Progress

Problems

During the last 60 years we have been brainwashed to believe we are progressing. These are all lies. I will expose these lies for what they are.

Crime
Decades ago liberals decided to give the scum in jail human rights and stopped capital and corporal punishment. Since then criminals don't fear jail. They don't care if they are caught because now they get playstations and satellite TV while their victims are left with emotional misery.

Teenagers now run rampant and they cannot be stopped but instead of punishing them they are given trips to go on.

If that is progress I want nothing part of it. I want nothing to do with a society that give more rights to the criminal than the victim.


European union
They said that being part of international organisations like the EU was progress yet I don't see anything progressive about it. We spend 9 billion pounds per year on europe which can be spent on hospitals, schools, transport, agriculture, industry and jobs right here.

Wouldn't better hospitals and schools alone be progress?

If the EU is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that gives its national sovereignty away and puts the EU before the education and health needs of the nation. Supporting the EU is treason and I want nothing to do with a treacherous nation.


Immigration and multiculturalism
They say immigration and multiculturalism enrich our society so it is progress. How is this progress? Where are the benefits? I would like to see them. I see no benefits whatsoever in allowing an alien people with alien ways to take over.

Immigration does more harm than good. It is a myth that immigrants will only do the jobs that the natives won't do. It is a fact that immigrants will do the job for less money. Natives would do the job if they weren't paid slave wages. Why should native britons be stopped from working just because they don't want to be slaves?

If immigration is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that makes their people work as slaves or stops them from working altogether if they don't become slaves.

There are very little benefits from immigration. The only benefits that I can see is we get the educated of the third world but even that has consequences. The educated should stay in their home countries to help build them up. Whole parts of africa have no health professionals.

To argue that Britain needs economic migrants because of their alleged energy, talent and skills, is to ignore the flip side of that coin which is that the country they came from is going to be deprived of their energy, talent and skills. Every economic migrant who comes here is depriving his or her country of their ability, and is prolonging their own country's agony. It is irresponsible and immoral to deprive countries in this way. Economic migration on these terms is a form of piracy, which should be outlawed!

If stealing health professionals from the people who desperately need them is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that steals from the poor to help the rich while the poor suffer with diseases and don't have a chance at a proper education.

Some say we need immigrants to keep the health service running and immigrants are progress for the NHS. The only reason nurses from Asia are being imported is because we don't, and won't, pay a living wage to nurses from this country. This is a new form of 21st century slavery.

If keeping health staff as slaves is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that treats their health professionals as slaves.

Some say we need immigrants to pay our pensions but that is wrong. Immigrants age too so we are just delaying the inevitable and making things worse than what they will be.

If delaying the inevitable and only having one solution is progress I want nothing to do with it. I don't want to be part of a society that is just making things worse in the long term.

Some say that companies couldn't survive without immigrants. My answer to that would be So what! If the company is only employing immigrants then what good is it doing for anyone other than immigrants?

If putting foreigners first is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that puts the wellbeing of foreigners above the wellbeing of the citizens.

Why else is immigration bad? Well according to the Optimum population trust the UK's sustainable population level in the 22nd century may be as low as 30 million.

If destroying our society by overpopulation is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that is going to destroy itself.

They said multicuturalism was progress but all it does is breed hate and repression of women. It was the cause of the London attacks and it has been the cause of the antiwhite violence antiwhite violence. In the attempt to stop us from debating the dangers of Islam the government gagged our freedom of speech with the religious hatred law.
If multiculturalism is so good why can't we debate it without fear of arrest? In islam women are separated from men in the mosque. Women are made to wear burquas so their faces cannot be seen. This is repression of women.

If repression and less freedom is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that allows repression and takes away our freedom to debate issues.


Education
They said compulsory education was progress but compulsory schooling is just a part time prison. It destroys individuality and was invented by the rich so they could get the population ready to be employed by them so they wouldn't want anything else. Why should the young be forced to do something they don't want to do? Education should be a choice and not something you have to do.

If repressive forced education is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that locks the youngsters up for hours at a time 5 days per week, punishing them because they aren't intelligent then wondering why they misbehave in class.


Economics
They said that free trade was progress but what good has free trade ever done? Was it good for MG Rover? NO! It is a fact that because of free trade companies are heading to foreign countries because they can make things cheaper and sell it cheaper here which makes people stop buying british goods and putting british people out of business.

If putting foreign workers first is progress I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that doesn't help british companies and british workers.


Health
They said free healthcare for all was progress. I have yet to see it. Free healthcare helps the people who do not deserve it. Free healthcare helps those who continually drink themselves to a liver disorder like George Best.

Treating smoking-related illness costs the NHS £1.7billion a year. Why should we give free healthcare to people who know its harmful to their health? Why should the tax payer be forced to hand out money to care for people who are knowingly killing themselves?

The same with alcohol, it costs the NHS £3 billion per year to help people with alcohol related problems. Why should we help those poisoning themselves? I am not saying that we should ban alcohol and tobacco but we should not help those that are poisoning themselves. If they want to poison themselves and live they should pay for the treatment themself.

If progress is taking money from people with common sense to help those that are continually poisoning themselves I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that penalises healthy people with common sense by taking money from them to help the idiots.


Abortion
They said allowing women to have abortions was progress but how can it be progress when the public are funding the destruction of 180,000 unborn babies per year in britain alone. In 2002 abortions cost the NHS £38.2 million. It cost less the years before according to this table.
If we add them together and estimate that from 2003-2005 abordtion cost the same as 2002 we come to the figure of 183 million. Why should the public have to finance other peoples mistakes?

If financing the destruction of unborn babies is progress I want nothing to do with it. I don't want anything to do with a society that finances the destruction of unborn babies.



The free press
They said freedom of the press was progress but the people who own it continually try to brainwash us from the government (bbc) to private newspapers.

Take Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch is the owner of News International which owns much of the media in the UK.

What many people don't know about Rupert Murdoch is that he is in the pocket of Tony Blair. Rupert Murdoch has effectively paid no tax in the UK since 1988. Why is this? Well it is the fault of our corrupt governments. During 1988 until before the 1997 election the tory party was in charge and Rupert Murdoch donated money to the tory party and had his newspapers support the tory party so the tory party had no reason to stop him as he was helping them.

Just before the 1997 election he suddenly switched sides to labour and had his newspapers support labour and when the labour party were elected Tony Blair didn't do anything about the tax issue eventhough he meets Rupert Murdoch every 6 months.

Take Vere Harmsworth. Daily Mail and General Trust plc was owned by Vere Harmsworth, third Viscount Rothermere until his death in 1998 and has since passed to his son. Just before his death he had started sitting on the labour benches in the House of Lords. Why should someone who has a political agenda be allowed to sell newspapers when it is obvious that they are going to put a spin on the news?

That is not all but those are only two examples. 90% of the newspapers in britain have some connection to blair or labour from donating money to the labour party so they can break monopoly laws to fancying a member of the labour party. Just look it up. Find the people who own the newspapers newspapers.

If progress is for our government to allow big business to brainwash us because they bribe the government with money and good press then I want nothing to do with that society. I want nothing to do with a society that allows brainwashing.


Unions
They said allowing labour unions was progress but the leadership of those unions are fascists who only represent the interests of the political opinion that they agree with and they expel those that they don't agree with.

Unions also have far too much power. They routinely donate money to political parties (mainly labour) which means that if the labour party do not do what the unions want they can hold money back which the parties need. This means unions can blackmail the party into doing what the union leadership want and not what is best for the country. Its exactly the same with the rich.

If progress is allowing people with money to dictate what should happen then I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that allows money to have more weight than the views of the people that elected them.


Democracy
They said British democracy was progress but we don't have a real democracy. In the last election labour became the government yet were only elected by 36% of the votes. How is this democracy when the minority get to rule over the majority?

If progress is allowing the minority to rule over the majority then I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that doesn't listen to the views of the majority.


Privatisation
They said privatisation of our energy companies (gas, electricity etc) was progress yet I have seen no progress. Companies are only interested in money. They don't care about peoples lives, all they care about is profits. If they cared about peoples lives would they allow between 20,000-50,000 pensioners to die in winter every year because they couldn't heat their homes?

If progress is allowing the elderly to die because they couldn't afford to heat their homes I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that places profits before peoples lives.

They said privatisation of our banks was progress but where is this progress? All I see is people getting loans and paying up to 40% more back. How is that progress? How is it progress when they can almost stop a party from running by banning them from having an account with them? Barclays did this with the BNP and they have just survived. HSBC also did the same yet they are prepared to hold an account belonging to a London based terror group which has close links to al-Qaeda.

If progress is trying to ban a perfectly legal political party but helping terrorism I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that promotes terrorism and hates democracy.


Aid
They said sending aid to third world countries would lead to progress and it hasn't. Aid in the majority of cases does more harm than good. In the year 2000 World Bank aid destroyed the Mozambique cashew and sugar industries. Mostly, though, aid is simply wasted, producing nothing of value for anyone. The developing world is littered with the wreckage of ill-conceived aid projects, such as the salt mine in Uganda financed by the European Union. The site was so isolated, no one would live there and no salt was ever mined.

Now, even some aid recipients are asking for an end to aid. In February, the New York Times Magazine published a fascinating interview with Yousif Kowa, leader of a poor tribe living in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, possibly the poorest nation on Earth.

Mr. Kowa rejected foreign aid for his people because he said it would destroy their self-reliance. He said he had seen many cases where previously productive farms were destroyed by food aid and did not want to see it happen to his people.
In other cases, the withdrawal of aid has been a blessing.

In May, the Atlantic Monthly reported that Mogadishu, Somalia, has boomed since aid was cut off in 1995, due to the breakdown of civil government. Without governments, both foreign and domestic, mucking things up, local entrepreneurs were able to make things happen without interference. The reporter was forced to conclude that "the lack of large-scale foreign aid might have benefits as well as drawbacks."

Between 1980 and 2002, the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Development Association provided $68.2 billion (in 1995 dollars) in development assistance to the48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa to spur development in the region. This is a huge investment, particularly when the relatively small sizes of the recipient countries’ economies are taken into account. Despite this development investment (often at extremely subsidized interest rates and with generous repayment schedules), sub-Saharan Africa has performed dismally. Of the 45 sub-Saharan African countries for which per capita GDP data are available from 1980 to 2002:

*
Twenty-three experienced negative compound annual growth in real per capita GDP (constant 1995 U.S. dollars);
*
Seven experienced marginal compound annual growth of less than 1 percent in real per capita GDP; and
*
Fifteen experienced compound annual growth of more than 1 percent in real per capita GDP, but only three achieved per capita growth over 4 percent.

In 2001 Britain gave $4.7 billion in foreign aid which should have been spent on our own country. Since 2001 the amount has been increasing. In 2004 it was $7.8 billion. How can our government justify this when it never helps in the long term and in some cases actually harms the country?

If progress is what I talked about above I want nothing to do with it. I want nothing to do with a society that is destroying another society by "helping".


Solutions
Now that I have exposed the lies and shown that we really haven't progressed as much as we think I will attempt to give solutions most of which will be harsh but they are common sense. I will be killing multiculturalism but also embracing it in other ways. You don't think that is possible? oh it is. haha.


Crime
Punishments will get harsher. These punishments will be something that is a benefit from Islam because torture will be involved.

This is what I would change in the law. I would make it so there were 4 levels in crime:

Level 1- Non violent non financial crimes (except not paying fines). These people just go to jail.

Level 2- Violent crimes that don't result in death or it wasn't intended to result in death.

Level 3- Financial crimes

Level 4- Crimes that result in death or were supposed to result in death or sex crimes.


This would be the punishments:


Level 1-Community service or a couple of months in jail with 1 day per week of hard labour. Will never receive torture

Level 2-

First offence-Jailtime with 2 days of hard labour for first offence

Second offence-Jailtime with 3 days of hard labour. Judge can punish with 1 day of torture per week but not reccommended.

Third offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour. Judge must punish with 1 day of torture per week.

Fourth offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour with 2 days torture or death penalty.

Fifth offence-Death penalty

Level 3-
First offence-Jailtime with 3 days of hard labour. Judge can punish with 1 day of torture per week but not reccommended.

Second offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour. Judge must punish with 1 day of torture per week.

Third offence-Jailtime with 3 days hard labour with 2 days torture or death penalty.

Fourth-Death penalty


Level 4-
First offence-3 days of hard labour and 3 days of torture

Second offence-Death penalty


Torture will start 25% of the way through the sentence or 1 year into it. Whichever comes first.


Also the sentence given will just be a minimum amount. When sentence is up the criminal will head to a panel to see if they should be released. If criminal has done anything wrong while in jail they will stay in longer. Every one month after that they will head to the panel again to see if they should be released. If they are still considered a danger or the panel thinks they will do the crime again then they will not be allowed out.
Also if they stole property and the police never recovered it they will stay in jail until they tell the police where it is.


When it is their second offense they will have the option to have their citizenship revoked and be sent to a foreign country as long as they promise not to return as long as they have served 50% of their sentence.


The poorest 50 nations will be asked to take them. For every person they take they will get 300 pounds. They can do what they like with the prisoners as it will be of no concern to us what they do with scum. When they go they can only take clothes. All their financial belonging will belong to the state to compensate the victim and pay the 300 pounds to the third world country.

We should also allow law abiding citizens above the age of 30 (by that time if they were going to commit a crime they would have probably already done it) to carry guns as long as they have a license. If they are threatened by thugs or have their house burgled they should be allowed to shoot to kill.



European union
Get out of the EU. Britain has the fourth largest economy in the world and only trading with the 17 countries in the EU is not going to advance our economy. We should get out of the EU so we can trade with the world and stop them from dictating laws to us. 80% of our laws come from the EU and our government have to pass them even if they could be stupid like stopping barmaids from showing cleavage because they could possibly get skin cancer.

We have never needed the EU and it is time for our corrupt and treacherous politicians to realise that.


Immigration
Immigration has to be stopped. We must have the military patrolling our boarders at all times. Get our soldiers from iraq, germany, afghanistan and other foreign places were they are stationed. If that still isn't enough to adequately protect our boarders we should start the draft again making people from the age of 18 join up for 18 months.

If we catch immigrants and we don't know where they have come from (maybe they ripped up their passport) we will just do what we did with the criminals, send them to one of the poor countries that will take them possibly putting them in an even worse situation.

There should also be a boarder patrol police that goes around business and checks if the workers are illegal immigrants. If they are then the illegal will be deported within 72 hours and the business will be fined upto 10,000 pounds per illegal immigrant. Also for every 1 illegal found in that year the government will get 1% of the profits for a whole year.


Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism will be abolished and this is how:

Religion will technically be nationalised (lol) and this is how:

All religious figures (vicars, imams etc) will be employed by the government and need to get a license every year to preach.

In Turkey the Turkish government make up the sermons for the mosques and the imams have to read them. The imams are not allowed to do their own sermons. This is what we will do. A ministry of religion will be created and sermons for each of the major religions will be made every week.

If the religious figures make their own sermon then they will lose their right to preach and will lose their license and be replaced.

All sermons must be done in english.

Burquas will be banned in all public places.

Places of worship will be classed as public places.

The muslims "call to prayer" will be banned if more than 50% of the population of that town are none muslims.

Religious people who protest freedom of speech will be deported (sikhs rioting at that sikh play).

No more places of worship will be allowed to be built

In muslim countries they have a thing called dhimmitude and we will embrace that over here (embracing multiculturalism here). Dhimmitude is the oppression of none muslims. In saudi arabia it is made so none muslims pay more taxes which help muslim projects. In pakistan it is made so if a church is burned down it cannot be rebuilt. There are many more restrictions here. Therefore we will embrace dhimmitude on them by:

1. Stopping anymore religious buildings being built except for churches.
2. Banning the display of non christian symbols on the outside of their existing houses of worship.
3. Banning the publishing or selling of non-Muslim religious literature.

Embracing dhimmitude will be embracing multiculturalism more than we do now. So whoever likes multiculturalism should like dhimmitude as it is from another culture and it may "enrich" us.



Education

1. During primary and secondary school we should learn about our culture only. Our poets snd authors will be learned about in english. Our history and culture will be learned about in history. Christianity will be learned about in religious education. Our country will be learned about in geography for the majority of time (we don't have volcanoes). Our artists will be learned about in art. Our musicians will be learned about in music. If yoiu want to learn about other cultures and countries you will have a chance in college.

2. Education will not be compulsory from the age of 12. From then on you will have to sign up every year. If the child doesn't sign up their parents will lose child benefit for them.

3. Conspiracy theories will be taught in schools. They will not be taught if it it is the truth or not. This will make them think better.

4. School will be made more fun. See whyhere



Economics
Its time to stop free trade. We should put tariffs on all foreign goods that we are able to make in this country. As for telephone workers being offshored to India and other countries they should also be banned.

It is obvious to anyone even with half a brain that free trade is bad for the country.

If there is a shortage of jobs in the country the government should make jobs. If there is a lot of people skilled in manufacturing the government should start plants up and start selling products in britain and foreign countries making very little profit in britain but a normal profit selling in foreign countries. That way the government can employ people and get profits.

The same can be done for the people with no skills. The government can open supermarkets if ther is a lack of any. This will employ supermarket workers, lorry drivers and factory workers. The prices could be low enough that the poor can buy the products. This way big businesses won't have power over anyone because if they leave the government will just create jobs.


Health
Healthcare should be free but only to the people who attempt to keep themselves healthy. Not one penny of the tax payers money should go to help people who harm themselves. This will show we have zero tolerance for people like this and if they want good health the burden starts with them. This might make people cut down on cigarretes and alcohol and make the populace healthier by making them take care of themself.

Also just like the dentistry people will have to have a medical checkup every 6 months. If they don't take the advice of a doctor then they should start paying for medical treatment themself. It has already been shown in the problem section of this piece that we would save billions of pounds doing this.

We would still help those who smoke, become obese and drink alot. We will pay for gym sessions and anti addiction sessions.


Abortion
Eventhough abortion destroys 180,000 foetuses per year we should not ban it. Instead we should keep it legalised but make the mother pay for her abortion. Not one penny of tax payers money should go to pay for other peoples mistakes. If you want an abortion that is fine but don't expect the tax payer to foot the bill.


The press
It is time for newspapers and news channels to be nationalised. How would we do this? We would ban individual citizens from owning newspapers and news channels.
We would then nationalise the news so the government own it however they will not control it because the populace will elect an editor once per year. If the editor has an agenda the populace can then fire them after 1 year. The same should be done for news channels.

There would be a national editor for the national newspapers and regional editors dealing with regional news.

This will get control of information away from the rich and elite who just want to impose their agenda onto us. Also think of the environment. One type of newspaper=less paper needed=less trees cut down=better environment.

Incase the news doesn't tell us what is really happening the rich and elite can still own newspapers however they can only bring them out once per month and they can only own one newspaper.

People will be saying that a free press is what shows we are a democratic society. Can it get anymore free if the people control the news?



Unions and big business
Its time unions started doing things for the workers and using the money that they get from their workers to actually do something for the union and not donate to political parties. Unions have no business getting involved in politics which is why they should be banned from donating money to political parties. This would stop political parties doing what is beneficial for the unions and not what is beneficial for the people.

To stop political parties doing things for big business and the rich and not for the populace they will only be able to donate a maximum of £25,000 per year to political parties.


Democracy
At the moment we should keep british democracy mostly the same as it is and change it a little. It should be made so that if the winning party gets less than 50% of the vote they can only get in some of their policies freely. The rest have to be put into an election 1 by 1. So seeing as labour only got 36% of the vote in the last election they would only be able to get 36% of their policies through. The rest will have to be voted on by the populace.

Incase of something bad happening to the country the government will still be able to start emergency legislation to deal with the problem without getting the populace to vote on it.

This would allow for more and better democracy.


Privatisation
We should nationalise our water, electricity and gas companies. The resources of the people should not be in the hands of individuals. At the moment these companies make a lot of money from high prices. The government should make a small profit from it so the populace can have cheap energy and so that those 20,000-50,000 pensioners that die each year won't have to die from the cold.

As for banks they should also be nationalised and because multiculturalism is supposed to be beneficial we will have sharia law style bank accounts which will mean that people won't have to pay much interest on their loans.


Aid
I have already proven that aid is not beneficial, a lie that liberals continue to spew. Seeing as it is beneficial for none of us they will get limited aid and they will have to do something in return to get it like be part of our criminal and immigration policies (see above for more info).


Conclusion
I am sure if we did these changes we would have a more progressive society and we would have less taxes as we wouldn't be spending as much. I estimate atleast £10 billion would be saved. Which mean we would roughly each save £166 on our taxes.


I have finished now. Do you feel the same way as me? if so come and join my site if not why not debate at my site? I will have a kind of blog and forums.

Join here

If you don't already have an acornrack account you will have to sign up here first.