Thursday, January 28, 2016


JANUARY 27 IS NATIONAL HOLOCAUST DAY when we acknowledge the suffering of the Jews under German Nazism; not only to acknowledge the suffering: but make sure that such an event in human history is not erased from our conscience for fear of it being repeated. What happened to the Jews under Nazism was the monstrous culmination of 2000 years of persecution throughout the Middle East and latterly Europe; followed, at one time or another after seeking refuge at every other point of the compass.
                The Jews were always the scapegoats for economic failure in every country where they settled in the Diaspora: the further you travelled into Europe toward the east the greater their persecution. Eastern Europe from Poland, Hungry, and into Russia: these at the time backward economies, ill managed and living in the past where their political leaders found it all too easy to blame Jewry. They blamed their Jewish communities for their economic failure due to their own incompetence as rulers. And used the much perceived Jewish Fagin-like greed to feed the, what we would call today, bigotry - in other words, Jews were always easy scapegoats for an already anti-Semitic population that flowered through the generations on anti-Semitism as a device to be exploited when ordinary intelligent middle-class people, as well as peasants, were attacking an unpopular government. Jew bashing and baiting known as pogroms were used to pacify a resentful population, indignant at the bad decisions of their leaders.
                The Jews have had an uncomfortable (to say the very least) experience within the Diaspora. Told what not and what they could do to earn a living; they had a separate living space within cities, known as the Pale; thus the expression Beyond the Pale. The Pale of human settlement comprised a lockout at a certain time when the Jews had to return the part of cities in Europe where the Jews were corralled and locked in for the night and restricted in their professions and trading arrangements when trying to earn a livelihood. This restriction on Jews and what professions they may or may not choose to follow[1] became provisional upon the return to the Pale.
                They were effectively banned from all the forms of earning a living open to the rest of the community; so they, over time, became proficient to the limited forms of earning a living allowed them, money-lending and the trade in diamonds; followed by finance as their lives were transformed by more tolerant societies that were eventually to be found in the West. But even in Western Europe where they had the freedom to earn a legal living in any way they wanted; their success was resented when it came to money. Those trades which the Jews have been historically associated with represents the icing on the cake for today's anti-Semite; and many, this time in the name of the Palestinian, causes them to feel free to attack the Jews of Israel shielded under the banner of 'anti-Zionism'.

THE JEWS have had much to put up with over the past 2000 years. I do not suggest that their suffering has been disproportionate to other minorities such as the African slaves: that is; until Holocaust. But then; even black slavery to America, however brutal it was, represented however cruel and brutal it undoubtedly was, a chapter in the history of the Afro-American people.
               But the Jews have had two millennia of constant and brutal treatment[2] from those parts of the world they found themselves in during the Diaspora. No other such persecution of one people over such a timescale has been recorded. The Jew as the scapegoat; the punch-bag for all sorts of economic disappointments: but even the Jew as wheeler - dealer in high finance that, as the Rothschild family did to raise the money needed to fight Napoleon.

THE JEWISH PEOPLE are a great people, and if after two millennia of persecution culminating in the Holocaust, they then decide that there must be a Jewish homeland; where the Jews cannot feel exactly safe physically; but safe from the brutality and the taunts of the Diaspora; then they have found it in Israel. You might say they are not safe. But this time, when the Islamic variant of Fascism comes for them they will, this time, be able to fight back. They will not anymore be the victims of economic trends that throughout Jewish history tend to pep up the latent anti-Semitism within the Diaspora.
                Israel is the Jews Thermopylae; they are surrounded by hostile neighbour's intent upon the Jewish nation's destruction. During the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War Israel managed to drive their Arab neighbours back. And the participating countries in both these wars against the Jewish state could, as defeated nations, live to fight another day. But for Israel if it is defeated; there is no other day: the Jewish state will be dead and buried: and the Jews will once again find themselves left to the vagaries of history as they had been throughout the Diaspora.
               Israel is the Jewish people's safety from another Holocaust at some time in the future if the Jews are once more driven from their ancient homeland. This Holocaust Memorial Day should reflect of course upon the Holocaust but also, the plight of the Jews spent in the Diaspora over millennia that led to the Holocaust – Shalom.

[1] Due to the Anti-Semitism of the time; ancient prejudices founded upon the greed of Jewry kept Jews from the professions. Such anti-Semitism was also based upon the anti-Semitic folk law that blamed the Jews for the sacrificing of children as well as the crucifixion of Christ himself – a toxic mix for the devoutly Russian orthodox peasant.
[2] Of course, over such a vast time period when the skills of the Jews were appreciated by many rulers when they needed finance – but they were, even at such times, treated almost at arms length.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

The Tories are now in the media cross-hairs

EVER SINCE JEREMY CORBYN'S election to the leadership of the Labour Party, all media attention has been focused on The Naive One - he has entertained the sane and sensible with his sometimes odious, and at other times, comical views. An example of the latter being his intention to allow our Trident fleet to set sail and patrol the oceans without any missiles, in order to reach a compromise with the unions who are against abandoning our fleet of submarines because of the thousands of jobs that would go as a consequence.
                But attention is now turning slowly away from Labour and settling on the behaviour of the Tory government: and guess what? This latest micro-civil war which is beginning is once again about Europe and the betrayal now being felt by Tory eurosceptics toward David Cameron. The sceptics have kept their powder dry because they were dazzled, and not for the first time by their current leaders promises (as was always the case with Labour). This time; the promise of an uncompromising renegotiation of our membership with Europe: it was not the first time Cameron was taken at his word (whatever that means these days). Cameron is a political thimble-rigger; he will promise the earth to sustain himself in power; especially when he was confronted with the rise of Ukip - a party that procured four million votes last May only to feel abandoned by the first past the post electoral system.
                Last May Cameron thought he was going to lose. He is, as all politicians are, addicted to the polls; they govern or even micro-manage an election campaign. All the polls got it wrong in the end; but because they called it so tight, Cameron, in order to win back those Tories who had already changed their vote to Ukip, or those who were thinking of doing so; he toughened up his rhetoric on the EU. He would hold the EU to account; he would deliver a set of reforms on the free movement of peoples, migration and the other concerns of the sceptics; that if found unacceptable to his EU masters; he would deliver a referendum; and at one point even suggested he would be prepared to leave the EU. And so Cameron's own eurosceptics trusted, yet again, the word of their leader.
                On May 7th 2015, and against all odds and to the embarrassment of the pollsters; the Tory Party were returned once more, and with a workable majority of twelve. The result was as shocking for the Tories as it was for Labour. The Tories had believed that, at the very least, another coalition with the Lib Dems was the best they could hope for at the beginning of the campaign; and when even this was in doubt he sought to bring on board those one time Tories who he had attacked as swivel- eyed loonies (or words to that effect) when they crossed to Ukip.

CAMERON has always believed and always will believe that this country's destiny is within Europe. His one priority in politics, as it is any modern leader of a political party, is to do great things that history will have determined to have been pivotal in the management (as far as it is capable of being managed) of their country's history. Thus we have, in the war and post war era the successes of Churchill and Thatcher.
                 Cameron believes in the European Union without any omission or exclusion, apart from the purely rhetorical exception to plan and advance his career. He conned his eurosceptics, as he did all such disbelievers in the EU who belonged to the Tory Party when he felt his party faced defeat at the 2015 general election.
                 Our prime minister, having won the election he did not think he could win; has now reduced (some of his fans would suggest moderated) his demands in favour of what Europe is willing to accede to. He has even boasted of his intention to vote for continued membership, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. So it comes down to whatever the EU is prepared to grant us.
                 Whatever this is will be sufficient for Cameron: in all and every circumstance Cameron will be fully prepared to lead his nation into a concoction of democracy that will diminish into dust; it will do so along with the nation state. Next month this whole carnival of renegotiation will hopefully reach a climax when Cameron travels once more to Europe for the final showdown when the media will be on hand to promote it as something more than the ritual it is. Cameron has, since his election taken a scythe to his previous Eurosceptic rhetoric. He has lowered his peoples' expectations for a deal that would keep this nation in existence.

CAMERON HAS twisted and turned over Europe, just as other Tory (and Labour) leaders have had to do. The art of politics for a political leader is to maximise your support in order to advance your career; and this is what Cameron has had to do to keep his political ambition solvent. But in terms of keeping the trust of the electorate; Cameron will make the electorate ever more cynical by his opportunism regarding the EU.
                 We now have two political parties; both, one bizarrely, the other disingenuously, but both asking the electorate for their votes by, in Corbyn's case incredulity, and the Tory's case an honourable and gentlemanly trust of the leader – the latter which once, but not today means anything.


Sunday, January 24, 2016

Students of the damned

IF I WERE A SIXTH FORMER, preparing for university I would inform my parents that I did not wish to associate myself with these academic institutions, as they no longer tolerate tolerance of an individual's opinion. The message seems to be that if you come here you either fall into line or you keep your mouth shut. You either follow the prevailing agenda whether it is the nuances of ultra-orthodox feminism, or support for the Palestinians to the extent of turning away Israeli academics and closing down any union debate that invites an Israeli to participate in; or in the latest case of the removal of Cecil Rhodes from his plinth.
                What are the various university authorities doing about this kind of student hyperactivity deficit disorder? Well, it seems nothing; for the inmates appear to be in charge of the asylum: either that or the faculty have sympathy with them and will bow down to their demands. What is the betting that Cecil Rhode's plinth will be empty by the end of this year? And who will be next – Churchill?
                 The university ethos is being allowed to wither on the vine. The ethos of an open mind ready to be challenged by opposing ideas in order to sharpen or change your own: this is the methodology of the highest education at the best of this country's universities. This is why Oxbridge has their union debates; students can sympathise or support either side of the debate before it begins; and through the course of the arguments made, perhaps change their minds. This is the dialectic of any university in a free society.
                  When a student at university the mind should be open to all knowledge as it comes before him or her, whether in the lecture theatre or the library, no knowledge should be out of bounds. If you have a brain worthy of the name (which you would of course if you were attending an Oxbridge college) then your cerebral sponge should be open to all forms of ideas and arguments: and have the capacity to oppose in argument or debate those ideas you take exception to.
                 The capacity to defeat an argument you take exception to depends upon an open mind; or if not an open one, then a fair one. But what is inexcusable is to railroad and shout down, or even going to such lengths as banning people from whatever country that you do not have any sympathy for; because you support what you perceive to be their country's 'victims'.
                  I refer of course to the state of Israel. The flood of opposition to Israel in modern academia goes beyond the juvenile practices of students. As far as the state of Israel is concerned many of some universities faculties also sympathise with the censoring of Israeli academics, politicians, authors, or any kind of Israeli associated with academia.

IT NOW APPEARS that if you wish to have an open mind at many of our universities; you have to self-censor your tongue if you wish to complete your course. The power of students has grown since the late 1960s and early 1970s. Back then, it was the Vietnam War that lit the blue touch paper on our campuses. The 1960s was the decade when student power took its first awkward footsteps to rebellion. In 1968 we had the assault on the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square; followed by the student protests in Paris. They were happy times for students, and no doubt those who participated in such events eventually went on to become part of the educational establishment; who in turn passed on their leftist liberal ideas to generations to come; and then in turn passed the liberal baton on to other generations.
                I think it is the case that there is a trajectory that has ended in the students of the damned that we now see governing our university life; a trajectory that began its journey in the 1960s. The intolerance shown by student bodies today toward those who oppose their thinking is anti-intellectual. Such students do not have the confidence in their own argument to tolerate any kind of opposition to it; so they ban the opposition from what were once the pillars of free thought and expression – our university campuses.
               Can it be said that these young people who declaim their opposition to whatever they espouse; who then shut down any form of contrary argument, be regarded as truly and fully moulded in the art of debate or free speech – well yes, they can; but only if they had attended Moscow University under communism: it is an appalling situation; a situation where our elite university campuses are infected by such intolerance to free debate.

IF, AS I SAID AT THE beginning of this piece, I would wish no association with Oxbridge because of this kind of intellectual Ebola that is now doing the rounds; then I would have to choose a university deserving my qualifications – so where to look? Not in this country or in Europe. It would be America and Harvard in the hope that the virus had not spread to such an august institution.
               I would tell my parents that Harvard was my preferred university and would apply for membership in the hope that intellectual Ebola virus of political correctness had not yet corrupted the Harvard faculty and some of its students; as is the case in the UK.



Thursday, January 21, 2016

The late David Bowie

I DO NOT CARE WHETHER a modern day pop celebrity (or any celebrity for that matter) deserves the kind of worldwide mawkish behaviour that is fashionable in this modern age when they die: if there are two industries that have benefited from such displays, it is surely the wax candle and flower industry.
                David Bowie was never my favourite artist. I thought him a self-regarding narcissist who used his androgyny and makeup to accompany his music as a selling point. His voice to me was like a scene from the film Jaws, when Quint (played by Robert Shaw) dragged his nails screeching across a schoolroom blackboard.
                Bowie meant very little to me. His appearance in the early 1970's left me divorced from the love of the pop music that was to accompany him throughout that decade. Of course no single individual could be held responsible for my apostasy. No, from the mid 1970's onwards my love of pop music suffered a weary decline. Bowie angered me at the time, not because of his music, but because of his politics.
                First of all, at the time I was a Marxist, and was, in the summer of 1975 made manager of a newsagent. It was in this position that I read the New Musical Express which headlined an interview with Bowie in which he believed in a Right-wing form of government in the USA (as well as the UK); a country which he had adopted for himself. Well, as a Marxist at the time, you can imagine my loathing for such a creature. But how right he was and how I was to be proved wrong by events.
               But to me his music still holds no appreciation; but before him all pop music including that of the late1950s and the 1960s, I was drawn to; all such music I adored, but has now, in my elderly years, been replaced by a Beethoven symphony –any of his symphonies.

DAVID BOWIE, THE BEATLES, the Rolling Stones, or the Kinks (the latter three I truly loved) mean little to me today except of course nostalgically. As we get older the nostalgia virus will overwhelm us if we want it to. I saw tears for Bowie on my television screen that were wiped away via a sleeve from people of my own age and younger who had not moved on and broadened their musical repertoire: perhaps beyond the popular to the classical. But the tears of those of my own age were sentimentally driven, as were no doubt those wept by the aficionados of Buddy Holiday or any other musical pioneer of every generation that courts a youthful death via a vehicle accident or a plane crash.
                The repertoire of the nine Beethoven symphonies has more to offer without a word being sung (apart from the last movement of Beethoven's ninth) than any other creation of popularist pop music. Beethoven's one and only violin concerto stands above all others[1]: this in itself surpasses what we today call popular music.
                But do not get me wrong, my whole life has been surrounded by great pop music from the late 1950's through the 1960s and into the early 1970's. But it is only when you discover the classics, when your emotions are driven, not by lyrics, but by the music itself, and in particular, in my case, with Beethoven; that you come alive, and you find yourself elevated in terms of an appreciation that the lyrics of pop music can never lift you.
                Bowie's talent I will have to accept was real because of those many millions who listened to him; many of whom now have high ranking positions in the media; and are determined to exhort him as some kind of icon that will, like the Beatles, set the standard for popular music. But Bowie did one thing that caught my appreciation and respect.
                When he died he left, I assume in his will, that he should be either buried or cremated within hours of his death without the candles and flowers that would have accompanied a usual celebrity passing. David Bowie's corpse was, to his credit, disposed of without the flummery of media focused tears. His death was to be without any kind of celebrity pomp and circumstance overseen by the world's media without the need for tearful eyes or mawkish tributes from those who knew him.
                 David Bowie was to me talentless. He did however achieve an aptitude in one respect; but not because of his music; but because of such attributes as his androgyny and his bisexuality; the music and the songs were pitiable, but the makeup sold the music. He performed well in videos and caught the mood of the time; he however lacked the ability to create meaningful lyrics to his songs as did Lennon and McCartney.
                 Bowie was more of a corporeal presence than a talented musician to the youth he aspired to represent. He was a physical presence of the kind which blinded his followers to his lack of ability as a musician, and I think he thought this himself; thus his quick burial without the usual circus of celebrity attendants and media.

[1] I make this observation without much knowledge of other violin concertos – but I am 65 after all and a late convert to classical music.. 

A small part of my youth

IN MY YOUTH, like many 13-years-olds, I had a paper-round for which I was salaried at (in old coinage) 13 shillings and six pence a week, plus a further three shillings for delivering 13 copies of the Eastern Evening News each evening. From this income, I bought my first bike and a season ticket to the local open-air swimming pool where, during the summer holidays, I would spend whole warm and sunny days swimming: I loved swimming; I swam a 100-yard length after 100-yard breaststroke lengths. I swam 19 such lengths to get my one-mile swimming certificate.
                I had no other aptitude for any sport at school apart of course from swimming which was purely a summer activity at the time[1]. I liked kicking a football about as much as any child today; but as for playing in a team, I neither had the skill nor the wish to do so; so like many with the same indifference to team sport as my own; we were sent to another part of the field where was mapped out a pitch for the losers to do as they liked; several of whom chose to mess about, lazily sitting and kneeling beside the surrounding dyke poking and prodding the water with twigs – we were the third class athletes or none athletes who went ignored by our PE teacher who was refereeing a football  match on the premier pitch between 22 of the most talented; eleven of whom would be picked to play for the school in the local interschool league.
                Would you believe it? Our PE teacher could not swim. It is true; and not only that, he exhibited suspicious behaviour toward the boys. At the time, none of us took any notice of it. There was never any kind of touching. In fact, it is only when I became an adult and had long since departed my secondary Alma Marta that I began to query such behaviour in the light of the modern fashion for rightly exposing paedophilia.
                 I can remember our PE teacher who I will call Mr White, lining us boys up before we entered the school hall which also supported the gymnasium, and telling us to stretch our navy coloured shorts so he could peer at our genitals; the excuse being that pants could not be worn underneath our shorts and this was an excuse (and it was an excuse) to see whether we were wearing pants underneath our shorts.
                 Mr White was semi-bald, had a beard, and physically attained the correct proportions for a physical education teacher. He threatened more often than he used the slipper, but the threat proved sufficient. Another of his, shall we say habits, was to join us boys in the showers. Remember that although we were of the same age, the outward appearance of puberty did not express itself at the same time with regard to all of the boys. It was in this climate that Mr White would strip off and join us under the showers. A friend of mine a year earlier suggested it went further (not to any kind of abuse of the boys) but through remarks made about the state of puberty the boys were going through, when he mixed with them in the shower.

BUT I WISH TO return to my first love of swimming. At the time, this sporting venture was my only love. State schools, like many private ones, were then divided into houses. In my case, living as I did and still do in Norfolk, into the rivers Yare, Thurne, Bure, and Waveney: these were the four houses of my secondary modern school; and I was, as well as my class (and my teacher) members of Waveney.
                Every year our school had a swimming gala held at our town's open air pool. I was picked to represent my house for the 50-yards breaststroke; it being my only competent stroke; but nevertheless my best. And so it proved, I not only won but broke the school record. From then on, when it came to physical activity, nothing mattered more to me than swimming. I cared little about any other physical activity. I looked forward to the next gala where I was determined to break my own school record – but then I was sabotaged by school politics. When it came to the next gala I was told that I would have to swim in the hundred yards freestyle immediately before I wanted to break my previous record.
               Having swam and finished nowhere in the 100-yard freestyle, the technique of which I felt no need to master; my House, however, needed a representative in the race and so I was chosen to be it, where I came second from last; and was broken by the experience. Immediately after I had to swim my favourite stroke, where I finished second: I broke down and cried; not because I was beaten, but because I was let down by teachers who seemed to care more about providing entrants to every race rather than providing winners. The school gala demanded representation from all four houses in all events; and if my house suffered a deficiency in one particular discipline, then someone, preferably Mr White (instead of me) should have been thrown in at the deep end.


[1] We had no indoor pools at the time in the state sector.

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team - a kind of Stasi?

'Some veterans have even been handed the letters personally and quizzed on their doorsteps by taxpayer-funded detectives'. Lexi Finnigan: the Daily Telegraph

IN 2010 THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (MoD), set up a group to look into the behaviour of our solder's fighting in Iraq. The team are known by the acronym IHAT (Iraq Historic Allegations Team) and were created in response to complaints made by ambulance chasing lawyers. In the beginning IHAT were investigating 152 allegations; this has since grown to 1500.
                The latest victim of this witch-hunt is a British sniper who shot and killed an enemy at a range of 1200 metres. The sniper is apparently being investigated for not issuing a warning before discharging his weapon. The insurgent was about to launch a rocket-propelled grenade at an army base when he was killed by the British sniper.
                 Fortunately, there are very few veterans of the Second World left alive to witness this spectacle; for no doubt, they would also be seen as war criminals according to the modern parameters of what is acceptable and unacceptable in modern warfare. Without knowing the nature of the charges being sought by the lawyers; 95 per cent of those they accuse of war crimes would never have been charged or even considered for such a fate after 1945. I would bet that today there are more human rights lawyers in existence than front line soldiers in the British Army, all ready to crawl over every individual soldier's behaviour in Iraq.
                 As someone who was born five years after the end of the Second World War, and whose father had fought in Burma; this kind of dissolute and dissipated behaviour of the type this sniper is being subjected to by an IHAT inquiry and by the modern legal profession, is beyond my comprehension; as I believe it is among the vast majority of the indigenous population who are still the majority, but, in several decades time, stands a very good chance of achieving minority status in their own land.
                 What I consider a war crime is sending millions of Jews to the gas chambers along with other minorities such as gays; as well as lining up your enemy; unarmed, tied and feeble, to be executed by Hitler's Germany. This was the parameter 71 years ago regarding war crimes; while an act committed by this British sniper would be applauded at the time: at the time even our enemy would pay little attention. For all of its many faults, Nazi Germany (although of course they thoroughly abused the concept as far as, civilians, minorities were concerned) believed that all was fair in war as far as all armed combatants were concerned.
                   Lawyers, on the whole, study law, not history. They have prospered due to the encyclopaedic growth in human rights law, which, after company law, is probably the most financially lucrative part of the law considering the role EU law plays in the process.

IS IT LITTLE WONDER that recruitment to what is called our 'weekend army'; by which of course I refer to the reservists which Cameron promised would see 20,000 added to our military capability after reducing our professional armed forces by an equivalent amount. The last figure I read was that such recruitment  has so far resulted in barely five thousand of the needed 20,000 had volunteered to join – and is it little wonder that this is the case when those who fight for us are subject to the overview of IHAT, along with the predatory impulses of lawyers snapping at their heels. The British army is in a perilous state. If the army were to be subjected to this kind of flim-flummery, then why should people join unless, that is, they are masochists?
                The present state of the British military including all three services is hog-tied by the actions taken by individuals among them who are sent into battle. Restrictions upon the way they act and fight are prescribed by, in the first instance, politicians fearful of either losing office; or at an individual level, a seat in parliament.
                 During the Afghan war, I read of another British sniper; this time targeting three Taliban planting an improvised explosive device (IED) in expectation of destroying part of a British convoy. The sniper had those planting the device in his cross-hairs and was ready to kill them: but had to seek permission from a senior officer before being allowed to fulfil his task. It was not until this permission was received that the sniper on this particular occasion was allowed to take out those planting the IEDs. Is this the way to conduct a war?  Of course not: even in this age of nail-biting liberal guilt; should such occurrences be tolerated? Of course not: but they are. They are tolerated by our high command who flit about the MoD and are in hock to their political masters who they serve without complaint until they retire and get their pensions and a seat in the House of Lords; by which time they are prepared to speak out.

Wednesday 20th January
                IN TODAYS PRESS comes further evidence of the sinister nature of IHAT. Those recruited into IHAT are usually ex-police officers and are reportedly earning £33 an hour: 145 have been selected and are eagerly and feverishly touring army households and behaving as if they had some kind of legal authority to demand the information they are seeking. They present themselves as would be police officers when they knock on the door of an ex or serving soldier and hand them a letter. When the soldiers refuse to cooperate the investigators tell them they could be arrested if they did not cooperate with their investigation. The defence correspondent of the Daily Mail, Larisa Brown writes; 'Typically, two detectives turn up on the doorsteps of veterans and hand them a letter asking them to give evidence about their involvement and the role of other soldiers.' After which they try it on, using the official nature of the letter to hopefully make the receiver think the correspondence has more authority than it actually has in order that they can frighten them into cooperating.

                By their behaviour toward those soldiers who served in Iraq, IHAT should be re-Christened the Stasi. For it is no exaggeration to suggest that some of the behaviour of these investigators can be compared to the Stasi. They have been turning up at soldier's homes (as well as a military barrack) performing their bent copper act that probably flourished when they were once on the Force.

                What surprises me in all of this is that human rights groups such a Liberty should be speaking on these soldiers behalf. Amnesty International is another group who should at least denounce such behaviour; but no, up to now the silence from such groups is deafening; and it should come as no surprise because both pick and choose whose rights they will defend; and the British Army does not find favour with these liberal bodies' sensibilities.

                Something is happening that the authorities wish to be kept quiet. If it is IHATS's intent, as I am sure they believe, to help clear as well as expose the guilty; then it would not have allowed its investigators to stoop to such levels by using dirty tricks in order to seek out the truth. Under the law, when such an approach of the type these so-called investigators make; then the individual should be made aware that they have the right to legal representation before questioning them; and not threaten them with arrest if they do not. But these creatures have no legal status, as Liberty and Amnesty would readily substantiate, being two of the foremost bodies covering human rights law.
                 It is called a witch-hunt (another reason Liberty and Amnesty should be involved) and the name will stick because it is a witch-hunt – a political witch-hunt tolerated at the very top of government. It was our government that sent these young men to fight (and let us not forget with their hands tied behind their backs) in Afghanistan and Iraq; and although this current hunt refers to Iraq, how long will it be before another one takes place targeting those who fought in Afghanistan if this hunt is successful?
                 Why should any young man choose to join-up when after being sent into battle they have to face this kind of persecution by the country that sent them to fight in the first place when they return home? It is a wonder that any young man or women still wishes to join the British army. If I were young, I would not be tempted into joining such an army only to find myself under investigation by IHAT.


Monday, January 18, 2016

Corbyn; the mad hatter of socialism

ANY LEADER OF a nuclear power who forswears the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance, may just as well get rid of them because no nuclear enemy will fear a similar retaliation if they used their own nuclear armaments against such a nation. The refusal to press the button when a nuclear threat is deemed imminent first of all makes nonsense of any kind of nuclear programme costing billions: but it potentially invites, without cost to the enemy, the deaths of millions of people.
                If Corbyn comes to power, no nuclear enemy will fear us; they will not fear us because Prime Minister Corbyn has been foreswearing the nuclear option all of his political life – long enough to be believed by any potential enemy. Corbyn has said he would get rid of Trident missiles; he would not tolerate their presence: but he now says he will tolerate the presence of the submarines that would carry them– but only on the condition that they will not carry them. So if Corbyn became prime minister we would have a multi-billion pound fleet of atomic submarines, but disarmed of nuclear weapons: submarines which will be searching the waters of the world without any lead in their pencil.
                So to what practical purpose are these sterile subterranean vehicles to be put? Premier Corbyn has now told the world that he would never sanction the use of nuclear weapons; but he would the submarines that carry them. So we have, at great cost to the nation, neutered the nuclear submarines sent out to patrol the oceans; but to what purpose? How would the submariners feel at such a prospect? They would feel their only purpose was to keep the members of Len McCluskey's union in their jobs. If we got rid of the Trident missiles and the submarines that carried them there would be a backlash for Corbyn. His union paymaster would be incensed at the loss of tens of thousands of his member's jobs. McCluskey; the Labour Party's main breadwinner would shit bricks at such a prospect.
               So how does Corbyn reach a compromise between his and his paymaster's position? Well, there is no rational compromise between them; but there is a surreal one which Corbyn introduced us to this morning on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show. It is the one that has about it the ridiculous and absurd proposition that we can keep an unarmed fleet of nuclear submarines as a 'warning' to our enemies. This 'compromise' between a far-left leader of the Labour Party and his union paymasters can only invite ridicule. Yet I cannot believe that Corbyn (as innocent as he appears of the world) believes that this represents any kind of convincing compromise between himself and Len McCluskey.

CORBYN'S 'SOLUTION' could have been the product of a constant over- reading of Alice in Wonderland in his youth. Corbyn has sucked feverishly at the teat of Marxism; and such is his loathing of the West, to whose enemies he has promised his reserves of compassion, even at the expense of the country he was born into; but whose economic system, a system that heralded the birth of true democracy and gave him his freedom to hate it. And hate it Corbyn and his kind do with an odium they find exhilarating.
                When you enter the mind of an individual who cleaves to the belief that socialism is, despite the historical evidence[1], an evolutionary advance on capitalism, you have to suspend reason for emotion. Socialism is an emotional construct, a fantasy Utopia that people cling to despite its cruelties that outnumber those of 19th century and modern capitalism by a factor of many millions dead, and further millions sent before show trials  after being tortured. Then found guilty and hung; in many cases for what we take for granted in the capitalist West – free speech; an unheard of practice within any socialist paradise.
                The Corbynista that seek to govern this country have, like most of us, fully functioning brains; but ones which nevertheless are in permanent denial. The Corbyn idea for putting to sea nuclear submarines without nuclear missiles is to such a mind perfectly rational. But when you are filled with such hate for your country it leads to the belief that a disarmed nuclear fleet is a rational compromise between his longing to be rid of our nuclear capacity and his union paymaster's insistence that such a nuclear capacity should remain if only because of the union jobs that would be lost if the Trident programme ceased.
                If Corbyn is seen as a fool after this latest bout of irrationality on behalf of the unions; then it is because his arms and legs are tethered to the puppet master, who, with a gentle tug on the string; compasses Corbyn in whatever political direction suits his puppet masters interest.

CORBYN has made himself look foolish; but as long as he keeps Len McCluskey happy the absurdity of his position over Trident does not seem to matter. And why should it? All of his political life Corbyn has ignored the truths of socialist failure. He bulldozes reality to one side and continues to believe in an impossible venture. The venture of changing human nature by means of political ideology – it is, to any rational being an absurdity that has been tried and tested to the monumental suffering of humanity. But yet, even today, after being presented with the historical evidence, the Corbynistas still cling in forlorn hope that we will all eventually believe.
                 But we will not. Socialism has been a curse on economic development. Human nature has advanced us to this point in evolutionary history with all of its many cruelties that were attached to the 19th and the first half of 20th-century capitalism: cruelties which, however, have been vastly outnumbered by the socialist states listed in the footnotes. Modern Capitalism has, through modern technology; led in the West to a standard of living unknown in the past; and to pretend otherwise as socialists tend to do, is an inane pretence befitting the socialist paradigm.



[1] Evidence beginning in 1917 with the founding of the Soviet Union; followed by the spread of socialism in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and East Germany, as part of the Soviet empire and continuing in China, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, and Venezuela.