Posted by: CS | June 8, 2011

Annoying Bureaucrats No. 23: British Library Security Officials

Former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, had a blog post yesterday relating how he had been denied access by the British Library to some obscure documents concerning a dead, white, Scotch, male imperialist.

Difficulty arose when a “half-educated low paid staff [member] steeped in the insolence of office” refused to accept as proof of identity a crumpled laundry ticket, a hand-written letter allegedly in the Uzbek language, or a press clipping of a ridiculous article about men in skirts.

But then Murray rather spoiled his own case against officialdom by saying “Karl Marx famously wrote Das Kapital in the reading room of the British Library. He would never get in now,” which naturally prompts the thought that it would have been just as well for humanity if that old terrorist had been put on the No-Read List.

Come to think of it, Murray himself is something of a revolutionary, a Scotch Nationalist who wants to break up the United Kingdom, which suggests that anti-terrorism measures at the British Library are working as one would wish.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Alfred it’s Scots, not Scotch which is a drink. As for the polls on Scottish independence according to the Herald – “The latest poll showed 51% of voters under 24 support independence with 36% against. Those aged 25-34 were in favour by 40%, with 36% against, and 38% of the 35-44 age bracket were in favour, with 36% against. Over the age of 65, the figure is 57% against to 28% in favour”. Much will depend on the economic performance of the UK over the next three or so years, which I personally expect to be very poor. My own view is that an independent Scotland would be much more prosperous than it is today, with the added advantage of getting rid of the London Establishment and most of their annoying bureaucrats. Alfred, the Britain (GB) that you and I both emigrated from died a while ago – it stood for freedom, individual liberty, decentralized government, and a dynamic industrial base; none of which is pertinent to the UK today.

  2. What do you know Rod.Scotch is an English word, which is what I use.The Scotch can use whatever word they like. Meriam Webster's Dictionary: Definition of SCOTCH, Adj.1 : scottish2 : inclined to frugalityOrigin of SCOTCHcontraction of ScottishFirst Known Use: 1591Definition of SCOTCH, noun1: ScotsAnd since the Scotch economy is largely funded by English taxpayers, the Scotch will need to be very frugal once they've achieved independence. Back to oatmeal and kippers, I guess.

  3. Alfred,As you know, English is the language that derives from the various anglo-saxon dialects of 1-1/2 millenia ago, and as such has been spoken in Lowland Scotland just as long as it has in England. In fact longer, since English was the official language of the medieval Scottish court when its English equivalent could only speak a provicial form of French. Collins Dictionary (of Scotland) describes the noun scotch as “whisky distilled in Scotland from fermented malted barley”. I think you may have been looking up one of the less accurate English dictionaries on this matter. Incidentally, if you read Sykes’ book (blood of the british ??) you would have noted that the percentage of anglo-saxon blood is actually higher in lowland Scots than it is in the English. There are really only two key world class industries left in the UK. Scots Oil and heavily subsidized London Banking. I think if you factor in the royalties and taxes that accrue from the former you would find that Scotland subsidizes England. Roderick Russell

  4. Look, if Scotch as an adjective was OK with Robbie Burnes, it's OK with me. It was also OK with the William Gladstone. And it's been OK with English speakers for nearly 500 years. Obviously what the best English dictionary in the world (Webster's) says will in many cases be different from some Scotch dictionary. But why should I care?This business of bullying people about what words they can or cannot use, pretending that employment of some word that has been in use for generations is now virtually, or actually, criminal is one of the ways in which democracy is being trashed:What the public says determines policy. Right, we'll make the expression of certain ideas or attitudes illegal. Trouble is, though, the whole stinking edifice of top-down government is beginning to topple as it undermines living standards and destroys the nations of Europe. I have'nt read Sykes' Blood of the British, but I have read his Saxons, Vikings and Celts (2007), which establishes that all of the indigenous British are largely (80% plus) Celtic in ancestry. But that's too much for the Scotch, with their "narrow nationalism" and their ignorance of genetics, to grasp.If the survival of the nation is to depend on Scotch oil, then Free Scotland will likely have a very short life. Whiskey would be a better bet as a long-term basis for export earnings.If London bankers are subsidized, what about the Royal Bank of Scotland – LOL.

  5. I think “Saxons, Vikings and Celts” is simply the north American title for “blood of the British”. I do agree with you about the failings of top down government. Ironically though the United Kingdom (UK) is about the most centralized state in the world; its predecessor country Great Britain (GB) was one of the most decentralized all throughout its highly successful Victorian and Georgian periods – certainly compared to its main rivals Germany, austro hungary, France, Russia, etc.. I think that there is a direct correlation between decentralized (and smaller) government and prosperity. Roderick Russell

  6. Thanks for the clarification about the Sykes book.I think you are probably correct about the "correlation between decentralized (and smaller) government and prosperity". There also is an inverse correlation between size (population) and freedom, as discussed by Conrad Lorenz. I think that is why Canada seems a freer place than most.I believe that the Scottish Nationalists are driving the Scots from one disastrous political structure — the UK — mostly run by Scotch bastards like Blair, and Brown, and Cameron, into the hands of an even more disastrous political structure, the EU, in the direction of which they will have virtually no say at all.The Brits, I believe would be much better off out of the EU, out of Nato and in Canadian-style confederation of two Scottish provinces, two Welsh provinces and eight English provinces, with a standing invitation to the Irish to join the confederation of the British Isles as two additional provinces.Something along these lines is what the British National Party is designed to prevent by embracing the idea and then smearing it by the clownish, thuggish, racist antics of Griffin and his hand-picked associates.Such a confederation would have a chance of survival. The Scots, if they tried to stand entirely alone, would likely have a hard time of it.

  7. I would not disagree with your confederation idea though I think that the Establishment would never allow it since it would weaken their power. However I would not recommend the present Canadian model either; Canada doesn’t seem particularly free to me as you can see from my own experience. It seems to me that Parliamentary democracy on the Westminster model doesn’t work well these days in the era of big government; I think we need to directly elect the executive as well as the legislature.As you suggest, setting up extremist parties or movements is an old secret police trick. We know with certainty that CSIS were instrumental in setting up the Heritage Front in Canada and it could be that as you suggest MI5 are involved with the BNP. Incidentally Grant Bristle may not have been the only CSIS operative involved in some very murky business – Google in Harper/CSIS/Llewellyn and see what you get; Llewellyn’s story was originally provided to me by a UK journalist (who is regarded as an expert on intelligence matters) since it has similarities to my own.

  8. "I think that the Establishment would never allow it since it would weaken their power"That is axiomatic.So no real change will come without revolution, uncontrolled systemic disintegration, or military defeat.The thing is, Britain no longer has a native elite. Those who pass for the British elite, the Blairs and Camerons, are bought stooges of the One World (Plutocratic) Order. To be clear, these are people funded by the likes of Friends of Israel, by the people behind Lord Levy, and they get their payoffs after office in the form of Directorships — $5 million a year from JP Morgan in Blair's case, among numerous other gratuities.The One World Order seeks to destroy the powerful nation states as genetic, cultural, and religious entities. Mass immigration, multi-culturalism, propaganda through a K to 30 school system, political correctness backed by laws that make anti-white racism the basis of the new morality, these are the tools employed in the genocide of the Europeans.When you have entire nations being savaged by a few rather pathetic bankers like David Rockefeller and old war criminals like Henry Kissinger cowering behind a white fence at St. Moritz, a revolutionary transformation does not seem out of the question.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: