Friday, July 17, 2015

Obama courts a legacy in his second and final term

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE tell me what Obama has done for his country? You may come back with the retort that he is his country's first black president – well yes this is true; but surely, as an egotistical politicians  - and all such modern politicians have to have a flourishing ego - this is not what he wants to be remembered for after two terms. This is why he is currently locked in a diplomatic pavane with Iran over her capacity to produce nuclear weapons which, in any Iranian Ayatollah's hands would be a real and genuine threat to the West: Saudi Arabia; has now promised to develop its own nuclear capacity in response to Iran's.
                Obama is playing a dangerous game in order only to secure his legacy; for have no doubt, this has been what these negotiations have been about: and there is no doubt in my mind that he will compromise to secure it. This is what Israel fears – and rightly so.
                Obama's terms in office have centred on his gift for rhetoric and the elegant phrase; but the persuasive tongue is always insufficient in itself, unless you back up the words and threats you make  with the action you suggest will follow if your demands are not met; which Obama has singularly failed to do. We remember his red line on Syria over Assad's use of chemical weapons: if it could be proven that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people then America would act militarily.
                It was proven, and Obama did not act. The message this sent out to the West's enemies was that the leader of the most powerful military nation on earth had blinked, and was capable of blinking time after time…after time. Obama has demeaned his office, and himself. He is now trying to redeem his presidency by trying to diplomatically bring an end to Iran's nuclear capacity. Even after every deadline imposed on the negotiations by the White House go ignored by the Iranians - yet other deadlines are forthcoming by the White House.
                The Iranians are a counterfeit outfit as far as diplomacy and negotiation is concerned. They use negotiation as a weapon to achieve what they want, and once a treaty is signed it is fully prepared to ignore it if something superior comes along to alter their circumstances for the better an put them on a stronger foot: which is how Iran understands negotiation; and any deal reached on this fraudulent basis means little to Iran: but the naive American presidency of Obama is fully compliant with whatever he is presented with – his place as the first black American president in American history seems to be his one and only concern as his second term is  just 18 months from its end.
                Good faith means nothing to the Iranians; they will break any treaty once they have benefited enough from its clauses. Then they will become emboldened once more to achieve their nuclear ends.
ONE OF THE FIRST acts Obama took on gaining office was to remove a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. The significance of this simple act told us something about the man. Why would he want to dispose of Churchill's effigy by returning it to the British embassy in Washington? This must have told the British Foreign Office of the kind of man they were dealing with; but being diplomats they took it in good grace. After all, the special relationship was paramount, and if we were disliked as a nation by one particular president then we could live with it until another president arrived to continue the time line of the special relationship.
                It turns out that an ancestor of Obama was a member of the Mau Mau in Kenya who had been killed or tortured by the British under their colonial occupation. This seems to have driven Obama toward a particular hatred for the British. I understand this because my father served in Burma and I also once resented the Japanese.
                But the Japanese I recognise today have little bearing on the Japanese my father had fought in Burma; and one would have thought that Obama would have arrived at the same conclusion regarding imperial Britain.

THERE IS HOWEVER another aspect of Obama that has barely been touched upon and that is his support for the beliefs of Pastor Jeremiah Wright who was Obama's religious mentor. There have been suggestions from this relationship that Obama is a closet Muslim – why, I do not know. The pastor has apparently given sermons supportive of the Islamic faith, but certainly not of the Islamists.
                My concern is that president Obama carries much baggage. There have been accusations (and nothing more) that Obama is a believer in Islam. If so then Islam is not exactly outlawed. But if his faith belongs to Islam, he should have been upfront about it when he first stood for the presidency. For it brings into dispute the very question, and the very nature of the talks with Iran.
                It is also true that Obama is no friend of Israel. To Obama, the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is evil incarnate, as was witnessed off camera by his true feelings toward the Israeli prime minister.
                Obama has reached out to Iran and has done so against not only the advice of Israel which it appears his Democratic administration was deliberately picked to oppose from the very start of his presidency; but also other Arabic countries, like Saudi Arabia. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are unpleasant regimes, they each, between them support their Shia and Sunni brethren who are now at war throughout the Middle East. But it is in the West's interest to support neither.
                 President Obama is nothing more than a black figure-head for both the afro-American, and the white liberals of the Democratic Party. Whatever Obama achieved in office which was very little; these constituencies would stand true to him out of political correctness: he also had the undying loyalty of West and East coast liberals; while most of America only wanted an end to what they perceive as the tsunami of migration.



Wednesday, July 15, 2015

A modern Greek tragedy unfolds

GREECE MUST not be allowed to continue in the euro, for its own and its peoples sake. It has brought itself to this sorry end and it is no good the Greek people blaming Germany for anything other than allowing them to join in the first place. It was, after all, primarily the German taxpayer who has kept the Greek people's heads above water until now – so swastikas and other slogans of animosity toward Germany paraded on the streets of Athens by the far right is an insult to a country that has gone to such lengths in the post-war decades to lance the boil of Nazism. The German taxpayer, with the demise of communism, poured billions into uniting West Germany with the East; just as they have for the sake of Greece's continued membership of the euro.
               Greece continuously entered the last chance saloon and leaving it inebriated. This has to stop, but I doubt it will. There will be some last minute attempt at keeping the Greek peoples' misery ongoing rather than see the great euro ship of state holed beneath the waterline. There is now talk among the French and Italians of giving Greece a final chance and allow another multi billion euro loan to go through. Well both of these countries have certain weaknesses. Socialist France has a laissez-fair attitude to spending taxpayer's money, while Italy shares Greece's loathing of paying taxes.  
               But the northern and east European states, like Germany, Finland, Slovakia, do not see why Greece should be let off the hook. Italy, Spain, and Portugal, who have stuck with the austerity and the harsh sacrifices this brought, would begin, rightly, to wonder what it was all for if Greece was perceived as being let off the hook.

GREECE HAS three things going for it, its Mediterranean splendour and its ancient history as the home of democracy; as well as its holiday industry. But its civic culture has been invalided by the propensity for all Greeks to try and cheat their way out of paying taxes, but nevertheless expecting public services to be provided and comparable to those in any northern member state of the EU which they have up until this current crises enjoyed - but only off the backs of those in the rest of Europe who pay their taxes and subsidises parts of southern Europe like Greece.
                Greece is by no means the only country within southern Europe whose culture is systemically corrupt and continues to be so. But nevertheless the great European project continues apace with much vigour, and this is why I think Greece will be let off the hook once more.
                The European leaders were taken aback by the euro crises; but quickly came to the conclusion that rather than ditch the single currency, Europe must seize the opportunity to fast forward political union which its critics told them had to predate monetary union in the first place. But Brussels knew that once the citizens of Europe began to understand what political union meant in terms of nationhood; the more they would oppose it.
                The EU is a top down assemblage limiting democracy among the citizens of Europe to bring about a European Empire. They see democracy as an anachronism in this process and will restrict it at every opportunity to bring to an end the nation state. They believe Europe needs to be integrated fully into a super nation to compete with America, China, and India. The nation state they believe has outlived its historical usefulness and Europe must come together in order to create a European super state  whose peoples were once seduced by their politicians into believing that "closer union" was their only objective.
                 This was the state of mind of our elected national and unelected European leaders when the euro crises first broke: the Europhile fantasists could not give up the ghost. Their precious United States of Europe must be brought about at all and every cost - acquis communautaire must reign supreme.

*                             *                             *                             *

I WROTE THIS piece yesterday, while little realising how much the Greek people would be exposed by a euro exit. I viewed an excellent piece by Sky News overnight. It was a report from Athens by Sky's European correspondent and made some telling points about what the country would be exposed to without European protection. The Sky reporter suggested that once Greece became liberated from the euro there would be an invasion of circling vultures hovering over the much reduced country of Greece[1] comprising Russian and Arab oil billionaires buying up land and whatever else in this ancient culture they deem worthy of purchase - on the cheap: while its borders would be without European protection (such as it is) from the migrants that are daily crossing the Mediterranean.
                What an appalling outlook for a people. As I wrote yesterday and stand by today, the Greeks (not only their political leaders) brought this appalling state of affairs on themselves; but to have the prospect of their country being raped, by forces it is powerless to stop, takes austerity too far.
                After the overnight meetings between the EU and the Greek government there is now another 'solution' available which I have yet to read. But one suggestion, may turn out to be a silver lining of sorts for the Greek people – leave the euro for five years, but remain an EU member and all this implies in terms of its protection; if not from the carpetbaggers then at least from mass invasion of immigrants across the Mediterranean. It is a meagre broth with little sustenance but at least it helps dispose of one problem.
                Other than this; all that is Left for them is a modern Thermopylae were the Greek people are forced to make a final stand against, not Europe, but against what many Greeks perceive as the new Persians – Germany (I admit Angela Merkle makes an unconvincing Xerxes  but she is just as powerful as far as the EU is concerned).
                The whole European project was conceived after the Second World War to unite the countries of Europe and lead them away from European conflicts that had erupted like zits on the face of Europe over centuries. Solidarity was the new watchword at the beginning of the project and remains so to this day. The EU even boasts that since its creation there have been no wars on European soil.  Which is true, but this has more to do with the existence of NATO and more importantly America's contribution to it. A contribution the French have always resented as an Anglo-Saxon impertinence – France is not a member of NATO.              
                 European solidarity is no such thing. As the Greek people prove, solidarity is a fair weather friend. Once the weather becomes turbulent, then it is every European nation for themselves. The European Union is a vanity project for those European nations that once clung to empires and now wish to conjoin, at any cost including to democracy.
                Greece should have, like the UK, backed away from a single currency. But the bait they were invited to consume in the way of cheap loans from the ECB, was too much. They concocted an impossible economic portfolio to the EU upon joining the euro, a portfolio that the EU through a utopian vision of a greater Europe, accepted.
                Greece presented the EU with phoney economic statistics. No member of the single currency should be allowed to join the euro if their borrowing proportionate to GDP exceeded three percent – in Greek's case this borrowing now stands at over 145 per cent of GDP and is rising weekly. The European project was all important. Greece had to be brought on board if for no other reason than for historical reasons as the ancient birthplace of democracy.
                 Now poor old Greece lay exposed by its folly brewed by national self interest and an undeniable idealism for a Federal Europe that they thought (and still do) would save them – and it might have done if the lack of any civic responsibility had not let them down. Taxes have to be paid to provide the social services for a nation's people. The Greek people avoided this responsibility, and looked to the tax payers of Europe to keep their social services, Education, medicine and welfare benefits accessible – they wanted their cake and eat it, without almost any contribution from themselves.


[1] Just as there were in the American South after the American Civil War ended. What became known as carpet baggers descended from the North to exploit the misery of the South; they bought the great estates and the thousands of acres of cotton and tobacco farmers farmed, for which they were paid a stipend: defeat is humiliating as Greece is about to find out.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Since the 70s, they have done more harm than good

ARE THERE A NEED FOR trade unions in the 21st century within the most advanced Western countries? In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th; there was only one answer in the affirmative. Today and since the 1970s trade unions have been making themselves obsolete by their abuse of power – even during the war London Dockers went on strike: it was a political strike aimed at slowing down the allied advance into Germany; thus buying time for the Soviet Union to reach Berlin before the allies – which means that now my answer would be no.
                In the 1970s, there was industrial anarchy that almost brought the kind of ruin on this country the Greek people are facing today. The union shop stewards at what was then British Leyland, struck at the drop of the hat over the most infantile and immature of reasons. The Fred Kites ruled the roost. Productivity slumped and the cars produced were little better than the Travant which their union brother's in East Germany at the time were producing.
                During this decade British industry suffered a drought of productivity brought about by militant trade unionism. We became known as a nation as 'the sick man of Europe ', yet our politicians continued to appease the trade unions – I believe that like cigarettes in the modern era, unions should now come with a health warning.

WHEN THE REMEDY for such union anarchy was found; the woman who provided it was demonised by liberal Britain. Margaret Thatcher brought in a package of industrial legislation that penalised the unions for wild cat strikes, and more importantly rid industry of the infamous closed shop that allowed unions a say in who could or could not be employed depending on their union membership and family connection.
                In many of this nation's docks, the closed shop meant that the hereditary principle worked for fathers, sons, and grandsons, who were given preference over any 'outsiders' when a job opening appeared on the docks in, at the time, a much prized and lucrative industry. An industry where the unions, whose members worked the cranes at our ports, had the power to disrupt the traffic of ships from unloading their cargoes: and the unions lost little opportunity to hold their employers to ransom, knowing that they would quickly buckle under any threat to stop unloading ships; ships who were also working to a deadline; and who had to return to another port for another load of vital imports. So until Thatcher came along our economy was constantly under the blackmail of the unions

TODAY WE still have examples of such rigid behaviour from the unions. But it materialises not from the private but the public sector unions. The London underground is seeking to keep their lines open throughout the night. Those driving the underground trains earn £50,000 per annum; they work a 35 hour week, and have 40 days off a year; they earn more than a hospital doctor, who has invested five years or more at university in order to understand complex medical procedures.
                The unions today remain arrogantly powerful; but more so in the public rather than the private sector. Today thousands of London commuters are being left (effectively) stranded by the rail unions. It is no accident that the unions pick the most inopportune times to call a strike. They will say of course, as they do at every holiday period, including Christmas, that it is mere coincidence that they have chosen a date to do the maximum of damage to the public.
                 It is no coincidence that the current walkout disrupts those affluent middle classes enjoying a day at Wimbledon (the union's class enemies). Sympathy for the unions is draining away fast. The public service unions today resemble the behaviour of their comrades during the 1970s, from whom they seem to have inherited the full class war hatred and spite of their socialist predecessors.
                 Banning unions is not only undemocratic but pointless. But what any government could and should do is what Margaret Thatcher did and must look again at union legislation (especially after winning a majority last May), to see what can be done to reign in such brattish behaviour by union leaders. The men may be seeking better working conditions but their leaders are behaving politically. Their agenda is attacking and undermining a Tory government; there is no excuse for this action as the employers have said no one will be made to work through the night.
                 The unions are losing their cache of sympathy among the British public; and if the union leaders carry on their class war with their employers and Tory governments, then the latter may bite back as it did in the 1980s, and will weaken them even further. The age of steam and the Left's prototype capitalist with his top hat and carrying a rich-living paunch, while smoking a fat cigar, no longer appears on the public radar.
                 Above I mentioned the slothfulness of the British car workers in the 1970s, and the weakness of their managers to do anything about them; and the cravenness of the politicians towards the union bosses at the time: the wild cat strikes that the all powerful shop stewards were able to call and the weakness of their trade union leaders in trying to discipline them. Not only productivity but quality fell short and impacted upon sales, only to be bailed out by public money through nationalisation - this noun has caused more harm to this country's economy Hitler.
                 But today our car industry's performance is among the very best in the world and due purely to the efforts of British workers, who wish to live the dream; their dream and not that of union leaders; as was the case 40 years ago. The malaise within the car industry that existed then has been turned around by its workers. Their dream is, maybe, to own their own home and bring up a family – and this is the best of all motives to enthuse them.

THATCHER to this day is loathed and despised by the Left. But she turned the economy around, and even Labour under the banner of New Labour had to accept the inevitable - that unions had been a drag anchor on technological progress if it meant losing members to technological innovation. All we have to do is look at the printing industry when computerisation overtook the lead typeface; it resulted in the battle of Grunwick, where the satanic presence of (from the union's view point) Rupert Murdock sought to bring the publishing industry into the modern age. But if this age meant redundancies, then the unions were Full Square against then. The print unions had had it all their own for so long: their over mighty power had made editors and publishers kow-tow to the various shop stewards.
                 But Murdock would have none of it – thus the battle of Grunwick, where Murdock locked out the print unions. History was on Murdock's side. But this wily and brash Australian not only saved his own publications but the publications in Fleet Street as a whole at the time – but he received little gratitude for his efforts.
                 When in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century unions were indispensable, they deserved the support they gained, including from me a one-time Marxist. But today they have outlived any need – and when that need reappears under capitalism; I will support it.


Wednesday, July 8, 2015

The single currency must die – but it will not be allowed to.

HERE IS A LIST OF SURNAMES to ponder over, Heseltine, Clarke, Howe, Kinnock, Blair, Mandelson and Clegg - there are more than enough others to fill this page. But these seven are the main culprits; these are the people who supported the single currency; and if you ask them if they continue to believe in this EU alchemy that was meant to bring about a federal Europe, they, like Marxists, will tell you that they still believe in the experiment; and like Marxists, orchestrating the great historical dialectic, will say a federal union is historically inevitable.
                Gordon Brown may have fucked things up good and proper; but he proved himself sane when many thought otherwise, by keeping the UK out of the single currency. Much can be forgiven of Brown for this single act of deliverance from the euro.
                But our seven will die believing they were right. Three of them, Kinnock, Mandelson, and Clegg have enjoyed the financial generosity of the EU payroll. Both Kinnock and Mandelson have served as EU commissioners (or cardinals as I refer to the Commission); while Clegg had to do with a less august role as a mere European Member of Parliament, but was nevertheless enticed by the dystopian vision of a Federal Union. 
                Of these three it is Kinnock who has the public sector to thank for his generous retirement. He has lived of the public tit since leaving university (like many professional politicians today). Kinnock may have worked in the private sector at some time or other, but I cannot find an example outside of maybe, as a student? He went into parliament representing a safe Labour constituency on an income far in excess of what many of his constituents earned.
                He became leader of the Labour Party and served between 1983 and 1992 and earned an increase in his salary as leader of her majesty's opposition. His nine years as leader of the parliamentary opposition was for much of the time riddled with embarrassment that no doubt helped extended the life of Thatcherism.
                When he left office, Tony Blair, his successor, named him as his choice as an EU commissioner (he was awarded passage in the first class compartment of the European gravy train); eventually reaching the dizzy heights of vice chairman of the commission. According to the Daily Mail he and his wife accumulated from the public tit a total £10 million from their experiences in Europe (his wife became an MEP). Today Kinnock is a Lord, a status which he once despised, but carries the offer of a daily £400 clocking in fee.

AS FOR HESELTINE and Clarke – well Heseltine to his credit was a self-made man, with a self- accumulated wealth from publishing. But both he and Clarke were part of the Conservative genealogy that Margaret Thatcher described as wet. They remain to this day Disraeli One Nation Tories. Their love of the European Union is unbounded and remains so even after the ship has been holed – just, in fact, like the believers in socialism, which neither of them rightly considered workable.
                Clarke is immovable if he gets his teeth stuck into an unworkable idea that he believes in, especially when it comes to Europe. But if it is an idea he thinks at all practicable according to his own ideal, then he will, like a dog tugging on a squeaky toy, refuse to let go.  Clarke is an obstinate politician who, if he believed the world to be cubed shape, despite all evidence to the contrary, would try to persuade us that the cube rather than the spherical represented the true composition of our planet.
                 Clarke cannot face up to the possibility that he may be wrong. As for Mandelson, he has been outrageously blatant about the European project. For instance he has already admitted that Tony Blair went out of his way to support the inflow from Eastern Europeans into the UK under part of the terms of the Lisbon Treaty (signed in 2007) which he need not to have allowed to enter under  European law until 2014[1].

NEVER HAS a country been so ill served by its leaders as the UK has when it comes to the EU. The great project that was meant to create an Untied States of Europe is a conceit of a special order. We (or rather our post-war leaders) bought into this potage of a European Empire, which is what federalism amounts to.
                That appalling prime ministerial agent of all things European, Ted Heath, would have sold his very soul to the devil if Satan could have delivered the UK once and for all into the embrace of Europe; and Heath's hatred of Margaret Thatcher emerged the moment she took office and stood up to the EU.
                 On Europe, Heath, after he left office and sat sulking on the back benches never missed an opportunity to try and catch the Speaker's eye in order to embarrass his party leader and prime minister. He was joined in his ambition by Heseltine, Clarke, and Howe. The latter, at his wife's insistence delivered the coup de grace with a cricketing analogy, of all things.  
                 The European Union is a flawed concept that its proponents insisted upon to prevent wars on the European continent between nation states that had plagued the continent for centuries culminating in the Second World War. The idea that an EU would end military conflict on the continent has often been used by Europhiles as proof of the peace in Europe for the past 70 years; when everybody knows that the peace has been kept by NATO, and more importantly by the American contribution to it…especially during the Cold War.

THE EUROPEAN PROJECT needs to be brought to an end to be replaced by free trade agreements between nation states, and where national self interest applies, then allegiances can evolve. This is what happens in the rest of the world and it should apply to Europe: and for those who believe it could be a return to the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) or the Second World War - then forget it.
                  It is more likely that the EU will bring about the very conflict that the EU sought to end. For example let us take Greece and Germany. The German taxpayer has paid a large amount to the Greek economy to keep it solvent; but has demanded in return a punishing austerity – this is the quid pro co. This has ignited old antipathies by Greece whose experience of German hospitality during the Second World War have been reignited – is this the peace the EU was meant to bring to the continent? With Germany orchestrating all economic developments within the Union; then there is plenty more opportunity for such historical ambivalence toward Germany to emerge on the continent if, like Greece other southern European countries, find themselves in Greece's position.


[1] My brother's conspiracy theory is that Mr Blair was pussy whipped by Mrs Blair into allowing open borders seven years before it was necessary to do so. His wife is a Catholic, and he has been recruited to the same faith (by whom I leave to you to judge). My brother's theory goes thus: by allowing in hundreds of thousands of Catholic Poles, they would increase the Catholic congregations throughout the country, while the Anglican congregations were in a steady decline; what with high church Anglicans going over to Rome because of the emergence of the women priesthood and bishop-hood. Thus the Catholic church would eventually replace the Anglican church in terms of numbers, and become the official faith of England – and Cherie Blair would be granted another audience with the Pope to be promised beatification for her good works after death – well that is the theory and the more I (an atheist) consider it, the more I am drawn to it.


Monday, July 6, 2015

Enoch's moment of schadenfreude

ENOCH POWELL always challenged the accusation that he was a racist. But of course the liberal atmosphere that was making its presence felt from the late 1950's onwards to eventually become the new establishment we see today would have none of it; and so the name of Enoch Powell has become synonymous in the modern liberal vernacular with racism, and any sympathy shown towards an intellectually gifted man would at the very least draw suspicion from the liberal establishment… and outright rancour from the left.
                 The term racist has been used more often than not wrongly chosen, and Powell exemplifies this prejudice; because the term has been kidnapped by, particularly the broad centre-Left, within all parties and groups and organisations of a liberal bent (such as, but not exclusively – the BBC).
                 The definition of racist is: "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's  and I would think this to be a fare definition agreed to by any other dictionary published in the world. This is the definition Enoch used to prove he was no racist. He did not think himself "racially superior" to anyone. If he was a racist, for instance, he would have never have loved India as he truly did; but would have despised its people, whom he respected.
                 What Enoch did think his country held superiority over, were the cultures of those countries that formed part of the British Empire. He believed, having served in India, that corruption, arranged marriages, the appalling treatment of the untouchables, and the equally appalling practice of incinerating the living wives alongside their deceased husbands, was an inferior culture to the one he was brought up in…is this racism?
                He also drew on his experiences in India that communities set apart by their cultural heritages could never co-exist peacefully for very long; and he was proved right in India when what he called its communalism fell apart. Hindu and Muslim were not long set at each other's throats after independence. Hundreds of thousands died in the clash of cultures which led to the founding of Pakistan – but even the Muslims could not live in concord for very long, and so Bangladesh was created from Pakistan…were these entire events racist on behalf of one side or the other? Of course not.
                Why Powell opposed immigration was because he knew that such varying cultures could never peacefully co-exist for very long - what he referred to as communalism our liberals refer to as multiculturalism, and preach the gospel of diversity. Powell knew his people, and he knew what the importation of different cultures would unleash eventually, as he found in India, the kind of social unrest which would eventually unleash racist statements on one party or other in the conflict.
                I support Powell not because I consider him a racist. I would never do so if I believed he was. But if there is racism today it is the fault of the guilt ridden liberals who are ashamed of the British Empire Enoch was part of and they chose to redefine racism on their terms. They believe that different cultures can co-exist – which they cannot unless a border separates them.

LOOK AT THE multicultural paradise the liberal's have brought this once great nation to. They boast of diversity as if it was to be celebrated. Integration was meant to be the golden mean – the true success of multiculturalism. But diversity is the very negation of integration. It has caused white flight from many of our northern cities and control handed over in many parts of those cities to communities whose cultures are alien to the white indigenous one. Once the demographic expansion of, for instance, Muslim cultures continues, it will have its impact. Already we see Labour politicians kow-towing to Muslim constituencies in their winnable seats in the north that were once solid white working class, whose votes could be relied upon. Now we see Labour politicians attending meetings in Muslim areas whose votes they will need to stand any chance of winning in the future – so witness this.
                When these politicians are invited to attend these meetings with their wives or partners in tow; the wives and partners have to be segregated from the men into a different room - and if they willingly oblige (as they did) in order to climb the greasy pole of Labour politics; then all is lost as far as our indigenous culture is concerned.
                That Labour multiculturalists with an ambition for power will willingly prostrate themselves before such – to put it mildly, a misogynistic body, in order to realise their political ambition on behalf of the Labour Party; then their 'progressive' political ambition has lost all meaning, and they are acting purely out of a raw ambition for power. The so-called 'progressive' principles such as those Labour politicians who attended these meetings profess to believe in, are rendered meaningless by their mere attendance at such meetings.

CULTURAL SUPERIORITY is not racism –racial superiority is. Even many liberals think that our Western culture is superior to many others; but would never dare say so because they have tied themselves up in the racist knot. If he is looking down on his enemies, Enoch's feeling of schadenfreude would bring a smile to his face; although it will be tempered by the way the country he loved had been reduced, and its indigenous population gagged by the liberal hegemony and face imprisonment for 'racism'; or the new politically correct redefined definition of the term.

                 The Left, not the Right, are the new autocrats; they are the ones now pulling the strings under the camouflage of 'progressive politics' they are silencing tongues that disagree with their Left-liberal agenda. Such people are infused with the arrogance that persuade them that history is on their side and will balk at any alternative point of view to their own. Blind certainty sets their agenda; and therefore why is any opposition needed?

                 Sooner rather than later this whole liberal 'progressive' edifice will crumble into a bloody mess because the 'progressives' who erected the edifice, like all ideologues who become infused with certainty, will drift almost unconsciously into autocracy as the dreaded political correctness, and the hate crimes, suggests it will. The Left are becoming the new fascists in their certainties; and the very tolerance that they say is at the centre of their liberal beliefs, has already been undermined by political correctness.



Sunday, July 5, 2015

Europe's liberal politicians lack the ruthlessness to defeat ISIS

AFTER THE TRAGIC EVENTS in Tunisia, the prime minister has once more raised the possibility of bombing Syria – this time not to help rid that benighted country of Assad's regime… but of ISIS. His first attempt met with failure in a vote in the House of Commons, but no doubt he thinks that the murdering of 35 British holiday makers by ISIS will bring the newly elected House around this time; and many MPs who would have balked yet again at such an adventure will now either support it because of the carnage, or because if they do not they will have their own constituents to answer to.
                So let us assume that, like the Daily Telegraph's Asa Bennett, that we are months away from bombing Syria. How strong, therefore, is the RAF to take on such a commitment? Well Mr Bennett, using figures compiled by the Royal United Services Institute, suggest we have only 54 frontline aircraft immediately available to meet David Cameron's limited ambitions. Obviously, only the Tornado bombers will qualify for the kind of operation. These are the aircraft that target the $10,000 trucks with one or two ISIS on board… but with what? How much does a laser guided bomb cost compared to the Ford trucks targeted?
               On top of which we learn from the figures garnered by Mr Bennett, that there are only eight Tornadoes immediately available. In total we 242 front line fighter and bomber aircraft; but as I have already mentioned, of that total only 54 are immediately available; and of that total only eight bombers are available. Cost cutting by politicians is playing its part, I suggest, in keeping such a beleaguered front line force unavailable.

SO IF the prime minister has his way and we start to carry out raids to bomb ISIS in Syria with our immediately available Tornados; what kind of impact would they have on ISIS? I suggest NONE whatsoever. Cameron knows this but to do something is better than just emoting over the deaths of these British citizens. His rhetoric (like that of Obama's) is ment to sooth and to show, in Cameron's case, the British public, that something is being done. It will be yet another fruitless exercise – but one intended to pacify the relatives of those people slaughtered on a Tunisian beach, and the British public, who they assume will be satisfied by nightly MoD images of ISIS's trucks being destroyed, probably after the RAF have been ordered not to do so if there is chance that ISIS has a civilian on board as a human shield.
              First of all ISIS needs to be tackled from the ground and the West knows this, and is why we have sent arms and military advisors to northern Iraq to help  the Kurds. This is also why the West, after its intervention into Iraq left behind such advisors and millions of dollars USA military hardware which is now in the hands of ISIS.

ISIS IS WINING because the West is weak and its leaders fearful of conscience riven sleepless nights; sleepless because of their fear of what has to be done to destroy ISIS and keep Western values solvent. During the Second World War and the bombing raids over Germany which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, Churchill felt at the least distressed, but he knew that 'Bomber' Harris was what was needed, and he was prepared to accept whatever judgement history made of his decision to allow Harris to carry out his one thousand bomber raids over Germany.
              We have no Churchill or 'Bomber' Harris today who is prepared to accept the guilt for such actions that may in the future turn them into monsters. Today we have an almost effete leadership throughout Europe; and currently in the USA. We in the West currently have a feeble and dissipated political class of liberal rationalists whose persuasive tongues, or so they believe, will overcome even ISIS, and if they do not, they will suggest a compromise.

WE ARE faced with a medieval enemy using medieval forms of attrition such as beheadings; but with modern forms of communication such as the internet; ISIS is only strong because the West is weak and impotent of mind: weak also because it is in the grip of a perfidious liberal conscience. We have seen how this conscience, when Israel responds to the Hamas missiles launched in their hundreds against Israeli citizens, works. We saw this when Israel entered Gaza to end the flurry of daily delivered missiles from Gaza with little concern for the Israeli population.
               The liberal West who insisted on proportionality and castigated Israel for killing so many Gazan Palestinian civilians who were in effect shielding Hamas terrorists in the buildings from which Hamas were firing on the Israelis; is a non sequitur as far as charges of war crimes against the state of Israel are concerned. Israel, as always, will do whatever is necessary to keep the Jewish people safe within their own homeland – and rightly so.  I only wish that Cameron would do the same for the indigenous people of England.

DAVID CAMERON is deceiving his public[1] when he proposes to unleash the might of the RAF[2] on ISIS in Syria. I am almost ashamed to be British. Cameron's New Conservative Party is as vacuous as Blair's New Labour one. Cameron knows the state of our armed forces; for he agreed to their cuts in 2010 in order to make the NHS and the overseas age budget its priority to alleviate the Tory Party from remaining the nasty party: and this continues now with ever further cuts to defence in the pipeline.               
                 If Cameron is not careful his legacy will prove not to have been his stewardship of a prosperous economy, but of untold damage he wrought on his nation's defences at a time in his country's history when his people needed a strong defence against ISIS and Putin. Europe has never found itself as vulnerable from the outside and the inside, as it does today. I believe that the years of peace we have enjoyed since the ending of the Second World War may turn out to have been nothing more than a peaceful interregnum, before the volley's are fired off once again on European soil.

[1] Not for the first time
[2] Eight bombers in fact

Friday, July 3, 2015

The barbarians are at the gates

ISIS NOW HAS a presence on the Golan Heights and in the Sinai - the latter no doubt being entered via the Gaza strip. ISIS attacked five Egyptian check points and in the ensuing battles there were over 70 deaths. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, probably with ancient Rome in mind, said "We see ISIS at the gates …" – the gates being Israel's eastern and western borders.
               If it is proven that ISIS used tunnels built by Hamas to enter the Sinai, then Hamas would be as culpable as ISIS for the Egyptian deaths that have occurred. Since the removal of Morsi as president of Egypt, Hamas has been hard pressed to supply its people with black market consumer products tunnelled into Gaza from Egypt. Morsi and Hamas are both members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas did very well out of Morsi's presidency. A blind eye was turned to black-marketing.
              Hamas collected millions in 'import' duties; and when the practice was ended by Egypt's current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Hamas made several attempts at taking on Egypt in the Sinai but failed; and if a link can now be established between Hamas and ISIS, then the Palestinian cause will suffer the loss of much sympathy in the West – especially after the events in Tunis.

ISRAEL NEEDS the West's support more today, than at any time in its short lived history as a modern democratic state – still a rarity in the Middle East. But in Washington we have for the first time an administration headed by a president that has always been cool toward Israel (in the American president's case; I would suggest hostile; for reasons it is better not to go into here[1]).
             Israel, without the support of America stands alone. Israel is portrayed by the Left in this country at least, as a Goliath and the Palestinians, as the heroic underdog David. It is a blasphemy of the reality. It would be true if the Israelis were only up against the Palestinians. But of course we know they are not. Historically they have had to look beyond the Palestinians toward Egypt, the Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the modern age to Iran. In fact all Arab countries wish the state of Israel to depart the Middle Eastern stage and have made two attempts in 1967 and 1973 to bring this about. The 'Goliath' Israel has more to consider than the Palestinians. They have always had to defend their nation from the Arab world itself – this is the context; this is the reality; and to suggest that Israel is the Goliath is asinine at the very least.

IF ISIS COUNTINUES on its savage way with a limited Western response; their Caliphate will eventually try to integrate Israel itself into it; not into a Palestinian state but as an Islamic one which will be incorporated into their Grand Caliphate. The Palestinians will be no nearer to their beloved state than they are today - if successful in defeating the Israelis and by driving them back into the Diaspora the Palestinians think themselves 'liberated' – then no such concept exists under ISIS. So if Hamas did allow ISIS to use their tunnels to enter the Sinai and attack Egyptian security forces, then it was a desperate measure based on a fit of piqué at the way they had been treated by Morsi's successor, as well as a historical hatred of Israel. 
                Benjamin Netanyahu is a hard man. His hero is Winston Churchill whose photo he keeps in his office – while Obama removed a similar photo of Churchill from his office in the Whitehouse the moment he entered it. Netanyahu is, for all his faults, which I recognise,[2] is the best man for the job of keeping Israel secure at a time when the state faces opponents who treat diplomacy as a means to an end; and are prepared to lie and cheat to serve their ends. Israel has always understood the importance of intelligence gathering surrounded as she is (unlike any other nation) by enemies who wish to see her state wiped from the face of the earth.
                ISIS is a new force on the intelligence radar for Israel. So far Mossad has managed to adapt to all conditions to keep the state of Israel safe. It now faces its greatest challenge; greater than the threat from Syria which is now in turmoil - but it is still left wondering about its outcome. Israel has always believed in the part of the world they existed in and were familiar with – it is summed up in this one expression; it is better the enemy you know; and Israel would sooner see the Syrian president Assad overcome ISIS and return to the old hatreds, than see ISIS become victorious.
                Israel is now feeling the impact of ISIS on its borders. This impact will grow exponentially as the ISIS advances continue without meaningful Western intervention. Israel must now consider itself alone. The effete West troubled by their ruling liberal consciences that condemned Israel as war criminals when last year they took on Hamas in Gaza, must now stand alone without any support from the USA; while, that is, Obama remains in power.
                Israel has always had to fight its corner. These are desperate times for Israel, and they can no longer, under Obama's presidency, rely upon America when they need it. Obama dislikes Netanyahu and would have liked to have seen a more liberal prime minister elected.
                Netanyahu, like Churchill, is a war time leader. War time leaders are gifted to perform their primary function of saving the nation they dearly believe in which was the case with Churchill, and now with Netanyahu. Netanyahu is a war time leader like Churchill and must be supported in his task of keeping the state of Israel safe.


[1] And I do not refer to anti-Semitism.
[2] We can make a list of Churchill's faults beginning with Dardanelles campaign and ending with the Norway landings.