Thursday, October 23, 2014

Chivalry has been long since dead

THERE IS A SAYING THAT the age of chivalry died with the invention of gunpowder. Today the West still lives in the age chivalry[1] and it could help bring it to its ultimate ruin. Unable to adapt to the age of gunpowder, because it represents having to kill men women and children in order to defeat an enemy whose ultimate purpose is to kill your own men, women, and children; the West now sinks even deeper into the moral abyss. Such is the power of gunpowder over the sword and lance, that it obliterates bystanders… who we, in the modern West, refer to as civilians.         
            The days when two armies confronted each other to indulge in mortal combat, in a field somewhere in Europe without any civilian involvement, have long gone. The age of lance, musket, fife and drum; and the squares at Waterloo have long since passed. Civilians have become as much part of war as the combatants themselves. Chivalry is dead. Weaponry and munitions have moved on, even if the modern liberal West are fearful of using them to their full potential because of guilt and the many sleepless nights feared by our politicians, who are unprepared to be classed as 'war criminals' and pre-dated upon by human rights lawyers.
            Churchill regretted but did not fear the bombing of the German cities during the Second World War; and he carried the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in order to advance the completion of the Second World War.   
             There were no Cameron or Obama-like uncertainties to undermine the great man. What had to be done was done. Churchill never became a Nazi or Communist for his exemplarily ruthlessness against German Nazism; or even through his alliance with Stalin's Soviet Communism, and neither did both the American and British nations.
              Churchill did what was needed to defeat Hitler; he was a patriot and a democrat and did what was required to salvage that cause…and so it should be the case today in planning the defeat of ISIS. If politicians fear sleepless nights, unpopularity, and human rights lawyers because of their actions; then they should not be leading a nation  -  especially one they tell us is under threat from ISIS. Because if this nation is under such a threat that those MPs who voted for action over the skies of Iraq believe; then when we release the dogs of war, they should be unleashed and not held back by politicians fearful of the next day's headline.

AS ANY CHILD knows or should know; war is an appalling business that should not be entered into flippantly, especially by career obsessed politicians of the calibre of Tony Blair. War is a bloody, cruel, and a sadistic enterprise to embark upon; which is why particularly Western nations in the modern era are loathe to engage in them.
            But a nation or nations can be propelled into conflict by the unfolding events of history. War cannot in many circumstances be resolved through negotiation. The Second World War sits as the template for such an axiom. A piece of paper signifying 'peace in our time' is a barren guarantee when you are up against an enemy in full ideological certainty that their cause is right, such as Nazism who cared little for such documents – as ISIS does today.
            As with the imperial nature of Nazism and their design for a Greater Germany; ISIS also believes in a Muslim imperialism; a caliphate spreading, in its infancy, throughout the Middle East. But its ultimate and ambitious reach spreads further still. They no doubt hope that their ambitions for their Muslim caliphate[2] will eventually traverse the European continent as earlier centuries old intrusions once attempted. But Islam no longer has to fight its way into  Europe, as it once tried. Today 15 million Muslims live throughout Europe and over two million of them live in the UK.
            As we are constantly told whenever an Islamist outrage is committed on our soil, the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by such an act. It is only a minority of Muslims that embark upon such acts of terrorism. The Muslim community as a whole deplores such acts.
            But how do we know this? I am sure that there are many hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who abhor such acts of terrorism. But the Muslim population represent a great demographic forest on UK soil. A forest among which Jihadists and ISIS members can hide at will when they return from Iraq and Syria. I am not saying the Muslim population of Britain are culpable; but only that they represent the foliage among which the Islamists can hide; and if discovered can seek protection under the European Court of Human Rights.
            We have, through our liberal progressiveness and liberal imperial guilt, allowed the intrusion of Muslims into our nation: as has also happened in other parts of Europe, and for the same reasons. The whole of Europe are now seethed with a Muslim population of some 15 million people. The demographics will dictate the future direction of Islam on the continent of Europe
            The point is that Islam has arrived in Europe, and has done so without bloodshed as it once suffered through combat in the past, when Europe stood in its way militarily, and were fully prepared, whatever the cost, to defeat its invasion. Today Islam is flourishing throughout Europe without a single shot being fired in opposition.


[1] A chivalry born o liberal guilt
[2] Islam is , like Christianity, a proselytising religion after all, if not one which cuts off people's heads.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Barroso tells it as it is

IT IS OFFICIAL. The retiring president of the EU, Jose Manuel Barroso, has poured a bucket of cold water over David Cameron's attempt at restricting the number of migrants from the EU from paying us a visit. The prime minister was set to announce various restrictions on the issuing of national insurance numbers and putting a time limit on their effectiveness.
            Mr Barroso has done a great service to Ukip, and in a statement after his interview on the Andrew Marr Show, Mr Barroso was warmly thanked by Nigel Farage for his contribution which included a reminder of the illegal nature of what the prime minister will propose if stories in this Sunday's press are to be taken seriously.
            It appears that the EU's apparatchiks are not prepared to help Cameron see off Ukip before the next election. Perhaps Cameron thinks that Angela Merkle will have the final say, and these things can be solved once he has her on board. For it is she who pulls the strings in Europe including those of the EU presidents - whomsoever they may be.
             Perhaps in the coming days the puppet master will say something to the effect that will, using diplomatic phraseology, redress the balance in Cameron's favour without any commitment to what the British prime minister proposes. The words will be warm and comforting, without any real purpose beyond mood music such as an insistence that the EU cannot afford to see the UK leave; leaving open the possibility of compromise. Or so it will be interpreted as such by the Tory press
              Such vagueness will set the pro-Tory papers bristling with talk of the possibility of an accommodation. They will try to argue that it is Merkle who is really in charge and her warms words, should be the real focus of attention rather than the ones used by the retired puppet or his replacement.

AS MR BARROSO  pointed out in his interview;  'The freedom of movement is a very important principle in the internal market, the movement of goods, of capital, of services and of people.' The free movement of peoples are the fulcrum upon which a federal internal market relies. If we are to have a federal Europe comprising political and economic union, then Mr Barroso's logic is sound, when it comes to the free movement of peoples. This is what the European Union has all been about for God's sake.
              The free movement of people within a federal union of 28 different nations, is as vital as the free movement of people within the 50 states within the United States of America. This is what a federal union means. The Americans fought a civil war to achieve this. Barroso is right in his federal logic. Cameron on the other hand is naive or politically opportunistic for pretending that he can exempt the UK from the free movement of peoples. He his leading this nation toward a situation where we may be compared to the American South during the American civil war.

CAMERON IS NOT naive. He is the opportunist par excellence who believes the British people are naive, and is counting on that naivety to once more trust him. His ambition is to stay in power as a Conservative prime minister. To this end he has had to offend his natural allies within the EU. He desires this country's incorporation into a European Federal Union, as did past Conservative prime ministers beginning with Ted Heath, but ending, temporarily, with Margaret Thatcher. But he knows many among his party's members and voters who do not share his fascination with the EU.
              Now enter Ukip, and its ever more threatening presence over the Conservative Party's ambition for government. Once treated with contempt as swivel-eyed loons by Cameron; but who, he thought, would always remain emotionally tied to the Conservative Party; if only because they had nowhere else to go: such people now have an alternative with Ukip.

 UKIP HAS transformed the electoral battlefield for both the Tories and Labour. The three party triumphret of ToryLabLib have been complacent and, like the ancient regime of the 18th century French aristocracy, have taken their people for granted… let them eat bread; for who else do they have to turn to?
            The people know where their political masters wish to take their country – toward an eventual United States of Europe. This, the Grand Idea, promulgated in almost Napoleonic terms, shortly after the Second World War in the hope of avoiding further European conflict between European nations, has become a foetid proposition.
             Since the end of the Second World War, it has not been the creation of the EU that has prevented further conflict on the European continent; but the creation of NATO with its promise to stand by any member nation under attack from any none member nation.
NATO stood four square behind Europe during the Cold War when the might of the Soviet Union threatened Western Europe; but was successfully protected by a vastly superior American NATO contribution: an American 'interference' later objected to by many European members of the EU, as an Anglo Saxon intervention.
              Barroso has reminded Cameron of the realities of EU membership. He is right in doing so. For what Cameron proposes in order to see off Ukip is indeed illegal under laws we signed up to …still, perhaps Angela Merkle will play good cop and give Cameron enough of a political carrot to allow him some political credulity on Europe.


Saturday, October 18, 2014

The Eagle has landed

ANGELA EAGLE was shot down by her fellow panel members and the audience on last night's Question Time for demanding the resignation of Lord Freud over his comments about the value of the disabled in the workplace. In replying to a comment from a councillor  (who has a disabled child), the noble Lord clumsily gave the impression that the disabled (especially those mentally impaired) should be paid a stipendiary £2 an hour when given work.
            Of course the Labour Party went off half cocked as usual and insisted that Lord Freud should tend his resignation for his comments. Thankfully David Cameron ignored the brouhaha at Wednesday's question time in parliament and kept him in-situ.
            Hoping to reignite  the nasty party image, Milliband went on the attack flanked as usual by Ed Balls and his deputy Hattie Harperson , both of whom enjoyed what they thought would turn out to be a Cameron lashing – something about as common from Ed in these weekly jousts as a straight answer to a question from the green bench political community as a whole.
            To say that Lord Freud handled things clumsily is an understatement. But to believe that any sane human being, or politician in an advanced economy such as ours would advocate the 'pittance wage' to any human being whatever his or her physical or mental condition, can only be playing politics six months before a general election.
            All parties do this of course and the public have at last wizened up to the practice, which is why Angela Eagle was criticised by the panel and audience on the BBC's Question Time last night. I am sure that if David Cameron had been on the panel telling us how he will stop the free movement of peoples from the EU entering the UK; the audience would have found him as equally disingenuous as Angela Eagle.

LORD FREUD MADE a mistake which he tried to rectify and apologise for. His £2 an hour comment was meant to include a subsidy to employers from the state, that would bring the disabled hourly rate up to that of the minimum wage; and he told the councillor that he would go away and think about the proposition.
             This seems to me perfectly just and reasonable if taken in the context he meant; which the Labour Party, for party political reasons refused to do in order make political capital out of the whole issue.
              The two main parties are facing a general election next May; and what they say between now and then, whether in their pronouncements or criticisms of each other must be taken with a pinch of salt. Promises before an election are easily rescinded after; which is why the voter is cynical and can no longer feel able to put their trust in the three main parties…and so enters Ukip: and everything the main parties now promise on such subjects as the EU and immigration, are due to the rise and popularity of Ukip, and the voters know it.
              The other day I heard Hattie Harperson say reasonable things on immigration (in light of the Heywood and Middleton by election) that six years ago, if someone had used the same comments, she would have declared him or her a racist. This is the impact Ukip has had on two of the main parties; and long may it continue. But rhetoric is one thing and application another. The public are beginning to understand the difference. If the electorate are cynical toward politicians and the political class generally (by which I mean the political commentators who have a symbiotic relationship with Westminster politics and its politicians), then I cannot see the three political tenors transforming the current climate of cynicism.

LORD FREUD is a victim of nothing more than synthetic political outrage by his political opponents within the Labour Party. But before he feels himself now removed from the hook his own incompetence landed himself on; he had better understand that such behaviour toward him by the Labour Party is no different from the practices deployed by all the main parties in order to map their road to power; and in the coming months leading up to May of next year, this road will become congested with the kind of behaviour Lord Freud experienced.
            Come the New Year, Nigel Farage will become under sustained attack from both the Left and Right of centre, as he was this year in the follow up to the local and European elections; an attack which the electorate choose to ignore. But come the new year Ukip's enemies within all the media, Left or Right, will seek to destroy Ukip's hopes in next year's May general election.
             Local and European elections are one thing but parliamentary ones are another. If Ukip poses any kind of threat come next May; the press will even accuse him of paedophilia on the eve the election; in the hope that it results in either a Tory or Labour government; or  even a Labour Lib Dem or Tory Lib Dem coalition.
             Ms Eagle (and the Labour Party) misread the public mood which all politicians are prone to do in the era of Ukip as an alternative to their guile  – something the healthily distrustful British public are all too aware of, and determined to exploit.
             Thanks to the behaviour of our politicians, the public have been made far more astute, now they have an alternative to the three main parties to vote for; and long may it remain the case.


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The nanny state is a sinister state

THEY TELL US what we should and should not be allowed to eat and in what quantities; they tell us not to smoke, and ban it in public places, and now want it band from parks; they tell us that alcohol is costing the NHS billions of trillions a year and very soon we will face the same totalitarian approach to its control as has happened with smoking; they are now beginning a similar campaign on e-cigarettes…who are THEY?
            They are the masters of the universe. They are the professional apparatchiks of the state controlled system of healthcare known as the NHS. They are doctors and consultants; or the chief medical officer, one Sally Davis, who is the bright spark who says that smoking should be banned from the nation's parks because it encourages children to take up smoking. Where is her evidence? She needs none of course – tobacco is evil, and she is a trained medical professional and this is sufficient.
            The NHS has £113 billion of the people's taxes spent on it each year, and it remains the people's champion. It is, despite its well advertised cruel practices, still popular with the public. Like all state run institutions, those working for them sooner or later come to believe that we are there to serve them rather than the other way round. Complacency sets in as it did at Stafford NHS Trust.

WHEN A WOMAN seeks an abortion, her primary argument for doing so is that it is her body and therefore her choice. But when it comes to smoking, obesity and alcohol, the same argument is ignored. Smokers, drinkers, and the obese, are told that they are a financial burden on the NHS, and therefore need to either stop doing something or moderate and limit something else, with the implied threat that in the future NHS treatment will be limited to those imbibing in those vices.
              If we take those categories of smoking, alcohol, and over eating; then it just about covers the whole of the adult population to some greater or lesser extent. In other words the taxpayer as a whole; who keep the masters of the universe solvent and in work. These so-called public servants can educate and do little more regarding the behaviour of their patients. The medical professionals are there to help and warn people about their vices, not promoting an illiberal political attitude toward them; trying to influence politicians into forming and passing anti-civil libertarian laws of the kind, the chief medical officer would like to see.

IN AMERICA, where private medicine is practised; the medical professionals are true servants of the people; for they charge for a service, and have to provide it. It matters little whether the patient that walks through their door is clinically obese, or an alcoholic with liver damage, or a smoker with emphysema or any other related disease brought about by indulging in what are after all pleasurable activities – human beings never indulge in un-pleasurable ones unless they are sadomasochists.
            When you can afford to pay, or have sufficient private health insurance; the medical professionals are masters of nothing; merely servants in the true sense of what public service was meant to foster within the state sector.
            Under state healthcare, the people are not in control of anything. They are under the control of the nanny state; a quaint word for something much sinister. Soon all our vices, deemed unhealthy by our medical professionals, and deemed a threat to NHS funding will be put under the microscope until our behaviour will be overseen to see who deserves and does not deserve treatment for an arrange of subjects.
             At least under the American system, whether through wealth or through an insurance based system, the patient is treated without moral judgement regarding their illnesses incurred through their vices. Human beings are prone to the lure of enjoyable vices that may in the long run ruin their health –this goes as much for sex (i.e. Aids) as anything else.
            The best compromise is the market based system, and not the Victorian judgmental system of a state regulated and politically directed arrangement  (paid for by the tax payer) – an arrangement based upon the kind of medical determinism where the medical professionals decide who can and cannot be treated based upon their behaviour. This is not happening now; but it is the direction we are going in. The direction medical professionals like the chief medical officer Sally Davis are leading us.
            A direction where illnesses that have found little favour with the medical profession because they were brought about by the vices mentioned above; have no welcome within the NHS. It will come to this eventually, if the likes of Sally Davis and those who come after her have their way. We are on the infernal slippery-slope.
            Would Sally Davis for instance warn off homosexual's from indulging in anal sex because of Aids? A practice which no doubt has an impact on NHS spending. Would this vice be pilloried by her in the same way she seeks to end smoking in parks?

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Dirty old town

GREAT YARMOUTH is a dog-eared town; a town in decline; a decline that has accelerated due to the appearance of foreign tongues, now in occupation of houses once described in Yarmouth's hey-day as boarding houses which brought wealth to the town during the summer months, and contributed to a fruitful holiday industry. Boarding houses that were then well looked after and cherished by their owners; houses newly painted each spring in anticipation of the summer months; houses decorated with colour in the form of various kinds of plant life accompanied by the smell of bacon rending the air each morning as breakfasts were served while I delivered them there daily newspapers – each and every one; each competing with the other to display the No Vacancy sign on their windows.
             Each part of the season was split into fortnights, such as Scottish and Northern fortnight. All over the country at various parts of the summer season northern factories would close for two weeks for the annual summer holiday; and it would be to English seaside resorts that the workers would travel; and Great Yarmouth was one of their holiday destinations.
             Blame it, if you like, on the late 1960s and the temptation of cheap family holidays abroad, which is undoubtedly true; but then the town became, as a consequence, merely a convenient stop over for primarily day trippers in the summer months before and after they took their real holiday abroad. After all, in the 1960s the owners of Yarmouth's guest houses also set their sights on Spain, paid for through the earnings made from, primarily the British working class. In the end, because of the cheap package holiday flights to Spain, this same working class joined their boarding house owners on the same holiday destination; but the boarding house owners fell into decline as a result.
             Now in Yarmouth, boarding houses, or the uber boarding houses that were borderline hotels, have either new occupiers speaking foreign tongues; or they have forests of cannabis plants waiting for harvest within their domains. This is what the town of Yarmouth is exposed to. The local politicians, and the local press have been silent witnesses to what their town is degenerating into. Which is why Ukip has gripped the local indigenous community to its breast.
             The local people of Yarmouth, whether Tory or Labour, are beginning to show their disgust at their local party representatives on the council. Last May Ukip proved the most successful party on the town council. But all this lead to was the Tories and Labour voting in unity to disbar Ukip members from joining the various local council committees that ran the town.

GREAT YARMOUTH is my town of birth (I am now 64), and for all its many faults, and until that is, its Brown manifestation, I had always chosen the Labour Party as my preferred choice at the ballot box. But no longer - and mainly for ideological reasons that belong to another piece at another time.
             At the moment Great Yarmouth lies like a beached whale, very still and slowly rotting on the sea shore. Our town leaders are vacuous when deciding what needs to be done to regenerate the town. Of course they can come up with the odd million or two, or three; or even 50. But to do what? Build an outer harbour that has been a pitiful waste of taxpayers' money. At least we have the compensation of a bi-yearly visits from HMS Dauntless: the towns adopted naval sister. But who is available other than the Royal Navy to use the £50 million[1] facilities; built for a grander purpose than these naval visits. That grander purpose was a deep port that could be opened up to trade. We had, what was it, three or four cranes built in and transported from China in expectation of a renaissance in trade between our town and the near continent – the cranes no longer exist, they were taken away; the bubble had burst – yet another reason at the time to distrust local politicians from all the parties..
             You have to be of my age and generation to appreciate how this town has been left abandoned; first of all to the social derelicts from cities like London in the 1980's; and now by immigrants. Our once proud boarding houses and hotels, are now being used for social housing of immigrants from primarily eastern Europe; allowed into the country by Tony Blair and the last Labour government; and the Tory's have no plans to get rid of them; which is why many of us in Yarmouth are fully prepared to switch out allegiances from Tory, Labour, and Lib Dems - to Ukip.
             There is nothing any of these local parties can do to dissuade many people locally from turning to Ukip…especially those of my generation. For we cannot be fooled into anything any longer, politically. Well; this is not exactly the truth. There are among our age group some who are still prepared to vote for the three main parties, despite what they have witnessed. These are blue, red, and yellow rosette  wearing monkeys who have their support for the three main parties, written into their DNA.

GREAT YARMOUTH is my first love. It does not deserve its current predicament. But it is a predicament partially authored by the way the local people have voted in the ballot box for the three main parties; much of it inborn and generational, and therefore without any intellectual input independent of romantic attachment to the three main parties.
            Now this attachment is beginning to break and more and more local people are turning, like myself, to Ukip. At least they are representing the views of the British people on the two great issues of the day; which the people believe outweigh other domestic issues.
            Europe and immigration I believe, as a citizen of this town, are the two fundamental issues that need seeing to; and none of the three main national parties locally, at least, have any kind trust in them left. Ukip's priorities are mine -  and there solutions are mine.

[1] This is a guestimate, and a conservative one at that.

Ukip must prick the bubble; but also contain their egos.

THE TROUBLE WITH living in a bubble is that you become complacent and cut off from reality. Those living within such a bubble like our London journalists; including political commentators and politicians, their speech writers and political advisors; as well of course the metropolitan luvviedom and the rainbow coalition of liberal arty-fartydom; who all immerse themselves in their own micro-culture of what they believe to be a multicultural metropolitan utopia; where they do not have to make any kind of physical contact with any other part of the country.
            To such a grouping, the three party system has been their financial and political mainstay. To the political elite, and their fellow travellers among the parliamentary correspondents; the tripartite party system has been bankrolling them for decades. The three party system is as important to the political journalists as it is to the political parties they feed off - like those tiny fish that hover above sharks, cleaning the microscopic bacterial residue from their skins. This is the kind of symbiosis between the three party system and the political journalists and commentators.
             Now a new force threatens this cosy arrangement. Ukip is not a new party, but one that has been in existence for over 20 years. In all those years, it has had to wait the finalisation of the public's indifference to the tripartite Westminster arrangement. Since 2010 and the arrival of coalition government, vast areas of the country outside of London have finally become disillusioned with the ConLabLib Metropolitan consensus; and thousands of them have turned toward Ukip and millions have voted for them from within all the main parties, that have always been slow through a cocky complacency to take Ukip seriously.
             As far as Ukip is concerned, the Conservative Party have behaved to them with the same kind of arrogance reminiscent of France's Bourbon dynasty once used toward the people of France in the 18th century – the arrogance of the Divine Right to rule. Arrogant self-confidence has been Cameron's main rebuke to Ukip. His early dismissive reference to Ukip as comprising lunicidal swivelled eyed aged fanatics; and one time Conservative voters, was his contribution to Ukip's early successes.

AFTER THE European elections, we were given further evidence that Ukip were a force to be reckoned with – a force made stronger by the addition to its ranks of one of the Tory parties brightest and best.
             Douglas Carswell's mighty victory in Clacton with a majority of 12,404, or  61% of the vote; followed up by the Great Labour Scare at Heywood and Middleton, where Ukip came within 617 votes of beating Labour in one of its strongholds; has finally made both the Conservative and Labour parties take Ukip seriously. Farage, the onetime perfect anachronistic stereotypical, 'beer swilling' swivelled eyed xenophobic anti-immigrant and ex-military backwoodsman, which once represented the perfect caricature of the 'Old Toryism,' much despised by the 'New Tory' Cameroons; has taught the vacuous hobbledehoy now steering the modern 'Tory' party to oblivion, a bitter lesson.
              Nigel Farage and Ukip have pierced the bubble of oxygen the Metropolitan elite have lived under; and has now finally woken them up to a new force in British politics, which they previously sneered at; if, that is, they considered them at all. The Metropolitan political movers and shakers - that breed of self-important arrogant liberal commentators of the type invited into various television studios, to give their views on the next day's newspaper headlines each evening, are still, after Clacton and Heywood and Middleton, appearing like luddites, refusing to ignore any progress that falls outside their political liberal comfort zone.

UKIP ARE STILL in that zone where it can go bottom up at any moment. It is a party approaching its third trimester of political pregnancy; which will be in May of next year, when either it faces a healthy birth with a minimal influence in parliament, or one which tears itself apart. Come next May, Ukip must limit its ambitions and once done so, stick to them and still believe themselves to be the next force in British politics.
            There is a part of me which would like to see a Lib-Lab coalition after next year's election. I believe that Ukip's next and final advance into power at Westminster, would be as a result of a Tory defeat and a coalition between Labour and the Lib-Democrats. Such a coalition, if successful, would destroy both parties.
             Labour and the Lib Dems in coalition would represent well under 50% of the population come next May's general election; even if Labour retained its core vote and entered an alliance with the Lib Dems with an expected 7% of the national vote. They would 'govern', and in doing so drive the final stake into the heart of  'progressive' politics by their behaviour in government.

UKIP HAS THIS one opportunity to hold back the 40 year tide of liberal failure that has brought this country almost to its knees. Next May they have this single chance to reverse the liberal tide that has engulfed British culture since the late 1950s.
             What worries me about Ukip is not their policies, but the egos that seed the party. If there is a great falling out between competing egos within the party, from Nigel Farage down, then this will spell the end, not only of Ukip, but an alternative to the wretched ConLabLib triumphret.
             If Ukip really cares about this nation, then individual egos must learn to co-exist. If they cannot then the other parties and the press will pounce, and it will be the end of the UKs one chance to abandon a European political and monetary federal union…in other words it will amount to the death of the nation state (the UK).


Milliband…a Jew without a history of his people

HAS ED MILLIBAND FINALLY GONE MAD? Today there is to be a debate in parliament carrying the motion that Palestine should be recognised; and Ed Milliband has imposed a three line whip on his backbenchers to vote in favour of the motion.
            First of all, where is this state of Palestine to be found in any copy of any atlas in print today? Palestine does not exist, so what is to be recognised? What Milliband is asking from his backbenches is, in effect, to vote for some kind of ghostly apparition. Where are the boundaries of this Palestine that Ed believes must exist in order to recognise it.
            I have a feeling that Ed is trying once more to appeal to his party's support for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; in a vain hope of salvaging his reputation within his party - Milliband is a fool. Great intellectual capacity does not make an individual impervious to foolery and stupidity. Attending one of this country's great Oxbridge colleges, does not cocoon or obliterate a fine mind from human frailty.

            I WOULD LIKE to see a two state solution to the Middle East conflict. I believe that both Israel and a Palestinian state should exist side by side through negotiation – but it does not exist now. One such state is missing. But those who believe in it like those either voluntarily, or provoked into supporting this motion; have to define the boundaries of the fictitious state they are voting in support of.
            This whole motion conjured up by what are supposed to be the nation's most endowed political minds; serves only to demonstrate the contempt the public feels for the UK's political class. There is no consideration in this motion of the fact that the Palestinians reject the right of the state of Israel to even exist. Hamas is quite explicit as is the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank on this subject, if you read the outpouring from their websites. Neither acknowledges the right of the Jewish state of Israel to even exist; let alone to live side-by-side with it.
            Each seeks to end the Jewish presence in the Middle East, which is no doubt why, unlike those debating this ridicules motion today, the Israelis are sticking to their guns. Israel exists (unlike Palestine) and it is only through negotiation that a Palestinian state can relinquish the ghostly formation that this parliamentary motion is intent on preserving.
            The two state solution, even before it gets off the ground; needs the acceptance from the Palestinians that the Israeli state has a right to exist. This has not been forthcoming, especially from Hamas; which seeks the eradication of the Jews from Israel and the whole Middle East.
            Will this be part of Ed Miliband's support for the motion to be debated in Parliament today? Does this motion seek to preserve the right of Israel to exist? Will Ed Milliband, unlike Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; also seek to preserve the right of the Jewish state to exist? Will he stand full square behind the right of the Jewish state to exist and defend it, even if    such a defence puts him in bad odour with his party and the Left generally?  I doubt it. His brother would have… but not Ed.
            Israel is the one true democracy in the Middle East – a democracy organically grown, by people who farmed it from their experience of persecution living under democracy's various antitheses such as Nazism, Communism, and the pogroms that punctuated their  survival, particularly in Eastern Europe in the 18th century.
            The Israelis like the British evolved into a democratic country with universal suffrage at its heart. Whereas, the Arab Spring turned into a very cold winter for the democracies they promised.

I FIND IT ALMOST unfathomable that Western democracies should treat the democratic state of Israel so belligerently, whilst pandering to the likes of Hamas who, they readily agree, to be a terrorist organisation. If democracy has any credibility in the West, then it cannot possibly countenance Hamas's dictatorship in Gaza, and its goading of Israel into military conflict by sending wave after wave of untargeted missiles into the Jewish state hoping to kill as many civilians as they can.
           The Western bien pensant liberals have seen the Palestinian cause as outweighing all other moral consideration of their acts of terrorism against Israel. To such people, there is no act taken against Israel that could possibly be described as being a terrorist act. Their yearning, almost to orgasmic levels, for the creation of a Palestinian state, leaves very little room for acknowledging the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist at all.
            But the Jewish state does exist and will continue to do so irrespective of any vote in the UK parliament. No longer will the Jews go quietly into that dark goodnight as they were once forced to do by the Nazis. In future, if such a Jewish hunting party wishes to obliterate world Jewry, they know where to come. Whether their persecutors are Nazi or Palestinians. This time they will have a fight on their hands…there will be no cattle wagons this time around to ship them to the gas chambers: they will not subject themselves to such a past again without a fight.