I have decided that my own personal attention will now be focused solely on party politics with LibertyGB. Equally, my friend and colleague Dr John Press will now be cooperating with us on an international level.
This means that the Culturist Hub website (which formed after the National Culturists) will slowly become disused.
I’d like to thank everyone who worked hard with the National Culturists to promote the culturist message. We did our job well for over a year, and achieved a national stage with our message of hope.
I now believe that the culturist message needs to be taken to a larger stage, which is why I will be working hard with LibertyGB to implement the ideology into national politics.
If any followers are interested in continuing to follow the progress of culturism in Britain, I invite you to follow LibertyGB on Facebook at
Equally, if you would like to learn more about it or even join, you can visit the website at
Our activists, however, have come from many different parties, most notably UKIP and the Conservative Party. Many members of these parties are culturist, and as always, our cause has not been party political. I joined LibertyGB as it is the only party that officially recognises the culturist ideology, and I believe it the best alternative, however you can follow the work of our other activists in their own respective parties.
Dr John Press and I would, once again, like to thank everyone for spreading the word and getting the message onto such a large national and even international level.
We are now moving to the next level politically, and invite you to join us.
All the very best,
Culture Officer for Liberty GB
Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) searches for something true throughout the film. He thinks he has found it in the form of Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). But, she cannot love him because he is not of the aristocratic “Old Money,” crowd.
Rather, Gatsby he crawled up from poverty. He can only live in their lavish neighborhood and throw ridiculously crass parties because of profits from bootlegging and worse. But this crass display of conspicuous consumption does not impress his betters; Gastby is lowbrow in blood and taste.
Matthew Arnold lived during the peak of the industrial revolution. He recoiled at the proliferation of many Gatsbys equating money and values. And the glamorization of this class, led the middle class to also only worship money, and money only. “Where might cultural leadership come from?” He wondered.
Just prior to Arnold’s day, the aristocratic class – the House of Lords and such – had modeled breeding and morals for the populace. But in Arnolds time, they had assimilated downwards towards shallowness. And, here Arnold’s disillusionment parallels Gatsby’s. Daisy Buchannan chooses class over love. Her husband, with all his “Old Money,” plays polo, cheats on his wife with a gas station girl, and parties just as desperately as Mr. Gatsby’s guests.
Gatsby’s main meditation concerns the past – I think this is why he’s called “Great.” When he ran away from his poverty he made up an aristocratic past. Gatsby met Daisy in a small town before her marriage. When discussing his obsessive love for her, he always couples his love with desires to return to the past. He repeats, “Can’t repeat the past? Why of course you can.”
The Aristocratic class being permanently materialized, Arnold hoped public education would allow the middle class to become the new standard bearers for cultivation. This would come via connection with the past and the best that had been thought and said in history. Without the standards culture provided, the culturist Arnold opined, crassness would simply feed upon itself in a vicious cycle of dissatisfaction.
Ever the culturist, Arnold also argued that the West could find guidance in his new secular, literary reading of the Bible. Religion provides values that compete with money and materialism; rather than wealthy, it tells people to be spiritual.
While killing Gatsby – because he thinks him a sinful murderer – the murderer repeats “God sees everything.” And the eyes of God watch over the poor section of town. God likely appears in the poor area of town as the rich are too full of spectacle to see him. The moral act by Gatsby’s murderer also illustrates Arnold’s hope of values coming via infusing the masses with religion.
Arnold foresaw the emptiness of the lavish hedonism director Baz Luhrmann captures so well. But audiences, ironically, go to this film to enjoy this very hollow spectacle. Thus today’s audiences too partake in the shallowness of modernism; they too worship this very “eye of a needle” behavior that keeps the wealthy out of heaven.
Gatsby cannot go back to the past. The aristocrats that used to provide some connection with the West’s grandeur provide no road map. The film and book hint at his being Jewish, but Gatsby has severed ties with religion. As long as we do not get values from the past, religion, or some other source – as Arnold would tell us – the West will continue to slide into the decadence typified in Gatby’s long self-destructive vacuous hedonistic parties.]]>
If I am being generous, the film “Shame,” shows the hollowness of modern consumerism. But the laconic lead, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) explores this dynamic with fewer words than Sylvester Stallone in Rambo V. Despite its lack of verbal insight, the film won award after award. One suspects, the critics were only celebrating its relentless portrayals of transgressions.
In contrast, James Twitchell provides thoughtful cultural analysis of the roots of shame. Employing sociobiology, he portrays shame as a near universal feeling with the biological components of blushing, lowering the head, and averting the eyes. The emotion being so visible to others indicates cultural survival value. For example, it used to keep westerners from irresponsible breeding.
Twitchell lays a lot of blame at the feet of television. Competitive pressures cause programmes to show relentless fun with zero consequences (ie; sex without STDs or pregnancy). And ratings rule all. People used to retire from tv when caught in unseemly acts. Now, they get rewarded with a reality show. So, advertisers’ biggest target, youth 18 – 34, have seen no consequences, boundaries, or shame in their young lives.
Consumer culture doesn’t stop at the television, Twitchell tells us. To attract audiences, Churches speak less and less of hell and more often sing of heaven accompanied by rock bands. Educational philosophy now forbids shame in the name of “self-esteem.” And males’ traditional parenting role of disciplining has been denigrated in favor of the feminine values of sensitivity and unconditional love.
The film “Shame” provides a perfect example of Twitchell’s contention that our culture now gives too much honor (the opposite of shame) to victims. The most significant line in the film comes when, just prior to her suicide attempt, the sex addict’s sister, (Carey Mulligan), pleads, “We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place.” Poor evil, wretched filth; how sorry we should feel for them.
In the end, Twitchell recommends we bring shame back by denouncing and shunning ethical trash. As is the western tendency, his solution has an individualistic tint. Rather, culturists seek systemic reform such as changing school curriculum, rewards and punishments, inculcating cultural pride and honor with culturist border laws, and such. But, at very least, the UK Lottery should stop funding sex films, with no redeeming values, that parents would be ashamed to watch with their families, like “Shame.”]]>
There is a bit of panic on both sides of the argument should the upper house decide against this bill; where does it leave Cameron and his liberal leaning “conservative” chums? Does it mean the whole bill will be scrapped? I think the latter is highly unlikely. If the bill is defeated in the Lords Cameron and Co. may have to resort to using the Parliament Act of 1949, enabling government to pass forward legislation without agreement from the upper house. However, because the same sex marriage bill wasn’t bound by the pre-election conservative manisfesto this could complicate things further. It all depends on how the vote sways.
Going back to the original issue here, why are we so bothered about Gay marriage? I was under the impression Civil Partnerships held the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage, and in turn were exclusively for gay people. Must be me and my homophobic thinking again, tut tut. One of the most astonishing things I always seem to find surrounding the “Gay Issue” is the need for gay pride, gay expression and a celebration of all things rainbow.
I don’t think I’d be far wrong in saying that a lot of people who champion these activities are also the type of people that would come out with things such as “It’s okay to have any religion and be happy about it, but don’t wave it in anyone’s face or force people to agree with you”. Right they would be in saying that, but it would then make them hypocrites to support gay pride. I don’t have a problem with homosexuality or homosexuals. I have a problem with stamping it on your forehead and shouting “You better not think dancing through the streets covered in lycra and women’s clothes isn’t normal, or you’d be a bigot! Now where are my rights?”
One of the poster arguments against people who oppose these “rights” is the increasingly popular designed-to-shock question; “When did you choose to be straight?” There is one main problem with this, on which im sure 99% of scientists would agree with me. All life exists due to reproduction, therefore it is logically assumed that this it is commonplace to be attracted to your opposite in order to achieve this, it is natural instinct. This does not mean gay people are unequal or in anyway inferior .
I don’t believe people can ever choose to be straight. I believe some Gay people are born gay, and others do indeed choose. We are all equal citizens, but some things just aren’t for everyone.]]>
The politician that engineered the local victory for the BJP, Manoj, told me that the election victory would bring more resources to Rishikesh and the state. To be sure, this being a new election district, whoever won would get more money to the locals. But Manoj, told me the BJP would allocate resources with minimal corruption; they have no allegiance to local bosses. As nearly daily articles report, many support the BJP in order to fight entrenched political corruption.
In the days leading up to the election, a young election worker who used to sit outside of election headquarters told me what the BJP meant to him. He conveyed the BJP’s famous worries about Muslims. The government was allowing Muslims from Bangladesh to immigrate at such a rate that Kerala would soon become the first majority Muslim state. He denounced government funds going to build mosques and affirmative action for Muslims. This lover of his culture wanted Hinduism taught in the national schools. My heart swooned at hearing such culturist sentiment from a western aligned nation.
The NATO nations from historical amnesia brought on by multiculturalism. India remembers the brutal Muslim conquest of their nation from the 13 th to the 16 th centuries. Hindus have watched in horror as Pakistan has eliminated the millions of Hindus in Pakistan, that continue till today with forced conversions and disappearances. BJP members understand the connection between the high percentage of Muslims in Kashmir and the ongoing civil war. While we celebrate all cultures as equally peaceful under the banner of multiculturalism, Indians have greater historical understanding.
Earlier in the week, my yoga teacher told me that, given a chance, the BJP would slit all of Muslim’s throats. And, when a BJP discussion turned to the National Culturists, an Irish friend of mine told me to look out for NAZIs within the British group’s ranks. Such fears are insulting and hysterical. I found no call for ethnic cleansing or genocide in the young political volunteer’s policy suggestions. And, I would not belong to a neo-NAZI group. Even if such sentiments were to appear in the hearts of BJP or National Culturist followers, democracy makes such concerns red herrings.
Later I had the good fortune to dine twice with a respected leader of the city of Dharmasala, whose wealth partially derived from having been part of one of the three original settler families in that city. His take on the BJP took us into the 8th century origins of Hindu identity in reaction to the first Muslim invaders. Prior to that time, he told me, Hindus did not deploy their Hindu identity in an attempt to rule. After the Muslim invasion of India, however, Hinduism became a distinctive trait. It still, however, did not inform political matters in that polytheistic religions interact differently with the State than monotheistic religions. I was getting an intellectual’s take on the BJP.
The recent blending of “Church and State,” by the BJP, my host informed me, derived from ex-Prime Minister Jawaharial Nehru’s horrible policies. Nehru’s enlightenment creed meant he often sided against India’s self interest. For example, my host told me that Tibet had been a buffer between India and China. Nehru recognized Tibet as a part of China and so lost it. When beating Pakistan in war, he turned the conflict’s prosecution over to the United Nations. In his socialistic bent towards, ‘the worker,’ (exclusive of cultural considerations), Nehru also attempted to buy Muslim fealty to the new state with job preferences and monies for mosques. Thus he set the stage for the rise of the BJP.
Thus, Nehru did not stand up for the Indian people or nation. He was a proto-globalist working for “humanity.” Such leadership had to lead to a nationalist backlash, my intellectual host relayed. Nehru’s favoring the Muslims economically, led to the BJPs modern and binding of the traditionally aloof polytheistic Hinduism and the State. Finally, the Nehru and the Gandhi families’ legendary corruption set the stage for the BJP’s appeal to those sick of government theft. In fact, the disgust with those families runs so deep that the BJP has actually run Muslim candidates. Thus, I got an intellectual history of the origins of the BJP.
The modern BJP rose to power on the back of Hindu – Muslim rioting over a temple that had been turned into a mosque. Diversity and Muslim invasion have, thankfully, made Hindus aware of the need to protect their culture. But, once in power, the BJP has had to modify their culturist message to stay in power. They did so by highlighting their aggressive military program vis-à-vis Pakistan and fighting corruption. I suspect my yoga teacher’s remark about ‘throat slitting’ accurately portrayed the feeling of many BJP members, including those of the election worker I interviewed. And, many westerners, like my Irish friend, immediately portray culturist sentiment as genocidal. In democracies, with their moderating dynamics, such fears are as ludicrous as they are insulting.]]>
Nationality is a highly complex societal – and self-label; societal in the sense that a child will have a social label of the nationality he or she is a member of applied to them by a peer, and the child will also apply the self-label of the nationality they attribute to their selves.
Within the UK; there used to be five national identities one could subscribe to. British, English, Northern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. The four latter identities make up the British identity.
Now we have got a sense of what identity is, this article will now turn its attention to the perceived Euro scepticism in British children, and research conducted to show that children do not commonly apply the label “European” to their selves. Research carried out by Barrett (2000) on nationality showed that as far as supranational terms such as “European” were concerned, these were not often chosen by children in the UK, and they [children] rarely place any importance on the so called “European” identity at any age. Thus, it can be concluded on the results of the research that British children hardly identify with the European identity at all! So, far from most British people being pro-EU as some like to postulate, research does suggest that young children view the European identity as non-important. And since views typical stay stable overtime, these children will remain Euro-Sceptic into adult life.
This paper will now turn its attention to in-group favouritism.
In-group favouritism is a common phenomenon. Generally speaking, in-group favouritism is instilled from a young age, and children in all countries generally prefer their own national groups over all other national groups. This bias has been found to occur at all ages from 6 to 15 years; and has been found in most European countries researched for in-group favouritism. (Barrett, 2005). However, to contrast this, Tajifel et al (1970, 1972) found that although in-group favouritism was present in countries like Austrian, Belgian Dutch, English, Italian, and Israeli children, Scottish children did not place preference on their own national group (NOTE : research carried out in the early 70s). However, recent research has revealed a different picture, with Scottish children exhibiting in-group favouritism much the same as other countries have. What must be pointed out however, is that while in-group favouritism is a common phenomenon, it does not mean that children dislike the other nationalities; indeed, children of all ages typically like all the others however, to a lesser extent than their own nationality.
What can be argued with the above research is that in-group favouritism is a common phenomenon across countries in the world. So when certain people use the “race card”; we must bear in mind that we all prefer our own groups (such as; I am British, ergo, I will prefer the British say, to the French, and vice versa for the French), and that does not make people racist, as research shows children like other groups, however, to a lesser extent then our own.
What some members of society do is conflate race with nationality. Just because people dislike a nationality or religion does not mean you dislike race associated with the nationality or the religion.! As can be clearly seen above; in-group favouritism is a social norm. We all prefer our own groups to others. Even to the extent within Great Britain; you would have, say the English preferring the English above the Welsh or Scottish respectively.
Racism is used to shut down logical discourse about the problems facing Britain with regard to mass migration and radical Islam; do not let them win the argument.
Thank you for reading
Matthew Hopkins: student of Psychology.
Barrett, M. (2005) ‘The development of national identity in childhood and adolescence’, inaugural lecture presented at the University of Surry, Guildford, March 2000.
Barrett, M. (2005) ‘Children’s understanding of, and feelings about countries and national groups’ in Barrett, M. and Buchanan-Barrow, E. (eds) children’s understanding of society , Hove , Psychology Press.
Tajifel, H., Jahoa, G., Nemeth, C., Campbell, J. and Johnson, N. (1970) ‘The development of children’s preference for their own country: a cross-national study’, international journal of psychology, vol. 5, pp. 245-53.]]>
A phobia is an irrational fear. But, Islam is a violent ideology that celebrates Jihad. One of the killers’ Muslim names means, ‘Holy Warrior.’ To fear adherents to a violent ideology, of holy war, is not irrational; it is the very essence of the most rational of instincts, that of survival. And those who would demonize our survival instinct are complicit in the murder of all victims of Jihad.
If someone uses the term, ‘Islamophobia,’ in your presence, yell at them, “Was Lee Rigby ‘Islamophobic’ as his Muslim killers approached him with a large knife after hitting him with a car?” Scream out of anger! “It is not irrational to fear people who are trying to kill you!” Scream out of self-preservation! Because this term ‘Islamophobia’ may literally kill you as it threatens your civilization.
Every time you go to an airport, you must go through heavy searching no matter what your demographic. This massive inconvenience happens because we do not wish to appear Islamophobic. Thus we risk our lives rather than deal with the fact that diversity exists and includes hostile, large, predatory, violent ideologies. So to save your life, scream at those who use the term, ‘Islamophobic,’ “Were the people in the 9/11 planes Islamophobic during the hijacking?”
While you are at it, please scream violently at anyone who calls you ‘racist,’ when you mention Islamic violence and Jihad. It is not funny. The Muslims who inflicted holy war on the Boston Marathon were white. Noting cultural diversity is rational, not racist. Culturist profiling of Muslims at airports is neither racist nor, can it be argued after the beheading of Lee Rigby, Islamophobic.
The killing of cartoonists and filmmakers illustrates the danger Islam poses to our values. Weekly worldwide Jihad proves Muslims’ willingness to kill for their ideology. Think of the real danger posed by Islam; think of the victims around the world; imagine someone calling Lee Rigby’s widow and child ‘Islamophobic,’ if they – in their horrible grief – criticize Islam; – and scream at them as if your life depended on it. In fact, it does.
Tim had this to say when I spoke to him earlier:
“My name is Tim Arnold. I am 30, from a working class London background, and currently live overseas. I joined the British Army (infantry) at 17 years old and left at 22, then re-joined and served for five more years, finally leaving in 2012.
I have been to many places during my time in the Army, including Kenya, the Falklands, Afghanistan and Canada. Since leaving the Army I have worked overseas in several Middle Eastern countries. I have done many bits for patriotic groups and political groups and hope to produce some good reading for Culturist Hub. I also hope to produce some good photography of my travels in Islamic countries – it will be a pleaser to help out on such a good site.
Many thanks, Tim”
Margaret Thatcher – a brilliant lady, in my opinion, who made decisions which many politicians were too afraid to execute themselves. However, I must say that I am sickened by the negative attitude towards her, especially after her death. Many left-wing politicians and fan-boys have used her as a scape-goat for the economic, welfare and housing crisis of today… despite these crises being suffered more than a decade after her departure from office. It appears that many socialists (particularly that of Owen Jones and Ken Livingstone) seem to have a selective memory – they claim that Margaret Thatcher ruined Britain, and did everything with “sharp elbows” (thank-you, Glenda Jackson, your silver-tongued diplomatic ways never fail to set an amusing example for how not to be).
Yet, they seem to forget the state which Britain was in before her reign – was everything all fine and dandy?
Or, did Maggie, upon entering ten downing street as Prime minister, whip out her telescope, glance across
the skyline and demand that all factories in her line of sight immediately be closed down, because she could? She seems to be portrayed as a power-sick witch, determined to crush every “community” around her (I use inverted commas simply because “community” seems to be a popular buzz-word amongst most socialists). However, I desire to dispel these portrayals – they are factually inaccurate.
Ken Livingstone recently stated that “Thatcher was neither popular nor successful economically” – wrong. She was elected three times. As well as this, he claims that she was responsible for the housing, economic and welfare crisis.
Firstly, Thatcher gave the working classes the right to buy their own council home – this gave the poor freedom, responsibility, and the ambition to become something better, rather then remaining impoverished. However, supporters of Ken’s article (whereupon he stated that Labour created hundreds of thousands of homes prior to Thatcher) claim that she “represented the cultivation of the Essex filthy kulak class of council house buyers”. Let us remind ourselves that “kulak” is a Russian term for a wealthy peasant, a particular genre of peasant most detested by Stalin himself, and the kulaks were prosecuted, especially after refusing to join kolkhozy (collectivised farms). So, according to Ken and his ever-loyal supporters, the poor should be kept so and not allowed to even own their own homes? Wow, another Stalinist viewpoint from the socialists themselves – it comes with no surprise that in the 1983 Labour Party Manifesto, 5 year plans were proposed to increase industrial production. I wonder where the idea of 5 year plans originates? And yet, The Guardian readers who post on “Comment is free” compare Margaret Thatcher to that of Stalin. Well, imagine the state of Britain if it fell into the hands of Michael Foot…
What makes me laugh is that Ken Livingstone claims that Thatcher wanted to “reduce the share of working-class income in the economy” – oh, so now Labour claims to be trying to help the working man, and yet is disgruntled at Mrs Thatcher giving them the right to own their own home?
Owen Jones, of The Independent, claims that Thatcherism was a “national catastrophe that still poisons us” – so the state of Britain before Thatcher wasn’t a catastrophe? And this highly uninformed argument (that consists of Thatcher apparently destroying mining communities, despite Labour closing more mines) comes from Owen Jones – a man who has never held down a “working-class” job in his life, (he currently works in a left-wing think tank), was 6 years old when she departed from office, and yet feels fit to write about how Thatcher destroyed the working man.. as if he was old enough to complain!
Another reader suggests that “she represented the destruction, by fair means and foul (but mainly foul) of the workers right to defend themselves in the workplace”. Ah yes, I forgot that the workers in the workplace deserve to defend themselves using beer and sandwiches. Do they reserve the right to demand extortionate incomes? Or, perhaps, do they reserve the right to strike frequently – thus resulting in bodies not being buried, the elderly left with no electricity and heating, rubbish piled up on the streets, and fires having to be extinguished by the army? Is this the utopia which the socialists claim Baroness Thatcher destroyed? Yes, these were the fantastic days before the so-called rise of “Thatcherism” – ah, working by candle light, fond memories that I’m sure many of the elder generation share with each other. However, Thatcher brought in the right to a private ballot – this stopped bullying by the unions. The previous ballot system reinforced the idea that the unions could demand whatever they wanted with no opposition – and those who did oppose were persecuted.
So why do the unions (particularly the miners unions) hate Mrs Thatcher so? The miners claim it was because she destroyed their communities and closed their mines. And yet, more mines were closed by the Labour Party, and Margaret Thatcher pumped approximately 22.5 million pounds into South Crofty mine, Cornwall. In my opinion, they hate her simply because she took away their power – they could no longer whine for larger wages or go on strike whenever. She applied discipline, and, like toddlers in the midst of a tantrum, the miners moaned about the injustice of the matter.
One conspiracy which I must dispel is that Thatcher is responsible for the housing and banking crisis – no. Was it her which chose to bail out the banks? I don’t think so. Was it her which encouraged a “lend, lend, lend” policy by the banks to hand out mortgages approximately 7 or 8 times the average income like candy? The answer is no. The Labour Party just kept borrowing more and more money – they are responsible for the debt which our children and grandchildren must pay off. Thatcher made necessary cuts because we could not afford a large public sector, as desired by the socialists. Britain in the late 70s was in terrible debt, and in the early 80s, Thatcher saw this and realised that Britain must live scrupulously in order to recover from this terrible debt. And by 2007, we hit crisis once more, and fell into recession. Not because of Thatcherism, but because The Labour Party wanted to create a population that was reliant on them and the welfare state. Thatcher did not create debt.
To conclude, the socialists must remember that the country was in grave peril before Thatcher arrived – strikes were frequent and the economy was dying. Thatcher came in, and took control – she told the British people exactly what she wanted to do before she came into power, and when she was voted in, it should have come to no surprise when she introduced the anti-Union laws. She closed down the subsidised factories because we could not afford them – and may I remind those who call this “barbaric” that the jobs in factories were ones that people did not want to do. She was changing Britain for the better in order to recover it from Labour’s mess, and healed the poor man of Europe. We must not forget her international relations – she ended the Cold war, aided in the abolition of the Berlin wall, and improved greatly relations with China. Therefore, I beg you, drop the childish epitaph of “Maggie the witch” and stop kidding yourselves that she destroyed a utopia. It is not right to use Thatcher as an excuse for Labour’s wrongdoing.]]>
Originally, I started off writing about music, since British music has plummeted incredibly in the last thirty-odd years. However, as I grew up, I decided to write about issues that affect me/will affect me – this involved politics. I had always hated the left-wing, because I blamed them for many of the circumstances in which I had to live and be educated, i.e. having to earn an eighty percent scholarship/bursary to a private school because there were no grammar schools in Cornwall, and the school in my catchment area barely had a thirty percent GCSE pass rate. My parents had fallen on hard times, despite earning genuinely good degrees from genuinely good universities (Camborne School of Mines and University of London respectively).
It wasn’t till I became 15 that I started to gain an interest in politics, especially that of the right-wing parties such as the Conservatives and UKIP. I was a conservative at heart, as were my parents, but we began to notice Cameron’s weaknesses and his failure to repair Labour’s mess, and thus I turned to UKIP, a party promising libertarianism. As a teenager, this appealed greatly to me, as I wanted to be given the responsibility to make my own choices rather than have them dictated to me by Labour. UKIP still does appeal to me, even more so.
However, as our government became more and more bureaucratic while I was growing up, (and by bureaucratic, I mean obsessed with paper-work and ruling people’s lives), I observed the abolition of a childhood, and even suffered it myself – such as early sexualisation in state primary schools. What was more saddening was that girls who I went to school with myself became pregnant at the age of fourteen in order to gain a council flat – and, when I went home and told my parents, they would shake their head sadly and say, “well that’s what Labour want, isn’t it”. Therefore, as teenagers began more distracted with hedonistic pleasures such as sex, alcohol and photographing themselves, I began to realise that we lived in a bad, apathetic society which Labour had created.
I also hated Labour for destroying the education system, and the complete extermination of all grammar schools here in Cornwall. Due to the teenage age-group that had been forced into hedonistic pleasures as I described, many teenagers I knew lost their sense of ambition and simply reclined into a lifestyle of being reliant on the welfare state. Even they knew, deep down, that this was pretty dire. And that was the last straw – I realised that the socialists had created a state dependent on them, deliberately, and that people had to wake up to this fact, rather than just accepting it. So I tried to show people in the only way I knew how – by using the power of the pen!
What I aim to do in most of my articles is dispel lefty clichés, and prevent them from re-writing history, as many lefties love to do, as we observed after the passing of dear Maggie Thatcher. I personally blame the left-wing for corrupting Britain and creating the bad society in which we live in today – which contains unemployment, high teenage pregnancy rates and extreme poverty.]]>