Monday, January 26, 2015

Anti-Semitism is a centuries old virus; and one which still holds no prospect of a cure.

IT SHOULD NOT surprise us that anti-Semitism has reared its foul head once more in Europe. Today's Sunday Telegraph opines, "It is hard to believe that anti-Semitism is still a problem in 2015". Why is it so hard to believe? The Jewish Diaspora is 2,000 years old. So why does anyone find it hard to belief that Jews are still facing persecution in 2015. What is it about a new century that make people believe humans are any more civilised in it, than in any other century of human history?
                
                The Holocaust was meant to change everything about our treatment of Jews. Killing on a heartless, ruthless, sadistic, and more importantly, on an  industrial scale six million men, women and children; was meant to once and for all bring an end to Jewish persecution –  it has not. We kid ourselves that such a leviathan of hatred stored up over the centuries by bigots could be brought to an end by the Holocaust.
                
                 Jews never believed that European programs and later the Holocaust would bring an end to their misery; which is why they became determined upon creating a homeland, to which they could turn when anti-Semitism flowered once more. The state of Israel is an existential necessity for Jews throughout the world who, in the past, have always been blamed for the follies of politicians who have made the Jews shoulder the blame and resulting in the programs.

TODAY'S JEWS, within Europe, as they do in Israel itself, face being surrounded by hate. Not only from the radical Right, and the radical (pro-Palestinian) Left; but also from Europe's Muslim population. In other words, the Jews of Europe face a perfect storm from which it is increasingly being seen that Israel is their only safety net – the last redoubt for the Jewish race
                
                 The Right's anti-Semitism needs little explanation. It was from the Right that the first caricature of the Jew was born – he was a greedy miser, a pawn broker preying upon the poor, and a money lender; he also partook in the ritual sacrificing of children. His hideous face was often portrayed with an exaggerated hooked nose – later he was turned into the extortionate banker demanding vast amounts of interest on any loan. 
                
                 The Left on the other hand were the friends of Jews who helped protect them, for instance, when Mosley's Black Shirts entered London's East end where the Jewish community lived. Many Jews themselves were of the Left (including Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, and of course the Miliband's). The Jew and the Left were synonymous. They were ideologically joined at the hip; Jewish intellectuals favoured the Left, and the Left favoured them.
                
                 But today the pro-Hebrew Left are an almost vacuous sub-species of the Left that con-joined itself with the Jewish experience. Today what has evolved within the Left is what they like to call anti-Zionism. Zionism basically means a homeland for the Jews. Its founder was Theodor Herzl who sought a homeland for his people to escape from European anti-Semitism and bring about a nation for Jews to find safety in, and Israel was the Jews ancient homeland. However Herzl's ideas only really found a resonance among European Jewry following the Holocaust.
                
                 Today the Left have found a new minority to support – the Palestinians. They no longer have the kind of empathy they once did for the Jew. They now see the Palestinians as their primary victims of choice; as they once did the Jew; who is now seen as the Palestinians' persecutor. The Left do like their minority victims and, as far as the Left is concerned, the Jewish people have now passed their sell-by date.
                
                 But what the Left do not like, is being regarded as in any way racially prejudiced. To the left racialism is what the cross and garlic are to the vampire. So the Left's way around this calumny is to adopt anti-Zionism, which pretend that "Palestine" belongs to the Palestinians and the Jews have no right to build their Zionist state on what is the homeland of the Palestinian. This they say does not make them anti-Semitic; which indeed it does not. But anti-Zionism can act as a shield protecting the anti-Semitism within many who profess anti-Zionism.

MUSLIMS ARE THE FINAL and most significant part of the anti-Semitic pact that combine to create the perfect storm for the Jews. Whenever the state of Israel is forced to act to protect its people from rockets fired from Gaza – so anti-Semitism among Europe's Muslims (and the Left )take hold, and synagogues are attacked: Jewish cemeteries are attacked. And as we were witness to in Paris earlier this month - at a kosher supermarket. Jews are an easy target for Muslims.
                
                 I will not use the word Islamists to describe both the attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo or the Jewish supermarket. Those Muslims who caused the slaughter were protected from within the Muslim communities. I believe that a majority of France's Muslims felt sympathy for the kosher supermarket attacks. But I also believe that the vast majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world felt an even greater sympathy for the Charlie killings in Paris: European liberals, however, who believe in free speech and tolerance prefer to ignore this reality.
               
                 Our politicians parade the same mantra that these episodes of Islamist violence do not represent the views of the Muslim population as a whole. They represent the cravings of a Muslim Islamist minority, who have somehow misread the teachings of the Koran.
                
                 This is nonsense and I believe the politicians know this to be the case. But in the UK we have allowed to live among us three million Muslim 'citizens' whose citizenship the indigenous population had little say in allowing them entry into the country in the first place. Indeed, any opposition that did speak out was treated with a savage response by the political class. Racism was the charge, and it zipped many indigenous mouths shut for fear of becoming 'hate criminals'.

ANTI-SEMITISM IS alive and well today as has always been the case. The Jews were left to wander the earth without a home; despised, victimised, and finding themselves the scapegoat wherever they found a brief respite. Compared to the Jews, the Palestinians have got off lightly.
                
                There have been more Palestinians killed by Muslims than have been killed by Jews. The Palestinians have sought refuge among their own kind…only to betray the hospitality given them. Both in Jordan and Lebanon the Palestinians brought only trouble to themselves and further military conflict with Israel.
                
                 In Jordan, for instance, the Palestinians were given refuge in the kingdom; then tried to take over the kingdom for themselves resulting, so they hoped, in a state of Palestine. A war then broke out whereby 20,000 Palestinians were killed by King Hussein's Jordanian forces; and the Palestinians were once more turned away from their own kind.

ANTI-SEMITISM has not gone away, the prejudices are part of folk law and carry a resonance to this day. But today the European anti-Semitism comes from European Muslims; as well as the hypocritical Left who support the Palestinians and loath the Israeli state.
               
                Israel is the only solution left to world Jewry when they find themselves persecuted. If the two political extremes can no longer tolerate a Jewish presence among them; then let the Jewish state accommodate them as citizens of Jewish state rubber stamped by the UN in 1949.

                

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Manufactured population increase through immigration … and its consequences

OVER THE COMING DECADE the government will have to find another million school places, because of what is referred to as a spike in the population – 'spike'; now that is a word that could pass for liberal Newspeak on any day of the week. But what caused this spike in the population? The media (and here I mean Sky and the BBC who have been reporting the story) gave no detail regarding the character of this mini population explosion – just that we needed a million more school places.
                I would not mind betting that it is the birth rate among the immigrant population that accounts for the need for a further million school places; but the liberal media, for obvious reasons, do not wish to go down such a road to investigate the truth of my assumptions – could it be that they share them?
                
                I have no evidence but merely an assumption; but it is an assumption based upon two facts. Firstly, there have been an increase of over five million immigrants living in the UK since 2008 (this of course does not include the illegals). Secondly, we have been terminating 250,000 pregnancies a year – and here is another assumption: the vast majority of those seeking termination  have been among the white indigenous population, the majority of whom see abortion as another form of contraception.
                
                 When it comes to the NHS, what do we find? People living longer (including old farts like myself) as well as the obese, who are both being blamed for the current state of an over-burdened NHS. It is such pressures represented by the likes of myself and the lard arses that bear the full force of responsibility (so the politicians and so many parts of the media tells us) for causing the NHS's state of dysfunction. But yet again immigration receives no mention as a causative agent for the NHS's decline.
               
                   Because it is far more expensive to train new nurses in this country; we seek trained nurses from abroad because it is cheaper; thus depriving the nation's they arrive from of their skills – but  conscience driven liberals do not mind this because they can use such people to attack those who oppose mass immigration – their continual mantra is that the NHS could not exist without such flows of immigration  into its precincts – it can and it would, and it should. There are plenty enough indigenous applications to join the nursing profession, who are being turned away for economic reasons.

AS WELL AS SCHOOLS and the NHS; housing is another issue that a manufactured population increase can have an impact on within a nation. We need hundreds of thousands of more houses to be built to accommodate an increase in our population. These houses need to be situated on many Greenfield sites. The English countryside can no longer be guaranteed under the indigenous people's protection. Mass immigration yet again plants its footprint on our nation's heritage - and our multicultural society is ever ready to oblige them.
               
                Population increase on such a vast scale that has happened in the UK since 2008 cannot go ignored as the liberal elite are intent upon doing. Demanding that no questions be asked on this subject on penalty of committing a hate crime, is a blasphemy against free speech. Yet through the so-called hate crime edicts introduced by various British governments; the British public are being reduced to silence for fear of prosecution.
I
INCREASES IN POPULATION due to the sexual proclivities of an indigenous population are to be welcomed. But this is not what is happening. Such indigenous proclivities are now in thrall to immigrants. It is they who are filling our schools, hospitals, and the much needed new houses: leaving the indigenous people who complain, sectioned off by the liberal hegemony as bigots following their complaints.
               
                Demographics are being censored by the liberal commentariet. I look and listen to broadcasters; especially when it comes to news items about the NHS's problems. As I wrote above it is the elderly and obese who are the liberal patsies  for the NHS's troubles: but occasionally the subject of GP's contracts that has lead to the lack of out of hours service by GPs, is also given a mention. Now, all three causative reasons are perfectly reasonable, and undoubtedly play their role in the failings of the current NHS.
               
                But immigration is barely mentioned; and when it is, it carries the neutral form of expression, 'over population' without any reference to mass immigration as being in any way responsible for such an amplification in the population; an increase which contributes to the current (I would say) decline of the NHS.
                
                A decline started by the very people who brought this venerable institution about. It was the Labour Party who (rightly) proudly boasts about their party's seminal part in this institution's creation. The Labour Party has accrued much political capital (especially at election times) from being the author of a free at the point of need medical treatment embodied by the NHS.
               
               But the irony is, that it will be because of the actions of the Labour Party, that the NHS will finally be forced to fold, whoever is running the country; unless, that is, parts of the NHS are farmed out to the private sector -  which is of course anathema to the British people and the three main parties.

 IT WAS IN ALL PROBABILITY, that an ad-agency came up with and promoted something called 'New Labour' after Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party in June 1994. It was Blair, who through his government's actions, effectively brought about what will be seen as the eventual demise of the NHS.
                
                First of all, he pledged multi-billions of pounds to the NHS, but with the proviso that it reformed itself to New Labour's specifications. The money was handed over; two thirds of which went on doctors and nurses pay and conditions – as for the reforms; people are still left scratching their heads.
                
                Blair then allowed his then Health Secretary John Reid to renegotiate GP's contracts to the detriment of the people who use the NHS today. This resulted in six figure plus salaries for GPs without having to provide an out of hours service, which has contributed to the pile-up at our A&Es.
               
                But it was Tony Blair himself that opened up the floodgates to mass immigration in 2008 - Immigration has made the major impact on the survival of the NHS…it has now become a money pit draining off cuts from other parts of the state sector in order to feed its veracious appetite for extra funding. The NHS has now passed the  £100 billion mark. Our politicians are competing against each other to find even more resources to keep the NHS afloat.
                
               The uncomfortable fact is; that if the current (let alone any future) immigrant population had not been allowed to become such a strain on all our public services; the NHS would not be in the difficulties it currently finds itself in. Us old farts and the morbidly obese, and even John Reid's GP contracts would have all either had no, or an insignificant impact on the current state of the NHS.

          



The rise yet again of anti-Semitism in Europe - and sadly within the UK

THE SCARY thing about European anti-Semitism is that it is now practiced on both the conservative Right and the liberal Left. A poll conducted on behalf of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) among 3,411 British adults were asked which of the following statements do you associate with the word 'Jew'?

Jews think they are better than other people.
In business, Jews are not as honest as most people
I would be unhappy if a family member married a Jew.
Jews have too much power in the media.
Jews chase money more than other British people.
Jews’ loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.
Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.

                Nearly half believed that one of these statements were true[1]. As I look down the list there are two examples of such prejudices that have plagued Jewish people throughout their 2,000 year Diaspora (particularly in Europe). For instance; Jews chase money more than other British people (I had no idea Tony Blair was Jewish); or in business; Jews are not as honest as most people. They could have added to the list of such anti-Semitic shibboleths the ancient and infamous 'Blood Libel'  which accused the Jews of sacrificing Christian children as part of religious rituals during Jewish holidays.

                One would have hoped that after the Holocaust such examples of insensitivity would have passed into ancient folk law of a not very attractive nature. But no, another of the questions which the CAA included in the poll was, Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy. This is not an ancient, but a modern shibboleth. The CAA must have included this out of the same feeling I have had; that particularly on the Left, and in light of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, they are trying to somewhat sulkily undermine this egregious event on the Jewish calendar in order to gain support for the Palestinians.

                By undermining the Holocaust, the Left hope to de-sensitise people from its impact on the past 70 years since the end the end of the Second World War. Jews continually talk about the Holocaust, because it was the seminal event in their 2,000 years of survival within the Diaspora. Every Jew living today has some ancestral connection to the Holocaust.
               
                 If the English had been introduced to such a fate as that shown to the Jews between the rise of Hitler and the ending of his war on civilisation; then such talk by the English about their Holocaust as being used 'to gain sympathy' would be considered an outrage…especially if six million English men women and children had been introduced to the gas chambers.

                What this poll shows is that the Jews need a homeland more than ever: a place of safety in which to retreat to when the virus of anti-Semitism gains its grip and spreads within Europe once more as a kind of sickness now engaging the Left more than the Right today. The Palestinian cause has driven the Left into anti-Semitism - an anti-Semitism that shields itself under the 'respectable' umbrella of anti-Zionism.

IF THE CURRENT European-wide spread of anti-Semitism proves one thing above all other, it is that the Jewish people still need a state of their own; and this state is of course Israel. Israel is the magnet that draws those Jews who face  anti-Semitic persecution toward them in other parts of the world, into the arms of the Israeli state. Israel offers them the ultimate protection whereas the Diaspora has historically failed to do. Which is why one in four British Jews (in this poll) have considered leaving the UK.

                We are entering a new and worrying period for Europe's Jewish population; which this time is facing discrimination, not only from its traditional enemies on the Right – but now also from the Left; because of the Left's addiction to the Palestinian cause.

                The Jews have been the whipping boys of history. How they have managed to survive to this day is a wonder to me. They have had to forbear such prejudice of a type that no other ethnic minority  have had to do, including black slaves. The Jewish survival deserves its Jewish homeland and it was granted it by the United Nations in 1949. This newly formed state of Israel welcomed its people from all four corners of the world to become part of the Jewish state.

ISRAEL IS THE DIASPORA JEW'S ultimate refuge from anti-Semitic persecution from wherever it originates in other parts of the world. Israel is the Jewish homeland and without it world Jewry would face an uncertain, bleak, and empty future. A future that could always be undermined by anti-Semitic prejudice at any moment in any part of the world that the indigenous population sees fit to use against it. And let us not forget that turning against the Jewish community has been a popular sport historically throughout Europe, whenever a failing  economic situation demands a guilty party.

                Under such circumstances it usually the 'greedy and avaricious Jews' who are to blame for any economic failure. Jews are not after all; '…as honest as most people'. This is the kind of anti-Semitism the liberal Left have signed up to on behalf of their Palestinian Hamas terrorists.

                I do not want to get into arguments about the rights and wrongs of the Israel/Palestinian conflict: although I support the state of Israel. But these aspects are  not related to what this piece is all about. This piece is about, particularly, European anti-Semitism; and the extent to which the CAA poll seems to confirm this – at least as far as the UK is concerned anti-Semitism in the UK is growing. But how much of this growth is to do with our Islamic community or our liberal anti-Semitic pro-Palestinian prejudice, is in dispute.
               
                I would say that both are equally culpable. 








[1] For the full breakdown of the poll go to today's Metro website.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Argentina has drawn Russia into its orbit

RUSSIA HAS ENTERED into an agreement with Argentina to supply them military equipment including 12 Sukhoi SU-24 all weather attack aircraft regarded as 'super fighters ' with a 2,000 mile range and carries laser guided missiles. In exchange Russia will receive beef and other goods now restricted to them because of EU sanctions.
                
               We have a stipend of just four RAF Typhoon fighters and 1,200 troops defending the Falklands island, and according to Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, of the UK National Defence Association, quoted by the Sunday Express; “The Ministry of Defence should be worried. 
                "It always trots out the mantra of reviewing force levels but the only real solution is to deploy a sizeable force of Typhoons, at least a squadron, to buy us time to formulate a proper reinforcement package.” 

TIME AND TIME again it seems, our politicians sell this country's defences short. Between the war to end all wars and the Second World War our defences were cut and cut again throughout the recession – but, also because our politicians were naive enough to presume the continent had learned its lesson, and would never take up arms again after the butchery of the First World War.
                
                 Defence is the first expense to be pared back in an economic crises. Churchill fought for rearmament at a time when appeasement held sway. He won in the end, but buy then it was nearly too late and would have been without the Americans being seduced by Churchill's gift for rhetoric, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour, which broke the American isolationist rampart.
               
                 Even after the Second World War when the West was in the grip of the Cold War our politicians fought to pay for their borrowing by cutting our defences, leaving the USA to carry the full burden during the Cold War in Europe through NATO.
                
                Then came the end of the Cold War. To the spending and borrowing politicians it was just like Christmas. Military budgets were halved drawn and quartered by different political parties in an attempt to buy votes; either through lower taxation or public spending. No historical parallels were ever drawn – as with the First World War. The ending of the Cold War was also seen as the war to end all wars; this time based on ideology. The Soviet Union was defeated as was their great cruel Marxist experiment…where, after this, were the West's enemies to be found?
               
                In Europe (now the European Union), all members cut back on their defences, and spent billions upon billions on all sorts of public expenditure – and, as usual left the Americans to give the continent some kind of adequate defence via NATO.

EVEN ON THE EVE of the UK's war with Argentina, the British Defence Secretary John Nott was in the middle of yet another 'defence-review', a synonym which has always been seen as meaning further cutbacks for the military… now it is the NHS that faces such reviews.
                
                This Russian deal with Argentina should be a wake-up call, but our somnolent political class will remain soundly asleep, and will continue to pare back our defences, ignoring any that they consider to have only an outside possibility of a threat to the Falkland isles once more.
               
                It will be 2020 before our very latest 60,000 ton aircraft carrier comes into deployment. The carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and its crew of F-35B fighters have left a window of opportunity to Argentina if Russia gives the country what it needs to attempt another try at the Falklands.
                
                We no longer have the Hermes to deploy, or her sister ship Invincible. We are left without a carrier fleet until 2020. There may be another Argentina crises just around the corner depending upon Argentina's success in its trade links with Russia.
                
                 Air Commodore Andrew Lambert suggests, from an RAF perspective, that we need a squadron of Typhoons on the Falkland's to counter the latest Argentinean military acquisitions from Russia. Will they be forthcoming? Do not count on it. Politicians will always stick to their script regarding the economy, and the chancellor holds the prime ministers attention – both ministers want to serve a second, third, and if possible, fourth term. While the chancellor hopes to become prime minister after the second term, as did Gordon Brown.
                
                 Ambition, ambition, ambition. The three A's of all democratic politicians. They will always plan their own political destiny, and put it before the national interest - power and only power matters. Even if it means governing a banana republic. Power is power, and even in a banana republic enough wealth can be accrued through corruption to allow them to set up home in Miami after they retire or are overthrown.
IT IS ABOUT TIME that our democratically elected political leaders rediscovered their original function as leaders of our nation… seeing it as their primary defence; and not the NHS that has dictated the public spending agenda since the very beginnings of the Welfare State.
                
                 The NHS is a money pit. But as far as defence is concerned it can be financed without any further larceny perpetrated on the taxpayer, or cuts to the NHS. What must be done is to eliminate our oversees aid budget and leave it to charitable giving through the various charities; and when emergencies arise like earthquakes, tsunamis and Ebola, the government should do what it is now doing. We do not need a department of international development and aid, which gives between £9-10 billion annually to different countries, in the hope of gaining private contracts from the governments they are helping.
                
                 Defence demands that its proper needs are met. If another Argentinean crises occurs at some time in the future, when Argentina feels emboldened enough through her arrangement with Russia to make another challenge against the Falklands - how are we supposed to reply?
               
                               




                 
               


  

THE FALL OF EUROPEAN CIVILISATION HAS ADVANCED A STAGE FURTHER…READ ON

SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED to our young.  Following the Charlie Hebdo slaughter, thousands of people gathered for a vigil in Paris to protest; and to stand up for free speech. But did they meet in anger? No. Were they in the least hell bent on revenge; not only for those who were killed, but also for the way their beloved free speech had been attacked in the hope that it could be censored? No. There was only a bovine response from those gathered in Paris – they gathered like sheep awaiting their slaughter hoping only for their 15 minutes in front of the global media to deliver their greeting card platitudes. How do they think al-Qaeda or ISIS will react to this? Do they think they will be finally traduced by such emoting? Of course not; such displays will be seen as displays of weakness by both, and all other Islamist sects. All this will tell them is that the liberal West is ripe for plucking.
                
                The Western media lapped it all up; there were pyres of flowers, weeping Parisians, and thousands upon thousands of lighted candles; which were the people's only response to this assault on their liberty – a liberty that the French boasts of giving birth to. The French, like the rest of Europe, including the UK, no longer does retribution or the settling of scores – that is so Old Testament. There's is now a faith based purely upon reason among today's citizens that has the power, so they believe, to bring forth compromise and, if need be, the abandonment of free speech for an accommodation with Islam. It was in the UK after all, that we provided the blue print for such an accommodation when we entered into the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland; and how long will it before we enter into one with the Jihadists?
                
                 Liberals are the architects of the post-war Western world order. An order which is often referred to nowadays as globalisation; but parochially it is referred to as  multiculturalism. Liberals are fully prepared to forfeit their own beliefs to help make globalisation and multiculturalism work. They will provide concession after concession to make multiculturalism function; until the indigenous people finally say enough is enough and social tensions tighten until they snap.
                
                 Those who say that Enoch Powell's Tiber foaming with blood did not happen must believe that history has ended – for only then can they make such a claim. Time is not on the West's side: Powell never put a time limit on his quote from Virgil. In a luminous article in this week's Spectator written by the journalist Tom Stacey, he goes to the very heart of what it means to be part of an indigenous community within a nation; he refers to it as its soul; and he uses some very good quotes to buttress his argument.
                
                 He quotes Edmund Burke: ‘To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ, as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards love to our country and to mankind.’: he quotes Ortega y Gasset;  As water wears away a stone, so the landscape models its men, custom by custom. Momentary bursts of genius… mark its profits.’ In other words, Stacey tells us, is that ethnicity [here I presume he refers to the indigenous form] matters; it represents the nation's soul expressed over 2,000 years through custom and tradition; through music, literature, philosophy, the sciences, art; and through law and rights going back to Magna Carta.
                
                For over 2,000 years this nation has slowly evolved its progress to achieve higher and higher levels of civilisation. Yet within the past 40 years – yes, a mere 40 years; those previous 2,000 years have been effectively written off by the liberal conscience which tried, and eventually succeeded in dismembering this country's history and cultural past, by turning it into something ugly; either because of the politics of class or Empire; and the colonial guilt manufactured in our universities in the 1960s aided by liberal politicians then and now.

THIS LIBERAL onslaught on our national identity has effectively been prominent in orchestrating its very demise. No enemy of this nation could have possibly done more to destroy this nation than have the post war generation of flowering liberals who took to the stage and used the power they eventually attained through what they call "progressive politics": which they continue to use to steer this country on a course that will, over time, flounder and eventually be destroyed by their works.
                
                 As a result of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter we have not seen the rage  that such attacks on free speech should, by libertarian instinct, give birth to among democrats. Emoting has replaced rage. When the very philosophy of liberty, fraternity, and free speech, have been so violently challenged by Islam by a few terrorists whose actions have  managed to bring out 80,000 of the French state security forces onto the streets of Paris to hunt them down – what hope is there?

BUT APART FROM  the Charlie Hebdo outrage; another such was about to occur in another part of Paris. It took place in a Jewish supermarket where people were being held hostage as part of the same Charlie Hebdo massacre. The Jewish population of France have been targeted ever since Israel was forced by rocket attacks on their country from Hamas to intervene militarily to end them when they entered Gaza. The French Jews have suffered mainly by acts from French Muslims; but now also from both the Left and the Right in France which have between them started to torment Jews because of their post holocaust refuge in the state of Israel.
                
                This action has led to multiple attacks on Jewish synagogues ever since, and many Jews as a consequence have chosen to leave France; and many more will. Unlike in the past, these Jews now have a homeland to return to, to keep them from any modern equivalent of the gas chambers.

THE TERRORIST ATTACKS in Paris should put the West on its guard; but I fear that the events in Paris will soon blow over until another such outrage occurs. The West only wants peace at any price – and Islam knows this. They understand our weakness, and if the parts of the Islamic world encompassing north Africa and the Middle East and Turkey, could unite their various Islamic sects; they could take control of Europe within three years.
                
                Europe harbours 15 million Muslims invited by colonial guilt on to the European continent. Europe is weaker than it has ever been; while America is about to abandon 15 military bases throughout Europe (two of them in the UK). It is like 5th century Rome when the Roman Empire was on the brink of collapse, and their European colonies were told to look to their cantons.
                          
                A truly united Islamic world could today accomplish what they failed to do in the past – conquer and deliver up a European caliphate.  Half the job has already been done by our European political masters who guiltily allowed 15 million Muslims entry to the European continent. Such stupidity will be seen by future generations, as the entry into Europe of Islam's wooden horse.
                
                Since the end of the Second world war, Europe, but particularly the UK, has been ill-served by the generations of politicians that have governed us and led us away from the ties of our past that for two millennia had kept the nation solid in its values and its notions of patriotism. Now it is being allowed to wither on the vine, so to speak, by liberal multicultural entryism, and EU federalism.
                
                I am glad that my age will rescue me from having to live within such a grand folly of such a benighted amalgam of different racial communities living apart in diversity, and living with the prospect of, at any moment, expecting communal violence to break out. But I do pity those who come after me, who will know nothing of having a national identity, or enjoying any national sovereignty; as well as  living within a community of like minded citizens, that any country with a single indigenous population enjoys.
               


               


                

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Nigger

I HAVE JUST BEEN WATCHING for the umpteenth time, the Dam Busters; the story of the RAF's 617 squadron under the command of Guy Gibson who carried out a raid on the Möner  Eder and Sorpe dams in Germany during the last war.
            
             I continue to watch it nowadays to see if the channel showing it censors the name of Gibson's dog, a black Labrador called Nigger; who sadly dies when he is run over early in the film. Today it was the turn of Channel 5 to show this wonderful tribute, not only to the air crews bravery, but also to the stiff upper lip - and thankfully Channel 5 kept all references to Nigger without being frightened, through political correctness, to 'redact' all mention of the poor dogs name.
            
            The BBC would no doubt have had a panic attack if they had to show it complete – or at the very least post a warning at the beginning of the film informing the viewers that in 1943 when the raid took place all of us British were considered, by today's liberal standards to be racist; and the viewer should view the film through this prism – I must say however, It is quite liberating to be able to write Nigger without having to plant five asterisks after the 'N' as is always the case nowadays.
           
            I believe Nigger was a popular name in the 1940's and 50's for black dogs. It was a time before dogs had to be kept on a leash (about 1960). At the time I was a 10-year-old: there was a dry cleaners near where I lived. The man who owned it suffered with polio and could not provide his dog with the exercise it needed. The dog was a mongrel, and yes, you have guessed it – it was black and called Nigger.
            
           We were a group of four or five children (depending upon who was avilable on the day). We allowed Nigger to hang out with us. He stayed with us all day long, following us and retrieving the pieces of drift-wood we found and threw along the shore-line for him to chase down and retrieve – he hung out with us until we either got tired of his company; or became too old to consider him any more…children can be cruel; but unintentionally so.

WHEN WE USED THE WORD nigger, none of us thought of a black man, only a black dog, as did, no doubt Guy Gibson. Like nigger the term negro is no longer thought to be politically correct…despite its innocent etymology. According to the dictionary definition its etymology  dates back to 1545-55 < Spanish and Portuguese 'black' < Lain nigrum, masculine accusative of niger 'black'.
            
            Negro and nigger are each etymologically linked with the other. But negro (meaning black) is still often used today. My brother who is an artist buys paints manufactured abroad where the term Negro only means what it says – black.
            
            I was always aware  of the insulting nature of the word nigger; primarily by living through the America civil rights movement in the 1960s, as well as watching, definitively, the film In  the Heat of the Night  (1967) at 17, directed by Norman Jewison.
            
            The film was about a black New York cop, Virgil Tibbs, who, while visiting his family in Sparta Mississippi finds himself being arrested as a suspect in a murder purely because of the colour of his skin.
            
            The yokels are racist by any description of the word either then or now. Tibbs is arrested and shows the local red-necks how to conduct a proper criminal investigation culminating in the arrest of the murderer. In the Heat of the Night, was liberal propaganda, but this did not mean that its message was either unworthy or invalid – it just took a pot at the racism of the American South.

TODAY 'NIGGER' HEADS the pantheon of political correctness's most hated of hate words. It sits at the apex of the liberal list of odium whose public use is now regarded by law as a hate crime. Today nigger is comparable to what fuck use to represent in the 1960s and 70s. Nigger is the modern liberal's fuck- word – to be repeated  on penalty of a lost career if working in the media, sport, or the public service.
            
             But apart from nigger, if we trawl the list of liberal hate words, there is a bounty to be collected by political correctness added to almost overnight. The politically correct lexicon is gaining ever more entries; each of which can ruin a career, and even lead to imprisonment. If this is not comparable to Orwell's dystopian vision as described in 1984 – then what is?
           
             have never ever, in my 64 years referred to any  black person, either publically or privately as a nigger: it is a nasty  and malicious form of address for anyone to use, and deserves a thrashing from the person they use it against: this would be a far healthier alternative to the censoring of free speech, however unattractive. Banning words will only infuriate people of a liberal or libertarian bent, as it should in a democracy built upon free speech.

FUCK WAS  FIRST USED on television in the UK by Brendan Behan on Panorama in 1956 (but he was too drunk for anyone to notice); he was followed by Kenneth Tynan on the 13 November 1965 while appearing on the BBC.
            
             Now we have nigger. How long will it be before this too will become just as acceptable as fuck?  – well it never will, in all probability, become as common-place as fuck, thankfully. But what may happen is that it will become perfectly acceptable for one black person to use it against another (as I have already witnessed on the screen) - whether in a television debate, documentary, film or drama. Blacks do use it to insult  fellow blacks because of its potency to offend. But if a white person uses it in public the great  leviathan that is English law will descend upon his or her head.
           
             It is better for free speech for such name calling to go ignored if possible, until its use causes little offence among the black community. Only then will it stop. By criminalising certain words, as our liberals do; there may come a time when they may consider themselves lucky to have had their hegemony challenged by a popularist Ukip rather than a popularist BNP, of the type now gaining ground within the extremes of the European Union.
            
            Of course people's sensitivities must be respected. But those whose sensitivities are under attack must learn to ignore them and pity the philistines who wallow in such a depravity of the English language. The word nigger is a potent weapon in the racist armoury; it prods and provokes until multiculturalism outlaws it as a satanic noun to be expelled from the liberal rapture once and for good. Words are just words after all. They can portend great literature and rhetoric; but they can also cause insult to an ethnic minority.
            
            But it serves no purpose in criminalising aspects of the English language. To deny free expression, is to deny democracy. Tynan understood this when he used 'fuck', either casually or deliberately, in an interview with the BBC which brought the full weight of the small 'c' conservative BBC viewers  down around his neck.
           

           

             





Friday, December 26, 2014

Give a cheer for the preppies

EARLY THIS MORNING I watched a documentary on Sky News about preppies; those families in America who believe we live in troubled times and are preparing to survive all sorts of calamities that could threaten their families: calamities comprising of natural disasters, diseases like Ebola, terrorism (such as a dirty bomb); or even their own government if it were to stray from the American constitution and turn away from democracy – which was after all, what the right to bear arms was written into the constitution to help prevent. Which is why the ownership of guns remains legal in America; with the exclusion of course of those with a criminal conviction.
            
            At the affluent end of the preppie spectrum[1] we witnessed in the programme an entrepreneur who bought an old nuclear silo from the government, and transformed it into luxury survivalist apartments converted from the actual launch site of the IBMs; that went 10 stories underground and contains several $3 million apartments for the wealthy. The facilities in other parts of the silo included a cinema, large swimming pool, and an armoury. It even contained a large area for growing the residents own food, and a cell built with exactly the same dimensions and contains the same furniture found in an ordinary police cell in any American police jail…for anyone of gets cabin fever and punches a fellow resident; the cell gives them time to calm down.
            
            At the other end of the spectrum we have many communities who have come together to defend their families and neighbours. These preppies comprise hard working, in many cases professional middle class Americans who wear no ideological badge: indeed, they would see themselves purely as American patriots who believe in its constitution. From those I saw in the documentary, they were not red-necks in any understanding of the term; and neither were they paranoid (a label they are all too aware will be pinned to them).
            
            The head of one such family was seen teaching his teenage children how to handle an intrusion by a stranger into their home when the emergency they expect occurs. The father taught his 15-year-old daughter how to use a hand gun; and he insists that at least two warnings be given before his daughter draws the gun; and if the intruder ignores the third, only then will he or she be shot.
            
            What is being taught by the father to his children, is how to handle themselves and keep themselves alive if any such event occurs that may threaten them if they lose their father and mother. They are not red-neck  anti-communists as many, by now, antiquated Western liberals may still believe them to be. They have only their families survival at heart. They are not driven by political ideology, but by the unexpected; whether from a political cause, or from a natural disaster.

I BELIEVE THAT multiculturalism will, along with mass migration, in time, bring great social instability to the UK. But we in the UK have no culture of preppies as have the United States. Perhaps being the small island that we are, such social tensions are a far more likely threat to the social fabric of this country, than whatever the American preppies see as a threat to their own.
            
             So before we use such terms as loons, and paranoid, to describe our cousins across the pond; I suggest we think carefully about our own situation, instead of smugly and self-righteously pooh-poohing their fears as paranoid delusions.
            
             Time will ultimately tell. But I think that the way those American preppies think is wholly laudable. They are, small 'c' conservative men and women, as are the vast majority of the white indigenous English population. This does not mean that they all vote Tory, or in America's case republican. They believe in the family as the mitochondria of society that keeps it functioning, as it does biologically as a part of the human cell. And in this country all the main parties have small 'c' conservatives branding their backbone – that comprise the core vote of the two main parties.

WE IN THE UK are no longer allowed to own guns, unless we are part of small group of certain individuals like farmers…nothing, in fact, comparable with the USA. But there was a time when UK citizens did have that right. But it was abandoned following the end of the First World War, when parts of Europe were threatened by Bolshevik revolution in light of the Russian experience in 1917.
            
            Our returning soldiers had to hand in their weapons, and from then on the ownership of guns (with a few exceptions) were banned. But before the First World War, we had a similar arrangement to that of America. I have read of one account involving a London bobby in pursuit of and armed villain who stopped a citizen in the street  and asked if he had a gun. A gun was produced and immediately handed to him – the police remained unarmed.
            
            So gun ownership has a long history among citizens, even within Great Britain. The American founding fathers had the good sense to protect their citizens by giving them the right to bear arms. It was a wholly sane addition to the American constitution: one which does not leave the American citizen defenceless, but gives them the right to protect themselves and their families from all sorts interlopers… even aliens.
            
           Those preppies in the SKY documentary have made the right choice. Not because either today or tomorrow anarchy, driven either by nature, politics, or terrorism will come upon them. But because by doing what they are doing is eminently sensible…and if their fears come to nothing; what harm are they doing?  I would sooner we, in the UK, were given the same blessing by our unwritten constitution to bear arms as the American written one has given the American citizen.

IN THE UK TODAY the citizen's faith in justice has almost evaporated. The liberal concept of justice has abandoned the victim in favour of the perpetrator who needs to be put upon the road of reform. The victim of criminality invariably becomes the victim of the justice system. Once a crime has been committed; it seems that the liberal consensus decrees that the true victim is the perpetrator.
            
            Sentencing goes against the victim; as the perpetrator is often given a sentence by a judge which will often seem fair, but will be cut in half by the behaviour of parole boards, usually comprising faint-hearted liberals who would have believed Hitler to have come from a broken background and deserved a second and third chance.
            
           Under such a pitiful arrangement  the citizen's only hope is to allowed to be armed. But it will never come to pass in the UK - but in America, the constitution still guarantees such a right to it citizens, despite liberal president Obama's attempts at seeking to un-arm his citizens. As for the UK it will have to do the best it can. At 64-years-old, I will in all  in probably be dead before what I believe will happen, occurs.

           
  


           



[1] As seen on Sky