Thursday, July 24, 2014

Israel is not alone

AS THE PRE-EMINENT Marxist; it was Karl himself who proclaimed that history repeats itself  "…first as tragedy, then as farce." But the latest manifestation of the past may not include gas chambers, or human skin being made into lampshades; or the wholesale rape before death of thousands of women.
            But what has been going on throughout Europe since the events in Gaza; gives a soupcon of what took place on the continent of Europe in the 1930s. Today anti-Semitism; and I do mean anti-Semitism; and not that cowardly and illegitimate sibling, christened anti-Zionism – that wretched mask for closeted anti-Semites all over the world.
             Our digital media outlets have filled our HD flat-screen televisions, i-pads, i-pods, and all the social media gadgetry, with images coming out of Gaza; whose harvesting represents what I call porno-journalism where, a sympathetic, and on the whole pro-Palestinian bias operates, and which is willing to bare witnesses to whatever Hamas wishes them to see.
              But something else has gone unseen (in our UK media at least). It has been the resurrection of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism, that has lain dormant and waiting to emerge. It has now done so in European cities, such as Berlin, Essen, Paris, and Italy. In Berlin[1], police had to step in to protect a Jewish couple who had been spotted by demonstrators who "charged toward them",[2] shouting "Jew! We’ll get you!"
             In Paris synagogues were attacked. The windows of shops and cafes were attacked and several set alight; which included a kosher grocery store that burnt to the ground. In the German city of Essen synagogues was attacked and 14people arrested. And according to Justin Huggler: "There have been reports of protestors in Germany chanting 'Jews to the gas chambers', and police in Berlin have banned protestors from using another popular slogan: 'Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone' ."
             In other words, under our very eyes; but we are not allowed to see the events on our television screens; a mini Kristallnacht was under-way and most of us in this country were just as unenlightened about these events as our ancestors were well before the digital age when the death camps were operating between 1940-45 in Europe.
            No doubt the vast majority of these protesters did not belong to the indigenous populations of these countries – especially in Germany, who had learnt its lesson long ago: I therefore suspect that the vast majority of those responsible were Muslims who were allowed to take up citizenship throughout Europe, with a few white indigenous liberalista standing by their side emoting for the Palestinians.
            I do not think for one moment that the indigenous German population took any kind of part in these acts of anti-Semitism, and the same goes for the indigenous French. There are now over 15 million Muslims in residency within Europe, and Europe is paying a heavy price in terms of their national and cultural identity.
            Paying a heavy price because we have made these Muslims citizens welcome to our continental soil; and what they do, they now do in the name of Germany, France, Italy, Holland and the UK. Europe has learnt from its past; but many of its Muslims are resurrecting the ancient shibboleths surrounding the Jewish people such as the blood libel, an antiquated, yet still believed in piece of black magic within the Muslim world, where Jews sacrifice children not of their faith.
            Despite all of this anti-Semitism, Israel must this time finish the job it set out to do, and destroy the tunnels and missiles aimed at it. It must not be drawn into a ceasefire whose conditions give Hamas any kind of  victory. There should be no preconditions set upon a ceasefire. It is after such a ceasefire that negotiations should be proceeded with, and not before.
             Prime Minister Netanyahu  admires Churchill and has his portrait sitting in his office; just as once the White House did in the president's office. Obama, however, had it removed [3]and returned to the British Embassy in Washington, after he was first elected.
             This is Netanyahu's Churchillian moment. The moment when he stands to bare comparison with the great man. In Churchill's time there was no talk of proportionality toward an enemy hell bent upon the destruction of your nation – then, as it should be now, if you have an advantage over an enemy that seeks your total annihilation, then use it to its fullest to defeat the imposter that seeks your racial and national extinction; which Hamas undoubtedly does the Jews.
            I dearly hope that Israel persists in squeezing Hamas until they cry out for a ceasefire. Israel has acted with restraint wherever possible when it comes to civilian casualties; as they have said time and time again. Hamas on the other hand lob missile after missile amounting  in number to over four digits into Israel and not caring where they land, but hoping they kill as many Jews, men women and children, as they can.
            If it had not been for Iron Dome, Hamas would have achieved their objective. But because Israel took measures (unlike Hamas) to protect their people; they are now being criticised because of the success in limiting their civilian deaths.

THE LATEST eruption of European anti-Semitism; and believe me it is only the latest addition to a 2,000 year-old catalogue of such persecution throughout Europe and the Middle East; and will not be the last. Israel will have to fight its corner over and over again. But this will only have to happen in this case, if they have to agree terms for a ceasefire insisted upon, primarily by America, that award Hamas a victory. A victory whose template will be used again and again in the coming years.
             Israel is without friends in the Obama administration, and also, so it seems, in those country's within Europe who also stopped flights to Ben Gurion airport. This decision had nothing to do with flight MH17. There was no security risk in landing or taking off from Ben Gurion; for why else would the US Secretary of State, John Kerry land at the same airport today?
             The closing of the airport was nothing more than the act of an anti-Israeli president and his butler (John Kerry) seeking to isolate Israel; in the hope of making it come to a ceasefire on Hamas's terms. Thus giving this archetypical terrorist group – acknowledged as such by the UN, America, and Europe, what it seeks; an advantage over Israel before it agrees a ceasefire from. Hamas now says that there will only be a ceasefire when Israel agrees to end the blockade of Gaza.
             This is where I believe Netanyahu should show Churchillian resolve and tell the wretched Kerry that Israel will not surrender to Obama's threats. For that is what they are. He should tell Kerry that he intends, this time, to see Hamas brought down, and if, because of the Obama administration, obstacles are put in Israel's way to make this impossible. Then. If Israel drowns, the vortex it will create will drag the West down with it -  as it should.

[1] Daily Telegraph journalist Justin Huggler in Berlin
[2] The quotes are from Mr Huggler
[3] This was to do with Obama's loathing of the British

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Proportionality; a weak-minded liberal construct

'DISPRPORTIONATE' is the Left's way of seeking to justify Hamas's terrorist aggression toward Israeli civilians. Nick Clegg has been first off the mark to accuse Israel of a disproportionate response to the 1500 missiles arbitrarily fired into Israel without any consideration for Israeli civilian deaths over the past ten days.
            War is, and can never be proportionate. If you are attacked you reply with whatever force is available to you. It can be argued that the allied bombing of German cities was disproportionate, in terms of those killed, to the bombs dropped on English cities by the Germans – and it was thankfully this disproportionality that helped keep our democracy safe.
            Churchill believed that if a nation is attacked then war becomes total, and you do whatever you can to defeat your aggressor and bring the war to a close as quickly as possible. Disproportionality is a liberal construct. What they mean in the case of Israel is that the Israelis should shut down Iron Dome to make the contest more equal – a kind of equality, not under law, but under war.
             If those 1500 indiscriminately targeted Hamas missiles had been allowed through to do their worse, and kill on a parity with the bombs being dropped on Gaza; then, no doubt, Nick Clegg and the thousands of pro-Palestinians existing within the liberal compass, would have been satisfied…or would they?
             Hamas, unlike Israel, have no aircraft to bomb Israel with. They also have no tanks, or underground shelters to protect their civilians. So the logic of the Clegg disproportionality argument is that Israel should abandon all these military devices that give them a disproportionate military advantage over Hamas – or, on the other hand, Israel should supply Hamas with their own Iron Dome system to make things more equitable. Would that help Mr Clegg?
             I have noticed that whenever Hamas starts such an aggression (and they always start it) the liberals remain silent; silent that is until Israel responds. Then the disproportionality argument is deployed, and the BBC's porno-journalists cannot get their cameras into Gaza fast enough to show blood curdling images of Palestinian women and children on stretchers and wrapped in bandages with a BBC film crew by their bedside: which Hamas are all too willing to use for their own propaganda purposes.
            The BBC are pro-Palestinian, and there has been no attempt at impartiality. The corporation itself commissioned a report into accusations of such bias known as the Balen Report which was commissioned in 2006 and named after Malcolm Balen, the BBC's senior editorial advisor which to this day has never been released; while the BBC has spent some £300,000 of British taxpayer's money on legal fees to keep it out of the public arena.

HAMAS USES its citizens as shields, hoping that Israel will make a mistake to far in its targeting, and kills enough civilian Palestinians to cause such an outrage in the Western media, that Washington, the EU, and the UN, will pressure Netanyahu into another retreat until the next time, because there will be a next time: by which time the Hamas missiles will be more sophisticated; sophisticated enough to reach even further, and become more accurate; and even out-sophisticate what Israel can produce in response.
            This conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not about the equal division of territory; but the annihilation of the Jewish state and its people. Hamas openly acknowledges this. They do not believe in any kind of 'two state solution', only in ridding the land that is now Israel of the Jews.
            Stop and think for one moment. If Militant Islamic groups like ISIS are fully prepared to slaughter fellow Muslims in Iraq. What then do you think would happen to the Jews of Israel if they were ever to become overwhelmed by their many enemies throughout the Arab world - not only among Hamas?
            Nick Clegg is intellectually corrupt; but he is not alone among his kind. They are all besotted with Palestinian 'victimhood', and their hatred of Israel borders on anti-Semitism, disguised as anti-Zionism.

THE UN, America, Europe, and the UK; all regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Objectively speaking it cannot be denied. One dictionary definitions is; "The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence)against civilians in order to attain ggoals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this isdone through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear."  This definition fits perfectly into the UN's and the West's definition; thus does Hamas qualify.
            But I would like to add to that definition by including the following. The calculated use of a civilian population as human shields; the calculated use of civilian homes to store missiles in; the calculated use of civilian homes from which hundreds of tunnels are begun in order to enter Israel and terrorise civilians; the calculated use of hospitals as hiding places for terrorist leaders; and finally, the calculated use of a willing and supportive Western media for propaganda purposes – Yet, the likes of Nick Clegg still witter on about disproportionality.
            According to the Israeli press; since Israel's incursion began 13 tunnels and 3,000 rockets have been discovered; which has led Benjamin Netanyahu to warn that the incursion may become broader in its ambition to destroy  the tunnels. Meanwhile the JTA[1] has reported the condemnation by the United Nations Relief and Work Agency of Hamas, following the discovery of 20 rockets in one of its schools on the Gaza Strip.

            Proportionality is for those delicate blooms who live safe lives in their Islington quarters who can comment from afar without the fear of a missile tapping on their front door. These bourgeoisie liberals are Hamas's useful idiots who hold influence in the media and are biased in favour of a terrorist organisation.
            Israelis will hopefully defy their Western critics and continue to try and rid their land of the threat from missiles and tunnel incursions into Israel like the one attempted last week; which, if had proved successful, would lead the deaths of countless Jewish civilians of every gender and age.  
            Hamas must be defeated and those so-called Western friends of Israel had better brace their spines and openly give unconditional support for Israel as presumably they would any democratic country defying a terrorist organisation -  Its over to you Obama.




[1] The global Jewish news source

Thursday, July 17, 2014

'Assisted dying' sounds rather chummy

ASSISTED DYING is a very dangerous folly that, if it comes about, will change our attitude to human life, especially the elderly, and create a monstrous and frightening state where those who are vulnerable, will come to distrust their doctors and family members, who's motives  will leave them feeling they have 'a sword of Damocles' (to quote Archbishop Welby) hanging over them; and exposing them to a kind Kafkaesque helplessness. It will surely become a nightmarish and paranoid world in which to face your final days, weeks, months, or years, of your existence. The mental strain of such a situation will only add to what will already be, because of their terminal illness, a terror of dying, and naturally wishing to cling to life for as long as they can, regardless of the pain they suffer.
            Lord Falconer's Bill to be debated in the Lords this week, will, in itself not bring the above about. Indeed Lord Falconer's Bill could be supported by myself, if what I heard over the weekend is true; that it seeks to limit assisted dying to those who are expected to live only six months; and then the patient should (presumably if he or she is able) be given the means by which they can commit suicide.
            My complaint is not about someone taking their own life; but someone from the medical profession doing it on their behalf. Well then, why not a relative? This is where my opening paragraph warns of such a consequence of involving any family member in the death of an elderly relative.
            Why I oppose Lord Falconer's Bill, is that it represents only a beginning and not an end to what the law will allow when it comes to assisted dying. The phrase 'thin end of the wedge' is apposite. It is to me an odds on certainty that there will be a another such Bill before much longer, demanding that the practice of assisted dying creates newer and far more wider boundaries. Boundaries which Lord Falconer would oppose today; but, because through him this tadpole of a bill will have made euthanasia acceptable, and find ready support for enlarging the boundaries ever further, I find it a dangerous road to travel down.

WE HAVE, after all, travelled down such a road before. We have had people warning of similar consequences, only to be ignored. In 1967 a Private Members Bill was introduced to parliament by David Steel. Known as the Abortion Act 1967, it was meant (like Lord Falconer's) to address an injustice. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; and politicians intensions are indeed good. With the 1967 Act was meant to do was  to stop illegal abortions taking place which were a curse to women who wished to end their pregnancies in fear of society's moral retribution. Such abortions were often dangerous and in practice rested on nothing more than an abortionist's superstition.
             Society's moral retribution is however no longer a factor. Steel's Bill, like Falconer's today; set out boundaries. Section 1 of Steel's abortion act announced that; "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith " It was well intended but, the phrase "formed in good faith" fell into abeyance over the following decades. We were told at the time that no women would, without genuine reason willingly give her child up to abortion.
             But where are we today? What does "if two medical practitioners" mean. Today it means nothing more than rubber stamping. For how else are we to explain the 250,000 abortions that taken place every year for the last ten years.
             Were these abortions taken reluctantly and guiltily because of our society's Victorian moral code, and the fear being ostracised? Never; abortion has been reduced to nothing more than another form of contraception by the 1967 Act. Foetuses are regarded as nothing more than tissue, like the skin on our bodies.

 EUTHANASIA, TO USE THE CORRECT TERM; which Falconer does not use in the title of his Bill, will over time, travel the same road as David Steels 1967 Abortion Act. The good intentions will create moral dilemmas that neither Steele or Falconer ever foresaw: because neither has a real understanding of human nature.
             Who knows, in the coming decades someone will introduce a Bill lowering the age of consent from sixteen to fourteen: then from fourteen to twelve. Ages which today we rightly see as falling within the compass of paedophilia, will be regarded as normal and written into law.

              The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.           

Sunday, July 6, 2014

It is time for Westminster to be targeted

THERE IS A DARK cloud lingering once moreover over Westminster. It concerns an establishment cover-up by the civil service of a paedophile ring involving the so-called 'great and good'.
            I have just read the sentence of five years given to Rolf Harris, the latest in a line of celebrities, since the Savile scandal, to be found guilty of various sexual assaults against boys, girls, and women.
            The justice system has worked and the guilty have paid the price. Behaviour dating as far back as the 1960s has been investigated by the police  and evidence past to the CPS and prosecutions have been brought. Many a celebrity has preceded Rolf Harris in the box and been convicted in the hunt for all kinds of historical abuse against children and women; from the pressing of a breast to rape (including homosexual) over some 54 years.
             Now the focus is changing from celebrities to politicians; and in their case historical abuses seem to have been covered up by the UK establishment itself. In 1983 the Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens presented the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan with a large dossier  detailing a paedophile ring operating in Westminster, whose practices could have brought down the government at the time: but it now appears Leon Brittan's civil service have shredded the documents. Brittan had at first denied knowledge of the documents, but has now decided to come clean - at least as far as their existence is concerned.
            The documents were by all accounts toxic…for why else would the civil service seek to protect their political masters by shredding them?   According to the press, there were ten high profile names mentioned in the dossier; and now the former Children's Minister, Tim  Loughton, is prepared to use parliamentary privilege to name names. But only as a nuclear option, hoping that Cameron will get to the bottom of this. The dossier may be shredded, but knowledge of its contents (especially the names) has, through word and mouth over the decades since Geoffrey Dickens managed to a point finger, is still known.
             MP Simon Danczuk, who co-authored a book on the perversions of the Liberal MP Cyril Smith, says nothing short of a public enquiry will satisfy the public; and he is right. It was the Home office that 'lost' the dossier, and now it is this same institution that has been given the job the prime minister investigating the dossier's disappearance.
            The civil service are the servants of the politicians; and servants serve their masters. The British civil service, is often boasted of by their political masters, as the finest and most incorruptible in the world. Yet it is no such thing. That our civil servants do not take bribes, of this there is little doubt…especially at senior level.
            But when it comes to protecting their political masters, who, like them, represent the establishment; then they will do what is needed to see that it is protected when it comes to scandal. So no, the Home Office, or any other department of state cannot be trusted to investigate the disappearance of the Dickens' dossier. Only a full scale public enquiry will satisfy the British people.
            Yet both Cameron and Clegg have opposed a public enquiry. As if our political class are not already in bad odour with the public; they now seek to test their patience once more after both the MP's expenses and cash for questions scandal.
            On Sky's Press Preview last night. One of the reviewers told of a conversation he had with a high ranking police officer friend of his in the Met. He was told that had as much police resources been put into the MP's expenses investigation as had been put into phone hacking (some 200 officers), then some 50 or 60 MP's would had to serve prison sentences, instead of the three that did.
             As for Operation Yewtree, as the Jimmy Savile investigation was called, 30 officers were involved in the investigation; and as for Operation Fairbank the name given to the investigation into child abuse at a guest house where rent boys entertained establishment figures including Cyril Smith; just seven officers carried out the investigation and complained that it was under resourced - and who was responsible for such resources? Why, the political establishment.
             It is said that Rolf Harris tried to keep his name out of the frame early on by using his lawyers to keep the mouths of the press tightly shut. But the Sun would have none of it and gallantly stepped forward and called his lawyers bluff and named their client. Now it is up to the same free press to do the same by publishing the names in the Dickens' dossier. The names are known, and if the latest Home Office inquiry adds little to what has already been said…then the names must be forthcoming.
              Brittan handed the Dickens' dossier over to a civil servant. Is that civil servant still alive? To whom did he give it to enquire into; is he or she still alive? And where did it go from there? It was in early 1980's after all, when Geoffrey Dickens presented his dossier to Leon Brittan. So some 30 years have passed, and the names of all the civil servants involved in the episode must be known, and some must be still alive.

THIS SCANDAL must unravel if only for the simple reason that the law is seen only to apply to certain people. All of those celebrities so far prosecuted have been from working class backgrounds.
            There seems to be a certain amount of cherry picking going on; or it will seem to be if the establishment figures named in the dossier are allowed to go unnamed; and especially if they are still alive, and should be named as Rolf Harris[1] was. Even if, after the 'disappearance' of the Dickens' dossier, its contents remain known by those working in the media or among the Westminster elite; then what they know should be brought out into the open; and if the only way names can be produced is under parliamentary privilege then so be it.
            It is easy for politicians to express their outrage and disgust at the likes of Rolf Harris, but such sentiment will be regarded as meaningless, if similar charges are made against their own kind and not properly investigated.
             Establishment cover-ups happen; and they usually happen when the establishment is shown in bad odour. Civil servants near to government are meant to serve the people; but often interpret this as serving the very establishment they belong to culturally and socially. They need very little instruction from politicians to shred a document, dossier, or files. Having finer intellects than most MPs, they know better than their political masters what is in the public interest, and the Dickens's dossier and the hundred or so files that have gone 'missing', are exactly the kind information that the public should never see…and the will not see.


[1] I know that Harris was named only after his arrest. But if the establishment can play dirty, why not the press when it comes to the establishment; sexual abuse is after all abuse, from whatever quarter of society it seems to flourish.

Friday, July 4, 2014

A portent for our European future

NOW HERE IS A PROPHECY. One which I will not be around to feel vindicated or ridiculed by. The world in 2050 (or there about), will no longer have a Jewish state; and a Europe of nation states will have also vanished.
            What it will have is far greater conflict than we see even today. The continent of Europe will face internal unrest and a perilous external threat from Islamism. America, sick of propping-up European defences and being despised by Europe in the face of such protection; will be self-sufficient in oil and gas; and will have little sympathy for the problems of the Middle East especially after Israel's 'disappearance' from all atlases.
             Europe will be a continent in turmoil unable to defend itself from any external military force. NATO without America will not exist, because it will pose no threat to Europe's enemies without such a contribution. As with the 5th century Roman retreat from Europe; the American's paraphrasing Rome, declare that ' the cantons must look to themselves.'
             Throughout Europe pockets of armed resistance to federalism will compete with European Muslims, to overthrow the centre of European power in Brussels. The former to re-establish a continent of self-governing nation states; while the latter will seek to establish a European caliphate. You think this barmy? Then read on.
              The best and brightest will eventfully smell the coffee; and because they have the skills America and the East need, will try to migrate. Their future, as well as America's ,will no longer be concerned with their Atlantic boarders; but its focus will have turned to the Pacific regions. Europe will be as unstable as it was at any time in the 19th and early to mid-twentieth century's.
               In the Middle East; the exodus of the Jews from Israel (or those Jews that remain after the Palestinian 'retribution') will not bring peace to the region. Palestinian will fight Palestinian, Hamas will fight Fata for ultimate power. But it will become a side issue in the Muslim world where Europe will, (not for the first time in its history) become the prize for Muslims. But this time Islam will probably have 20 million migrant European Muslims or more to aid in the conquest, who will, like a lion who selects a by now feeble prey - attack.
             Europe will be the weak prey of Muslim ambition. The demographics will have changed sufficiently enough in the Muslim's favour to give them the confidence to rise up against an effete and degenerate Europe.
             The West generally are in decline. Democracy, the corner stone of Western thinking, would have already been abandoned within a Federal Europe.  It was one of its earlier emperors, Peter Mandelson, who once describe the coming of European Federalism as the post democratic age.  
              As with Britain during the Viking incursions ; danegeld will be offered by the United States of Europe to the invaders. Now weak militarily, it is all Federal Europe can do as province after province falls in the East and are challenged in Iberian peninsula. The Billions of euro's that have been spent on the thousands of Russian and American mercenaries to help disguise the continent's military weakness are proving insufficient.
             Young Northern Europeans remain complacent. All that seems to matter to them is a good time, legalised drugs and retro 1950's rock and roll. They fight their wars using 3D game consoles. The northern provinces will remain relatively safe for the time being. Wealth is still in abundance, and trade with the world still healthy. The Markets have divided the  Federal Union into two parts, north and south.
              In the north the provinces of one time nations such as Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, and the UK; as well as the Nordic regions, are all still prospering. However what armies they have, have been sent to what was once southern France to try and defend against the Iberian incursion, while others are sent to protect Germany's eastern border. Each day private wealth is being deposited from the northern provinces into London banks in the hope that the  Federal Channel will keep them safe.
            There is talk in the Federal parliament in Brussels of setting the southern and eastern federation's 'free' - in other words forget about them: concentrating on putting all the federation's resources into protecting the still economically healthy North: which has yet to feel the impact of those seeking a European Caliphate.
             Like America, Russia faces little threat from Islam. She has used her gas and oil recourses wisely, and developed and modernised her military power - even at the expense of the nation's social programmes. On top of which the Muslim world knows that Russia is a different kettle of fish from the European Federation.
              They know from Russia's history that in terms of ruthlessness they can match them measure for measure. Besides, unlike Europe, Russia is a nation state, whose people are motivated into defending it at all cost; and in the Second World War, as we know, the cost was very great indeed. The Russian conscience when it comes to defending the motherland, does not exist, only doing what is necessary to repel an invader matters.
              America still under stands this principal and the Islamic world possess no threat to it. Great Britain under Churchill understood the same principle when allied bombers rained their bombs down on German cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Under the command of Bomber Harris; who in 2030 was declared a war criminal by the European Parliament and his statue in the Strand taken down.
             On that very day the West finally lost its will to fight and to engage in military conflict to such degree to save the Federal Union - it would have been different if we had still been a nation. But we threw that option away and indoctrinated generations into European liberal idealism; which was sadly bought into.

             We deserve our fate.

Monday, June 30, 2014

From small acorns grow mighty oaks

HOW MANY TIMES have we heard the excuse, "they only represent a small minority of the UK Muslim population," when politicians and the media seek to excuse some or other support for some Islamist act of terror, by various imams or young Muslim firebrands?
            I well remember watching Channel Four News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 massacre. A report (and considering Channel Four News' liberal bias, I was surprised it was aired) showing Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and watching John Snow trying to appease such behaviour along the lines of  "a small minority" of angry young Palestinians. They too presumably represented a Muslim minority of Palestinian opinion in the West Bank.
           This minority argument has to be challenged. First of all, a minority they may be. But the majority of UK Muslims they live among represents a forest in which to hide. Think of the Muslim youths who have taken themselves off to Syria and Iraq to bring about a Caliphate. Estimated at between four to five hundred, these emissaries of hate have become hardened fighters, trained in the harsh realities of war, that the average indigenous white civilian in this country cannot comprehend let alone stand up to.
            Sooner or later they will return to this country; but not before hundreds of others join them in the struggle to create a caliphate encompassing Iraq and Syria, built upon the brutal psychopathic protocols of the ISIS operatives as they advanced through northern Iraq. When or if they come home they will meet with little or no resistance at our boarders, for their passports have branded them British citizens, and our security services admit that the problem is beyond their ability to cope, especially as there are hundreds of thousands of so-called "illegals" living among us that the boarder agency has not been able to screen.
            So they will, upon their return, hide in the dense regional forests of Muslim communities that flourish north of Reading and in parts of London. To warn of the dangers of this kind of demographic will be seen by the liberalista as Powelite in its insinuations toward the wider Muslim community - and will be regarded as racist.
            We have allowed a population of over two million Muslims to live among us, and if we add this to those living in Europe then there are 15 million Muslims living on our continent - the forest to hide in grows ever larger for the "minority Islamists" to hide in.

BUT WHAT happens when the demographic continuum reaches a stage when Muslim communities hold, numerically, decisive political power in various parts of our cities and towns? What happens when they have what a constituent of Enoch Powell described as the "upper hand" in such areas? In a democracy, with numbers comes power when it is time to vote; and politicians will make more and more compromises with our indigenous culture to the advantage of Islam in order to cling on to power.
            There are two ways that sharia law can be incorporated into English law. First of all by Muslim voters demanding it in constituency areas they control. In such areas candidates of the three main parties will be, by then,  Muslim; and they will have to promise that Islamic law will be accommodated in English law, as the Last Archbishop Of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was prepared to see happen - thus it begins.
            The larger the ( European)Muslim population's become, then the more powerful they will feel, then the more radical they will become; and as the forests grow and expand ever deeper, a European caliphate will no longer remain the pipe- dream of a few thousand young radical Islamists. As its reality becomes realisable to the whole Muslim community, then the talk of  'unrepresentative minorities' spewing forth from the mouths of liberals, will be seen by those they once called racist, as the great 'I Told You So' moment of all time. But it will have come too late.
            Will Powell's infamous 'Tiber foaming with blood' analogy turn out to be prophetic after all? The Tiber has, after all, long since been crossed in our case - crossed not by Caesar's legions, but the legions of mass migration, speaking a hundred different tongues, and representing a hundred different cultures. All of which are cantoned into different areas of the country living separate lives in the name of cultural diversity - the poisoned chalice of multiculturalism.
             Someone once said that 'we live in interesting times.' It is doubly true today. The world has never seemed more unstable and volatile than it is today; not since the years leading up to the Second World War has the world been experiencing such a flux. Islam is on the march, uncertainty reigns in the Ukraine; and the European continent is hell bent on becoming a super-state to compete with the Anglo sphere. In all these three areas instability, war, and social unrest threatens.
              Thankfully, I will probably not live long enough to see this turmoil unfold. It is a poisonous brew concocted out of idealism and its co-associate naivety; as well as the vanity of politicians like Tony Blair. But there are also those who added their own ingredients to the stew; I refer to the continental liberalista who opened European doors, including our own to swaths of people from Pakistan, India, Somalia, Nigeria, Algeria, Mozambique, Angola, Iran; and from Europe, Poland, Romania, Portugal; as well as 26 other European nations who have open access to our borders - the continent of Europe has become incendiary.
              The manifold problems the West has brought upon itself; from the rise of Islam, and mass migration, to the structure of a future federal Europe; will make conditions especially in the UK, but also in the rest of Europe, unpalatable for each of their indigenous peoples - it is not the end of history, but the end of the European West.


Sunday, June 29, 2014

Our pussy-whipped politicians

A NEW BOOK by Newsweek editor Edward Klein[1] tells of how the Clintons and Obama's  loath each other, and how Michelle Obama seems to rule the roost in the White House; and suggesting that the president defers more to his wife than he does his advisor's: and while 'enjoying' a round of golf with the president, Bill Clinton sought the president's support for his wife's presidential candidacy before he leaves office - but he was acknowledge only by  the suggestion from Obama, that his own wife would also make a great president.
             As we know from the Clinton presidency, Hillary's influence then was no less interfering than is Michelle Obama's today. Unelected presidential wives have not part to play in the running of government; it is a contempt of the democratic process that such a say should be allowed by the wives of presidents: and it is only weak presidents that succumb.
             It is not only American presidents. Previous and present UK prime minister's wives, and a deputy prime minister's wife, are also pussy-whipping their husbands. Cherie Blair's influence on her husband was always guessed at; but the guesses seemed accurate. Cherie is a strong willed feminist who chose the legal profession over politics, no doubt believing she could wield more influence on politics by instructing her husband as prime minister, than she could ever have done sitting on the back benches as an MP, while enjoying the wealth of a successful barrister[2].
            Amanda Cameron who visited various refugee camps that the Syrian conflict had created. She told her husband David of the suffering she bore witness to; and told him that something had to be done about the Syrian president Assad. David decided to enter the Syrian conflict on behalf of Assad's opponents; hoping to replicate his earlier Libyan adventure.
            But the House of Commons vote turned against him.  After what had happened in Iraq, parliament refused to oblige the prime minister and his wife Samantha. It was Samantha who sought to pussy-whip David, which she was successful in doing.

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S pussy-whipper, one Miriam Gonz├ílez Dur├íntez , now known as Miriam Clegg, and overseeing another pussy-whipped and politically correct political husband. She is, like Cherie Blair, yet another lawyer probably far more intelligent than her husband; and like Cherie Blair, another Roman Catholic whose influence on Nick Clegg, will be equal to that of Blair and Cameron.
            I could never imagine the wives of the following prime ministers having such an influence on the way the country was governed. Churchill, Atlee,  Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher[3].  It was under Tony Blair that wives began to interfere in the governance of the country, and it has continued since. Prime Minister's wives should keep their noses out parliamentary business; and their husbands should tell them so: and the same would apply to husbands of a female prime minister.
            All that such interference by wives of political leaders show, is the weakness of their husbands among the public, and not only among the men.
            Edward Klein tells a convincing story when it comes to Michelle Obama's influence on her husband. She is the stronger of the two, but is unelected and has no role to play other than attending photo-ops with her husband. Barak Obama has shown from his behaviour over Syria with his talk of lines drawn in the sand, as well as over Iraq; that he is, as Hillary, according to Klien, insists,  Obama "…can't be bothered and there is no hand on the fucking tiller half the time,"  later following this was up by "You can't trust the mother fucker."
            Admittedly Hillary had imbibed to excess in the grape at the time. But it is often the case that what we really think rises to the surface during inebriation. Klien's view rings true to me; and following this, the Clinton's opinions also ring true. Obama was the white liberal's great black hope. The first black American president - hallelujah!
            But just as Michelle Obama is (to put it mildly) overseeing her husband's control of the levers of power; then so did Hillary when Slick Willie governed the nation. In all cases, including on the Republican side when Nancy Reagan sought to protect her husband from a hostile liberal press and media.

IT IS ONLY on the Left where wives of prime ministers and presidents see themselves as part of the electoral process by becoming relevant, not through democracy, but through marriage. This must stop. It is damaging and can lead to the wrong decisions being taken by their pussy- whipped husbands.
            If wives of presidents and prime ministers fancy themselves controlling the levers of power; then let them do what Hillary Clinton is a about too do - run for office. Let the people give them their right to exercise power…not marriage. Until the wives of leaders are given a democratic mandate; the husbands should tell them to stay clear.

[1] Blood Feud
[2] My brother believes that Cherie Blair was the persuasive force behind her husband allowing the premature invasion of Poles into the UK, because like herself, they would be of the Catholic faith; and no doubt, like Charles the First; Tony's wife hectored him into reinvigorating the grip of Papal dominance that once ruled these isles.
[3] Dennis preferred golf to politicking; and even if had taste for it; he would have been quickly put in his place. For dear old Dennis was also pussy-whipped.