Thursday, December 18, 2014

CIA torture will not turn the West into Nazis

I GO TO BED EARLY and usually wake up at about midnight, and stay awake until 3.30 in the morning, before dropping off again: then waking once more at 6 am to begin my day. During those early three and half hours, I usually watch a film on the horror channel as well as tune into Sky News. I always follow their press preview every hour from 10.30 pm onwards; and if you want to know what the metropolitan elite's spin on the news is, you should listen in because it is very educational for those of us who live outside of London.
            CIA torture has made the news this week, in particular the publication of the US Senate's Intelligence Committee's rebuke to the CIA: and the Sky press reviewers, comprising liberal journalists, editors, ex-editors, and those describing themselves as writer/film makers, or PR consultants and historians - in other words those who garner themselves with all sorts of titles respected only by the Metropolitan elite among whom they belong and whirl among, who are the sole participants of the press reviews either by Sky or the BBC -  the latter of whom I cannot bring myself any longer to watch.
            They disagree with each other more often than not, on the level of the scale of a particular disagreement, rather than outright opposition to each other. This is because, as liberals, their political views are similar. So they are like Jonathan Swift's Lilliputians and Blefuscudians who went to war over which end of a boiled egg should be cracked open – their disagreements are of little more significance than that. They are liberals discussing the right liberal stance to take.
             This week they all acted in harmony like bleeding the heart liberals they are. When it came to torture and rendition; no-one was prepared to stand up for the CIA – except that is the Sky viewers, who apparently thought those tortured deserved their fate. This is because Sky's viewers are in the main, set apart from London and no doubt share the view of one time vice president Dick Cheney, who said: "We asked the agency [CIA] to takes steps to catch the bastards who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 and that is exactly what they did. They deserve a lot of credit." Indeed they do .
             The torture methods used by the CIA to gain intelligence, however horrific, are part of the price the West must pay to defeat Islamism. Members of ISIS, including the hundreds of "British citizens" who have gone to join them, must understand that we in the West can be as ruthless as themselves in the pursuance of their defeat. ISIS sees the West as effete, weak, and degenerate; and are therefore exposed to their ruthless ambition to assimilate the West into their caliphate.

OUR LIBERAL ELITE will surely bring about the final demise of the West within Europe. Those press previewers who abhor the CIA for their actions; had better be ready for the consequences of their liberal loathing of such methods.
             The liberalista have their own moral boundaries that fall far short of their enemies ruthless ambitions. If we present ourselves to our enemies as decent, and almost Jesus- like[1], as our liberals seek to do – then our enemies will rightly laugh in our face and use whatever methods they need to use from the ISIS catalogue of brutality and vindictiveness .They will pounce upon us in the knowledge that we in the West obey a moral code that they despise; and are right to do so when it comes to trying to defeat them.

IT WAS WINSTON CHURCHILL who advocated total war against Germany, which led to the bombing of German civilians, resulting in many hundreds of thousands deaths. Where for instance, should this act be measured on the scale of war criminality?
           What the CIA did in terms of the torture they indulged in, comes nowhere close to what the allies did during the Second World War, when they bombed cities like Dresden killing between 50-100 thousand civilians in Dresden alone: Dresden was just one city we bombed. Does this make us war criminals or Nazis for adopting their ways…we did what was needed had to be done to defeat our enemy and preserve democracy: but there is no doubt that by today's standards, such bombing will eventually be considered a war crime, if the Sky's press reviewers have their way in the coming years, if, that is, such a review will remain in existence.
             In both cases: the bombing of German cities and the torture meted out by the CIA, have both helped preserve Western democracies. This and this alone should be our bottom line as it has always been. The sole criteria should be the survival of democracy and do whatever is needed to keep it alive. Applying the methods of our enemies does not turn us into them. We found this out during the Second World War…we never became Nazis for adopting their method of bombing civilians.
            Churchill never became another Hitler and the British people were just relieved to have seen yet another trespasser on British soil defeated and the war brought to an end; whatever it took to so do.
            CIA torture, however horrific, could not match the Japanese and Nazis efforts during the Second World War… or, for that matter that of Islamism, and in particular ISIS, who readily behead women and children and slaughter men of the Shia faith.

WE IN THE WEST must do, as we did between 1939 and 1945, all that is required of us to do to defeat our enemies: and this is what, after 9/11 the CIA have sought to do and should continue in their work to so do. The West is under attack from Islamism. It first struck against the Twin Towers in New York  killing just over 3,000 New York citizens.
            How could the Senate's Intelligence Committee (SIC) have set this ball rolling? They have opened a Pandora's Box that will only advantage the West's enemies in ISIS. We in the West must retain secrecy, but are now left to once more pick at our scabs because of SIC (sic). This includes torture to seek out our Islamic enemies; who are quite prepared to undermine the West's defences, in order to kill innocent people.
             Let SIC ponder upon this. The committee has done great harm to the interests of the West by their presentation. This is a bag of worms that will not go ignored by the Western media; resulting in the West's inability to out-flank and reduce its IS enemies will be at least made questionable by these disclosures.

[1] I refer here to Christ's final words on  the cross; "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

Monday, December 8, 2014

Lennon and McCartney were rendered artistically sterile by their split

THERE SHOULD BE a reappraisal of John Lennon. He has a stature which was warranted when he partnered Paul, now Sir Paul McCartney; as part of the creative duo that made the Beatles. But when the group split, neither produced any work of merit. The Lennon and McCartney partnership was comparable to the great American song writers and musical composers of the past; nothing they touched could go wrong; they were truly blessed with a creative vigour that, used as a duo, produced the greatest popular music of modern times from the 1960's to 1970. They produced the great lyrics and musical accompaniment to those lyrics that were unsurpassed in popular music during that decade and any other that followed.
            Tell me, did anything they contrived as individuals come even close to what were on the wing albums? Please Please Me (1963), With the Beatles (1963), A Hard Day's Night (1964) Beatles for Sale (1964), Help! (1965), Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles ("The White Album", 1968), Yellow Submarine (1969), Abbey Road (1969),   and Let It Be (1970).

            To pretend their individual talent outlived their partnership (as many of those of my generation seek to do) are just falling victim to sentiment .The Beatles produced the most popular music and the most literate of lyrics. Their lyrics often pre-empted and summed up those years when you look back on your life.
            The Beatles were the very best. Better than the Stones or Elvis Presley – although the Kinks did run them a close second. But when they split; the music died. Although neither McCartney or Lennon could accept this; having believed themselves artistically supreme in their own right, they sustained each other by believing themselves individually gifted; so they continued alone, but to produce only the banal in terms of musical and lyrical composition: which the critics and the media went along with mainly because they were part of the same 1960s generation as myself; and so continued the Lennon and McCartney myth under the mediocrity they undoubtedly were, as individuals.
             McCartney formed the group Wings, with little success and even attempted a classical theme with his Liverpool Oratorio; a pretentious ambition born from an overweening sense of his own self-importance. As for Lennon, all he could come up with was a commercially proclaimed anthem called Imagine. A rebuke to the modern world replaced only by nihilism. Both gifted artists lost their way when they separated. Neither could function without the other. Which was well understood by the other two members of the group.

JOHN LENNON DIED on the 8th of December 1980 at the age of 40. He was assassinated by Mark Chapmen outside of the Dakota Apartment building in New York. With his death his legend was meant to, and did indeed prosper; like many another American pop entertainer from Buddy Holly onward. Yet Lennon was a pedestrian presence once freed from Paul McCartney's contribution;  as was Paul McCartney once freed of Lennon's. Their individual talents complimented each other; and they were the Beatles – as both Ringo Starr and George Harrison would acknowledge.
          When they separated from each other, their work was reduced to the everyday and commonplace. Lennon and McCartney were the creative geniuses of the 1960s and early 1970s. In combination they produced single after single, and LP after LP. They lit up a generation and embedded their lyrics into future generations. The Beatles were exemplary in the way they captured a generation without ever knowing it; until they absorbed what was written about them.

RAY DAVIS AND THE KINKS were second only to the Beatles and better than the Stones. But unlike the Beatle's,  Ray Davis new when the group's time was up and left the music scene. In doing so they left the music world a portfolio, like the Beatles, of music that will continue to transcend the generations. Albums such as  Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround and Muswell Hillbillies, on top of their singles.

JOHN LENNON, when he took up with the avant-gardes 'artist' Yoko Ono, was pussy whipped by her. Her influence absorbed him more than his talent. The ridiculous Plastic Ono Band that they set up was even more unremarkable than McCartney's Wings. There was the so-called 'sleep in' and 'give peace a chance' pantomime that finally made me give up on any hope that Lennon could work, like McCartney… alone. Both were tolerated for their earlier combined work after the breakup, as artists.
             John Lennon's reputation has grown since the tragic circumstances of his death. There is nothing more appetising to modern youth of any generation than the early demise of a pop icon, and John Lennon did himself and his reputation a great deal of good by dying so young.
            The Beatles, as a group, should be separated from its two foremost creative talents who separated themselves from the group. The Beatles died when the group split up; and the contribution made by its two premier artists should not be judged only on what they created as partners motivating the Beatles, but also as separate individuals, separate from their period as partners, which was not a lot, and third rate.
             It is about time that Lennon and McCartney were appreciated solely for their musical partnership. It is upon this, that the true talent of both should be judged. What they both did individually, after the split, merits little: in terms of creativity of the equal worth that they achieved when in tandem. Their individual efforts after the split amounted to the mediocre. Lennon and McCartney were meant for each other, and nothing greater.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

The BBC is bias; but George Osborne should have given detail.

I DO NOT LIKE THE BBC. It is an institution with an in-built liberal bias, and I resent having, by law, to pay to even own a television - a situation unheard of outside North Korea. But the BBC's biased (sic) reportage of the chancellor's autumn statement especially by Norman Smith, the corporations political editor; with his comparing the effect of the chancellor's autumn statement to Orwell's Wigan Pier; and describing the planned spending cuts as "utterly terrifying"; not only shows a bias, but a factually silly one. His language was, to say the least hyperbolic. It was a disgraceful episode among many other examples of the corporation's liberal bias.
            But having said that, the chancellor did himself no favours for not announcing where the cuts would come from to help level the deficit. In other words there was no blue print, only an ambition intended no doubt to put the Labour Party on the wrong foot. The Tory party may be upset by the BBC's approach; but they allowed such an approach to be summoned up by the lack of detail in where the spending cuts needed to meet their economic outcome would come from. They could have at least tried with the use of well crafted statistics.  
             As usual the political party in power used the occasion to try and write the next day's headlines, after which; and after further detailed examination, it all starts to unwind in the media. But the BBC was never going to offer a kindly appraisal of a Tory pronouncement; let alone an autumn statement – but a Cameron liberal led Tory Party might have expected more from the BBC.
THE WIGAN PIER EFFECT could never arise in this country again. It does not mean that poverty and unemployment has disappeared; but merely that such a state of impoverished venality described by George Orwell, could never be contemplated again; and no modern politician, including Osborne, would ever contemplate such a 'solution' to our national debt.
             To this extent the BBC's political editor overreached himself in his loathing of the Tory Party; and even George Orwell would have disowned his rhetoric. Orwell may have been part of the Left; but he was never of the Left. He was not the Left's captive as many at the BBC are today. His iconic novel 1984 was, after all, inspired by his time at the BBC.
             What is needed from George Osborne, as a serving chancellor is detail. It is no good blaming any media institution for misinterpreting his solutions for the deficit. He has to tell the people of the sacrifices they have to make to put this country back on the rails. This government has singularly failed in this purpose after promises made before the 2010 general election. The British people need to be served up honesty; not the rhetoric of clinging to power for power's sake. This is a cul-de-sac down which only further cynicism can flourish, leading to social unrest of the kind (and even beyond the kind) we have already witnessed in Greece.
            Our politicians may lack the qualities of their previous exemplars of the type that led this country through the war against Germany. But if we are to emulate such temperament once more, then our leaders must be honest with the people they are supposed to serve.          
            Osborne must spell out the ruthless task needed to be undertaken to bring our deficit under control: and his party leader, the prime minister, David Cameron must collaborate with him in such a task: and if the people reject the sacrifices required from them, and chose to elect a Labour government; then at least the British public would have been given a chance to vote into what is needed to vote on as the only way out of such a desperate situation.
            The Conservatives must spend the time before now and May to educate the public into the economic realities of the country's financial state; they must not pull their punches in doing so, as they have often found it politically expedient to do in the past; and must tell the people of the sacrifices they must make to engineer the defeat of our  deficit's grip on the nation.
           But will they? Enmeshed as they are in the twilight zone of spin doctoring and political advisers; will the Conservative Party take the gamble? Will they ignore political injunctions from the opposition? No they will not; and so the game goes on and the country's deficit will no doubt continue to increases beyond what the markets deem manageable and unable to finance.
           The UK politicians, at such a point, will find themselves in a comparison with modern Greece. National debt is not only as important as household debt – but far more important. The principles are the same, but the magnitude is far greater for the nation than the household.

THE BBC IS A LIBERAL CONSTRUCT. This would be fair enough if they lived off the proceeds of voluntarily given monthly payments such as SKY seeks -  but they do not. All the channels, apart from the BBC, earn their profits from subscription and advertising . I am not a liberal. I do not support the BBC bias toward this wretched so-called 'progressive' idiom; and I resent having to have my licence fee deducted monthly from my bank account.
            The BBC presents itself as the world's foremost broadcaster, yet are afraid to cut themselves free from the licence fee and spread their wings within the global media market place. They would sooner remain handcuffed to the public tit and continue disingenuously to profess "objectivity"; rather than setting out on their own within the globalising market they worship. If the BBC is as confident as they wish us to believe, the corporation would have no problem surviving without the licence fee.
             BBC bias is real. It is of a liberal disposition, unlike the disposition of many of the millions of those who are forced to subscribe to it through the licence fee. Set the BBC free to go their own way without taxpayer's money to keep it solvent. Let the people chose what to watch within the modern media. The BBC is no better than a scrounger living off the state and protected by the proceeds from people in their millions who do not subscribe to the corporation's liberal ethos – let the consumer decide what to watch. Give the consumer back their entitlement to own a television set without having to pay a tax on its ownership. George is right about the bias; but many Liberal conservatives support this stance including Chris Pattern - Osborne has come late to such bias, ignoring it until he is affected personally by it.


Friday, December 5, 2014

A socialist hypocrite, no less.

THE  MULTIMILLIONAIRE champagne socialist, Michael Meacher, has taken to the Marxist tabloid, the Morning Star, to berate Ian Duncan Smith (IDF) for his austerity welfare measures. He quite rightly rebukes Andrew Mitchell for his appalling treatment of police officers, and David Mellor for his drunken tirade against a taxi driver; "…over the best route home to his £8 million pad near Tower Bridge." It is a pity that Ms Thornberry and Gordon Brown did not receive a similar reprimand for their own previous indiscretions – but then, hey, the is the Morning Star… right? No need for balance hear.
            The Morning Star is probably the only daily that would have published such a load of Meacher rot. Even sympathetic lefty papers like the Guardian and the Independent would have baulked at publishing such an analysis – at least these two publications have an understanding of the dangers of the nation's ballooning deficit to the continuance of a wholly publically funded institution's such as the NHS…as well as for future generations.
            The conclusion Meacher seems to come to from his tirade is that those whom he refers to as being deprived, through what he terms "petty infringements" from claiming job seekers allowance should steal to make ends meet. The five minute rule for attending an interview is harsh, and the penalty even harsher, and it is often unfair on people such as my friend who worked continuously for 22 years; who paid his taxes and never had a day off through sickness - who was laid off due to the recession.
            Living in a seaside town he sought and gained work throughout the holiday season, but was laid off in late September each year. But instead of having to put up with the weekly interview in order to claim job seekers allowance; he, like many others, signed off ; and now he keeps himself throughout the winter on what he saves during the summer. It is far from ideal but it is a far better alternative than stealing; for he keeps his dignity, self-respect and most important to all, his honour; and would never reduce himself to the same level that Mr Meacher suggests others do in a similar position.
            In the 1930s my father had to work, not for money but food tokens. He literally "got on his bike" to ride several miles each day to dig holes for the placement of telegraph poles, and when the job ended he was told he had to sell his bike before he became entitled to national assistance – he never once considered stealing for his or his families' food.
            What Meacher describes as the "treadmill of impoverishment" is no such thing. Such an expression only belittles the sacrifices of the kind my father had to endure in the past. There is not a treadmill of impoverishment for healthy young and middle-aged men and women who wish to work, what they may lack is a sense of ambition; after being let down by the Comprehensive school system that the likes of Mr Meacher supported.
            Many claimants turn their noses up to lowly paid jobs because they see themselves as being better off on welfare: and this is why IDF is finally doing what previous Labour governments refused to acknowledge and chose merely to spend more and more of taxpayers' money on keeping such recidivists in benefit, and supplied with cans of cheap larger.

MICHAEL MEACHER has socialist instincts that leads him to believe in the equality of man -  even if his own personal fortune negates such an instinct. But do not get me wrong: if Mr Meacher has accrued wealth, then good luck to him. Wealth creation is, after all, the bedrock of the capitalist system; a system I believe in. A system which Michael Meacher has, however benefited from, despite his antipathy toward it.
            If Mr Meacher seeks to evangelise against wealth; then let him redistribute his own in a truly egalitarian fashion, instead of passing it on to his relatives. I am sure many of those he regards as being on the "treadmill of poverty" would be eternally grateful for his contribution.
             Let him follow the example of Bill Gates, the multi-billionaire capitalist who is using his billions to placate the suffering of millions who suffer from diseases such a malaria throughout the world. He has poured nearly a billion of pounds of his personal wealth into trying to eradicate malaria; and through his trust will pour further millions. How many of Michael Meacher's millions are being used to meet the same kind of need?
             Socialists such as Meacher are hypocrites, and so is the Morning Star for printing his piece. Socialism is the anchor chain preventing human political and social development; and those who subscribe to it are intellectually vacuous. There is a whole history of socialist failure to draw upon as evidence of the failure of socialism itself: involving the deaths of many thousands of millions of people drawn to its cause in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam; as well as Mozambique and Angola; and, latterly, Venezuela.  But the ism still continues a-pace to attract new converts of idiocrats of a certain age to socialisms cause; for the idiom of equality among humans still meets a need – especially among the young and certain academics promoting a puerile socialist dissertation.
              Socialism is the new political idiocracy. It has recreated untold misery since its emergence. Yet it still survives among the Left in modern Britain. Socialism is a naive attraction for the young, and will therefore torment the political process within the West for future generations. Socialism is the naivety of youth, clung to until maturity hopefully emerges to undermine the romanticism of youth.

SOCIALISM IS the handbrake on social progress. It attracts the naive to its cause. Youth, in other words the youth beholding to the likes of George Bernard Shaw, Karl Marx, and Leon Trotsky. Youth beholding to all forms of egalitarianism, dreamed up by minds of a utopian disposition -  only to be overcome by a dystopian reality.
           Michael Meacher has no credible role to play regarding this government's attitude toward the much needed reduction in the welfare budget. Meacher has no purpose whatsoever  to serve; unless, that is, he makes his own financial provision toward those injustices he seeks to illuminate.
           Meacher seeks only to blame others rather than make a financial contribution himself to the cause he seeks to uphold. I will gladly write him a letter of apology if he has contributed at least half of his wealth to the causes he feels himself angered by as a socialist.
           There are throughout the world many millionaires who give generously to various charities and if Mr Meacher is among them, then I will take him more seriously as a socialist. But until his egalitarian spirit emerges in the form of genuine contributions to the less fortunate from all parts of the world, then Mr Meacher remains to my mind, a socialist hypocrite.


Monday, December 1, 2014

The Midwitch Cuckoos

ALL OVER THE United Kingdom students attending our finest universities are in thrall and captivated by the idea of censorship… the very negation of what a university education within a democracy is meant to promote. University is an intellectual institution that is supposed to comprise of a dialectic between opposing ideas going back to the ancient Greeks; where those that do not meet with the approval of the general consensus should be allowed to speak, and be challenged intellectually; through debate of the kind the University of Oxford and other such institutions have historically promoted.
            This is no longer the case. In today's Daily Telegraph, Tim Stanley reports of Ukip being stopped from debating at the University of East Anglia (UEA). While he was himself  invited to propose a motion at a University of Oxford debate, was refused due to a feminist student protest.
             The debate was on abortion and it was threatened by student protest if it went ahead. Oxford succumb. Brendan O'Neill was to have taken part in the debate with Timothy Stanley. Brendan was to put forward the pro-choice argument against Timothy Stanley who is pro-life. But both met with student opposition that lead to the debate being cancelled.
            But why? Both sides of the argument were represented. The trouble was that the debate was being orchestrated by men. Apparently, and according to those students opposing the debate, any male should have no contribution to make, either for or against abortion. Abortion is the monopoly of women, and no man should have, either way, any part to play in such a debate.
            On the issue of abortion it is reprehensible that the best of our country's young minds, who are in attendance at our premier university, can censor debate. It is a blasphemy that such ignorance can manifest itself without opposition from the university authorities…but it has happened.

IF THE SUBJECT of blocking an anti-abortion debate were the only liberal-Leftist intellectual sin it would be a one off. But it is not. The National Union of Students (NUS) have pressed their members into censoring other areas of university debate covering the censorship of Israeli academics on campus: or any criticism of gay marriage; as well as global warming: or for that matter any other anti-liberal so-called 'progressive' politically correct doctrine, which the students cannot face being challenged on.
             It is the NUS that has been given the power to restrict or even censor debate on university campuses. The university authorities seem to kow-tow to the NUS. No doubt, not because they fear their power (for they have none); but because they sympathise with their views.
             Our universities of whatever calibre, are being run by the descendents of the same liberal conquistadores who began their thrust into English culture in the early 1960s. Which is why they tolerate the infantilism of their students.

STUDENT NAIVETY is part and parcel of growing into maturity. But never has such gullibility been so seriously entertained by the academics who are meant to mould them. I can only conclude that liberal political correctness is being sourced by liberal university academics, who breed generation after generation of induced liberally minded students who arrive at university already prepared by their parents and teacher's own liberal influences, garnered during the 1960s and passed on to them by their parents and grandparents.
            These so-called student academics are going to (judging from the subjects from which they opine as students)  will find themselves teaching the next generation's children; either that or finding a bolt hole in some part or other of the public sector where they can still find a job for life. Those opposing a debate on abortion purely on grounds of gender; or on the issue of gay marriage, as well as even denying the mere presence of academics from Israel on campus; tells me that these students on the whole, are studying the barren wastelands of social science, or the humanities, from whose womb they will emerge to become, not only social scientists but social workers and civil servants…or if the chosen path is a humanities degree of some sort or other, they will probably find work at the BBC or within some other part of the Left-leaning media.


             Our universities seem to be manufacturing generation after generation of a liberal mentality to take their place among the liberal Borg-collective that now stifles liberty and, as  with communism constrains free speech. It is this future that such censorship will unleash on future generations. This liberal auto-da-fé were careers can be destroyed because of a politically incorrect comment on race, sexuality, or gender, by a public figure – or an arrest authored by the tenets of multiculturalism on individuals who are daily brought to book by the police for similar, 'hate crimes'.


THE MIDWITCH CUCKOOS have a liberal pallor to their faces. These students are intellectually anaemic. They cannot withstand any intellectual challenge to their pre-conceived  politically correct assumptions. They are weak of argument and will not tolerate a view that they believe undermines their own liberal certainties. Debate is off bounds; and what is even worse, their masters who oversee their education appear to be in coalition with them. Both Brendan O'Neill and Timothy Stanley are seen as beyond the pale of these student's rigid and foolish notions they regard as certainties, and therefore need not be given a voice on the campus.
             Here we see liberalism taken to such extremes that it becomes the negation of the tolerance that is supposed to be at the centre of the liberal cause. Such extreme liberalism evolves into totalitarianism…as it did in the past with its flirtations with  Marxism.
             To close down all opposing argument is not a liberal concept but a totalitarian one; and it seems that the Midwitch Cuckoos who trample upon the rights of those who oppose them in debate, should never have been at university in the first place - despite their grades.








Friday, November 28, 2014

Now we must add Somalia to Pakistan in the great child rape scandal

WE MUST NOW make an addition to the roll-call of debasement that many of our nation's finest cities have joined. Bristol has now joined Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, and Oxford, in the pantheon of ignominy that these cities have been brought to by multiculturalism's cultural diversity. We now have the conviction of 14 members of the Somalian community who ran an inner city sex ring involving British girls as young as 13; who were abused and raped and, according to the Daily Mail, "Some were persuaded to have sex with their 'boyfriend's' friends as it was Somali 'culture and tradition' and 'men always have sex with each other's girlfriends'".

            Whatever their sentence the same liberal behemoth that inveigles itself upon every aspect of our culture, and allowed these awful events to be facilitated through multiculturalism; will now treat these wretches as victims, who will, whatever the sentence, be released having served a fragment of their pitiful punishment. When released they should of course, if justice means anything to their victims, be deported as part of the sentence to the country from which they came. But this would fall foul of European human rights law and would send human rights lobbyists like Liberty into a real old paddy.
            As for the victims. Well, they came from what the Daily Mail calls "good families". One can only conclude from this that the girls who were raped and abused were not drawn into the so-called "care system" as were those in the Rochdale case, along with the other cities whose authorities allowed such practices to go ignored because of upsetting multicultural sensitivities within their ethnic communities…where they no doubt feared the kind of reaction we have seen in Ferguson surrounding Michael Brown's killing over past 48 hours

WHEN OUR liberals (here I mean the so-called baby boomers -  of which I am one) gave themselves up to multiculturalism in the late 1950s 1960s, like so many an inadequate drawn to a religious cult; they did so because they had a guilt complex about British colonialism; and so they took the ideology of multiculturalism at face value. Instead of what they believed to be the persecuting of what was once known as the Third World; liberals wanted to assuage their colonial guilt by helping our one time colonies; and they replaced what they saw as colonial oppression with liberal patronage; of which multiculturalism is the ultimate ideological expression.
            How many liberals in the early days or even today, would have truly understood the cultures that were now, and then, being unleashed into a white Western country with a 2,000 year history of fashioning our own indigenous culture to meet the needs of our own people? Only to now see other cultures being allowed to impregnate their own cultures within our own in the name of diversity?
            Did those liberals understand that, under the title multiculturalism, other cultures would continue to be allowed to practice their own culture, including genital mutilation, arranged marriages, honour killings, homophobia, misogyny and sexism generally, child exorcism, and racism of the kind used by the Islamic community when treating young white women as mere vassals for their lust.

WHY ARE NOT OUR feminists angered by the events in the above named towns and cities? These feminists seem to have mutilated their own tongues in the same way that their "sisters" have had their genitals mutilated.
            I can tell you why. It is because they are PC multiculturalists. They have bought into the liberal paradigm of multiculturalism and will only take to the streets in protest if, for instance, a Canadian police commander suggest that women who wear what he considers sexually provocative clothing deserves, according to the feminist lobby, to be raped.
            When however, women of the ethnic communities suffer a far greater torment at the hands of multiculturalism such as genital mutilation, slavery and sexual abuse from within a particular ethnic centre of the population; our UK feminists remain silent; and the placards remain blank and unpainted: until, that is, what they perceive to be a white indigenous male misogynist, either speaks out openly, or falls foul of the feminist agenda. Only then will the sisters take to the street en-mass.
             Multiculturalism began on my generation's watch. I am a baby boomer, and have seen the rise of the liberal hegemony - a fantasy I indulged in, in my youth through colonial guilt as disciple of the Left. I am now 64 and immune to such idiocy.
             This, the latest political ism, serves no better purpose than those that have historically anticipated its creation, such as colonialism, fascism or communism. Multiculturalism is just another occupant of the ideological market place like fascism, communism, and now, a European Federalism. It seeks to smother the country in a web of alien cultures and expect the indigenous culture to comply freely on pain of being regarded as racists by the governing class if they protest.
             The advance of multiculturalism has been constructed upon the charge of bigotry and racism if anyone took exception to its progress. The indigenous population has been cowered by such an indictment by the liberal hegemony. It should no longer remain the case. Bigotry and racism are concrete terms. But they have been abused and have been deliberately understated by liberals who take easy exception to any remark they deem unfit to conform too, or ill-conforms to their own prejudices.

THE UNFETTERED ABUSE of children in towns and cities like Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby and Oxford, were a bi-product of multiculturalism. Children suffered needlessly because of an ideology; the ideology of diversity; the ideology of multiculturalism; a liberal concept that brought about silence through fear; and allowed children to be abused in its name.
            But the liberal classes, that through the decades, conjured up this creation and imposed it on the white indigenous people, will go unpunished, not unlike the ideologues of earlier dystopian visions such as Marxists, socialists, and fascists. Like the poor, sadly these ideologies (now including multiculturalism) will always be with us.



Saturday, November 22, 2014

God bless the Kippers

UKIP HAVE GAINED ANOTHER MP at the Tories expense in Rochester and Strood: and now comes next May's general election - and no one knows what the makeup of the next parliament will be in terms of the occupancy of the green benches. Commentators, various scribblers, and the party alchemists … none of whom have any idea what the governance of this country will look like come the 8th May next year, are still calling the shots.
            Will Ukip have sufficient MPs to have an influence on the governance of the country? Will Labour, as the polls in Scotland predict after its referendum lose a potential 42 Scottish seats to the SNP?  Both the main parties are currently polling in the low thirties. They are at their core vote level of support (apart from the poor old Lib Dems who are just fading away) …in other words the two main parties are at the rosette wearing chimpanzee level; where if any of the three main party leaders were to assassinate the Queen, they would still retain their core vote.
            But even here, because of the impact of Ukip; the core vote within the two main parties is becoming more pliable and less rigid to the overtures of Ukip; and this should concern the party leaders. No longer can the likes of Milliband and Cameron take their core voters for granted. In Cameron's case, he has already driven many of them into the arms of Ukip, through insulting and despising them as ancients who he believes represent Old conservatism, in the Blairite sense[1] - swivelled eye loonies who the Conservative party are better off without.
            In Miliband's case; his core vote still comprises a few million (if no longer in the many millions) of the traditional working class; whose parents and grandparents voted Labour and their progeny have continued on with the family tradition – and have been taken for granted by the party; and are still being considered part of the chimpanzee vote by the Red Ed Labour party as they were under Tony Blair. The Labour Party hierarchy now comprises of, and has become the primary architects of ,the liberal Metropolitan elite. Their horizon encompasses less and less the traditional white working class, and more the interests of multiculturalism.
            Multicultural London is their new, post-socialist utopia, which they see as an example of diversity at work and they want it for the rest of the country. Which is why they sought the replacement of the white working class with the votes of second and third generation immigrants from India and Pakistan. These are the modern Labour Party's 'new' core voter to be won over, and its old core voters are being used simply to make the transference.
            Blair tried to add to it by allowing millions of Poles and Portuguese to be, prematurely, given free entry to this country. Immigrants were now Labour's new 'working class', and the sooner their old working class realises they are no longer the Labour Party's patrons the better for themselves, as well as the Anglo-Caribbean working class – each of whom share the same historical values.

 IT IS AN EXCITING TIME in British politics. No longer can the two main parties rely upon their traditional supporters. The Tories, because they have ridiculed and have shown an arrogant attitude to their party's traditional core vote; while the Labour Party has abandoned the white working class who they see from their metropolitan sanctuary in London as bigots, racists and being, at the very least, politically incorrect.

THE PEOPLE OF Rochester and Strood have voted, and the Kippers have won; and I hope the Kippers will have a significant presence and influence on this nation's history. For British parliamentary history, thanks to Nigel Farage, is being invigorated and perhaps transformed, by himself and his party's presence. Cameron would never even have considered any kind of In/Out referendum on Europe if it had not been for the rise of Ukip and Nigel Farage. Any questioning of immigration, or apology for its deluge under Labour, by Labour, would not have been considered, if not for the advances by Ukip into Labour territory.
             The fact that any reference to immigration which was once considered to be racist by both Labour and the Cameron Tories (both part of the Leftist hegemony), has now, thanks to the Kippers, been forced, through their electoral threat to the two main parties, on to the political agenda – where, we all remember, any reference to it was once considered racist by the very two parties that now consider it open for discussion.
            Ukip has made its mark on the traditional comfort zone of  political correctness. But throughout the country beyond London, Nigel Farage represents to millions of people the voice they never heard from their traditional party leaders. It took Farage and Ukip to force the LabLibCon hegemony to sit up and listen. Cameron has offered us a dubious In/Out referendum, something which when he came to power in 2010 would never have entered his mind to ever adopt as a Europhile.
             Even the Labour party has been forced into making an apology for their lifting of the floodgates to immigration. Any talk of immigration, once anathema to the two main parties, has suddenly resonated within them because of Ukip and the threat this party poses to their core vote

            Only those on the liberal left such as the BBC, and the Guardian whose journalists such as Polly Toynbee, see Ukip as a racist party. These views are the real extremity of the current debate on immigration and Europe, and such views coalesce within the London liberal elite, whose auto de fe sets the standard for what is allowable to be spoken of in a once free society. The liberal auto de fe is among us, and has been among us since the 1960s. But only now, with the rise of multiculturalism, has the liberal auto de fe's despotism become dominant.

GOD BLESS THE KIPPERS. Nigel Farage liberated the voice of opposition to the EU, and this body's insistence that we have to let all and sundry from the rest of Europe to freely cross our borders; and by doing so our public services have been greatly undermined by the influx. This is probably the reason why Labour voters are deserting to Ukip, and may it long continue. The NHS is being wrecked by such an influx, housing is being undermined; and education placement is also being put under strain by the impact of immigration; either through the impact of free movement of European peoples or through immigration from without the EU, including  Africa. 

THE KIPPERS are here to stay whatever the outcome of the next general election. Nigel Farage has managed to massage the clitoris of the traditional Tory and working classes, whose innate patriotism they all share. This is the link between those traditional Tories and traditional Labour defectors who have joined Ukip.              
               Both the traditional working class and the traditional Tory supporter once shared the same social values, if not the political and economic ones. The traditional Labour working class always shared, even if not realising it, the same family values as the Tories. They may have deferred on political and economic issues. But when it came to the family and family values, the British working class, as a whole, shared the same impulses as the middle and ruling classes, and in this respect, all classes were alike until the rise of liberalism, that began at the start of the late 1950s and continued throughout the 1960s until today.         


[1] Cameron suckled at Blair's teat and tried to replicate his transformation of the Labour Party by creating a similar one in the Tory Party.