'LITTLE EMPERORS'

WHENEVER DEMONSTRATIONS ON THE CONTINENT turn nasty, the police introduce water cannon, tear gas, rubber bullets, and, in extremis, stun grenades to break up the anarchy: the same police are also known for wielding their batons robustly and indiscriminately. They do so in order to defend themselves and their comrades from injury. The public on the continent understand this and even the demonstrators know what to expect from the authorities when their behaviour gets out of hand. They do not go running home to the suburbs to complain of  the police’s ‘disproportionate response’ to their behaviour.

            In this country it is different as we saw last Thursday when the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie took to the streets of London to complain of university fees. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, what will be remembered from the events that took place was the behaviour of the demonstrators.

            The Metropolitan Police, by comparison with their colleagues on the continent, showed great restraint . The Met tried to accommodate the demonstrators by liaising with the NSU organisers in order to secure a safe route  along which the march could take place. We now know that many of the marchers broke away hell bent upon provocation and violence.

            How many actually took part in the violence that was to follow is an interesting feature of what occurred. Those reporting the events for the media insisted that the provocateurs were a ‘minority of anarchists’ hell bent on trouble.

            But for those of us who were sitting at home watching the unfolding drama, such a comment was in direct contradiction to what we were seeing on our television screens.

            It is true that those attacking the police had their faces covered, but there were many others taunting the police and even more applauding such behaviour. If they were a minority then they were a minority whose numbers reached the thousands.

            It was not just a minority of ‘outsiders’ causing the violence, but many of the spawn of Middle England; which is no doubt why the Daily Mail in particular  used the ‘minority of anarchists’ theme when reporting the violence.

MANY OF THOSE working in the media attended university and no doubt have children attending, or are about to attend university.  It is from such a source that we were given our information regarding  the events surrounding the demonstration.

            The response to the students was commensurate with their pattern of behaviour. It was reported, for instance, that snooker and golf balls were thrown at the police. Such missiles cannot be picked up off the street – they have to be brought to the event with the sole purpose of causing injury to the police. Yet even when faced with such premeditated violence, the police acted with far greater restraint than their colleagues on the continent.

            Instead of water cannon and tear gas, the Met used a tactic known as ‘ketteling’; which is mean to confine the protesters within a given area until they have calmed down sufficiently to be allowed  to leave gradually in small numbers. This is what happened last Thursday when  the police, to prevent students going on the rampage in other areas of the city, set about ketteling the protesters.

            Of all the methods used for controlling out of control demonstrators, ketteling must be among the least violent forms of managing crowds used by any police force anywhere in the world.

            For these ‘Little Emperors’ to pretend that they had been attacked by a ruthless Gestapo and brutally attended to, may fit in with those preconceived prejudices of the Left regarding the police, but the reality of last Thursday’s events were observed by millions of people who let their eyes inform them of the reality; and that reality did little for the reputation of our higher educated.

THE HEIR TO THE THRONE AT THE COURT OF SEPP BLATTER

MOST INTERNATIONAL BODIES are more or less corrupt. Whether it is the United Nations, the European Union, or the IOC and FIFA; the greater the level of an organisation’s unaccountability to the public, the more their members will be tempted by the possibility of a first class carriage on the gravy train.

            Today the second in line to the throne, as well as our prime minister will both go crawling, cap in hand, to one such body – FIFA. They will be pleading on behalf of the FA for the 2018 World Cup to be staged in the UK; and such is the overwhelming hunger for such an event to be staged on our shores, that our future head of state and his prime minister are not only fully prepared to ignore the corrupt behaviour within this organisation, but also to condemn as ‘unpatriotic’ the BBC’s decision to show last night’s Panorama programme that sought to expose FIFA’s fraudulent practices.

            It is a somewhat strange form of patriotism that  allows itself to cohabit with such a body as FIFA, while condemning those who wish to expose its dishonesty in the national interest.

            I am no friend of the BBC but it was right to show this programme when it did; and if our Great and Good wish to tarnish themselves and the office they hold by ignoring the scandal, and actively negotiate with such an organisation, then they should forfeit whatever public deference they may command.

           

THE UK should never have bid for the event in the first place knowing the kind of people they would be dealing with. FIFA’s president, Sepp Blatter, knows how addicted to the game are its millions of supporters; and as such he is all too aware of the power he wields over their governments when it comes to the World Cup. He sits Buddha-like orchestrating the bids and forcing governments to change their country’s laws to suit FIFA’s requirements.

            It is surely a sign of decline into irrelevance when a country is willing to send, as part of its delegation, its prime minister to help negotiate, not with another government, but with the heads of a sporting body. Both FIFA and the IOC have become over powerful . They should have no more influence over politicians and princes than does the British Tiddlywinks Association. By pandering to such sporting bodies our politicians have devalued their office and elevated Mr Blatter’s.

            No matter how popular it is, football is a sport and should be treated as such. It is now, sadly, common practice for our political leaders to involve their office, for populist reasons,  in the sporting world.

            It began, I believe, with Harold Wilson in 1966 when we won the World Cup. It was Wilson who began the political association with sport and sports people and it has flourished ever since. Today we even have a sports minister interfering in what should be  left to the various sporting organisations to oversee .

            Because all sport is popular our politicians want a piece of the action and are prepared to demean their office in pursuit of it. They are like Roman emperors courting popularity through the provision of the circus. Today’s rulers however, have turned themselves into Mr Blatter’s courtiers, hoping to receive the nod that will see them return in triumph to these shores.

            As with the decline of the Roman Empire, superficiality has been elevated above all else in the Western  society; thus we have had the rise of celebrity, football, and a particular favourite  in this country, the rise of the chef. Where once we admired heroes who did great things on our country’s behalf, we are now inundated with countless food programmes which have given us the celebrity chef to fawn and fret over.

            The picture presented to us, is one of decadence and decline. Our leaders pay homage to the trivial because to do so means clinging on to power. To be popular one must profess affection for and knowledge of  all kinds of populist  culture.  Today, it is more important for a leader of this country to read Hello magazine than it is to have read Dickens or Trollop; or , for that matter, to have had a solid grounding in their country’s history.

            For our prime minister and heir to the throne to supinely approach a corrupt sporting organisation and plead before its governing body for a sporting competition to take place on UK soil is humiliating to people he represents.

            If leaders of other countries think so little of the offices they hold that they feel comfortable dealing with such people, then so be it. But for our leaders to ingratiate themselves with the FIFA family only reduces further their own reputations among the British people.

IMMIGRATION MUST BE CHALLENGED

THERE IS AN UNDERCURRENT OF RESENTMENT in the country among the white working and lower middle classes toward immigration. Among such people, the fear of being called a racist has long since become a devalued currency. The problem has become so desperate that such name calling barely registers any more.

            Population projections for the middle of this century are positively alarming for such a small island as ours. Yet our leaders see no need to do anything other than tamper with immigration controls. The projected increase to our population over the next 40 years will leave this country with a populace of over 70 million people and still rising, despite what is being proposed to contain it by the Coalition.

            That great ‘villain’ of liberalism, Enoch Powell described, back in the 1960s, our immigration policy as madness, complimented by his now familiar observation that such a policy would lead to ‘the river Tiber foaming with blood’, as resentment grew toward the introduction of an immigrant population among British people.

            The Britain he knew then would never have tolerated the influxes that have prospered since. But to make matters worse, the ideology of multiculturalism has replaced that of Marxism as the Left’s favourite  cause. Capitalism, having seen off that old German fraud, now has to face his successor – Multiculturalism.

            Equally dystopian, Multiculturalism poses however a far greater threat. It does so because, in part, its foundations were dug by Western liberal guilt. Guilt is in the very nature of a liberal conscience; no more so than a British liberal’s guilt for their country’s colonial past: and so the doors were left open for all people from our former colonies who wished to live amongst us, to so do. This was then compounded by the unlimited entry of other European peoples who were members of the EU and entitled to unchallenged entry.

            But as former colonisers like ourselves, those countries within the EU like Portugal, who colonised such countries as Angola and Mozambique have allowed citizens from such of their colonies into Portugal, and consequently, into the rest of Europe.

           

YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES if you take a stand against the liberal folly of Multiculturalism. You can either suffer in silence or take the brick-bats and face persecution from the state under its hate crime laws if you seek to undermine the ideology. In other words we are just like Soviet Russia without a Siberian wasteland to transport us too; but this is one geographical detail that liberal Britain wishes it had at its service to brush us under the carpet.

            Immigration, its supporters will claim, has always been a vital ingredient of the rich fruit cake of British history. Well yes, but only if you believe in the Disney version of our island’s history. From the Romans and the Anglo Saxons, to the Viking raiders and the Norman conquests, these islands have fought each and every interloper at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

             Such intrusions have never been allowed to prosper without a fight. None of the conquests of these isles have been subjected to any kind of passive resistance of the type that Multiculturalism advances. Whenever this island has been faced with a conquest of its cultural identity, it has managed to at least challenge it militarily.

            The British liberal who now seeks to rectify the mistakes made under the British Empire by admitting all and every foreign national that seeks residence among us to so do, represents pure and unadulterated emotion over reason; and if in the future it leads to violence on our streets, it is no use blaming the BNP.

            Liberal guilt is this country’s greatest obstacle, and has been so for the past 50 years. It is such an overwhelming phenomenon that it has managed to place this country’s culture under a threat. Our British/English culture has been diminished to the point of being just another culture in the Multicultural paradigm created by liberalism.

            We as a nation have had, in the recent past, to suffer the slings and arrows of liberal guilt; demanding that our nation should admit and forever seek contrition for our colonial past by admitting countless immigrants from our former colonies. Which means we have living amongst us today some 1.5 million Muslims, at a time when Islam is asserting itself throughout the world, and whereby its British contingent has influenced government thinking to such an extent that it is frightened to offend such a minority - even to the point where our government fails to disclose the numbers of Taliban dead for fear of offending them.

            I do not believe that members of the chattering classes of any political persuasion, fully comprehends the amount of resentment that exists in the country outside of the metropolitan bubble that is London.

            What the politicians like to describe as British tolerance, is in fact resentment. Suppressed resentment, but resentment nevertheless. How much longer such an ill temper  can lay dormant before the pressure cooker explodes in society’s face, depends, I suppose, on how successful this Coalition is in restricting the numbers of future immigrants and sending back the 500,000 illegal ones – which, part of the Coalition, wishes to grant an amnesty to.

            The white working and lower middle classes want live in their own culture where, if they wish to live among us, ethnic minorities have to give first choice to the host culture and abandon elements of their own if they conflict with the laws and traditions of the host culture - when in Rome etcetera….

THERE IS ONE FORM OF Multiculturalism I do believe in; the Multiculturalism of different nations. If I chose to live abroad I would endeavour to live by the laws and customs of the nation I made my home. I would not expect the culture I brought with me to be given equal status with the host culture: and if I could not live with such an arrangement, then I would be expected to return home to the culture I left.

            Multiculturalism cannot work and should not indeed work. Nations have histories, often involving much sacrifice in the form of wars, civil wars and revolutions; it is to create a cultural identity that such sacrifices have moulded our and many other nation’s pasts.

            To have it diminished or taken away (by Multiculturalism) will, I hope, always meet with resentment and hostility. Under such a surge of antipathy, any government’s attempt to criminalise it in the form of producing hate crime legislation, will only encourage further resentment and who knows – even rebellion.

            We are a planet of nations and long may it remain so. For if a culture means anything, then it has to be part of a nation’s heritage. In such a context Multiculturalism is a liberal wet dream that promises to turn into a nightmare for the rest of us.

            Rather than bow to charges of being racist and of being accused of hate crimes, the British people must lay claim once more to their national sovereignty and protest vigorously against Multiculturalism and any further immigration.

THE POLITICIANS WILL QUICKLY get the message once they see that such a demand has a populist mandate; a mandate they instinctively know already exists, which is why they  used the rhetoric of immigration controls before the last election. But rhetoric is all it is. The new Coalition is deeply split on the subject. Vince Cable, for instance, insists that our business community demand the continuance of immigration into our country.

            Our business community does indeed wish to entertain any source of cheap labour they can get, irrespective of nationality; and our Vince supports them in their endeavours. But our business community must balance their need for profit with their obligation to pay a decent wage to British employees.

            I recently saw a report on the television where immigrant farm labour was treated disgracefully by certain farmers who employed them to pick their harvest. Their living conditions were appalling. Was it little wonder that the British refused such employment?

            Immigrant labour is used to undermine the level of wages that would be demanded from a British worker. No wonder the business community side with Vince Cable.

            Multiculturalism has allowed such an almost Dickensian state of affairs to exist and the ideology and its supporters must be ashamed of themselves.

            

THE SPIN IS DIZZYING

THE WRETCHED COALITION has made the stinker of all decisions by signing a military pact with France, and for no other reason than to save money. The spin however will be more complex and heart-warming (as if centuries of mutual loathing could so easily be swept under the carpet).

            David Cameron , speaking in parliament said that the arrangement was “ in the long-term interests of both our countries.        

“To those who worry that this might in some way lead to sort of European armies - that is not the point. The point is to enhance sovereign capability by two like-minded countries being able to work together.”

            You note the prime minister does not deny that such a military alliance will lead to some “sort of European armies”. He just sweeps such a suggestion aside by telling us it will enhance the sovereign capability of “two like-minded countries able to work together”.

            What would have enhanced the sovereign capability of this nation would have been to  chose the right priorities when making the necessary cuts to our crippling deficit. But instead ring fencing our defence budget, we prioritised both health and the oversees aid budgets, followed by a £425 million yearly increase to our EU contributions.

            If we had chosen the right priorities, this silly arrangement with France would never have been necessary; which leads me to think that it was intended all along. If anyone has been made a fool of by this decision then it is Mr Cameron’s Eurosceptic back-benchers and the Conservative commentators who, since last May’s election, have propped up the Coalition and poured  large quantities of statesmanship over the prime minister’s head.

            I hope the French people will not take this lying down, as the British public certainly will: I hope , as they have done over the past two weeks, they will take to the streets once more. This time for something more important than adding two years to their retirement age.

            The road to  Euro-federalism  has just taken a deliberate turn toward its realisation. The Emerald City is now much closer to becoming a reality thanks to the signing of this historically significant document.

            The Conservative Party (if the name still remains appropriate) has been cheated in the same way as New Labour cheated Old Labour. Desperate for power, the Conservatives, just like Labour in 1997 have taken power by sacrificing all that it once stood for in a desperate need for power after the drought of defeat.

I CAN IMAGINE THE following conversation between Nick Clegg and David Cameron on the subject of Europe:

CAMERON:  “Nick, we both want the same ends, but you must trust me on the best way of attaining them”.

CLEGG: “Dave, you know this county’s best interests are served by being part of Europe. You have to…”

CAMERON: “Remember Nick, I am the leader of the British Conservative Party. It’s like turning an oil tanker around; it may take another generation until all the old farts are six feet under, and a new generation in the party comes round to our way of thinking.

            “Two steps forward and one step back – that’s the Conservative way. This deal with the French can be sold to the party as a means by which we keep a semblance of a navy afloat. They won’t like it…but they will like a Labour government even less”.

CLEGG: “Don’t forget that I’ve also got problems with my lot. They don’t like this business with Housing Benefit for instance. They have the sulks and are raring to deliberate…”

CAMERON: “Surely they can see where this agreement with the French will lead?”

CLEGG: “I’m not so sure it will be enough…but I’ll stand by our promise to each other in May”.

CAMERON: “That’s all I ask Nick”.

BACK ROOM DEALS are often scorned upon, and rightly so. For they seek to finesse a change which the politicians know will result in opposition from the public whom they are supposed to serve.

            This agreement with the French will prove unworkable, especially once Sarkozy leaves the political stage. As opponents of such an arrangement have pointed out, it can only make sense if it is intended to further the cause of federalism. The economic reasons for such a coalition are threadbare.

            The British and the French have always been better off fighting each other than trying to form alliances, which usually lead to tragedy for both nations.

            The apparent eagerness of Sarkozy for such an arrangement tells me something about who got the better deal. Usually our mutual distrust of each other, causes the French to review and analyse every sentence, dot and comma of any document presented to it by the British over many months.

            Then we find that French carrier the Charles de Gaulle, the very ship we would have to depend upon under the arrangement, is in fact unseaworthy: on top of which I read that a leaked French government document of two years standing disclosed that most of France’s tanks, helicopters and jet fighters were unusable and “falling apart”.

            We are assured that our most successful of allies, the United States is happy with this agreement. It may be true that the Democrats have given it the nod, but how will Republican presidents react to it in the future. Will they continue to offer us the latest military technology, as they did in the Falklands, and will we remain, with Israel, the most trusted recipients of such technology as we were with both Trident  and the purchase of cruise missiles.

            We have made, if not a fatal error, then one which will bring us much grief in the future, just as such arrangements with the French have done so in the past.

            The trouble with the current generation of politician, is that they see their historical illiteracy as a bonus in reconnecting with this islands’ ancient enemies.

            The French nation deserves our respect for their determination to hang on to that most vital component of any nation’s culture – its language. While English, either in its pure form or in its American hybrid, dominates the world of business, the French rightly despairs of such an understanding.

            What seems to rile with the British people is that the French are allowed to pick and to chose from those parts of the European menu they wish to partake of, while we in the UK stick to implementing those parts of European legislation, that the British people find unpopular - like for instance the European Human Rights Legislation.

THIS MILITARY PACT WITH the French could have only been conceived of in desperation. The dispiriting fact is, is that it was not a Lib-lab pact, but one involving the Conservative Party.

            The Conservative party must now think seriously about the meaning of the word Conservative; just as, in the past New Labour abandoned Socialism, the Conservative rank and file must now examine their innate traditionalism, and decide whether to abandon it in favour of  becoming another European Christian Democratic party, which is where David Cameron wishes to lead you.

            This military treaty with France represents the outcome of deliberately and irresponsibly abandoning our defence budget. This Coalition comprises Europhiles who would deliberately, in the name cutting the deficit, use it as an excuse in the creation of a Federal Europe; and by abandoning the Defence Budget in favour of ring fencing the Oversees Aid Budget, they have sought to bring European Federalism that bit nearer.

           

           

           

THE DAILY MAIL TELLS IT AS IT IS

WHAT DELIGHTS ME ABOUT  the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, is knowing how much both tabloids are loathed by the Left. The paper’s headlines are so deliciously provocative to liberal sensibilities, that the challenge they bring to the smug self-regarded liberals, have, for their own self-righteous certainties, brought about a kind of limp-wristed disdain from them, culminating in their usual dismissive response  of  “It’s just the usual Daily Mail stuff”. Like an unpleasant eruption from someone’s bowls in public, the Daily Mail and its sister paper are treated by liberals as being both bad mannered and anti-social.

            To me the Daily Mail digs out the stories that liberal Britain would sooner have had swept under the carpet. For the paper has rightly sought to undermine all of the so called “good work” that liberal Britain has expedited over the past 45 years, with Comprehensive Education, Multiculturalism and a somewhat dystopian attitude to crime and the criminal justice system.    

            What the Daily Mail does is to trawl for those stories that undermine liberal thinking; stories that the liberal media deem examples of prejudice and not representative of their reality.

            The Daily Mail is a conservative newspaper in the same way that the Guardian is a liberal one. But the extraordinary thing is, is that despite the fact that every cultural institution in this country has a liberal bias and is usually supported by the tax payer, the vast majority of people are, I suggest, small ‘c’ conservatives.

            Compare for instance the numbers of Daily Mail readers with those of the Guardian. The strength of the liberal power base in this country is far outweighed by the numbers who hold a contrary view, but are rendered helpless because, from Parliament to the BBC, and any other publically financed entity, the liberal ethos dominates, and acts contrary to the innate conservatism of the British people.

            In today’s liberal climate the Daily Mail represents the mouth-peace of the most radical approach to all aspects of society’s problems. Problems that have, in the main part arisen from the well intended solutions of a liberally directed social culture.

             In other words the remedies and solutions to our many social problems have, for the past 40 years, lain within the remit of, in one form or other, a liberal perspective. Our teaching departments within our universities have been primed toward impregnating a liberal prospectus into the minds of our children.

              Social science departments have also helped in the crowning of the liberal hegemony; resulting in political correctness. A political correctness that even permeates our police force, where the rights of all minorities are put before those of the majority indigenous population.

LIBERAL’S SEE the Daily Mail as a hindrance to their multicultural dystopia. If only the Daily Mail would go away, all cultures, numbering over a hundred in our society, would live quietly, unperturbed by Daily Mail prejudice, side by side.

            Liberal’s also see the Daily Mail as a hindrance to their ‘progressive’ criminal reform. If only the Daily Mail would not bring the public’s attention to the plight of a pensioner so brutally attacked by some yobs. Or, in another instance, the act of a publically spirited citizen who challenged the behaviour of feral youths who threatened his home and family, but suffered the consequences when he challenged such behaviour and died as a consequence.

            Almost every day throughout this country liberal laws are being exploited by, as in some cases, mere children, who rightly see themselves as being above such laws simply because they no longer fear them - only because there is nothing left for them to fear. They no longer fear them because liberalism has intervened on the criminals rather than their victims behalf.

            Liberalism seeks a formula whereby criminal nature can be mollified by the latest academic thinking into improving human behaviour and thus reducing our prison population.          Such a prospect however is undermined by human history. If nevertheless liberal academics wish to pursue their age old thesis then let them do it at their own expense instead of the public’s. Human nature remains the same as it has always done despite the intrusion of man-made speculation in the form of philosophy.

            Conservatism has traditionally sought a junction with human nature and required at least an understanding. The Left, on the other hand, has sought a radical departure from human nature and in so doing has tried to revolutionise it into a paradigm for liberal tolerance.

            The liberals little understand human nature simply because they are at heart idealists. They see only the good in man and obfuscate the bad. This is not however a time for idealism but for pragmatism.

            The Daily Mail speaks for conservatism and not idealism. As a conservative entity, the Daily Mail is in perfect synchronisation with the beliefs and wishes of the British people. For the British people believe in the continuance of their island nation as a sovereign state protected by their armed forces.

THE DAILY MAIL TODAY is the only truly radical mouthpiece of the British people whose only ambition is to remain a nation free from Europe and multiculturalism. For these are the two forces retarding our national sovereignty and culture. It is because the paper exposes the many failures of liberal Britain from education and crime, to the over promotion of minorities via system of political correctness and human rights laws imposed on us from Brussels, that it is despised and patronised by the Left.

            Long may the Daily Mail continue to cause the liberal-Left much discomfort. To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington on another occasion : “We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested [by the liberal].”

            

LISBON REVISITED?

THE LISBON TREATY MAY once more climb the domestic political agenda following France and Germany’s request to reopen the treaty in order to change various elements following the Greek financial crises earlier this year, when Europe’s strongest economies (notably Germany)  picked up the tab for Greece’s economic incompetence.

            Any amendments to the Lisbon Treaty will give an opportunity to those of us who thought the British people should have had a say in its imposition on them in the form of a referendum, to once more advance their arguments.

            First of all, both Angela Merkle and Nicolay Sarkozy are right to seek a revision to the treaty. Why, after all, should a successful wealth creating nation bolster the failings of an unsuccessful one? The German people, and the German people only, deserve the rewards of their efforts in creating a vibrant economy. They should not be obliged to bail out a still mainly agrarian economy by keeping it afloat with public subsidy. The Greek economy had a large imbalance in favour of the public sector with a retirement age of 53: and considering the economic demographics, such a system can only be kept going by handouts in the form of subsidies from richer nations.

            This wastefulness has to stop and this is what both Merkle and Sarkozy are seeking to do with their review of the Lisbon Treaty. At the moment in Europe, both Spain and Portugal threaten the same fate for Germany as did Greece. The richer nations of Europe (usually in the North) are becoming the milch cows for those in the south. Billions of Euros have poured from the north into the south over the decades since the founding of the Common Market in 1953.

            This siphoning of wealth can no longer continue, especially with so little return either to the investor or to its recipient. Money, in the form of investment, must incur profit for either partner if it is to succeed. In other words investment must provide a productive benefit.          Public spending is never an investment only a safety net; it however becomes a drain on a nation’s economy once the public sector becomes so bloated that it challenges the wealth creating private sector; and this is what has happened with Greece and threatens the same fate for the rest of Europe, unless we produce the pruning shears.

WHAT IS NOW UNFOLDING is the concept of a United States of Europe instead of a Common Market where free trade was the only component. The concept was, in the first place, created as a “solution” to Europe’s historical tribal wars that culminated in the Second World War.

            However, after the ending of the Second World War, the United States newly found world hegemony became the unspoken reason for the existence of a European Union. Even though the European continent was effectively liberated by America, the continent itself felt like the people of the colonies they once ruled. They resented American hegemony and sought to overcome it. They authorized American airbases on their territory to help defend them from Soviet power, while in so doing allowing themselves to spend the money they would have had to on national defence, or on welfare and health.

            The concept of a United States of Europe was and still is, frighteningly, a dystopian vision of an end to nationhood and its replacement by unelected overseers of what they perceive as the continent’s interests.

WE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE BEEN given the opportunity to once more demand from our leaders the same privilege as both Germany and France are demanding. Both nations seek, rightly, to challenge the Lisbon Treaty. We British also seek such a challenge, but to the treaty’s very existence; and if Germany and France succeed with their own challenge, then David Cameron must do what the British people have always been in favour of. He must give the British people the chance of a vote on the Lisbon Treaty itself.

            In opposition he made the right noises in order to regain election for the Tories - be it, as it turned out, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. However when the polls told him that he would be left in control of a majority in government for the Tories, David Cameron dangled above his supporters heads (the majority of whom were Euro-sceptics) the possibility of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

            To Cameron such a possibility would, in the event of gaining power, be finessed into a retreat, which is what happened: and it happened because Cameron himself was as much a Europhile as that old instigator of the whole project in Britain, one Ted Heath.

            David Cameron has bought into Euro-federalism. He has been drawn toward what he believes is its inevitability; as if it were a law of nature inseparable from the will of man. It is in other words our nation’s destiny, outside of which there is no other. This is the nature of our modern politician’s thinking in all parties towards Europe.

            I hope in the coming weeks Cameron’s Eurosceptics will assert themselves and do the British people a favour by challenging their leader on the issue of a referendum. Both Sarkozy and Merkle have reopened this issue in the interests of their own people, and Cameron should do the same on behalf of his people.

           

           

            

CAMERON DECEIVES HIS PEOPLE

THE EU ARE ASKING, NAY, DEMANDING, A BUDGETARY INCREASE. Our feted emperors who govern us from Brussels, and whose powers are such that they now render the election of national governments’ meaningless, are now insisting upon an annual increase of between 2.9%  and 6%. The lower figure would require from the British taxpayer an additional cost of £450 million; while the larger percentage increase would require an annual enhancement of £900 million. It should come as little surprise that the larger figure has been conjured up by the EU’s parliamentarians, whose gravy train needs to be kept well oiled and running exorbitantly, because of our European representatives prodigious craving for ever greater financial entitlements.

            Our Coalition has had to make demands upon the British people, and those demands represent a litany of financial constraints and sacrifices. Every department of state, we are told, has to make savings of up to 20%: our defence budget, for instance, will be eviscerated to the point where, somewhat comically, our aircraft carriers will be missing their one vital component – aircraft.

            The public sector faces job losses of 800,000 people; while the welfare budget faces a somewhat innovative attack from the Coalition that seeks to remove all of the parasitic barnacles from its vast hulk.

            Sacrifice on a vast scale will therefore be required, and may result in street protests that will challenge the authority and determination of the Coalition to see their “project” for the nation’s economical recovery through to a satisfactory conclusion.

            Our budget deficit of £170 billion has and will continue to exact its price  on future generations until it is eliminated from this island’s economic history.

SO HOW CAN DAVID CAMERON, under such circumstances demanded by his Coalition, justify any kind of increase to our contribution to the EU budget?

            If the British people have to face such belt tightening that it leads to our ineffectiveness to defend ourselves, then why should we give a penny extra to the European Union? It only makes sense if all of the mainstream political parties have a hidden agenda - to be part of  a European Federalist State .

            This I fear is the journey our politicians, from all parties, have set this nation’s compass too. Cameron will demand the freezing of Europe’s budgetary increase, but will settle upon a compromise of 2.9% and treat it as a victory. Such is the meandering ebbs and flows of the strategy that seeks ultimately, to give birth to a Federal Europe.

            The modern Conservatives under David Cameron will go through the rhetorical motions of nationhood for the sake of his party’s history; a history that Cameron uses for his own purpose in order to retain power. But Cameron is as much a European Federalist as any other mainstream political party.

            The EU budget should, at the very least be frozen if not, like all national budgets, be cut.  We elected this coalition to look after our nation’s interests, and in so doing we are about to be made to pay for the good times. We knew and understood at the last election that whoever was elected would have to tackle the deficit, and we the people knew what this would mean. What we never envisaged was that, given such conditions, our government would increase the number of carriages on the European gravy train.

            If, as I suspect, Cameron agrees to a 2.9% increase to the budget, it will amount to yet another betrayal following on the heels of MP’s expenses. For what will the extra £450 million per annum be spent on? How much of it will, for instance be distributed among  MEPs and bureaucrats to enhance their pensions and salary increases?

            The EU accounts have never been signed off. Corruption abounds; European tax payers money is removed from their wallets at the blink of a pickpockets eye, and the European public, I would like to suggest, remains mystified; but this implies that the European taxpayer has any inkling of what is going on; or, if they do, do they really care? If they did care, then those commissioners would not have the audacity to demand any kind of increase; and our national leaders would not countenance such a demand.

            At least if Cameron had said no to any increase, then the £450 million saved could have at least put aircraft on our carriers and aided in the defence of our nation, instead of lining the pockets of both the unelected as well as the elected, but politically spayed MEPs.

            While the Brussels’ bureaucrats continue to build their palaces, the ordinary European citizen must sacrifice a large part of their and their children’s futures. The people will tolerate sacrifice, but I hope they will not tolerate unfairness.

            Any kind of increase to the EU’s budget cannot under any meaning of the word, be classed as a victory by David Cameron, and will hopefully be seen as iniquitous by the taxpayer.

            

Assange’s WikiLeaks

THE LEAKING OF SECRET GOVERNMENT INFORMATION and plastering it all over the internet for the delectation of political nerds, as well as a country’s enemies (both of whom may benefit by the intelligence it gives them), may be seen by those who release such salacious material as an act representing the public good.

            The cry of ‘the public interest’ has acted as an adrenalin rush for journalists throughout the ages. In a democracy such a war cry is almost without challenge; for where democracy exists there can be only one interest and that is that of the public: and if the politicians put forward another interest – that of the nation  - those like the WikiLeakers pour scorn on such a notion by brandishing the 400,000 documents that, they say, renders the national interest an excuse for torture, dissembling and outright contempt for democracy.

            In the by now, well matured age of 15 minutes of fame, the man from WikiLeaks, Julian Assange,  is enjoying his moment. Having assembled around him a cornucopian array of the very best from liberal journalism, from the New York Times, the Guardian and the Independent  (the natural  allies of anything or anyone that attacks free market capitalism), Mr Assange has managed to ferment debate, and even invite on board those sections of conservative opinion that have an aversion to America, such as some of those writing for the Daily Mail.

WIKILEAKS LATEST disclosures will, I suggest, change very little the opinion of Great Britain. Whatever the West got up to in Iraq, the public, that great mass that so easily overpowers liberal sentiment in terms of their numbers, rightly concludes that in order to beat a ruthless enemy that lives so comfortably outside of the Geneva Convention, we must also depart from the convention’s ideals in order to defeat the greatest threat to Western democracy since Hitler: and in order to defeat this particular tyrant we need do what it is necessary to do; but was rightly needed to be done in secret, until, that is, WikiLeak credulously believed itself to be working in the public interest

            During the Second World War we bombed German cities and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and in so doing , at a loss of over 70,000 of our own pilots, we adopted the military strategy that our enemy at the time used against country after country in Europe. In so doing, did this turn us into fascists? Of course not. When a democracy is confronted by such a ruthless enemy then ruthlessness is a democracy’s only defence if it is to survive and overcome an enemy.

            The Geneva Convention was signed up to by the Western democracies. Saddam Hussein however saw such a restriction as a challenge to his authority in Iraq; it was an insult. He ignored completely the Geneva convention regarding his own nation. He poured scorn upon the West through their embargos, until it was left with no other choice but to act militarily. For it mattered very little to Saddam how many of his people suffered, either under his own rule, or under the West’s attempts to liberate his people - his only concern was his own and his family’s survival.

            WikiLeaks will do much damage to the Western democratic cause before they are finished. These ardent devotees of  ‘the public interest’  will turn out to be the grave diggers of the very democratic structures (including the public interest) they seek to stand up for.

            How far WikiLeaks has managed to undermine the West’s ability to overcome the Taliban by their release of such documents remains to be seen.

           

JULIAN ASSANGE is a 24 carat gold conspiracy theorist who has struck a rich seam of his favourite minerals of plots, schemes, connivance and torture. This son of  a pair of 1960’s hippy radicals has brought in the mother lode. The self-regarding tribe of liberal opinion choreographed by the New York Times, the Guardian and Independent, as well as Channel4, have all been given priority access to the latest mother lode of some 400,000 documents, detailing the West’s crimes and failings.

            Mr Assange seems to think that public opinion will turn against their leaders in whatever Western country his documents are released. If so Mr Assange lives in his own fantasy world of idealistic endeavour predicated upon a distrust and loathing of the materialism of the West – a mistrust no doubt shared by his parents and inculcated into the young and receptive mind of Julian Assange.

            Unless the next batch out of the oven cooked up by Mr Assange finds evidence of the West’s involvement in genocide; knitting the same pattern of extinction as Hitler exemplified, then I believe, rightly, that the West must show a ruthlessness that our enemies respect when we engage with them.

            If we try to live by example as our leaders (and it appears WikiLeaks insist we do), then our enemies will only take advantage of such an insipid approach and use it against us.

            The Taliban live by their own rules and will not countenance any restriction by international bodies such as the United Nations or the Geneva Convention. Saddam Hussein also followed the same procedure  when he was confronted by the international community without any comment from the likes of Mr Assange.

            The best response to Mr Assange from our leaders, as well as 70 per cent of our press, is to ignore or congratulate the methods uncovered in the 400,000 documents released. For they show that we have Islamism, if not on the run, then at least using their methods to attain victory.

           

           

           

           

            

CUTTING IN UNSTABLE TIMES

“History repeats itself; first as tragedy, then as farce”

Karl Marx

WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENCE CUTS, it just will not do for this Coalition to blame the previous government for the public service cuts and hope this argument will stand the time of this parliament. The necessary cuts to public expenditure have to take place if we are to continue amongst the world’s leading economies; and only a fool would wish to argue otherwise.

            We are in a terrible mess, and who put us in it is now irrelevant. It is irrelevant because we still have choices to make about where the cuts will fall. It is now about the priorities of necessity. Which means we must protect those parts the of the public purse that are invaluable to this nation’s sovereignty: and so accordingly, it is the first duty of any government to protect their country and its citizens, and therefore defence should be the number one priority: and if ring-fencing is to be applied, then can anyone suggest to me why our nation’s defences should be excluded? Especially when our international aid budget is being ring-fenced and we are now about to give into European demands for an increase in our contribution to the EU’s budget.

            “Defence reviews” have always been used as a synonym for defence cuts by politicians. As we all remember (or those of us over forty), John Knott, the then Defence Secretary under Margaret Thatcher was about to cull our armed forces when, out of the blue, we found ourselves at war with Argentina. At the time many people believed that the Falkland Isles were somewhere off the coast of Scotland, and Argentina’s claim to them laughable.

            In other words an armed conflict occurred that was never seen on the radar by the politicians or the military. It just happened out of the blue to challenge John Knott’s strategic defence review which was based upon Cold War strategic thinking – a strategic thinking that at the time our politicians had no idea that, in just over a decade, communism would put up its hands and surrender.

            The future is difficult to predict and so defence reviews are in a way a gamble -  like the weekly lottery. To pretend that those conducting such a review have an insight into the future that us ordinary mortals do not have, is belied by history – a much abused subject in today’s schools.

            I have written other pieces on my blog about the waste at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and this needs to be seen to - especially the policy of procurement and its criminal waste of public resources. Resources that could be delivered much more cheaply, if the nation’s defences, instead of British jobs commanded priority.

            There is much that needs to be trimmed from the MoD budget, from procurement to civil servants with their Gold Plated pensions to fall back on. But we must protect, and if necessary, expand our military capability.

WHAT IS NOW BEING PROPOSED, if the reports in today’s papers are correct, is the almost treasonable proposition of ordering such a diminishing capability of our armed forces, that our citizens, living as they are on an island, and having been heavily reliant as an island nation upon our navy, are now to expect from our politicians the ultimate betrayal.

            The expected military shrinkage, especially in the navy’s capability, leaves this nation without any influence in the world. We can no longer be expected to be listened to by other nations who will now perceive us as a nation in decomposition.

            Our once considered Rolls Royce Foreign Office will be diminished by these cuts to the MoD. Why, after all, should we be taken seriously by any nation if we sever so ruthlessly our once proud backbone.

            This Coalition has made its choices. It has announced its ring-fenced priorities which excludes our nation’s defences. In so doing it cannot blame the last government for what it now seeks to do.

            I am no fan of the last government. Indeed, at the age of 60, I voted for the Tories for the first time in my life having been a life-long Labour supporter. But there are limits to what you can attribute your actions to regarding any previous government. After-all, as I said above, there are choices to be made, and this government has chosen to ring-fence oversees aid instead of defence. This Coalition government cannot blame its predecessors for what amounts to the unrecoverable diminution of this nation’s defences.

           

IT IS MY VEIW THAT what this Coalition is seeking to do, is to entwine our nation’s armed forces into those of the rest of Europe. We are being herded as a people into the much denied Federal States of Europe. Why, for instance, would we dismantle our defences to such a state as this “review” suggests. We are about to rid the navy of HMS Ark Royal. It has been suggested that the two new carriers built to replace her will be built with the possibility of one of them being sold. While the other will fly either American or French aircraft from its decks.

            What a state of affairs we, a once proud nation find itself in. I believe the reason for such a meagre and miserable betrayal of our national identity, is that this Coalition is set to deliver our military defence capability to a European armed force. This is why this Coalition appears so sanguine about what is to happen regarding our nation’s defences.

            For the Coalition are 90% Europhiles who will happily give our nation’s autonomy over to the most undemocratic system of government since that of communism.

            I find it extraordinary that the Right-wing press and its many commentators still find David Cameron one of them. But sadly they will find out for themselves the awful truth – eventually. I, for instance, was enthralled to Tony Blair after so many years of Tory advance in Government and I suspect that David Cameron is enjoying the same support among Right of centre commentators.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY today is a mere parvenu of its former historical self. This great party has finally displaced its authority as the guardian of nationhood and delivered the country it sought keep alive, to Europe.

            We no longer boast an independence backed up by our armed forces. Our nationhood has been replaced by an ever greater dependence upon the rest of Europe: and this, I believe, is what was always intended by the Conservative element of this Coalition.

            David Cameron is as much a social democrat as most parties are within Europe. British Conservatism in the European context means very little to its historical identity as the party of “nationalism” .

            Modern Conservatism is a mere replica of modern Labour or Liberal Democrat. We seem to live in a political system where differences are, at their most radical unprincipled.

            The ring-fenced oversees aid budget must not be allowed to continue in such straightened times. We should also not countenance any kind of increase to our contribution to the European budget. If prime minister Cameron accedes to this command, especially from the Union, then he must explain himself to the nation in the light of his proposed defence cuts.

            Our nation’s shield are our defences; our defences are our shell and must be continually improved upon in the interest of the people whom our politicians say they represent. Above all other interests of government it is the protection of its people that has to be put before all else. For it the country’s survival as a sovereign nation that must always remain preeminent. If in these dire financial times if the verb to ring-fence is used, then our nation’s defences must have first priority.