is, looking forwards and not backwards to what might have been, good to at last read the unadorned truth about the way Britain is being sold down the river. It soothes the emotions at this horrible time, when democracy in Europe is teetering on the edge, and Islamist terror edges step by step towards a far worse manifestation than we have yet seen.

I am writing in Manila overlooking the Glorietta shopping centre that was blown to pieces last week with hundreds of casualties. I walk or rather walked through it every day as did maybe one million Philippinos. The story barely gets a mention in the Western media, and the numbers killed are likely to be far higher than the 8 people reported so far. On the same day, Benazir Bhutto bravely returned to Pakistan to face death threats and assassination attempts to try to turn the world around in her country of origin. And on www.dizzythinks.net, there seems to have been some kind of actual terrorist threat against the London Dome, not reported in the media.

Whilst world order, and the stability of western democracy face such appalling threats, it is this week reported in the German media that most Germans are questioning their country's deployment in Afghanistan (www.iht.com). The media there are propagating a false presentation of the risks that Germany and the west are facing. Angela Merkel the driving force behind the EU Constitution, and the ending of the political existence of 25 democratic european countries, is at the same time unwilling to contemplate the likely result of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran becoming active centres for promoting worldwide terrorism. She never mentions her country's troops that are deployed, or Afghanistan, as if the whole thing had nothing to do with her. The mental block which permeates the EU and locks its thinking into the past, combined with its denial of current risks, is extremely dangerous.

The mess we are in is partly of our own making, in that too many people have been in denial of what is actually happening for far too long. This is greatly encouraging to our enemies, both those who would either kill us, or remove our democratic freedoms. Those people like William Hague, who always tries to find the middle ground, and fudge any issue, or Rees-Mogg who see history clearly, but today's events with inadequate perspicacity, are at last waking up.

That is fine, and good. But while the right wing commentators and politicians are now awaking, and seeing the mess we are in, the left wing media seems determined to bury its head ever more firmly in the sand. If labour MPs are going to rebel in sufficient numbers to bring a successful vote in Parliament and force Brown to hold the referendum, then papers like the Independent and the Guardian have also got to make a leap of understanding....and Lord Dacre, Brown's mate at the Mail.

But if at last commentators like Rees Mogg who should have spotted Gordon Brown years ago, are now waking up to him, it is encouragement enough for one day. It brings hope that tommorrow will reveal more people willing to quit the comfort zone and smell the fear of what will happen if we don't act now to save our democracy and our way of life. As the media moves its position, this must gradually move that of Labour MPs who face a difficult choice - loyalty to Gordon Brown, whose stock is plummeting, or loyalty to their own survival and that of their country.

Brown Betrays. Britain Reacts.

In answer to a challenge made in Lisbon by UKIP MEP Graham Booth, Brown says that if Britain were to be pushed by the EU into having the Euro as our currency, he would hold a referendum. The latest Treaty permits the EU to impose the Euro on Britain by majority voting

Brown is a S.H.I.T. - Scottish He-bitch Incapable Of Truth.

LABOUR MPs - The Ball's In Your Court!

Many are pessimistic about Labour MPs and their willingness to fight against the EU Constitution when it comes down to the vote in Parliament.

I'm not so sure. History tells us that Labour MPs are more likely to fight for firmly held beliefs than Conservatives.

In the 1940 War cabinet, for example it was the Labour members who backed Churchill's call to fight on after Dunkirk. The Conservatives wanted to parley with Hitler. If Labour MPs believe that Brown has cheated them and the British public, they might yet surprise those who doubt their willingness to resist.

If they cave in to Brown, they will for evermore be portrayed as the party who gave away Britain's democratic independence. The Conservatives will be in a position to continue eroding the public's declining trust in Gordon Brown's Labour Party.

If, on the other hand, Labour carry out this, their most critical act of rebellion, against Blair's final act as leader, signing his agreement to the Constitution, and Brown's compliance with the EU's wish to cancel the referendum his party had promised, they could well, at a stroke bring an end to Brown's leadership, and be in a position to seize the political agenda away from David Cameron.

If principle were to dictate the actions of Labour MPs, they should rebel and refuse to ratify the Constitution. If self interest were to decide which way they should vote, that too would keep them in a rebellious mood.

I hear the defeatism of most commentators, and the likelihood they see that Britain is finished.

But Labour MPs have not spoken yet. It was only because of Labour MPs that Hitler still had a fight on his hands in 1940 after the fall of France. Maybe history will repeat itself, and it will be the courage of the left that will stop the European rollercoaster. Cameron cannot do this alone any more than Churchill.

Gordon Brown Encourages Britain's Enemies

As if Gordon Brown wasn't already showing up as indecisive and unreliable with his election wobbles, and last minute tax policy alterations, it is becoming more than apparent that the Americans no longer bother with asking Brown anything much these days.

Trying to get another couple of percent lead in the opinion polls, he played with the timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, double counting numbers of soldiers previously withdrawn, and announcing again withdrawals previously announced. By performing this most pathetic example of political spin yet seen in British politics, Brown not only instantly lost the respect of the British electorate. He also lost any confidence the USA had left in Britain as a partner in the Middle East, at the same time.

It is now the USA and France that are allied firmly against Iran's nuclear programme, threatening the use of force if Iran continues to ignore requests to cease the production of nuclear material, that many fear will be used to build a bomb. Britain is no longer even mentioned. If Blair was still in place, Britain would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the USA and France, showing all potential enemies that they will face a powerful political and military force if they take us to the brink.

If Britain and France were backing the US, and not France alone, that would be putting pressure on Germany to join in a coalition, and the world would have been one step closer to seeing Europe and America working in tandem vis a vis the terrorist threat as they should be. As it is, Europe is only able to work with the USA one country at a time. Brown's vision for a safer Britain clearly does not take into account the idea of strength in numbers.

We've stuck it out in Iraq, until the USA has finally worked out the best way to deal with internal Iraqi politics, and is now saving many lives in the process. Within a few weeks of Gordon Brown taking over as PM, we have thrown away the defence advantages that the Iraq deployment brought to us. We had shown potential enemies that the USA is not alone in being willing to fight. Western strength is very much needed these days, and we should now be standing together, not sliding off and hiding as Brown is now doing.

Brown has weakened the Labour Party. He has also made Britain look weak in the face of Putin strutting his influence and power around the Caspian Sea, and offering words of encouragement to Iran's President Ahmadinejad as he ignores the wishes of the West.

The pathetic election antics of Brown have significance beyond our shores. They show that Britain is now a weak party in Middle Eastern affairs. That can only encourage the bullies like Putin and Ahmadinejad of Iran. Brown far from making Britain and the West more secure, as he claimed he would, has weakened our key alliance with the USA at a critical moment, and sacrificed all the goodwill and respect (acquired despite Brown's desperate underfunding of the armed forces) we built up during the Iraq War.

Brown is not only a prospective electoral disaster for Labour. He's an economic and strategic disaster for Britain and our allies, making the world a poorer, and crucially less safe place. Hopefully Labour MPs will bring his time as PM to an abrupt halt in the coming vote on the EU Constitution.

As for Brown's coming EU negotiations, if the EU cannot deliver security benefits by acting together against major external threats, then why bother with it at all? The New Thatcher......LOL

Lib Dems Need Help

A Lib Dem leader must be someone who understands that taking risks is bad and should be discouraged, that people who build businesses are a threat to the health of their employees, and that wealth-creation is unsettling for society in general.

They must be good at picking holes in everything they come across, posturing with an air of moral superiority and be sure to make those who always came second in life, feel less bad about their relative failure.

Other than that they must be someone who never uses less than a hundred words when ten would do, and they must be able to act out a role as if they were ruling a quarter of the globe, when in fact they will never rule anything.

Criminals, they believe, need sympathy and understanding, while victims must understand how they have brought their misfortunes upon themselves.

Was there ever a more pointless political party? Its leaders are invariably tragic - alcoholic, narcissistic, nauseous even murderous.

In truth, the party is neither liberal, nor is it democratic. It is merely nondescript.

Why don't they form a self help group?
'My name is Charles and I'm a Liberal Democrat' etc

At least we'd be spared two whole months of media exposure of this nondescript ragbag collection of social misfits as it struggles to define a new version of purposelessness, and find someone to lead, who is either alcoholic, a user of male prostitutes, a victim of blackmail or has some other other 'essential' Liberal Democratic dysfunction - a grievous process surely best carried out in private.

I think I've found exactly the thing they need

They would win a lot more admiration and support if they decided to stop wasting everyone else's time, and worked hard on their own problems. Kennedy has shown the way. There are many good and well-qualified people who can help them on a personal level, but bidding for political power in the name of dysfunctionality should be brought to an end.

Why Does Everyone Want To Meet Maggie?

Last night David Cameron,previously cautious of being too closely associated with Mrs Thatcher, met her and had pictures taken for the media. What's going on?

The going of Blair has permitted not the coming to power of Brown as expected, but curiously it now seems, the resurrection of Thatcher or rather her -ism.

A generation has grown up hearing her vilified on the BBC from dawn til dusk, while Brown's been praised to the rafters. They now know that the stuff about Brown being a genius was total bowlooks all along, and people are all of a sudden ready to re-examine Thatcher.

Propaganda has a shelf life, it seems - a long one it is true - but eventually the public, with a little help, start to see through the media's 'bias'.

The BBC are now in a quandary. They've spent 10 years eulogising Brown, and longer than that slating Thatcher. They allowed themselves to voice their own opinions as fact for a decade, licking Blair's boots (apart from Andrew Gilligan, of course), and have damaged their reputation in the process - probably permanently. It was during the John Redwood Policy Review week that the BBC really started to look off the mark, and somehow it was clear then for the first time that the old game, without Blair to front it, wasn't working any more.

The spin that says that people like paying high rates of tax was exposed by Redwood, and in that week, Brown's lead, pre the Labour conference, slumped. Interestingly, it was the same emphasis on cutting tax by Osborne a month later which finally buried Brown, and swung the game heavily Conservative way.

With Brown going down the pan, the John The Baptist of spin who couldn't actually do it in practice,, honesty and conviction become the inevitable future for politics. For the politician who grasps the new possibilities, not to act like Blair, who was in reality the servant of the media, only acting as if its master, there is now a vast opening, left in the void of Brown's collapse.

Brown's problem is that he didn't realise Blair was an act. Blair acted the leader, but in fact gave everyone powerful, exactly what they asked him for - Clinton, Bush, the EU, the BBC, Chirac - even Gordon Brown! Brown got the power relationships all wrong - and tried saying no to Bush. He lost Murdoch and the Americans in five minutes. Without wall to wall media protection, untruths or bias become exposed very quickly.

Blair's system for holding power began to fall to pieces over Iraq. He had to decide which one of two powerful entities to displease - the Americans or the BBC. He chose to dump on the BBC, and join the war. If the blogosphere had been active in 2003, I wonder if Blair/Campbell would have got away with crippling the BBC so easily. As it was, the Iraq episode allowed Gordon Brown back into the political game, as Blair lost the BBC from then on. For his role in helping get rid of Blair, dismantling Blair's highly effective political game of power and keeping Britain out of the Euro, Brown had his uses.

But Brown while able to dismantle Blair and Campbell, clearly did not understand the way the system worked well enough to be able to benefit from it himself.

In the context of international power, the Americans have probably decided they've had enough of the EU, Gordon Brown and all - and they want to see a strong independent Britain as a longterm ally. It's taken the Americans a long time to see through it all, as Blair mesmerised them too.

The pennies are finally dropping. The end of New labour could, as a result, well in time be the end of Britain in Europe, and the start of a new confident independent phase. Whichever political leader sees that and prepares to go with the tide, will win power and hold it.

Labour should be in a good position to dump on Europe and dump Brown, but they are too caught up in the corruption. The Blairites are finished, and like all those who recently lost power, cannot see how the game has changed. Cameron seems close to pulling the Conservative Party into place, and should win the race. With the media influence of America, and public opinion swinging together against the EU and high tax, Thatcherism phase two could be about to break out.

No wonder everyone wants to shake the old lady's hand. Who knows? Maybe the BBC will recant next?!
_________________________________________________________________

British Government Gets Behind Portugal's Desperate Attempt to Frame the McCanns

Is the following likely six months after the event? Just ask yourself?

A bloody footprint found in Kate and Gerry McCann's holiday apartment has a 'moderate chance' of matching a print found on the back door of their hire car, according to tests carried out by UK forensic scientists. The existence of the two marks is apparently at the heart of renewed suspicion that the couple were involved in their daughter's disappearance. (Mail on Sunday)

It's far more likely that a deal's being done on the quiet between the British and Portuguese governments to bury this case. It is doing so much damage to Portugal's reputation, and they desperately need a way to get themselves off the hook. As members of the Portuguese government have paedophile form, they have a long way to go to establish credibility and convince the world they are serious about dealing with paedophile abduction.

Last week the Portuguese arrested a large number of Portuguese internet paedophiles, but you can be sure that none of the paedophiles high up in government previously implicated, have been hauled in.

This case won't die. EU governments seem to think the only way to sort it is to get the McCanns safely behind bars. And it seems like the British government is getting to the point of assisting with this plan - however unlikely the evidence which they are 'discovering', nearly six months after the abduction took place.