Monday, November 16, 2015

Emoting only spurs on the terrorist

Part one - Saturday
THE LAST I HEARD THE DEATH TOLL stood at 129[1] with even more casualties - 99 of whose injuries are described as critical; which could, and in some cases, will prove fatal. Paris is locked down and President Hollande has closed France's borders. World leaders have expressed their well-rehearsed outrage; and if angry rhetoric could slay the West's enemies, then our presidents and prime ministers would have destroyed ISIS globally within hours of the tragedy in Paris last night. I referred to presidents and prime ministers; but I did not deliberately include - Chancellor.
                 It is now 13:14 on Saturday after the terrorist attacks in Paris which began about seven o'clock London time yesterday evening; and now, some 17 hours later, the German chancellor has yet to speak on the subject of the Paris outrage - not even, at this time of writing, a twitter expressing her sorrow for the Parisians, and people of other nations (possibility including Germans) who died or are near to death.
                 Chancellor Merkle is facing a revolt from within her own party over her invitation to 800,000 migrants from Syria to come live in Germany. This invitation was madness; not only because of the locus-like quantities of humanity invited; and not because there would be more to follow in the coming months. What was never considered by Merkle was that her invite would allow ISIS supporters to infiltrate the great migrations crossing the Mediterranean to Italy and Greece; while others entered Europe's eastern borders via Turkey.
                 But Chancellor Merkle is not the only blameworthy politician that is responsible for this mess Europe finds itself in. For it is one of Europe's own making, which began in the post-colonial era when liberal middle-class guilt paved the way for mass migration from former colonies - this, however, is a separate issue alluded to only because our current crises was seeded in the post-colonial era - which is an argument for another day.

IT WAS SCHENGEN THAT tore down Europe's borders to make way for the free movement of peoples within the EU: well intended as part of a grand vision for a United States of Europe where nation states had become (so the thinking went from the Europhile authors) nothing more than a curse on Europe's past and needed to be done away with; and the first impulse of this enlightened federalism was to open Europe's borders. But the opening of these borders was already causing consternation within the indigenous populations of, in particular, northern Europe. Now this free movement has been added to by the mass migrations from Syria (including Afghanistan, North Africa; and even Pakistan).
               Today European navies are searching the Mediterranean for migrants in dire need of rescue from their frail inflatable boats which in many cases lack any sufficiency for conquering the Mediterranean. And when the migrants are found and picked up; do they deliver them back to whence they came? Of course not: they transport them to the nearest European coast line. It is absurd that our own armed forces are adding to the kind of problem that was last night visited upon the centre of Paris[2]. It is idiocy of the first kind: an idiocy that well-meaning EU liberal statesmen could only come up with – it is not the fault of the various navies indulging in this trawling; but the European politicians who order them to do what they are doing.
               ISIS is inviting themselves into Europe on the backs of genuine migrants into Europe; but in particular, Germany is welcoming them to European shores after which they can travel wherever they like because of Schengen throughout the rest of Europe including the UK despite us not being a signatory to Schengen. It remains to be seen whether or not (or even if it is possible to discover) those who terrorised Paris last night, were either home grown; or were part of the summer migrations into Europe that will continue. But the non-existent state of Europe's national borders must cause much vocal emissions from the mouths of ISIS of Allah Akbar![3]

Part two – Sunday 15th
AFTER THE FIRST night of horror now into its third day; Herr Merkle has still to respond. But now comes the mourning and the blame game presented in its mawkish aspects by the media. The pattern of mourning is the same; whether it is the horrific numbers killed in Paris on Friday night; or the single death of a murdered child somewhere in England unrelated to terrorism – flowers and candles permeate a hastily created shrine at the places where the horrors were committed. People in tears for the loss of a loved one are focused in upon by media lenses; the more stressful the image of human mourning, the longer the lenses remains focused.
                 We are now in the period of worldwide post-terrorist emoting. In London, the London Eye has been digitally draped in the French tri-colour out of respect; and the same digital drapes are reproduced in every Western capital over their own particular iconic building recognised throughout the rest of the world. But what does it all mean to ISIS? It means little – in fact all such images of lighted candles and weeping are so degenerate to them that their passivity enforces the view within ISIS and other parts of Islam that the West is slipping into effete disintegration – and who can blame them for so believing?
                  The West's response to the horrors of last Friday must be coolly contemplated before we act. But in our response we must be as ruthless as our enemy: we must not shy away from the possibility of civilian deaths (or as it is popularly known, 'collateral damage'); as ISIS expects us to do, thus greatly limiting the West's ability to destroy them. No longer must a human flown aircraft or unmanned drone be turned away from a target for fear of civilian casualties; because our enemies will take advantage of what they perceive to be a Western weakness that will ultimately lead to a European Caliphate.
                   If the West cannot use their full military might (short, you will be glad to know, of the nuclear option) to destroy ISIS and Islamism, then Islamism, in its various forms, will conquer and create a European caliphate. They will do so because the liberal West will have allowed such a possibility to come about; and if we lack the ruthlessness of our enemies: which we do lack under our own liberal caliphate that oversees the whole of Western and Southern Europe: a caliphate that has opened Europe's borders to all and sundry and among whom Islam now provides the greatest input into Europe.
Final part
Merkle still yet to appear.

[1] The latest figure is 137.
[2] Since writing this, it has been disclosed by the Greeks that a Syrian passport was found on one of the terrorists killed in Paris –so it reasonable to contemplate the possibility that one of those Paris terrorists may have been plucked from the Mediterranean by a British naval vessel and delivered to Greece.
[3] God is great!

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Nationalism will recover its strength or Europe will die.

ANGELA MERKLE'S come one come all welcome to Syrian migrants, does not seem (as anyone she was prepared to listen to could have told her at the time) to have been a very good idea. But Herr Merkle was insistent that Germany could find a home for 800,000 refugees, with more to follow. Which poses the question – where to put them? Well the small town of Sumte in what was once former East Germany; a town of just102 people has the answer. German officials have sent 750 migrants to live among them with little or no concern for the town's residents or their feelings. Like it or lump it seems to be the authority's silent response. Angela Merkle (just voted the second most powerful person on the planet) has spoken; and she who must be obeyed, will be obeyed. All she now has to do is await the announcement from Sweden that she has secured the Nobel Peace Prize; thus continuing the tawdry tastelessness of many of its previous recipients going back to Henry Kissinger.
                There is the belief in Germany that the counterfeiting of Syrian passports amounting to tens of thousands is taking place, according to a German police forensic expert interviewed by Mail Online. The unnamed individual is convinced it is happening, the Mail quotes him as saying; 'I know their documents are false but I cannot prove it.' So the Mail Online reporter Nick Fagge set about trying to counterfeit a Syrian passport, ID card and driving licence under the name of a dead Syrian by paying $2,000 via the black market in southern Turkey – he was successful. With finances large enough to pay the people traffickers; the migrants have also managed to pay $2000 sums for such counterfeiting if they needed it - it would have been cheap at double the price to gain access to Germany.  
                Germany has made a mistake of historical proportions that may not only cause social unrest in Germany; but also throughout the mainland of Europe. There is growing resentment in country after country from west and east Europe to this open door policy of mass immigration from outside the continent of Europe that Merkle has unleashed. I now understand how, after the Treaty of Versailles following the end to the First World War, the German people turned to the Right after the call for reparations by the victors brought Germany to its knees. The same may…just may…be happening now because of Angela Merkle's ill thought through invitation not only to the free movement of peoples throughout Europe; but now extended to external cultures that have little or no understanding of Western culture and values – many of whom even despise our culture and values.
                 If in the coming months we will see throughout, particularly in northern Europe, the advance of the Right: this will be because of the supine and indolent tolerance of all things multicultural by Western liberalism to the point where in Europe, national cultures are relegated to equanimity with whatever multi-cultures are invited to become resident among us; even those that have only recently been exposed to democracy and use it opportunistically rather than principally - such as the arrivals from Syria.

IS IT LITTLE WONDER THAT David Cameron chooses a more studied approach to allowing Syrian migrants into the UK than the more emotional and, I would suggest, the more guilty (because of her country's past) German chancellor's  unrestricted invitation to those migrants to live among her people. By deluging her country with migrants; she is stirring up the very past she seeks to bury, as all Germans do. But she has gone far too far. The German people have tolerated through Schengen, people from all four corners of the EU. Germany has also tolerated 3.5 million Muslims (more than the UK) to live among them. Now Angela Merkle has opened her country's borders to over a million more Muslims from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and Pakistan.
               The small town of Sumte is a measure of the problems that Angela Merkle has unleashed on Germany: by reliance no doubt on her countrymen's guilt for the past; she is using it to serve her own purpose by waving through this vast addition to her country's population. 

DAVID CAMERON'S more measured and judicious response to the potential dangers was the correct policy. Cameron said the UK would be prepared to allow 20,000 Syrians into this country over a five-year period. But he said such a compilation would be drawn from the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. In this way those 20,000 who wished to come to the UK would be allowed to; but only after their backgrounds were checked thoroughly – thus the five years. It is cherry-picking in order to limit any potential jihadists from entering the UK; and it is right to cherry-pick.
                This is the way to approach this issue. Emoting, like Merkle, only creates further problems over and above the ones of free movement of peoples. The weight of numbers over the coming decade to enter Europe from the Middle East and from as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan; will only torment and frustrate the indigenous populations from within Europe in the countries the migrants are given residency in.
                I feel that the whole of Europe in the coming decades will be transformed into a vast bedlam where social fissures will grow; tensions will rise; hatred will fester on all sides; and where the laws on hate crimes will be ignored and eventually have to be annulled.
                Very few people believe that those migrants from Syria will ever see, or want ever to see their country again. Nobody sees Syria as it once was geographically, when eventually the fighting stops and the country is divided up in accordance with the land occupied by the various assailants.

                The Syrian migrants (or, I suggest, the vast majority of them), will remain as citizens of the EU and their numbers will grow, as has the other 15 million Muslims on the European continent; as the demographics change the balance of power will shift; the fissures I mentioned above will begin to appear and a democratic Europe with its indigenous cultures will be left fighting (literally) for their survival.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

The Anglican 80

OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FIGURES show that over the next four years £2 billion will be spent on those 20,000 migrants that call-me-Dave has agreed to allow into the UK. When it comes to even remedial maths, my brain reacts like an early 1990s vintage computer struggling to boot up. But thankfully Daniel Johnson, writing in today's Daily Mail has already worked out the yearly cost to be paid by the taxpayer to each individual migrant per year, and computes the amount at £24,000.
                Liberal idealism acts as if money is harvested, whenever needed, from trees. As liberals, they have this self-perceived virtuousness that government has as if it were a law of nature, the unarguable right to gather whatever amount of tax from the citizens they need to fulfil any requirement relating to their consciences. Eighty bishops of the Church of England compiled a finger-waving correspondence to the prime minister, suggesting the taxpayer's largesse on this issue should be put to the expense of providing money for not twenty but 50,000 migrants.
                These bishops live comfortably enough in their little palaces compared to the norm within society (or even among the priesthood). They are especially gifted within wealthy rural dioceses, where the pastoral setting allows their various parsonages, if this is the right word, to flourish in comparative splendour compared to the citizens living even in the wealthiest of the church's diocese. Bishops live like (and are indeed) Lords and, therefore, no fear of any amount of migration from whatever quarter of the world it emanates will cause them any domestic discomfort.
                There are 250 Anglican bishops in the Church of England: and less than a third of them signed this rebuke to the prime minister. Yet the media has chosen to promote the 80 who pointed their fingers at Downing Street. I would like to know from which diocese did the insipid eighty emerge. Was their diocese rural? In which case they will not be visited by the migrant influx: It will be left to urban areas to soak up these migrants: and the people of these areas will have to live with the pressure their presence puts upon our social fabric locally.
                These 80 bishops cannot be ignorant of the fact of the social pressure that the addition of seven million entrants to the UK under the Schengen agreement has already subjected our NHS, education, and welfare bill to in a time when the country's deficit remains morbidly obese. All of these services have already paid a heavy price because of Schengen – now we are expected to trump such political liberal utopianism by adding to its naivety, the addition of 50,000 Syrians.
                 One hundred and seventy bishops refused to put their signature to the, I would like to say letter; but its length stretched to a document, such was the depth of the 80 bishops anger; but it was used by the media, particularly to parts of the printed liberal variant, to showboat in print the 80 bishops as if they were in some way a significant representation of the whole order of Anglican bishops – they were not.
                 There are probably many reasons why the 170 did not become signatories to the document: but I think that they all disagreed with the Anglican 80 – and rightly so: and should be applauded for such a stance. The 80 bishops represent the level of the liberal intrusion into the Anglican Church. Over the coming years (I hope it is years and not months), I have little doubt that the whole of the Anglican Bishopric will succumb to the enticement of liberal secularism, and prostrate themselves before its liberal 'progressiveness' irrespective of biblical teaching and biblical morality. Under such a regime, Christianity will lose out to secularism whose great secular pontiff is of course Richard Dawkins.

MASS MIGRATION comes at a great cost to society, as the Anglican 80 must know, but chose to ignore the social impact on the community they represent. Part (a very important part) of Christian teaching is personal sacrifice. When a Christian stands up for a cause; a cause that may demand some personal sacrifice, the Christian individual bears the sacrifice willingly because their faith gives him  the strength to do so however painful the burden asked of them by their faith.
                 I was not, or did not mean to be flippant when I eluded to the spacious surroundings the Anglican 80 find themselves in occupation of up and down the country in both rural and urban diocese. They have space a plenty in their particular inn to accommodate several families. However did the above-mentioned correspondence to the prime minister cite any kind of self-sacrifice they were themselves prepared to make? Thus setting an example to their flock, and by doing so make the message of Christianity relevant in an increasingly secularist society.
                Those 50,000 refugees[1] these bishops are eager, out of Christian and humane impulses, to welcome to our shore, should come at a price to themselves personally. They should be prepared to take in sufficient of these people into their own homes to fill every room – but sadly it appears that there is no room at these particular inns.
                I do not attend Church, and I am not a Christian, but I do know, according to his teaching; Christ would have wanted these bishops to do the right thing before asking the community to make sacrifices – he would have wanted his bishops to set an example.

[1] I use the term refugee instead of migrant because Cameron intends removing those 20,000 at source, among the refugee camps in Jordan and the Lebanon, thus making the UK their first port of call – which is the qualification for refugee status.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015


BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH is one of those awful representatives of luvviedom, who, because he is one of such who tread the boards and are eulogised by the critics; then elevated to blue ribboned celebrity status by the media; and as part of the tribe that believe themselves to have insights into the world of current affairs that the rest of us poor ungifted cannot possibly emulate. That gilded cage that the top echelons of the thespian fraternity live within, and twitter their profundities to the rest of us almost on a daily basis; is their sole remit to any pretence of reality. They live apart from the common heard, either in the Hollywood hills or in the more salubrious and trendy parts of London ignorant of the world outside that of their bubble-like existence.
                They flit from country to country by means of a high-end celebrity class luxury private jet, or slumming it in business class with Virgin Atlantic; they are then taken by limousine to the five star luxury of the trendiest hotel in whatever city they wish to bless with their opinions on arrival: where they are surrounded by the world's media and where a simple sneeze can ignite controversy.
                This is the shallow world in which Benedict Cumberbatch has taken up residence: the world of fandom; the world where a simple comment upon the weather can always bring them publicity. This culture of celebrity; this shallow culture orchestrated by the media but used by the likes of Cumberbatch to advance their views: views many of which are unrelated to their profession and where such views are no more worthy of respect than those of any other Englishmen whom the media ignore.
                Celebrity culture is the bane of Western civilisation. We no longer listen to the well educated, who find the world a far more complex arena than the luvvies can ever hope to understand; if they did they would shut up and listen, which they rarely do; they stick limpet-like to the liberal vessel floating uncharted in the world of unreality.
                 Benedict Cumberbatch has used his celebrity status to opine against the way this country has reacted to the Syrian migration into Europe: we, the UK, he insists, have been proven parsimonious in the number of these 'refugees' we are prepared to take amounting to only 20,000 over the next five years, and only from the Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, and not from those pressing their case on Europe's Eastern borders.

IF WE HAD NOT signed up to the Schengen Agreement on open borders (which has added, so far, over five million to the UK population), then maybe we could have accepted a bigger quota of Syrians – but we cannot. Cumberbatch and his fellow blue ribboned thespians will never come into any contact with the problems provided by mass immigration.
                 Perhaps, his ultimate educational residence, (after volunteering to become a teacher at a Tibetan monastery in Darjeeling) was the University of Manchester to study drama; which in itself would, he believes, qualify him to pontificate as a good liberally minded actor, on all the problems of the day, once he became successful in his chosen profession – but this could only come about if the critics elevated him and his performances as an actor to almost God-like status: only then would his romantic banalities be listened to regarding immigration.
                 After his latest declamation Cumberbatch will no doubt be hoping for the reward that all good liberal thespians crave for before a knighthood or becoming a Dame - the title of a UNHCR Good Will Ambassador.
                 If we were to compete with Germany in the amount of Syrian migrants we take in, the NHS would fall apart at a far more catastrophic rate than is currently the case: we now need to build hundreds of more schools just to cater for those extra hundreds of thousands of children that have arrived because of our support for European open borders: our teachers are leaving the profession in record numbers fleeing from ill-disciplined classrooms where dozens of different languages have to be catered for: while a million new homes are now needed to cope with the increase of population.
                 Social tensions are becoming ever more apparent (hate crimes have increased), and not only between the indigenous people and the rest. Many second and third generations of Afro-Caribbean's, Muslims and Indians also take exception to the open border influx from the continent. Indeed, the arrivals from Portugal, Romania and Albania, and every other member state of the EU that are entitled to live and work in the UK have united those migrants from our one time colonies; thus temporarily plastering over their own cultural grievances with each other which are never referred to by our media because of their very own racist connotations – because immigration and racism to our multiculturalist, is a black and white issue void of any shades of grey.
                 Now Benedict Cumberbatch wishes us to pour more oil on the fire by inviting hundreds of thousands of Syrian migrants to help contribute to the funeral pyre of our indigenous culture: a culture, part of which embraces the NHS and cradle to grave welfare. Neither of which will survive an assault that expands our population at an exorbitant rate in such a short time.
                The liberals like to blame the difficulties within the NHS on old farts like me, because we are living longer – no mention of the impact of five million migrants, which Cumberbatch wishes to add to,  being blamed on the decline of the NHS. As far as the NHS is concerned; if I could wave a magic wand and return those Europeans who entered through open borders back to their various nations; then the 'living longer' blame-game loses its credulity (if, that is, it had any in the first place).

 LUVVIES, ALL LUVVIES, should do what they know best – perform: and at least go on a fat free diet as far as their emoting is concerned. I recommend that they zip their mouths, and before they open them again, study all the angles of a given pet venture into an area they know little of; and do not think the situation through before lending it their support. It appears to me that our celebrities, because their views are being taken so seriously by our celebrity culture, are pontificating emotionally (the natural impulse of all liberally inclined actors).
                 Benedict Cumberbatch is a good hearted thespian liberal who joins the pantheon of such. Once upon a time those such as Cumberbatch would have impressed their hand in a rectangle of newly laid concrete in Hollywood – the Hollywood equivalent of a knighthood. Now neither this or his talent, and the knighthood it is surely guaranteed him; should entitle him to pontificate upon global affairs that he has no more right, or even a workable knowledge of, to give his verdict upon. We of course also do the very same thing when we offer our opinions.
                But Cumberbatch's opinions like those of, for instance, Vanessa Redgrave and many, many other of their melodramatic liberal and pseudo-revolutionary kind, who hold little claim to popular opinion which they both despise anyway, because, when it comes to our indigenous culture, popular opinion to them means racism and nationalism, which between them amounts to Fascism. It means everything the liberal mind working in politics stands against.


Doomsday Europe

A CONFIDENTIAL classified document leaked to Die Welt and taken up by the Gatestone Institute makes interesting and unnerving reading for the people of Germany. The document reports that by the end 2015, Germany will have received 1.5 million asylum seekers[1], with 950,000 arriving within the last quarter. Now, once Germany welcomes these people as Angela Merkle has done; their relatives will seek to join their kin on German soil: according to the document this could swell the numbers to more than 7 million - on top of which, the German authorities have estimated that 290,000 migrants have entered Germany without being registered.
                 But the most disturbing content of this report revolves around the levels of crime attendant upon the arrival of such numbers where crime, particularly among the youth has gone ignored by the German police fearful of promoting a backlash from the indigenous citizens of Germany. The report says; 'The behaviour of these highly delinquent youths towards police officers can be characterized as aggressive, disrespectful and condescending. ... When they are arrested, they resist and assault [police officers]. The youths have no respect for state institutions.'
                 This attitude of appeasement by the German authorities fearing a backlash reminds me of what happened in Rochdale, Oxford, Rotherham and other cities in the UK; where gangs of Asians were effectively given licence by the local authorities (who turned a blind eye) to the kidnapping from the streets, of young girls (usually from state 'care') who were taken to some hell-hole and gang raped. It was tolerated in our country because of fears of upsetting the Muslim population who British government after British government had and still has, at every opportunity sought only to appease, out of fear of being accused of racism by the 2.5 million Muslims that we call British.
                  In the case of Germany, the same kind of fear among the authorities operates. In Berlin a classified police report revealed that; '…a dozen Arab clan's hold reign over the city's criminal underworld. The report says the clans, which are dedicated to dealing drugs, robbing banks and burglarizing department stores, run a "parallel justice system" in which they resolve disputes among themselves with mediators from other crime families. If the state gets involved, the clans use cash payments or threats of violence to influence witnesses.'
                   In Duisburg according to the President of the German Police Union: 'In Berlin or in the north of Duisburg there are neighbourhoods where colleagues hardly dare to stop a car[2] — because they know that they'll be surrounded by 40 or 50 men. These attacks amount to a deliberate challenge to the authority of the state — attacks in which the perpetrators are expressing their contempt for our society.'
                   So this is the truth of mass migration. Liberal politicians and simple minded Bishops of the rapidly disintegrating Anglican Church shout, 'Come one, come all!', without even intellectualising the consequences for our society of such an invitation - dear God; how I hate heart driven idealism with little or no appeal to the brain.

ANGELA MERKLE has, by her dangerously misguided invitation to the mass influx of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanistan's, and even Pakistanis into Germany; will, in the coming years prove socially hazardous for the Indigenous German people. Merkle will not be treated kindly by history for what she has unleashed upon her country and its indigenous culture; which she has now put under threat by her starry-eyed welcome to possibly 7 million Muslims, in addition to the 1.5 million already in residence within Europe.
                Those she has welcomed on her peoples behalf will never return to Syria; and the same goes for all other migrants from Muslim countries that have now forced their way into Germany from Eastern Europe at Angela Merkle's invitation to take refuge: it will count for little when peace is restored to the region from which they came and they will no longer wish to return. By which time Germany will have on its hands, as second generation of Syrians born in Germany, with the right to leap-frog EU border after EU border, because of Schengen.
                The EU was meant to bring our nations together into a single superstate; an ambition that was done to bring an end to European conflict that had plagued European history – but once more idealism was preferred to reason (let alone reality). Now we have the free movement of peoples, and very little harmony; as the growth of the Right suggests. If this wretched free movement had not taken place, then the debate about Syrian migrants would have taken a far smoother course and resistance would have been less, and sympathy for the migrants at least stomached, if not wholly tolerated.
                 Age old boundaries have been done away with, with nothing more than a vision of childlike romanticism to replace them; resulting in misfortune after misfortune resulting in the chaos surrounding the single currency; and now we have Herr Merkle's invitation to increase the Muslim population of Europe from 15 million by, according the leaked report, a further 7 million.
                Which, given that the indigenous birth rates are falling in many European countries, and the propensity for large families exist among those Muslims that live in such countries; how long will it be before Western values are overtaken by Sharia Law? How long will it be before Owen Williams, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury's wish for sharia to be incorporated into English law comes about? Not very long once the demographics change.
                 What is happening in Germany, we in England cannot escape from unless and until we renounce the Schengen agreement which our spineless political supplicants to EU regulation are incapable of doing – so let the flood continue unabated until the same kind of conflict the EU was created to stamp out; re-emerges on the continent in a different form.


[1] The status asylum seeker only applies to those migrants who seek refuge from oppression in first safe country they enter; which in this current crisis are the island of Lesbos, as well as Italy, and Turkey. Once they leave these safe havens and proceed deeper into Europe targeting Germany as their final destination – they then lose the asylum tag and become migrants…economic migrants.
[2] What we in the UK would consider no-go areas.  

Sunday, October 18, 2015

The Principled One

SO, THE PRINCIPLED ONE is set to become vice-president of CND. Jeremy Corbyn has, it seems, turned the Labour Party into a protest group rather than having it remain a party. Think of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and his own naive attempt at trying to incorporate sharia law into English law and you discover the same mindset in Jeremy Corbyn. Each of them could be psychological creations from within a Dostoyevsky novel; they have a similar appetite for the innocence of romantic idealism in regard to human nature. They both think that human natures more unsavoury impulses can be deterred, either by Christianity or socialism – yet neither concept have proved itself civilised in its historical behaviour in attempting to improve human behaviour. Neither Christianity nor socialism has changed human nature for the better over the course of 2,000 years in the case of Christianity; or over the 200 or so years of socialism in one form or another, which has begun making its ideological rounds, firstly within Europe.
                The Principled One thinks he and his CND followers are the only creatures on this planet who believe the world would be better off without nuclear weapons. They seem to think we who oppose them, in their naivety, are lovers of the power and might of nuclear weaponry of the type depicted in the film Dr Strangelove; where Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (played by Sterling Hayden) lights, in his deranged manner, the blue touch paper that sets off a nuclear war.
                The Principled One believes those of us in the West, who less than enthusiastically back the nuclear deterrent will open the door to such a calamity via similar means as the black comedic scenario that the Strangelove film sought to present.
                If the West, the whole democratic West, if Harry Potter-like waved a magic wand and disposed of the West's nuclear capability; trusting (as no doubt the Principled One does) that the West's enemies will readily concur and do away with their own nuclear capabilities no longer feeling under threat from the West; will then lead to a world of milk and honey is a kind of (if there is such a concept) of unhinged naivety.

IF THE WEST sought to trust its nuclear enemies; enemies such as North Korea, Russia, and the latent addition to the nuclear-armed family, Iran: who insist to president Obama that its nuclear facilities are purely for domestic utility purposes. Upon such an assurance, an eager American President now serving his final term in office is fully prepared to accept -  and a deal was done; but as a sell-out to America's only trusted ally in the Middle East – Israel.
                We know that if America, France, the UK and Israel, keep their nuclear weapons then those Western nations without them will be protected from their use by the West's enemies. Nuclear weapons kept the peace between the West and the East during the Cold War because of the concept of mutually assured destruction. Communism's global reach was limited to parts of Eastern Europe because of them; and there is no doubt in my mind that had we not in the West, had a nuclear capability while leaving the Soviet Union with one – then Stalin and Khrushchev would have conquered Europe, because (especially Stalin) would have threatened them and been fully prepared to use them.
                 Nuclear weapons, if ever used, would at least bring a permanent end to wars between nations (but within nations – it is another thing) and vast millions of humanity: it was the prospect of this nightmare that mutually assured destruction kept at bay. The Principled One would do all he could to wreck this admittedly incongruous concept of mutually assured destruction. The concept, however, in the face of 'the nuclear bomb', worked during the Cold War because however evil at the time the Soviets or Chinese were; they were not stupid: if they between them destroyed capitalism by such means; then communism would also fall. In other words the nuclear age put a spoke in the works of the Marxian dialectic of Historical Materialism. Nuclear power, a concept of which Marx was unfamiliar with, effectively destroyed the symmetry and the 'inevitability' of Communism – or what Marx was to described as the scientific method, which resulted in nothing more than the kind of reading of tea-leaves you may run into at a spiritualist séance.  
                If the Principled One wins the day and (God help us all) becomes prime minister; then those sinners will no longer have to wait upon death to go to Hell; for the Principled One will have already created it on this part of the earth. Not through any feelings of malignancy – but through an innate naivety.
                Jeremy Corbyn has been, at best, seen as a pest. Not as you may expect by the Tory Party; but by his own party: a party whose fidelity to failure the current leader and his supporters celebrate; and does so because, through some perverted Marxian concept of communist inevitability mentioned above: the longer the current Tory government remains in power, then the sooner the Marxian nirvana will take hold of the people.
                His message is, let them govern. The age of austerity will bring about the age socialism. The Principled One does not care about winning government; only about transforming his party and steering it away from decades of 'betrayal' from the Right-Wing Labour leaders, starting with Hugh Gaitskell, and continuing with Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, and ending with that great opportunist and apostate, Neil Kinnock; who spoke like a socialist but acted like a Gaitskellite.
                Betrayal after betrayal by the leadership has kept true socialism at bay within the Labour Party. Betrayal has been the mantra the young and naive simpletons of the Labour left have chorused ever since Gaitskell and beyond. Now the party has principles enunciated by the Principled One himself and no obstacle (even the prospect of failure at the polls) will deter him from inflicting on the populace a life-time of incoherent ramblings aimed at the outer reaches of common sense while eviscerating any sign of any pragmatic approach.


Friday, October 16, 2015

Nazism is ill-understood by Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN, the Jordanian UN high commissioner for human rights, has heavily criticised the UK's immigration policy regarding those fleeing the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan comparing our countries treatment of these people to Hitler's treatment of the Jews. Many of those fleeing Syria are ending up in refugee camps in Jordan – we, the UK, are giving over a billion pounds to help these people forced into such a perilous state to keep them safe in such camps – more, in fact,  than any other European country.
                 The UN high commissioner has little comparative understanding between what happened to the Jewish people under the Nazis and what he sees as our 'treatment' of the Syrian migrants. It is pure hyperbole; the seething outrage of an irrational mind on this one issue. I sympathise with his frustration at the treatment of these people. Life and circumstance is, however, often more complicated than emotional resentment; and this is the case with the Syrian migrant influx. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein knows nothing (or so it seems by his remarks) about the influx of migrants into the UK during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970's from the old British Empire, who mistakenly our politicians thought we had a duty of awarding British citizenship, and creating the Commonwealth.
                 Was this the gesture deserving of a comparison with the Nazis? I will not lie that such influxes tested the tolerance of the indigenous population, but any act of racism at the time was restricted to the individual or small quantities of individuals; never baring any close comparison to the hundreds of thousands of Brown Shirts causing mayhem in Germany 76 years ago, that Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein alludes to.                            
                 Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein must curb his language. He is ignorant of the European open borders policy, which in the UK's case has permitted an additional five million people to share our shore, and wrought much tension upon the social fabric of our nation - a nervousness that can only inflate into out and out social unrest if hundreds of thousands of Syrian migrants were forced by the EU to be taken in by the UK.
                Either we allow, as in the case of Angela Merkle, a million migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and even Pakistan to become citizens of our country; or we have the five million from within Europe under Schengen – we cannot tolerate both; and Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had better understand this; for he appears ignorant of the circumstance of countries, like the UK, who oppose such an influx from the Middle East.
                I would welcome half a million Syrians to become part of our society Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein; but not as an addition to the numbers already allowed in under Schengen. Our leaders in Europe have fucked up good and proper, by meddling in the Middle East to the point where in Libya France and the UK interfered militarily against Gaddafi to successfully bring about his overthrow, which only poured oil on the fire. History will say of the behaviour of the West's various military involvements in the Middle East, that such a participation in the region made the situation a hundred times worse for the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria, than it was for them under the dictators.
                In fact, I would not be surprised if history treats Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad much more kindly than today's politicians and many commentators. I bet, given what has happened in these countries due to our meddling, the three dictators will be seen, yes, as brutal. But perhaps they had to be to prevent the different religious faction from doing to each other what they are doing today – and I also bet (although they will not admit to it publicly) that in their heart of hearts, Blair, Bush, Cameron, Obama and Hollande all wish they could turn the clock back, when, in particular, in Cameron's case he sees the mass migration into Europe.
                So, Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein; I agree that the West has fouled up, and as a Jordanian representative of the UN, it must be most irksome to say the least, considering how hard pressed your nation is in coping with refugees from (mainly but not exclusively) Syria.
                But to compare the UK's reaction to this great tide of humanity in such terms as you do is not only very silly but will prove unproductive in terms of the people you are trying to help. Western politicians have done great harm to the people of Iraq, Syria and Libya, by their involvement. We in the West have behaved like democratic imperialists believing that our actions would lead to fully fledged democracies in nations that were never suited to become democracies in the first place.
                Blair believed in a kind of nation building in these dictatorships once the dictators were swept to one side. The kind of nation he wanted to be the architect of was liberal democracy. It has, however, done more harm than good. But we are where we are. Then where are we Europeans now as the continent of last resort, and northern Europe the preferred final resort to the, by now, economic migrants?
                Europe, like the West generally is in terminal decline. It is not a question of if, but when. But it is Europe that will succumb first despite the attempts to create a United States of Europe to keep the continent's democracies solvent. Immigration will destroy Europe. But its destruction began not by the present influx of Syrian refugees; but by colonial guilt, and in Germany's case, the 70-year guilt that Nazism bequeathed future generations of Germans including Angela Merkle.
                Colonial guilt in Europe produced the ideology of multiculturalism, and this began the fall of European culture. Europe is in a dizzy state at the moment due to the latest influx; its indigenous people's have had to suck-up to the multicultural agenda which promotes diversity rather than integration. Such diversity will fragment people of different cultures each demanding their own cultural practices; many of which run contrary to the indigenous cultures throughout the continent.
                Therefore, before Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein criticises in such stark, and to the UK, repellent terms his opposition to our prime minister's policy on Syrian migration; let him, first of all, consider the reactions from, not only the indigenous population; but also from second and third generation migrants who oppose the Schengen influx.