Tuesday, 30 September 2008
With all this as well as other, more political flaws, one has to conclude that enforced repatriation is an impossible dream, and total political suicide. If we are to be serious about stopping and then turning back the tidal wave of non white immigrants, we must come up with a more tangible solution. Firstly a total and complete end to all immigration and asylum, this will have to be reinforced with massive security measures to prevent any illegal entry. All those who entered illegally should then be deported, if they would be in danger in their own country then we will have to find other nations that are prepared to take them. Immigrants who have broken the law here should have their British passports confiscated and be deported to their own countries where hopefully they will be dealt with by that nations authorities. A total ban on all and any ritual slaughter of animals or the import of meat from inhumanly slaughtered animals would mean there would be no access to Halal or Kosher meat, this would see hundreds of thousand of religious Muslims and Jews leaving of their own accord. Social benefits could be reformed along with the availability of social housing so that the poorer white members of our society receive top priority when it comes to benefit money and housing. Buildings used for the purpose of worshipping foreign religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc could be regulated to ensure that there is only one of each in every County and or large city. The only religion taught in schools should be Christianity, with the option of Druidism and other ancient European religions. Compulsory national service for all school leavers between the ages of 16 and 21 would see the return of many more of our "guests" to wherever it is they really belong.
Britain is wasting billions of pounds on foreign aid and fighting foreign wars that are none of our business. We can stop foreign aid and bring our boys and girls back home, thus freeing up the money needed to fund deportations, and having huge numbers of military personnel to guard all our ports, harbours, the channel tunnel, and even to watch our beaches.
These are just a few ideas, some but not all my own, that would if implicated return Great Britain to the country we want it to be. A White European Britain for White European Britons .
Monday, 29 September 2008
From where I'm standing the money grubbing bankers are going to be bailed out with money borrowed from the world banks, and paid back with interest by the American taxpayer. So Jewish American financiers are given money borrowed from Jewish world bankers, and the American general public will pay that money back, plus the interest.
WHO ON EARTH MAKES THIS STUFF UP?
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the next Bilderberg Group conference!!
Here is what the guys at Alternet have to say:
The Fiscally Insane Bailout Bill Might Not Pass -- Here's 5 Reasons It Shouldn't
By David Sirota, Blog For Our Future. Posted Sept 29th 2008
There was news Sunday afternoon of a congressional deal to bailout Wall Street fat cats with $700 billion of taxpayer cash . Though the deal negotiated between congressional leaders and the White House is better than what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson originally proposed early last week, it remains an insulting atrocity, having omitted even basic aid to homeowners, bankruptcy reforms and any modicum of future financial industry regulation. Now, the New York Times reports that the Democratic leadership may not have the votes to pass this bailout. So without further ado, here are the top 5 reasons (in no order) why every single member of Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- should vote this sucker down. Please feel free to copy and paste this post into an email to your congressperson. They are deciding right now -- let them hear your voice.
1.This Bailout's Inherent Fiscal Insanity Could Make Problem Worse
When an individual consumer uses a new credit card to pay off astounding debt from an old credit card, it's akin to check kiting, which is is illegal. Apparently, though, when the government does it, it's billed as Serious Public Policy. Because that's what this supposedly prudent bailout bill would do: Force taxpayers to borrow $700 billion from foreign banks to pay off the bad debt of Wall Street banks. During a crisis that is aimed at preventing interest rates from skyrocketing, nobody has been able to explain how adding almost a trillion dollars to the interest rate-exacerbating national debt would do anything other than undermine the plan's underlying objective. Worse, the U.S. Treasury Department itself admits that the $700 billion number is "not based on any particular data point" -- that is, they created it out of thin air because "We just wanted to choose a really large number." Slapping that amount of money onto the national credit card when our government can't even justify the amount is beyond absurd -- it is insane.
It didn't have to be this way, of course. As I noted in my newspaper column this week, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a temporary tax on millionaires to finance part of this bailout. Similarly, Blue Dog Democrats proposed a future tax on financial firms if and when taxpayers lose cash on the deal. These proposals were discarded in favor of language asking the government to "submit a plan to Congress on how to recoup any losses," according to the Associated Press. Not only is that language toothless, but it opens up the possibility of a plan being submitted that says we should raise middle-class taxes or slash middle-class social programs to pay for Wall Street's misbehavior.
2. Experts on both the left and right say this bailout could make things worse
Primum non nocere is the latin phrase for "first do no harm" -- the priority principle for any EMT working on a sick patient. It should be the same priority for Congress at this moment -- and a growing group of esteemed experts on both the Right and Left are insisting that this bailout bill could make things worse. Here's a review:
- The Washington Post reported on Friday, almost 200 academic economists "have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear."
- NYU's Nouriel Roubini, the visionary who had been predicting this meltdown, says "The Treasury plan (even in its current version agreed with Congress) is very poorly conceived and does not contain many of the key elements of a sound and efficient and fair rescue plan."
- Harvard's Ken Rogoff, a Former Federal Rerserve and IMF official, insists that the prospect of this bailout is, unto itself, taking a manageable problem and making it into a more intense crisis. He says that credit is frozen primarily because banks want to avoid dealing with other banks that might drive a hard bargain, and instead would rather wait for free money from the government. Without the prospect of that free money, Rogoff suggests that credit would probably begin moving again, if slowly.
- Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research says that spending so much cash so quickly on such a poorly conceived plan could have the effect of making it impossible to fund economic stimulus that is the real way out of this mess. "Suppose the Paulson plan goes through," he writes. "It is virtually certain that the economy will weaken further and the number of foreclosures and people without jobs will continue to rise. This is the fallout from a collapsing housing bubble…When families respond to their loss of home equity by cutting back their consumption it will deepen the recession. In this context it might prove very important to have the resources needed to provide a substantial stimulus. [and] there is no doubt that this bailout will make further stimulus much more difficult to sell politically."
Meanwhile, it's not even close to clear that this is a problem that requires such an enormous response. As mentioned above, the Treasury Department admits it has absolutely no factual basis for requesting $700 billion -- an amount equivalent to about 5 percent of our entire economy. Additionally, the Washington Post reports that "Banks throughout the United States carried on with the business of making loans yesterday even as federal officials warned again that their industry is on the verge of collapse, suggesting that the overheated language on Capitol Hill may not reflect the reality on many Main Streets." Indeed, "many smaller banks said they were actually benefiting from the problems on Wall Street" and "even some of the nation's largest banks, which have pushed hard for a federal bailout, deny that the current situation is forcing them to reduce lending."
The questions, then, are simple: In the face of this bipartisan opposition from objective experts, why should a lawmaker instead believe the same Bush officials who helped create this crisis with their deregulation, the same Bush officials who just months ago said everything was AOK? Shouldn't there be almost complete unanimity among both objective and partisan observers before spending 5 percent of our entire economy after just one harried week of White House demands? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It's time, as The Who said, that we "don't get fooled again."
3. There are clearly better and safer alternatives
The mantra throughout the week has been that America has "no choice" but to pass Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion giveaway -- that, in effect, there are no alternatives. But that's an out-and-out lie -- one with a motive: Making it seem as if the only thing we can do is hand the keys to the federal treasury over to both parties' corporate campaign contributors.
The truth is, there are a number of alternatives. Here are just a few:
- In the Washington Post last week, Galbraith outlined a multi-pronged plan shoring up and expanding the FDIC, creating a Home Owners Loan Corporation, resurrecting Nixon's federal revenue sharing, and taxing stock transactions (a tax that would fall mostly on speculators) to finance the whole deal.
- The Service Employees International Union has drafted a plan based around a massive investment in public services and national health care, and regulatory reforms preventing foreclosures and forcing banks to renegotiate the predatory terms of their bad mortgages.
- For those in the mindless, zombie-ish "someone has to do something, so we have to do what the White House says!" camp, consider the possibility that you are under the spell of the same kind of White House fear that led us to invade Iraq because of Saddam's supposed WMD. Consider, perhaps, that there may not even be a compelling basis for doing anything just yet (or at least not anything nearly so huge), and that the whole reason there is this urgent push right now has nothing to do with the financial situation, and everything to do with creating the political dynamic to pass a wasteful giveaway -- one that couldn't be passed otherwise without a sense of emergency. And ask yourself why you would listen to this White House instead of listening to those experts who have been predicting this crisis and are now advising against this bailout -- experts like CEPR's Baker. In two separate posts (here and here), he says that letting the problem play out could be the best path, because Treasury and the Fed may already have the tools they need. Following this path, the worst thing that happens is "The Fed and Treasury will have to step in and take over the banks [which] is exactly what many economists argue should happen anyhow," Baker writes. "So the outcome of the worst case scenario is a really frightening day in which the whole world financial system is shaken to its core, followed by a government takeover of the banks. Eventually the government straightens out the books and sells them off again. But the real threat here is not to the economy, it is to the banks."
- Then there is the idea of simply taking the $700 billion and simply give it to struggling homeowners to help them pay off part of their mortgages. This hasn't even been discussed but the thought experiment it involves is important to understanding why there is, indeed, an alternative to the Paulson plan. If the root of this problem is people not being able to pay off their mortgages, and those defaults then devaluing banks' mortgage-backed assets, then simply helping people pay their mortgages would preserve the value of the mortgage-backed assets and recharge the market with liquidity. That would be a bottom-up solution helping the mass public, rather than a top-down move helping only financial industry executives.
On this latter proposal, some may argue that giving any relief to homeowners is "unfair" in that those homeowners created their problems, so why should taxpayers have to help them? But then, is helping homeowners any less fair than simply giving all the money away to Wall Street, no strings attached? I'd say no -- and helping homeowners also serves a second purpose: namely, keeping people in their homes, which not only helps them, but helps an entire neighborhood (as any homeowner knows, nearby properties can be devalued when foreclosures hit).
4. Any Incumbent Voting for This Puts Themselves At Risk of Being Thrown Out of Office
As a preface, let me state that I think we live in a country where politicians too often listen to their donors and to the Establishment rather than their constituents, not the other way around. America is a country where our leaders dishonestly invoke the concepts of "Statesmanship" and "Seriousness" and their supposed hatred of "pandering" to justify ignoring what the public wants (as if giving the public what it wants is somehow not the objective of a democratic republic). So, in short, I don't think there's anything wrong with this bill being "politicized" by coming down the pike right before an election -- in fact, I think it's a good thing because the election -- and the fear of being thrown out of office forces our politicians to at least consider what the public wants. I mean, really -- would we rather have this decision made after the election, when the public can be completely ignored?
Polls overwhelmingly show a public that sees voting for this bill as an act of economic treason whereby the bipartisan Washington elite robs taxpayer cash to give their campaign contributors a trillion-dollar gift. As just two of many examples, Bloomberg News' poll shows "decisive" opposition to the bailout proposal, and Rasmussen reports that their surveys show "the more voters learn about the proposed $700 billion federal bailout plan for the U.S. economy, the more they don't like it." Put another way, this bailout proposal has unified both the Right and Left sides of the populist uprising that I described in my new book and that is now even more angry than ever.
Any sitting officeholder that votes for this -- whether a Democrat or a Republican -- should expect to get crushed under a wave of populist-themed attacks from their opponents. We've already seen it start. In Oregon, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley (D) is airing scathing television ads hammering Republican incumbent Gordon Smith for potentially supporting the deal. Similarly, this morning on Meet the Press, we saw Republican Senate challenger Bob Schaffer (CO) dishonestly papering over his own votes for deregulation and ripping into his opponent Rep. Mark Udall (D) for potentially supporting the deal. Incumbents, get ready for that kind of election-changing heat in your face if you vote "yes."
This, by the way, could play out in the presidential contest. Barack Obama has been taking the advice of the Wall Street insiders in his campaign in endorsing this bailout. McCain has endorsed the vague outline, but he may ultimately back off once he sees the details, allowing him to then run the last month of the campaign as the economic populist in the race. I'm not saying it would work, considering McCain's 26-year record of supporting the deregulatory agenda that created this crisis. But such a move could end up help him flank Obama on the defining economic issues of the race.
5. Corruption and Sleaze Are Swirling Around These Bailouts -- and America Knows It
The amount of brazen corruption and conflicts of interest swirling around this deal is odious, even by Washington's standards -- and polls suggest the public inherently understands that. Consider these choice nuggets:
- Warren Buffett is simultaneously advising Obama to support the deal, while he himself is investing in the company that stands to make the most off the deal.
- McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists from the companies that stand to make a killing off a no-strings government bailout.
- The New York Times reports that the person advising Paulson and Bernanke on the AIG bailout was the CEO of Goldman Sachs -- a company with a $20 billion stake in AIG.
- The Obama campaign's top spokesman pushing this deal is none other than Roger Altman, who Bloomberg News reports is simultaneously "advising a group of investors who are trying to prevent their shares from being diluted in the U.S. takeover of American International Group Inc." -- that is, who have a direct financial interest in the current iteration of the bailout.
Add to this the fact that the negotiations over this bill have been largely conducted in secret, and you have one of the most sleazy heists in American history.
If this bill passes, it will be a profound referendum on the dominance of money over democracy in America. That -- and that alone -- would be the only thing an objective observer could take away from the whole thing.
Money will have compelled politicians to not only vote for substantively dangerous policy, but vote for that policy even at their own clear electoral peril. Such a vote will confirm that the only people these politicians believe they are responsible for representing are are the fat-cat recipients of the $700 billion -- the same fat cats who underwrite their political campaigns, the same fat-cats who engineered this crisis, and want to keep profiteering off it. Any lawmaker who takes that position is selling out the country, as is any issue-based political non-profit group -- liberal or conservative -- that uses its resources to defend a "yes" vote rather than demand a "no" vote. This is a bill that forces taxpayers to absorb all of the pain, and Wall Street executives to reap all of the gain. It doesn't even force the corporate executives (much less the government leaders) culpable in this free fall to step down -- it lets them stay fat and happy in their corner office suites in Manhattan.
Even if they believe that something must be done right now, lawmakers should still vote no on this specific bill, and force one of the very prudent alternatives to the forefront. They shouldn't just vote no on Paulson's proposal -- they should vote hell no. Our economy's future depends on it.
Sunday, 21 September 2008
Thursday, 18 September 2008
Time is running out!
Are you not convinced? Do you really think there is time for indecision?
I suggest you think again! The whole of what is often referred to as Western Civilisation is crumbling, not just from our point of view either. The train spotter types among political commentators have always been able to dismiss our warnings as mere “scaremongering”, now they are getting ready to re-enact 1979. Those of us who remember or know what happened back then will also know what I mean by this. You see there is not a great deal of difference between the circumstances of that time and those we find ourselves in now. If anything the situation is worse for the establishment now than it was then, but they will use the same tactics to deal with it as they did, and expect the Great British public to swallow it just as they did before.
Back in 1979, with a general election looming, and a grossly unpopular government and Prime Minister, (Labour’s James Callaghan), the nation was in total disarray. We were up to our eyeballs in debt, there was mass unemployment, airlines were going out of business leaving holiday makers stranded, prices were going up and wages were going down, there was huge shortages in fuel, which by then had led to power cuts, and the backlash caused at that time was a devastating series of strikes, by trades unions in every industry, remember they had huge powers back then.
In the run up to the 1979 General Election, John Tyndall’s National Front, indisputably Britain’s biggest Nationalist organisation by far at the time, were looking likely to make huge gains. The electorate were aware of the problems caused by immigration, and with everyone being so poor and everything so scarce, they were ready to look for an alternative government, a government that would deal with immigration. The NF worked hard and a large number of candidates were ready and in place in time for the people to make that change as they went to the country. Then came the leader of the opposition, one Mrs Thatcher, an ex education minister who had not long since attended her first Bilderberg Group conference, before climbing to the very top of the Conservative Party and becoming it’s leader. Suddenly she was promising the British people that she would deal with the problem of immigration, this would be her first priority, closely followed by a series of hard hitting political reforms that would eventually see the unions lose their grip on the nation, and economical reforms that would see a complete end to Britain’s crippling trade deficits.
One could be forgiven for over indulging ones self in what happened next. Given the promises made by a seemingly safe and familiar political organisation, the country elected Thatcher and her Conservatives with a huge majority, and the NF lost all it’s deposits. Of course it would soon transpire that Thatcher was lying when she said she would deal with immigration. She did however intend to break the trade unions grip on the UK, and in doing so opened the immigration flood gates still wider, as foreign labour was brought in to make sure work was done during strikes. The country was conned, and even though the economy boomed during the mid 1980’s, the ever growing immigrant population would eventually see the bubble burst.
There is no point in going over the effect that Blair and Brown have had on the UK during 11 years of high public spending and the inevitable borrowing that accompanied it. It is plain to see that yet another Labour government has taken us to the brink of what will certainly be the worst recession in almost all of our lifetimes. I sincerely doubt that Brown and his government will stay in power for their full term, which would see them remain in office for the best part of another two years. They are on their last legs, and Brown is appearing increasingly punch drunk. And so with another general election probably less than a year away, we can expect David Cameron, another Bilderburg member, to start making all the right noises about how he will deal with the problem of immigration. It will of course be up to wise old heads to ensure that those of us who don’t remember 1979 are duly warned.
Unfortunately there is more to this than already mentioned. Great Britain has still only one Nationalist organisation ready and able to challenge the phoney politicians of the so called “mainstream”. Unfortunately personal disputes, disagreements with regards to policy modernisation, and the infiltrators of the left, have divided British Nationalism to the point where so called “purists” or “hardliners” will be putting up alternative candidates of their own, thus confusing the electorate and splitting the Nationalist vote.
I make no bones about writing, or indeed saying this. The British National Party (BNP) are the only viable choice. It is either the BNP or another twenty years of phoney government, which I believe would see nearly all British towns and cities follow Leicester’s lead and become majority non white.
If and when we become a minority, we will also be outvoted. There will then be no way back for Britain, as the children and grandchildren of those immigrants begin to elect themselves and each other.
My message to all Nationalists is to join or rejoin the BNP, if they’ll have you. Don’t take it personally if they won’t, take a leaf out of my book. And support them anyway, its our only option.
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Crisis Britain ~ The Gathering Storm Clouds
Racial Comrades, I believe that the time has come for all British Nationalists, whether purist or moderniser, to get ready to embrace our vindication. The days of the capitalist politician are numbered, the British government are literally clinging to power like a rat to the driftwood from an already sunken ship. This is the time when our people will know that we were right all these years, that we warned them and their failure to listen has cost them dearly.
Do not underestimate the mess this once great nation now finds itself in, or the effect that a major recession will have on a people who have been lied to for decades. And as the headlines have changed from “Violent Britain” to “another Black Monday”, as holidaymakers are trapped overseas because airlines are going bankrupt, as fuel prices become so high that we cannot afford to run our vehicles, as more dead soldiers are brought back from Iraq and Afghanistan, as more parents bury their children who have been
murdered by other children, as we worry about our savings and pensions while banks and insurance companies go bust, as the supply of food becomes shorter and grocery prices continue to rise, as the power cuts start because there is not enough fuel to generate electricity. We are less than twelve months away from civil unrest, Pandora’s box is about to be opened, and revolution is almost certain.
I believe that the none indigenous ethnic groups will provide the spark that will ignite the flame. The fingers will be pointing at them, there presence has overcrowded our island, and after decades of state protection they will suddenly feel the insecurity and the fear of the coming backlash. I believe there will be riots, it will be an unpleasant and unstable yet historical moment, the moment of truth. The riots will surely escalate into what will become hundreds of localised small scale civil wars. People will be hurt, huge sacrifices will be made, but whatever the outcome our nation will never be the same again.
There will never be a better time for Nationalism in the UK than this next twelve to eighteen months. Our message to the people must me loud and clear, a positive message with the offer of reasonable alternatives to the garbage we have been fed by the politicians who put us in this predicament. Not a message of hatred towards people who are only here, because they were allowed here by greedy politicians and money men with their eye on cheap labour, but a message of love for our country and for our people, a message of hope.
We must put aside our differences become united and as one we must lead our people towards their freedom, towards salvation. This will be our first real opportunity but it will be Britain’s last chance. Failure will not be an option, and we will not fail, nationalism is the only solution and that solution will be provided.
Can you see as I do, the light at the end of the tunnel? Then keep marching forward Comrades, we are almost there!
Monday, 15 September 2008
Young People Out Of Control
It is a sad fact that even in this age of modern wonders, this age where young people have more to do and better facilities than previous generations could have even dreamt of, that many of the youth of great Britain are mindless violent thugs. Teenagers are increasingly involved in crimes that even most of us who did our growing up during the deprivation of the Thatcher error would never have contemplated. As a teenager in the early 1980’s I clearly remember there being a lot of violent crime in my home town of Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, yes there were plenty of people being stabbed, glassed, even murdered. I don’t however recall hearing about many, if any, of the attacks being carried out by youngsters. So with over twenty-five young people being murdered by other young people this year in London alone, one has to wonder why, and how it can be stopped.
It has been suggested on more than one occasion that it could have something to do with the friction caused by the introduction of so many different races and cultures into what was already a crowded island, and there can by no denying that this is one of the main reasons. But is there anything else involved? What about the lack of discipline in our schools, and just as importantly the lack of respect young people often have for their parents, let alone other adults? It has long been my belief that things began to get worse around 1982, when corporal punishment was abolished in schools. I was just about to leave when this legislation was announced, and remember laughing at my head of year when I was given my first taste of what they called “solitary confinement”. This consisted of my being locked in a small room with a chair, a desk, and a book, and being told to write an essay. Two hours later I was allowed out to use the toilets and of course I went straight home. Of course I was then punished for truancy, with a two week suspension! I left school shortly after that, and now have five children of my own, two of which have already finished school. If our schools were about to become a complete joke in 1982, then I can tell you that they most certainly are a complete joke now, only nobody appears to be laughing.
Ok, so teachers can’t whack the children anymore, and head masters cannot cane them, and I’m sure most children are more than happy about that. But what good is this doing for them in the long run? Remember the saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”? To install discipline into children is difficult, but not as difficult as it is to a spoilt and unruly young adult. So instead of learning their lessons at school when properly punished for being naughty, they are growing up into young adult delinquents and ending up in jail, on drugs, or dead. Of course this doesn’t apply to all children, but the percentages are increasing, especially among those from working class, or more specifically single parent families. Personally I have nothing but respect and admiration for single mothers, and sometimes fathers, who struggle for years to bring up their children alone, such commitment and devotion. But when you take one parent out of a child’s family and there is no discipline at school, then it is obvious that he or she will become much more vulnerable to outside influences. It is a fact that children learn from adults and by copying them, if mum or dad is at home every day with no money and up to his or her eyeballs in laundry and dirty dishes, the child is much more likely to envy and admire the apparently luxurious lifestyle of the local drug dealer, for example. Criminals are using young children to transport their contraband these days, be it drugs, weapons, or even money, so it is obvious what those young people will be wanting to do when they grow up, if they grow up.
This is a very bleak picture, I know, but I’m only scratching the surface. The boundaries are being pushed further with every generation, and the moral fibre of modern society has almost disappeared. Lessons are not being learnt, and hardly anything is being passed down through the generations to help the adolescent’s mental growth. It is time we all took a step back, and think this through, what can we do to put this right? How can we reverse decades of moral decline, and at least try to ensure that future generations get a proper and disciplined start in life?
Well I’ll have to start with the separation of all the different cultures and traditions, as a nationalist it is well documented that I believe in the repatriation of none whites from our island. But it has to go much further than that, even if all the children are indigenous white Europeans we will still be left with huge numbers of delinquents. Parents will have to be taught how to instil routine, good behaviour, manners, and respect into their children. A reintroduction of corporal punishment in schools will also help, but I’m afraid that the teachers and headmasters of today would most certainly require a great deal of retraining, having said that they do get plenty of time off to do it in. The icing on the cake would most certainly be a reintroduction of National Service for any school leaver who doesn’t go into higher education or full time employment, with a secondary level of recruitment for those who drop out before they reach the age of 21. I am aware that the ranks of our professional armed services could not be realistically swelled with every unemployed youngster, as many simply wouldn’t be fit for purpose. And so junior officers and NCO’s would have to take control of turning these boys into men, (so to speak), as part of their own training. Get them up in the morning, make them keep their things and themselves clean and tidy, make them exercise, and if they are not fit to join the ranks of the regular services, then they can look after old people’s gardens, paint railings, decorate public buildings, sweep the roads etc.
We owe it to ourselves as the next generation of old aged pensioners, and to the youngsters themselves to reinstall this discipline and sense of self esteem and pride. With the right amount of thought and consideration, backed up by real positive actions, we can save the future generations from themselves, for both our sakes and theirs.