Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Cameron deludes himself and the public

THERE ARE TWO ACTIONS that David Cameron will never take: the first is leaving the EU, and the second is pressing the nuclear button. Both actions are inconceivable, and the European Commission, Angela Merkle, President Hollande, and Vladimir Putin also know this to be true – dam it, Cameron himself knows it to be true. On Sunday's Andrew Marr programme Cameron said as much on the question of him being prepared to leave the EU: asked the question by Marr whether he was prepared to leave the EU, Marr received this circuitous answer, '[in the negotiations] I leave nothing out.' Not Yes or NO, but the more vacuous and cowardly obfuscation – no wonder politicians are held in such contempt, and the public are turning to Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn rather than put up with this state of affairs.   
                Cameron is a Europhile; fully committed to the EU, who was forced into renegotiating our relationship with Europe because of the rise of Ukip – his heart is not really in it. He is the last person to be renegotiating reform of the EU on behave of the Eurosceptic people of England (I will not say the UK). This man has a record for dissembling. He told us he would never sign the Lisbon Treaty [1] if (that is) we were not signed up to it when and if he came to power. This was a nod and a wink to Gordon Brown, who took him at his word, and signed the Treaty in Lisbon on 13 December 2007: three years before Cameron was elected to office as prime minister. Cameron knew that he could promise his Eurosceptics never to sign it knowing that the Labour Party under Gordon Brown (if for no other reason than his personal hatred of the Tories) would sign-up to the Treaty before the Tories ever came to power.
               Without the pressure from Ukip, Cameron would have freely signed the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron was leading his somewhat Eurosceptic party by their nose[2]; and those who became wise to his dissembling went over to Ukip who, at the time, Cameron had nothing but a haughty contempt for; and presented a distasteful caricature of them to the media. But as Ukip made advances in local and European elections, Cameron had to take Nigel Farage and his party seriously: he had to eventually promise a referendum on EU membership, but only after pressing for reform of the EU on the commissioners which he thought, in the tradition of European solidarity, would try to accommodate him in his suggestions for keeping England if not the whole of the UK within the EU.
                We have to wait and see what Cameron achieves, but any concordant that leaves in place the Schengen agreement on the free movements of peoples; or the gradual strangulation of our national sovereignty, by continuing to elevate EU law above the sovereign laws of our nation state, and its ability to debate and create them in our own parliament with little or no reference to the European Court of Human Rights or Justice; or any other infernal body of the EU - will not do. 

NOW WE COME TO Trident and Cameron's readiness to press the button and Jeremy Corbyn's unwillingness under any circumstance to do so. I loathe Corbyn deeply; not as an individual (although his naivety upsets me and makes me angry; but never to the point of wishing to be the receptacle for any kind of physical violence to him), but I loathe him for the damage his loathsome nostrums will do to the country if he were ever to become prime minister.
                Where I do however have certain sympathy for him is in his admission that he would never, under any circumstances, press the nuclear button. This is the genuine honesty of the type Corbyn proselytises. He says what no other of this country's current leaders have ever been prepared to do – to be honest with people regarding pressing the nuclear button. During the Cold War political leaders were fully but unhappily prepared to respond to any nuclear assault by the Soviet Union on the West.
                Today when nuclear deterrence is still, unfortunately, needed; no one in this country believes Cameron when he says he is fully prepared to press the button in extenuating circumstances. He is no more prepared to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, than he has been to bomb civilians in his fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, or ISIS if civilians were being used as human shields. In fact he and the West condemned Israel for ignoring the human shields deployed by Hamas in Gaza when they were forced by Hamas rockets showering Israel, to intervene in Gaza.
                Corbyn is at least honest enough to admit he could never press the nuclear button. Cameron lacks such honesty. He is fully prepared to press the button if needs must; or so he says. But like everything else he says, it is for the moment; the only function of his rhetoric is to delude the British people and score another point or two over Corbyn.
                 A Republican president would be prepared to use it; Putin would be prepared to use it; Kim Jong-un would be prepared to use it; Netanyahu would be prepared to use it: and Iran when they get a button to press will be prepared to do so – or at least in all of these cases the public throughout the world genuinely believe them when they say they would press it. But Cameron and Hollande representing the only two European nuclear powers would not be prepared to press the button.
                Our leaders lack the ruthlessness of their enemies to fight a conventional war; let alone a nuclear one. In fact, as a supporter of possessing a nuclear capability; it is only worth the billions of tax payer's pounds to pay for it, and keep it functioning, if this country's leaders are prepared to use it – which they are not; in which case why pour billions of tax payers money into such a deterrent if it is only a symbolic deterrent. This is why Putin is outmanoeuvring the West; he knows we are weak; he knows we lack the ruthlessness to stop him, and we will eventually pay the price for our feebleness and lack of any kind of response other than the limp rhetoric and fatuous warnings which go ignored.
               David Cameron is becoming unconvincing by the day to his public, when it comes to the EU and our nuclear deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn is like the child who shouts out 'the king has no clothes'; and indeed it is the case when it comes to the EU and our nuclear deterrent.


[1] The treaty which incorporated the free movement of peoples
[2] Trust me, as a former member of the Bullingdon Club, to do what is right.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Gun ownership – a sanctuary from tyranny, and criminality

WE HAVE ANOTHER MASS KILLING in America, this time in Roseburg, Oregon; and carried out once more by a deranged individual; another loner whose neighbours paint an unnerving portrait of his behaviour. The gunman was 26-year-old Chris Mercer-Harper who targeted the Umpqua Community College and took nine lives. This individual was allowed to amass a small arsenal of weapons because he had no criminal record - just a record of disturbed mental behaviour which this small community either ignored or knew little about. Chris Mercer-Harper needed treatment; treatment which it appears he never received; or his parents, rightly believing he could never have committed such an appalling act; never sought or may have tried to seek help, but with little response from the local medical authorities.
                 Much easier therefore (as with the many similar incidents in America) to simply to focus upon gun ownership and how to control it, rather than the disturbed minds of the various individuals who have spilled so much blood on college campuses to satisfy their deranged impulses.
                 Gun ownership is once more under the liberal spotlight; and not only in America. It is also in the spotlight of UK liberals who loath the very name of The National Rifle Association (NRA). UK liberals who always turn their noses up to those aspects of American culture that they find almost primitive in the wholly snobbish way they make such judgements that treat the NRA as a kind of red neck right-wing body who prefer country music to Sebelius.
                 I believe that every American citizen without a criminal record, or a record of mental illness, encompassing by-polarism or any other disturbing mental behaviour correlated by the psychiatric profession to be potentially dangerous; should not be allowed to own a gun, or even a pair of nail clippers.  Chris Mercer-Harper as well as those in the medical profession within Roseburg should be placed under the spotlight- not the NRA.

THE NRA is the liberal's bogeymen. They have power in the land – great power in fact; and American liberalism resents this. It is part of the American Constitution that every American citizen has the right to bear arms. This was written into the American Constitution because it was the citizens right to arm themselves against tyranny: the kind of tyranny that may arise if an American president refuses to accept the judgement of the American people via the ballot box and seeks to ignore the constitution and continues to govern with the aid of a sympathetic military.
                 Not even Obama is demanding the outright ban on all arms, but certain calibres of weapons. But the NRA rightly insists that any restrictions on the velocity of the guns, will lead in the future to further restrictions leading to an overall ban. The NRA are right in such an assumption. The right to gun ownership exists for the time when either the law breaks down, or a future government abandons the democratic principles upon which they were elected; and seeks to govern without the input of the people in perpetuity – in other words a dictatorship.
                In the UK, at one time, it was as easy to own a gun as it is today in the USA, providing (as in the USA) you did not have a criminal record – and also it is to be remembered, that the police were never armed; but for a truncheon, a whistle, and a night-stick.  There is a recorded incident in the 19th century where a constable in pursuance of an armed robber stopped a civilian and asked for his gun, which was immediately handed over, and the chase continued.
                I believe in the right to bear arms as once did the government of the UK. But as far as the UK was concerned this liberal tolerance to civilian gun ownership expired after the First World War when Europe was in the thrall of revolution; the British government demanded the return of rifles.

IF THE REPRESENTATIVES of the law cannot provide any kind of protection for their citizens; then such citizens should be allowed, as they are in America, to arm themselves: to protect their families from those who enter their homes; who they do not know whether they have a violent intent or not. Under such circumstances it is the protection not of property but the family that live within the property that is the main concern of the family– and they should be allowed to be armed.
                 In Switzerland almost every one of its citizens owns an automatic weapon of the type used by the Swiss army: this is because every citizen dose national service and is allowed to keep his or her weapon when he or she has served their time.
                 As I referred to above, in the UK it was once very easy to buy a weapon and most citizens kept a revolver handy in the 19th and early part of the 20th century. I am reminded of, and referred to in a previous blog, of an incident I once read about. It took place in London in the 19th century under Victoria. An armed robber running from the scene of his crime was being pursued by a constable; the constable was of course unarmed. He stopped a citizen and asked him if he had gun readily available, the citizen nodded in the affirmative, and he handed it over – and so the chase continued. It was not known if the robber was caught or met the kind o fate he was prepared to inflict on his victim; but the story when I read it was meant to demonstrate the commonality of gun ownership in England a short time ago in our history.
                 Gun ownership has legitimacy when the forces of law and order cannot protect its citizens, and refuse to attend some crimes as unimportant because of their frequency such as shoplifting and burglary. It is the primary duty of government which is in effect the state, to protect its citizens from internal criminal threats and any external foreign threat. When both these duties are now being undermined by austerity; then the people, in order to feel safe in their own homes should be allowed, to legally own a gun.  If not the only people who will own guns will be the criminals, who do not seem to have too much trouble in getting and owning them.
                 In the end the family armed is the final redoubt (when all else fails) against all forms of tyranny and criminality that threaten their lives when the state singularly fails in its duty to protect the law abiding from the anarchy of the criminal or despot – America has got it about right.

Friday, October 2, 2015

German Masochism

ANGELA MERKLE is coming under ever more pressure after her decision to take in 800,000 migrants from Syria, who will now be able to participate in Germany's generous welfare provision. The weekly newspaper Die Zeit said 'Dr Merkel's decision to open Germany to the refugees may have been the "most spectacular and most far-reaching" of her chancellorship'. Germany is beginning to understand what such an invasion in such a short time can mean to the social fabric of Germany. The De Zeit article added, 'It could also be the decision with which the party chief has alienated her CDU (Christian Democratic Union) like never before. Has Merkel, at the apex of her power, engineered her own demise and even her fall from power?"
             The German President Joachim Gauck said the government will have to 'promote the construction of apartments and build schools, hire teachers and kindergarten staff, adjust the labour market and vocational training, teach the German language and law - and do all of that at the same time'. This is the reality of such an invitation by Merkle: Herr Merkle need not feel alone in the pursuance of her idealistic impulses because the whole of the European Union made the same misjudgement when they signed up to Schengen, part of which involved open borders. Open borders between the EU nations that the signatories of Schengen signed up to is the very reason that Europe cannot possibly contain within its boundaries a further; what may turn out to be millions of migrants from the world's trouble spots – it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

MY FEAR, as a UK citizen, is that once Germany absorbs the 800,000 migrants, which Merkle sees as only the first tranche of her impeccable humanitarianism which will eventually award them German citizenship – upon which they will then be entitled to enter every other EU country as citizens of Europe. This is the mess the Europhiles have orchestrated under Schengen. So in the future, not only will the citizens of Europe be socially and compulsory made to bleed within each other; but also those other cultures that have little to do with the West, such as those Angela Merkle has invited into Germany and ultimately Europe; will have the same rights of citizenship, as any other European.
                If, as a citizen of the UK, our politicians had not signed the Schengen Treaty; this piece I am writing would never have had to be written. But it has been needed to be written; if only because the original migrants under the free movement of peoples have now been added to by the overflow from European foreign policy misjudgements. In particular (but not exclusively) Syria; whose numbers are daily encroaching upon European soil in order to reach their particular nirvana – Angela Merkle's Germany.
                Europe would have been better able to absorb such quantities of migrants from Syria if Europe's open border policy had not been in existence. This is not to say that we would have accepted some millions from Syria, even then; but we would have had the unquestioned ability had it not been for the free movement of people within Europe to do so. Our European leaders could have had one thing or another - they could not have had both.

GERMANY HAS HAD much to put up with. When the country was divided between East and West after the ending of the Second World War; the West German people gladly poured billions of Deutsch marks into uniting the country; they have also poured further into saving the euro and Greece, the EU's greatest defaulter in euro crises.
                 Now, thanks to the German chancellor, ever more billions are being spent to create an additional infrastructure for those 800,000 Syrians, with more to follow will; as Herr Gauck has said, Germany will require more schools, teachers of every kind and discipline, as well as new apartments.
                 The German's are the continents most industrious of peoples, who have, since the Second World War, paid time after time for their Nazi past – this national self-flagellation is no longer required of them. They should no longer feel so guilty, that their chancellor invites legion upon legion of migrants into their country because of something that happened 70 years ago.


Wednesday, September 30, 2015

The public broadcasting Bourbons

THE BBC CARRIES an institutional liberal bias; an accusation they no longer take exception to when confronted by it: rather, the corporation's management from top to bottom behave like modern day bourbons; arrogant, haughty and overconfident in the belief that they rule by Divine Right. The fortress they call home is the nearest you will come to a liberal Lubyanka; where political correctness has drawn many of the teeth from free speech; and where social engineering effects the corporation's employment and programming.   
               There is a deliberately designed quota system in play regarding programming. For instance, if you scrutinise the BBC 24-hour news service day after day (which 90 percent of the few people who view it never do), you will come to the conclusion that minority placements, whether by colour, gender or disability; or a combination of all in a single individual, will be given priority and woven into the multicultural tapestry of the BBC. But I errantly conclude that even within those politically correct chosen from among the BBC's news readers, correspondents, and foreign correspondents, political and economic correspondents, there is a hierarchy – at the apex of which sits all shades of colour bar white; beneath this will sit women; and bringing up the rear, the disabled.
                The trouble with a quota system is that there is an ideological purpose to it based upon allocation and proportion, and not upon talent. The BBC whenever it sends an individual journalist on what used to be called in the 1950s an outside broadcast; it seems to me a deliberate policy by the BBC to include in such broadcasts whether it is at a school, in a shopping centre, or even a BNP coffee morning; there should be a quota of ethnic minorities put in front to the camera at every opportunity to show how politically correct the BBC now is.
                 Every broadcast, whether news or drama; all have to have their share of ethnic minorities, including the infirm – such a categorisation of people reminds one of the Nazi categorisation of separating Jews, gays, and gypsies. It is only this process of social engineered separation of identifiable minorities practised by the Nazis that I compare to BBC methodology. The BBC is not Fascist, but their liberal social engineering and liberal agenda has many of the impulses of the restrictions placed upon Europe by the Nazis.
                  I am not saying it should not be the case that the media needs to reflect the needs of multi-ethnicity, feminism, and the disabled. But this should not be as part of an ideology called multiculturalism, which the BBC has bound itself up with: it is only through a process of natural selection based only upon ability and not quotas that should be the template. Quotas breed resentment among those who do not fit into the favoured minority categories - which means the white indigenous population.

IF THE BBC was operating in the private sector none of the above would matter because people would have a choice of whether or not to buy through subscription into the BBC's agenda. But unfortunately such a choice does not exist.  Because of the licence tax which everybody under 75 but over 16 has to pay for just owning a television set on penalty of either a £1000 fine or imprisonment – I suppose this is to be regarded as liberal hard love at work.
                 No one should be made to pay for a television set above and beyond the cost of its acquisition on the open market. It is scandalous that, in order to pay for the BBC, the purchaser of a television set has to pay a further payment of £145 a year, just to own a television set: where else in the world outside of a Communist country does this practice still exist?
                 If, for instance, I do not like ITV One, Two, Three, or Four; or Channel Four; it does not matter because I am given a choice of what to watch. None of these channels demand from me any payment (they survive on advertising) except for the BBC. Why does the BBC; who regard themselves as a popular world-wide broadcaster need to rely upon the British taxpayer to keep the whole edifice of the BBC solvent?
                 In the very early years of television - which was what the licence fee was meant to subsidise; the BBC was the only channel available and therefore the institution merited a licence tax to own a television which would be used to provide the British people with this single channel of entertainment; and the BBC solicited the affable moniker of 'Auntie' in those early years and into the 1970s, from the licence payer.
                  But ITV, a channel, as in the American mould, funded by advertising proved effective competition to the BBC. In the late 1950s and early 1960's independent television attracted more and more viewers to their popular programming all for gratis - the BBC must go it alone; then they can be as politically correct as they like because the consumer will have a choice to watch the BBC, and have 145 quid a year to spend on some pay to view channel which meets their viewing needs, sport, movies, and news channels like Sky and Fox.


Sunday, September 27, 2015

Realpolitik; a dying art that liberal convention despise

MY ENEMY'S ENEMY IS MY friend. I believe that in terms of Realpolitik this axiom has served Western democracies well. It proved its worth during the Second World War when we jumped into bed with Stalin, who's murderous  approach to power equalled (I would even say surpassed) that of Hitler's Germany. Stalin's record in peace time accounted for the deaths of millions of Kulaks as well as millions who died in the Gulag Archipelago; while further millions died during the Soviet Union's Great Famine in the 1930s; a decade when left-wing literary apologists such as George Bernard and Sidney and Beatrice Webb travelled to the Soviet Union declaring it everything they imagined a socialist paradise should be.
                During the Second World War and after the Nazi-Soviet Pact fell through; Hitler turned East after his failure to overcome the RAF in the Battle of Britain: the onetime soul mates now became the bitterest of enemies; and Stalin courted the Western democracies- and thus, rightfully so, began an unholy alliance brought together in the mutual self-interest of Western democracies and communist totalitarianism; both now united in the destruction of Nazism: needs must when the Devil calls.
                Bashar al-Assad the president of what is left of Syria as a functioning nation is also a tyrant as was his father. But neither of them could have compared with Stalin in their cruelties which were of course multiform in their patterns of wickedness. The West rightly deplored his rule, and even more so when the Arab Spring materialised: a spring which the West were intoxicated by because democracy was on the rise throughout the Arab world and old tyrants were overthrown and Bashar al-Assad was no different to Saddam Hussein, President Mubarak, or Gaddafi.    
                The old dictators one by one met with their comeuppance; and how we in the West celebrated the demise of these sadistic tormentors. The Arab world was 'coming home' to democracy. It was of course a fantasy and those cruel despots were there for a reason – to keep their different nation's tribalism's from overflowing into religious conflict.
                 We in the West who thought we knew better than the dictators who kept their nations united against internal religious conflict, between Shia and Sunni; and Shia and Sunni against Christian, all deeply antagonistic toward each other and ready to explode at any time into civil conflict were it not for the power of a dictator. Were it not for the rigidity of government they lived under, then civil war in these Arab countries would have erupted at any time; has happened in Egypt when Mubarak was driven from office only to be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

AS FAR AS THE West is concerned today; the Stalin figure we have to align ourselves with in order to defeat ISIS is Assad. As a supporter of Israel I have no more love for him than any other believer in democracy. But as Netanyahu said 'it is the better the devil you know', than what might come after. It is what comes after that should engage the West, not treating Assad as something you scrape off your shoes when taking you dog for a walk: a process which you may think appropriate – but needs must when Devil plays his hand.
                The Russian president, Vladimir Putin has said as much. As with the Second World War national self-interest determines that temporary alliances must be formed in order to destroy a common enemy. What comes next after the common enemy is no longer a thorn in the side of the West and Russia?  What will come will be Assad left in power and ISIS destroyed. Then comes the rebuilding of Syria, and the West, having hopefully learnt its lesson can play a significant part in its creation. But to do so a role must be found for Assad: until Sunni and Shia learn to live with each as protestant and catholic  have had to do since the Reformation, then in Syria's case a strongman at the helm is needed; and Assad must be that man, be it with a  'friendly' Western hand on his shoulder. Sometimes, if you put worthy moral principles above Realpolitik; then commendable liberal ethics, founded as they usually on a guilty conscience, will cause more death and destruction than a pragmatic and questionable toleration of the status quo.
                This is the lesson of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria - are the citizens of these nations better off today without Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad?  I think not. The great liberal interventionism piloted into existence by Tony Blair, and continued by David Cameron in Libya, was at the very least naive. Liberal interventionism was liberal arrogance, comparable to that displayed in the age of the British Empire.
                 Tony Blair went beyond ridding the Middle East of dictators; he saw the chance to create democratic societies in place of dictators. This narcissistic and deluded visionary truly believes that the people living under the likes of Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad would grasp the democratic straw Blair and Cameron gave them. They believed at the time and still no doubt do so today, that democracy cannot possibly be rejected, no matter what culture its seeds are sown within; the soil in which they are planted will always fertilise into democracy. This is the liberal arrogance that in its judgement is as colonial in its assumptions as the prejudices that accompanied the spread of Empire.

THERE IS no future for Syria unless, like Russia, the West comes to an accommodation with Assad. But present Western leaders like Cameron have vented so much of their spleen on Assad that they would see it as a defeat in domestic political terms to now turn round and tell his people that an accommodation now has to be acceded to, after being defeated by parliament in an attempt to intervene militarily in Syria.
                On top of which it was the West's current hate figure Vladimir Putin who now suggested an alliance to overthrow ISIS in Syria. The Putin that has rendered asunder the Ukraine, and who's ancient but visually impressive Bear bombers, torment our airspace almost daily to test our response, is also fearful of the influence of Islamism and what it could do to Russia
                 In today's world with the rise of Islamism, the West must procure for itself any solution it would under any other circumstance turn its nose up at. But the West, particularly in Europe, is now being assailed by the flotsam of the wreckage that the likes of Blair and Cameron created in Iraq and Libya, as well as Cameron's uncompromising attitude to Assad in Syria.  Migrants have crossed the Mediterranean from North Africa and landed on Italian and Greek shores and entered Turkey from Syria. A politician's first responsibly is to their own country and its citizens.
                 Our country has to be put before any other country by our serving politicians; and any policy they come up with that negates this principal is wrong both morally and empirically as far as the numbers are concerned and the damage the influx can do to the indigenous population in terms of housing, schooling and medical care – Realpolitik is the one way


Friday, September 25, 2015

Disillusioned with Schengen

“It is clear the greatest tide of refugees and migrants is yet to come. So we need to correct our policy of open doors and windows. Now the focus should be on proper protection of our external borders.”Donald Tusk, head of the European Council

THE SCHENGEN open doors policy is finally being criticised by its creators. I can remember when conservative voices who opposed Schengen from its very beginning were labelled as racists and bigots, by the Labour party and the Left-wing of the Conservative Party. Since then we have learnt from the likes of Peter Mandelson that Blair signed us up to it as to embarrass and bait the Tories; thus keeping Labour in power for ever under what Blair hoped would prove to be a New Labour thousand year Reich where grateful Poles, Romanians, and Portuguese would replace a diminishing working class as Labour's new constituency.
                The danger to this country of such a cynical gesture was either brushed aside for party political advantage; or, in the romantically constructed belief in the need to turn Europe into a United States of Europe – a federal Europe.
                Tony's very own 'Blair Witch Project' has backfired spectacularly. Even before the latest avalanche of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and yes, even Pakistan and Bangladesh; the Right was gaining strength throughout Europe as European nations had to pull down their borders to allow the free movement of people throughout the EU. Now those borders have disappeared: the European people were never consulted let given a vote on such a desperately important issue         whose purpose was to end national sovereignty and nation state itself.
                 Now the unintended consequences of the EU's open border policy is allowing a great flood of humanity to enter the border-less continent and set down wherever they like, and if they are opposed by Eastern European countries like Hungary; the Hungarian government has faced great criticism, for her actions.
                 Germany appears to be the Emerald City to which they are drawn. Angela Merkle has told 800,000 of them to follow the yellow brick road with more expected to follow in the coming years; and they eagerly do so whatever nation between themselves and Germany tries to prevent them. The great German Wizard, they believe, will be their saviour. Armed with mobile phones, they send out invitations to their families to join them – Angela is welcoming us all. So they come, one and all via Turkey. The Great Wizard has offered them a sanctuary of a kind that would have been beyond their dreams, even if Syria had not descended into bloody self-immolation.

AT LEAST DONALD TUSK has finally got the message; although I fear it is too late. He should have had the courage to speak out sooner than he has. Now, I fear, because Europe could not take the hard decisions as Australia did; I believe Europe could now be overwhelmed. Tusk is calling for border controls to be reinstated; but once the horse has bolted – what is the point?
               Those arrogant self-preening, unelected EU commissioners, whose distaste for what they contemptuously refer to as 'popularism' allowed them to bypass the ballot box on every single occasion when they drew up new treaties (like Maastricht, and Lisbon) that effected the lives of the people of Europe who they believe themselves the overlords of. In a way it is like the 19th century rotten boroughs in England: or a more prescient example; the Divine Right of Kings, where laws were concocted without any referent to the common herd; the magisterial European Commission disdains popularism (democracy) believing they, and only they, are competent to know what is in the best interests of the EU. These wretches are like the bourbons who thought that they and only they were blessed with the insight needed to govern a country - or a continent.
                In the light of concurrent events - the single currency fiasco and now mass migration; the EU is like the emperor with no clothes as some wit compared the events unfolding on European borders amounted to. The EU is indeed the Emperor with no clothes; because any such concoction of 28 nations with diverse interests would have done sooner or later – split between themselves and in self national interest, formed alliances as Europe had done for centuries. National interest will always sooner or later take precedence over a concocted, romantic, idealistic, and a wholly Enlightenment project that France in particular drew heavily to its breast after the Second World War.

EUROPE IS IMPERILLED by mass migration. But why Angela Merkle is responding so generously to this situation, is not out of compassion for the migrants she invited into Germany. I do not mean to insinuate any kind of a lack of compassion on the German chancellor's part in her decision – she is, after all, human. But as someone has already noted; Germany's response has more to do with what happened 70 years ago than what is happening today; and I think it is true. Germany should never forget its past, as no country should; but Germany has done much to redeem itself and has today nothing this generation has to blame itself for. But compassion should never be the auxiliary of guilt. Compassion should be for want of a better word, virginal without feelings of guilt, based upon the premise of simple humanitarian impulses unclouded by guilt; either individually or nationally.
               The German nation did terrible things in their recent past. But as the premier EU nation, Merkle should not have invited, through guilt, this mass migration into her country; which once established as citizens under Schengen, would be allowed to infiltrate the rest of Europe. I describe it as an infiltration because the citizens of the countries they will no doubt be allowed under Schengen to enter; never had any say in their arrival. It had already been decided by Schengen and the European Commission.
                Because of her generosity - who knows? Perhaps she will have, by her actions, summoned up similar monsters from her country's past in the coming decades, when a declining birth rate among the German people causes much resentment among them toward migrants – beware of unintended consequences to noble impulses.


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Our generals should remain silent

A SERVING GENERAL has warned that the army would have to take 'direct action' if Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister. This 'direct action' implies a military coup to overthrow our dishevelled Lenin which would of course earn him a place in socialist mythology parallel to that of president Allende of Chile. This general: this later day Pinochet who threatens such an overthrow, is stupid beyond belief and makes one wonder how he became general in the first place: he clearly does not understand the martyrdom complex that the  Left all to easily falls prey to.
                The next time Corbyn makes a speech; he will have been pumped and primed by the disclosure of this general's remarks. I even bet that Corbyn will almost welcome this general's contribution. First of all because it elevates him into a position of socialist beatification if the general's wishes were ever to come about: secondly, it would confirm this dotty Marxist in his life-long prejudices against capitalism.  This general should face losing one his pips for providing the Corbynistas with such a weapon of propaganda.
                Thankfully his remarks have been quickly stamped upon by the MoD and none too soon. Generals are to be, I will not say… worshiped - although many of them throughout our nation's history have deserved such an honorific above those of politicians: but generals must nevertheless steer clear of politics, it is such a separation that has put this country above South American standards of government. It is the people who chose who to govern them, and if they chose someone who has declared his intension to dismantle our nuclear capability, our army, and our membership of NATO, and the British public wish to buy into such a madness at the ballot box; then it is such idiots who will have to pay the distasteful price for their naive actions.
                This does not mean that the military has no role to play in politics…they do; but only in extremis – such as Cromwell's New Model Army who were ready, when called upon to stop a tyranny from emerging that meant the end of parliament and democratic government and sought a return to the Divine Right of Kings. I believe that the end of democratic government is the ultimate ambition of all Marxists who see it as a bourgeois construct. Like the Nazis, they use democracy to attain power and then use totalitarianism to cling on to it. I would like to think that it was within this context, that the general alluded; but I doubt it.

GREAT BRITAIN does not do military coups, which is why our democracy has existed for so long. But any mention of 'direct action' by a nameless British general, sends the liberalista into a fit of the vapours such as those exercised by the Independent and Guardian whose journalists immediately fell into a swoon before dropping  onto the nearest chaise lounge in the editors office; mimicking  a character in an Austen or Trollope novel.
                 Corbyn must be given enough rope to hang himself; give him his chance to perform without tormenting him with his past imbecilities. It is those imbecilities that got him elected in the first place by imbeciles. He must not be forced to row back on any of them by the government and its sympathisers in the press – let him float them without challenge; let him explain them to the people; and above all treat him as a leader of Her Majesty's opposition: in other words do not turn him into a victim, for this will only accumulate pity for this innocent, among those liberals that never voted for him.
                This general - all generals, and those from the lower ranks must, like the rest of us who see this modern Mushkin as naivety exemplified; allow the public time to study and judge him for themselves. The public are disenchanted with modern politicians, and in a way, Corbyn and Farage are the polar opposites that have pulled the mat from under the feet of what is becoming the ancient regime of cynical politicians, orchestrated in the art spin and dissembling, who cannot bring themselves to deliver straight forward answers to questions that require only a Yes or No reply. Each interview given by a politician is not a search for the truth or even enlightenment, but an exhibition of the art of pussyfooting and stonewalling. An exhibition which the public have grown heartily sick of: which is why Corbyn is seen as an honest and principled politician whose dishevelled appearance  adds to the contrast between him and the immaculate who governs the country both Tory and Labour.
                The people are right in their scepticism of modern politicians but it is no reason to bring the whole democratic temple down upon themselves; which Corbyn, primed by his ideology, will be sure to do. I do not for one moment think that the majority of those hundreds of thousands, who voted for Corbyn in the Labour Party leadership elections, were doing so because they actually believed in Marxist socialism as Corbyn does. They, like those of us life-long Labour voters, also shared their cynicism – but Corbyn is not the answer unless you wish to destroy capitalism and alongside it democracy itself; for the two are twinned.
                 Finally I would say this to whomsoever the general was who threatened a putsch if a bearded, sandal-footed, and clenched fisted nincompoop flanked by public sector union bosses; to whom he was tethered like puppet, marched down Downing Street to oversee the socialist ritual of the destruction of UK capitalism.
                 Corbyn cannot win a general election without betraying his supporters. To do so would lead to him being presented with the black spot of betrayal by those he betrayed. He would become just like other Labour leaders such as Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, and Neil Kinnock; who the Left believed betrayed the Labour Party that eventually would lead to Tony Blair and New Labour, and the disbanding  of Clause IV: now we have the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn being added to the cast list of betrayal that the Labour Left will have jotted down in their little black book, that  excites the Lefts machinations of tortured perfidy that they believe has kept true socialism from power – Corbyn, even if he wished, could not compromise.