Friday, August 12, 2011

THE CHILDREN OF THE ABYSS

'They can't touch me, I'm still a kid . . . what is the worst they can do? Give me a caution or a curfew I won't obey.'
One 15-year-old looter quoted in yesterday's Mail

THE GUILT RIDDEN liberals that run every nook and corner of this country, and have done so for the past 50 years, were and still are the well intentioned idealists who’s accumulative impact on our society over the past half century, brought into being the nightmare many of our law-abiding citizens experienced firsthand earlier this week.
                Liberals bask in the sobriquet ‘progressives’. They believe in a ‘progressive’ approach to the foetus, and leave it up to the mother to decide whether it should survive to birth or not; they believe in a ‘progressive’ approach to parenthood, which means being non-judgmental when it comes to single-parenthood - or any other domestic arrangement; they believe in a ‘progressive’ attitude toward the disciplining of children, which means that, physically, they are to be made untouchable, by either parent or teacher: they are ‘progressive’ when it comes to the criminal behavior of children, which means an age of criminal responsibly; ASBOs, fines that are never paid, and a whole army of social workers, as well as a whole milieu of other ‘professionals’ to help stem the dam.
               Those riots earlier this week were never about government cuts or the slaying of any particular individual; but a reflection upon how our liberal culture has managed to screw things up over five decades; since, in fact, the ending of the Second World War.
               You have to have been born, like myself, in the 1950s or before, to appreciate just how troublesome and disturbing it was for my father’s generation to witness the decade of free love and free everything else. My father (and there were thousands like him) found themselves removed from these shores to be unloaded in Burma in the 1940s to fight the Japanese. They had been brought up on a system of moral values that they instinctively knew were right, but by the 1960s had been mocked and scoffed at by the post war generations.
                 What had happened, was that all forms of ‘traditional’ morality, the kind that had served us since Queen Victoria’s reign, was now to be ridiculed and contemptuously referred to as ‘Victorian values’, by the up and coming ‘progressive’ elite: and as the decades evolved and the old moral compass, now trampled upon, was never replaced by the new establishment with any other alternative; there was no direction accept to give those who disrupted society what they demanded.
                 Morality became a dirty word, unless it fitted a liberal criteria. ‘Progressive politics’ became the future and what it said went. Our burgeoning liberal culture suffered somewhat of a setback in the late 1970s when a knew Restoration threatened. But even Margaret Thatcher could not have the same impact socially, that she undoubtedly managed to have industrially.

TODAY, LIBERAL PROGRESSIVENESS has advanced to such a degree that we are now immersed in Human Rights legislation from Europe (it’s a long story); but what it means is that the criminal has rights that effectively protects him or her at every level of their conviction, leading to and including their imprisonment and how they are treated while in prison.
                The virus of liberal progressiveness knows of no political boundary; it has its home in all the political parties, as well as our civil service. While our academia has been the main supplier of its influence on our society at every level, particularly within the humanities.
                If ever those rioters had an excuse for what they did it was provided by liberal Britain: and it will be provided yet again once the aftermath has escaped the memory of the majority who have been appalled by what has happened.
               No doubt, that at such a time, Channel Four will do a programme to show the human side of the rioters. Even today, Sky News interviewed four of these reprobates who had run amuck earlier. Their faces were covered and it seemed that their fashion sense was a mark of earlier theft. But this did not stop Sky’s interviewer from allowing these degenerates to be interviewed while covering their faces; and no doubt promising them anonymity from police involvement.

THOSE WHO ENGAGED upon such a riot, knew their rights, and how helpless society was in punishing them. Their ‘rights’ were given them, and are the legacy of well intentioned middle class liberal idealism, which sought to salvage their conscience by being un-judgemental toward ‘less favoured beings’ than themselves.
            Those who took part in the riotous events of this week deserve a punishment that will stand as a deterrent for such behaviour in the future. But as usual, despite David Cameron’s promise yesterday, very few of those who took part will receive a prison sentence, and if they do, it will be of a far shorter stretch than the term demanded by the court.
            Our whole liberal justice system is out alignment with the times in which we live. Perhaps it has always been the case, but today it needs to take cognisance of the fact that if the law cannot fulfill its purpose then, as many members of the community have already shown themselves prepared to do; people will take the law into their own hands.
            If the law cannot fulfill its purpose, then it is the right of every citizen to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves and their families and community.
           Many of us on the centre Right have been left frustrated by, not only this week’s events, but by the whole panoply of liberal power in this country and its almost deferential response to this week’s happenings.
           Being on the centre right, the idea that people should take the law into their own hands is anathema. But if such people are left without the full protection of the law, what then are they to do? Just lay down and take whatever their persecutors determine to be their fate? Or say to themselves; if the law can no longer give us protection then we must look to ourselves. Which is what many have chosen to do since these riots first erupted, and who can blame them?

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

BRING BACK THE NASTY PARTY


RETREAT UPON RETREAT; soon no doubt to be followed by appeasement. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, sounded foolish when interviewed by SKY News today. It was as if she were speaking just after Saturday night’s rioting, instead of a further two nights of such  carnage: carnage which by now had extended into several parts of London including Croydon and leafy Ealing, as well as in other major cities like Birmingham, Bristol, and Liverpool.
                Having been asked by Eamonn Holmes whether she should not now be considering the use of water cannon by the police; her stupefying answer belonged, as a credible response, to what had happened in Tottenham 48 hours earlier.  We in this country, she said, almost sounding smug, ‘police by consent’.
                But as we all know, that by Sunday,  ‘policing by consent’ had become as outmoded and impractical a concept of policing as the policeman’s whistle; only the home secretary of the ‘nice’ party seemed incongruous of this fact when interviewed on Sky. In fact Twitter was inundated with complaints about her performance following her belated involvement.
                It has taken our government’s leaders three days to appear before a camera and tell us what is going to be done any differently by the police to what they had been doing  since Saturday night. In other words, how were the forces of law and order to be put  on the front foot in this crises.
                Well, at 11am this morning the prime minister stepped through the door of number 10 and approached two furry microphones. What was he going to say? not only to the British public, but to the rest of the world who have been showing the same images we have been treated to since the rioting began.
                The prime minister praised and supported the police and other emergency services. He then announced that tonight, in London’s troubled areas, there would be 16,000 police officers on duty safe-guarding the public. This is 10,000 more than were available while the prime minister was holidaying. Which I suppose is something we should thank Mr Cameron’s return home for.
                But, locking the stable door… springs to mind. Those businesses that were set ablaze and looted; and those people who rented flats above those businesses who now find themselves homeless; as well, of course, as all the families who relied upon these burnt out wrecks for their weekly income, and now find themselves out of work – all such victims will not take kindly to the prime minister’s offer of 10,000 extra police on their streets.

IT WAS EMBARRASING, as a citizen of this country to see the forces of law and order made to look so helpless by, in many cases, what were nothing more than children. Like most people outside of the areas affected,  I saw the unfolding tragedy on television. They, like myself, witnessed children and teenagers acting without either fear or respect for the police. Knowing the police did not have the power to inflict any kind of physical punishment on them, they took full advantage of their situation. The police, many no doubt fearing months of suspension and a possible ending of their careers, stayed their hand and watched helplessly as cars were burned and buildings set alight.
                The youths knew they had the upper hand over the police, just as they have over their teachers. I saw young men defying the police openly; defying them to touch a hair on their brain empty heads. For such people, only fear of the police would have corrected their actions; and the truth is, is that that fear does not exist.
                The authorities boast of over 400 arrests to prove their tactics are working. But how many will be charged, and how many of those who are charged will pay their fines or be sent to prison? And in the rare event that they will be sent to prison; how many of them will serve a full term?
                On top of which our prisons are already overcrowded and many of those taking part in the riots cannot be charged anyway, because they are ‘under the age of criminal responsibility’.

WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING in our cities has nothing to do with government cuts, as many on the Left used to do under Margaret Thatcher and now seek to do again, by shifting the blame from  criminal behaviour pure and simple to the government. The BBC even brought Ken Livingston  into the  studio to rehash  this argument (no doubt on the BBC’s behalf).
                But, despite the public’s unhappiness with the Coalition’s public expenditure cuts, they know instinctively that what has been happening on our streets has nothing to do with either government cutbacks or the death of Mr Duggan.
                What we have been witnessing is out and out nihilism, which cannot even be honoured with  any kind of political justification; the kind of justification which those on the Left would like to see, if only to make an excuse for such behaviour. Only the feral behaviour of children from undomesticated, in many cases, one parent (usually the women) families; who, despite having had the same educational opportunities as every other child in the country, have chosen the easy option of a feral life devoid of discipline or any moral code; only such behavior can be blamed for these outrages.
                On Saturday night Mr Duggan’s death at the hands of the police, provided sufficient justification for what followed in Tottenham. He was the martyred victim of police criminality, and, whatever the proven circumstance of his death turn out to be, his death carried the stamp of the following rioting.
                But those who took to the streets during the following nights cared little for Mr Duggan or his fate. Even on Saturday night, once the rioters found how easy it was to come by all sorts electrical goodies by looting various premises in Tottenham; they cared very little for Mr Duggan and his fate.
                Once it was seen how easy it was to loot, burn, and pillage without penalty; the following nights brought further chaos to other parts of London,  as well as cities in the rest of the country. The police’s impotence in Tottenham last Saturday encouraged the untamed youth from all over the city to copycat what happened in Tottenham
                Policing by consent would be laughable, if it were not so tragic for the victims of its implementation on Saturday night and every night since. But even now talk of water cannon, tear gas, and plastic rounds being used may seem too many a liberal, even after these events - extreme.
                But every European police force have these means readily available to protect their civilian populations. So such measures are not of a Right-wing vintage, but common practice in, in the main, social democratic Europe.
               
IT ASTOUNDS ME that such precautions as water canon are only available in Northern Island. Does this mean that ‘policing by consent’ has no function when it comes to the white protestant Northern Irish; but remains the norm in the rest of the UK?
                The Conservative part of this Coalition government has become less Conservative, as we, the electors, have always understood the term to mean.
                Since Cameron became, first of all, the party’s leader and then prime minister of our country, the liberal taint has replaced the historical denotation of British Conservatism, and its function as a party of traditional values which has been put, like Old Labour, not even in the recycle bin - but in the rubbish bin of history, never to be used again.
                These riots may have reached their climax; or may have set in motion the blood foaming Tiber. Either way, the politicians have to revaluate the policy of ‘policing by consent’. They have to back the people and their view which demand that the police, like their colleagues on the continent of Europe, should be provided with the same means of crowd dispersal  provided by water cannon, tear gas,  and plastic rounds.
                But above all, we as a nation must counter the invincibility complex our youth have been allowed to feel toward the law. We must up the stakes and be prepared to physically punish in our schools, and make criminal behaviour among these ‘feral rats’ (as I heard them called by one of their victims today) unpalatable.
                How this is done, will prove a major problem after some 45 years of liberal hegemony; part of which has demanded that all forms of discipline including physical punishment; either in our schools or any ware else should be prohibited; even if it leads, eventually, to the scenes we have witnessed on our streets since Saturday night.
                

Friday, August 5, 2011

EUROPEAN UNION – A BAD MISTAKE?


FOR THOSE OF US who are ignorant of all but the simplest of economic concepts – like, for instance, not introducing a single currency within several divergent economies; are now left scratching our heads in disbelief at how the continents best educated; who were ennobled with what we in this country would describe as Rolls-Royce brains; could ever have believed in such a concept as a European single currency, without first delivering  political union and managing the reality of a single currency in two stages. What possessed them? Perhaps they were literally possessed in the demonic sense? For why else would rational people behave in such an absurd, and, may well turn out to be, such a destructive manner?
            European Monetary Union (EMU) was, for a long time, the love that dare not speak its name – at least, that is, in the UK. While throughout the rest of Europe the concept carried all the force and authority of a law of nature; we in the UK were sceptical, and indeed Euro-scepticism became a term of abuse directed at any suggestion made that contradicted edicts emanating from the Brussels’ bureaucrats.
            Those unelected European commissioners; comprising appointees of national governments, were used to dispense laws like confetti; without recourse to any democratic authority. There was more accountability among the Borgia popes  than there is within the EU.
            Of course Europe has its parliament – a costly debating chamber with little of the authority that our lawmakers have at Westminster.
            Political and Monetary Union were meant to herald a Federal European Union to match that of the United States of America (what some have indeed called, a United States of Europe). But such a wet dream was badly handled from the beginning. The early, shall we dare call them (in the American sense) pioneers; were troubled by Europe’s internecine warfare that reached its tragic zenith in the 20th century.
            Now, it appears, all that stands between us and the carnage of the previous century are the Brussels’ bureaucrats. Never before has this prosaic and dull species  been able to boast that it is they and they alone that stand between the continent’s enslavement to everlasting conflict, and the bucolic future they aspire to give us.
           
THE IDEA OF UNITING Europe both politically and monetarily after the last war, was a combination of German Romanticism and French Idealism. The EU’s construction was set in motion after centuries in which armed conflict between various European alliances had managed to tear the continent apart, long before both of the great European wars of the last century. It was, in particular, the French who, following the Second World War, tried to set the continent’s path on a more agreeable future by seeking to unify the nations of Europe – by, of course, allotting themselves (as always) the prime position within such an arrangement.
            This whole wretched adventure was mishandled from the beginning because each of the country’s leaders had to answer to their respective electorates; and therefore, progress toward the European Ideal was bound to be slow in coming.
            To bring about the United States of Europe; the first requirement should have been political union. What this would have meant was the reduction of national parliaments to state bodies similar to the USA.
            It would have meant having a central administration like Washington, where representatives from all of the ‘states’ (in the American sense) could be represented; and where national (for yes, Europe would become a mere nation under such an arrangement) financial decisions would be taken and where levels of taxation and spending would be made.
            This, of course, could only be made practicable by a single currency that would intertwine with political union. But as we now know, political union would have proven a step too far. It would mean giving up all forms of nationhood and independence. It would mean forgetting that most significant part of our culture – our nation’s history. Which is why Europe’s best brains were driven toward a single currency.
           
SO THIS IS WHY EUROPE put the cart before the horse and elected to ignite a single currency before the rational element (political union) was even considered. Such was, it seems, the idealistic drive for Federal Union, that corners were cut and the monetary union horse was put before the political union cart.
            But the monetary union horse however, turned out to be a nag. For it lacked any kind of pedigree. It however, became the only option for those idealists in Europe who wanted to see the European project ‘completed’ at any cost. 
            If this cost meant, as we see today, that the debt crises now unfolding in those countries that should never have been part of any first tier of European economic union in the first place; then they, those nations in southern Europe, should blame the naive idealism that has driven the process from the very beginning.
            Today within Europe, the southern nations of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece are almost, but not quite, dependent upon the industriousness of the German people for their solvency.
            It is Germany’s wealth that is helping pay for Greece’s deficit as well as any other southern European country that falls foul of an unmanageable national debt.
            I have written about my empathy for the German people before. But I still have to return to the sacrifice their leaders are asking them as taxpayers to make. First of all, as described above, their taxes are being used to bail out  second level (economically speaking) members of the EU. Such members should never have been allowed to fit into such a financial arrangement as the single currency in the first place.
            The German people have created a wonderful manufacturing economy, and the wealth that this economy produces should be used to help the people and the country it belongs to. I would be outraged, if I were a German, that my taxes should be used to keep a country like Greece afloat, a country  which treats corruption as an indispensible part of its culture; and where taxes are laughed at – and why not, if the rest of Europe are paying them.
            This is partly why economic union should have been treated, realistically speaking,  with more discernment by Europe’s intellectually gifted. But alas idealism vanquished, as it often does, common sense.
           
           
           
           
            

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

ONCE DEFENCE IS SACRIFICED – SO TO IS DIPLOMACY

A POLITICIAN’S FIRST instinct is personal survival. If he or she is a party leader, then the party itself is also to be considered. Then, somewhere down the line of priorities comes their country’s survival: survival that is, in terms of its defence. For without such a department of state as the MoD, diplomacy would be rendered meaningless, as would  our liberties.
            According to parliament’s defence select committee, its members express ‘mounting concern’ that the military has fallen bellow ‘minimum utility’ and suggests that the Coalition has sacrificed national security to make savings. James Arbuthnot, the Tory MP and committee chairman, is reported in this morning’s Telegraph as saying, This is a clear example of the need for savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the Armed Forces.’
            We are told that we are still the fourth largest spenders on defence, even after taking the axe to our armed services. Could this be because other Western nations are also making similar cuts to us. If so, such a claim is meaningless and disingenuous.
            Defence reviews have always been headlined by the politicians as an exercise in adapting our country’s defence needs to the modern era…when what they invariably mean is cuts in defence expenditure.
            One would have thought that our present crop of politicians would have learned from recent history, when the 1980s defence review was cruelly interrupted by the Argentineans; but sadly they appear to be either ignorant or arrogantly dismissive of such events when slaying the national debt.
            I suppose that this is what comes of having planted our parliament with professional politicians, lawyers, social workers, PR consultants, media savvy spin doctors, and trade union appointees. In other words, people with very little experience of  the world they live.
            Of the above types, the professional politicians are the most ill-equipped to do the job they were elected to do. From school to university, and then to parliamentary internship, before being elected as members of parliament itself; all without ever making contact with what is popularly known as the ‘real world’.
            I can only think of one minister in the present government who has a real and genuine love for our history and is blessed with the gift of writing about it. William Hague is a rare example of what was once common in our parliament. It was once filled with such men who took governance seriously enough to make a study of their country’s history, and made literary royalties from it.
           
IF EVER THERE WAS AN example of what my argument is trying to make; then  surely the topic of oversees aid is a case in point. The Department of Oversees Development  is the only department of state to have ‘merited’ an actual increase in its budget; while every other department, including the one that was set up for our nation’s defence; has to suffer the harvesters’ scythe when the national debt has to be reduced.
            If ever there were a true understanding of this nation and its past; as well as a love for its future; then the first priority for any modern politician, in the circumstances we find ourselves in today, should always be to look toward our nation’s defence; and if we have money available to enhance or increase any department of state’s budget in such times…then it is to the defence budget that we must turn to protect.
            I find it incredulous that this most important and vital department of state should be diminished by the overseas aid budget.
            When the assault on the MoD began, I thought that the Conservative element to this coalition ‘of equals’ must have given much ground away, dangerously so, to its Liberal Democrat partner.
            But it appears that the New ‘Conservatism’  was at one with their coalition partners. So our country’s defence was of lesser significance to our politicians than was the overseas’ aid budget. What does this say about government priorities and modern politicians?
           
THE POLITICIANS I GREW UP with were themselves giants of statesmanship - whether I agreed with them or not. They all had a sense of this country’s history and of its importance; especially when it came to this country’s defence. For they knew the importance of having a convincing military power, to meet the needs of diplomacy and of being heard on the world stage.
            After the last war when we had to, rightly, defer to de-colonisation and an American supremacy; we still held on to a military presence; for the importance it played in our being listened to, was fundamental to our post war future.  The power of a nation’s defence is considered long before its diplomacy. Today, after these cuts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will speak without being listened to.
            After these defence cuts, we will no longer be taken seriously diplomatically; because diplomacy is the means by which a country seeks to avoid conflict. But in order to be taken at all seriously diplomatically; the nuclear option of having a military presence that is taken seriously by our diplomatic opponents is required.
           
THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE has cost this country many billions in misplaced procurement decisions. So the MoD has played its own part in bringing about the current defence cuts. The MoD is overmanned by tens of thousands and hopefully will be drained of such wastefulness. For if cuts are deserved in this ministry, it is among the civil servants themselves whose numbers nearly surpass those serving in the British army; but whose financial costs in terms of pay and pensions are extravagant to say the least. For in the public sector it is the taxes from the private sector that sustains such profligacy.
            But such squandering and frittering away of tax payer’s money should not be allowed to put in peril our island defences.  Let the MoD civil service take the full force of the defence cuts; and if they are not enough then look to the overseas aid budget.
            I ask the politicians to remember this. They are in receipt of public money through taxation and they are supposed to spend it in accordance with what they believe are within the interests of the British public. But those interests must never be secondary to those which the British public decides are their priority.
            When David Cameron decides to put the interests of overseas development aid before the defence of the realm by increasing the formers’ budget and decreasing the latter’s; then something is ghoulish and gruesome about the way our politicians seek to preserve British sovereignty: if indeed the preservation of British sovereignty is their goal, which I doubt with the ascendency of a United States of Europe…but of course, this is another story.
            

Monday, August 1, 2011

THE LEFT’S TU QUOQUE

I AM SURE YOU HAVE EITHER heard, seen, or been subject to a logical fallacy, whereby, in the case of the latter, you offer the opinion to someone that, for instance, president Mugabe of Zimbabwe is a tyrant who beats, tortures, and starves his people. Only to be told that British colonialism did much worse on the continent of Africa.
            Or, with the behaviour of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organisation currently in control of the Gaza Strip, which daily sends rockets in laissez-faire fashion into Israel: where the Left’s reply would be that Israel has done far worse under the occupation.
            Tu quoque is from the Latin for “You, too” or “You also”. It is most frequently deployed by the Left in this country who despise their country’s past and often call upon it to repel criticism of, in the modern age, the behaviour of those who they represent, whether in Cuba, the Gaza Strip, or, as they once did, Colonel Gadaffi, and President Saddam Hussein; as well as any other Third World country’s leadership that takes a stand against the “colonial” West.
            I used this appeal to hypocrisy myself when I was young. I am now 61 years old; but I did, in my twenties, join the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and as such had to defend the Soviet Union. I did so by deploying this very hypocritical canard.
            When in 1968 Russian tanks invaded (I would have said rescued) Czechoslovakia from its Prague Spring, on the 5 January-21 August; I had to defend the Soviet states’ actions; I drew my opponent’s attention to Vietnam and what America was doing in that country. For nothing the Russians were doing in Czechoslovakia could compare, for instance with what happened in the village of My Lai in March of that year, when the American army massacred a whole village of more than 400 peasants, where men, women and children were killed.
            This “You too” hypocrisy gave me a way of justifying the cruelties conducted by the Soviet Union from its inception. There was no part of the cruel history of the Soviet  Union that could not be justified by tu quoque if the Left in the West so wished.
            The favourite theatre for examples of tu quoque, were to be found on the readers’ letters page of the Guardian. I read the paper avidly almost on a daily basis for over 24 years, and many of those writing to the letters page used the very tu quoque in their arguments that I had deployed myself. I read the Guardian when great journalists like James Cameron wrote for it, and his pieces alone justified the cover price, as they would have today. But the Guardian changed. It bought into the modern liberal Left-wing agenda that encompassed Multiculturalism and political correctness.

WHEN A MORAL DEFENCE for a given action is so weak that you have to use tu quoque in order to justify your position, then you have no right to an opinion using such a device.
            Such a device is, at the very least , the result of lazy thinking. For each example of human folly are so very different from each other. In the case of the My Lai Massacre; it represented a criminal act conducted by soldiers acting on their own behalf, and certainly without the orders of the president  of the United States of America.
            As far as the Soviet Union’s invasion of Czechoslovakia is concerned. Its implementation carried the full weight of the Soviet state. Which meant the whole body politic and judicial apparatus of the soviet state was behind it, giving it its legitimacy.
            There are fundamental differences between My Lai and Czechoslovakia, and they should not be put on an equal basis - such logical fallacies are tu quoque.
            While tu quoque does not  monopolise liberal thinkers, it is this Leftist part of the political spectrum that has spread its influence within the debating chamber; whether within broadcasting, or the printed media.
            The modern Left had been taught at university, by modern Left tutors (circa the 1960s) ; and as such have indentured themselves to tu quoque.
            In no other country can such a device be used wholesale; because in no other country have they produced such a generation that despises their country’s history as do those educated among the modern British Left.
            It is the loathing and hatred for your country and its history that leads you to embrace such a dialectical weapon, as tu quoque.
            Each aspect of British medieval and modern history may draw well scrutinized observations of comparison with each other, but it requires the academically minded and well read to explain such comparisons; and not the politically prejudicial, yet academically tutored Left-wing proselytisers, who stand ready to advance and demonstrate their bigoted outpourings that label their opponents hypocrites - care, it seems, for the academic niceties escapes them.
           
           
           
           
           
           
                       
           
           

             
           
            

Is Anders Behring Breivik right – are Muslims taking over Europe?


ONE WEEK AGO TODAY, a fanatical killer vented his rage against the Norwegian government, by blowing up government buildings in Oslo and destroying the lives of 87 young people on Utoya island, who were, no doubt, a representative core of Norway’s future political leaders - which is why Anders Behring Brevik targeted them in the first place.
            Breivik was not mad; he had been planning this outrage for eight years and, despite the BBC and other broadcasters, describing his 1500 page manifesto as a rant; his thoughts were wholly rational and contained opinions which are shared by many people who are not Right-Wing fanatics; and who would certainly not entertain the thought of massacring the innocents… Breivik fashion.
            What may now happen because of this man’s nefarious actions will be to silence any voice that seeks to make an argument against immigration in general, and the threat that modern Islam poses to Europe in particular.
            I fear there will now be a return to an earlier period when we were apprehensive about mentioning the subject of immigration in anything other than a supportive manner, for fear of the racist tag as well as prosecution if we stepped out of line and became “hate criminals”.
            We paid a high price for our silence. For, from 1997 onwards immigrants were given a somewhat laissez-faire access to these shores. In all, some three million legal immigrants have made this small island their home. As for those who entered illegally, they may even run into many more. It appears that, the “illegal’s”, as they have been called, are in so great a number that they cannot be accounted for – and so it has been proposed that an amnesty should be introduced, making them all legal.

BREIVIK’S EXTREMISM must not be allowed to silence those who, like myself, believe that Muslims represent, like Breivik himself, an anti-democratic force that, given its chance, will try to impose its teachings upon the people of Europe.
            Modern Islam (and here I speak not as a Christian, but an atheist) runs counter to modernism and is, in many respects, still at its medieval juncture. By this I mean that Islam has never subjected itself to the furnace of  Reformation or Enlightenment. Its believers are still being held in check by the ancient teachings of the Koran, as well as the many misogynist traditions that are not even in the Koran.
            If Islam was such a neutral and benign force, Turkey would have been given entry to the EU several years ago. Turkey is a democracy, as well as, geographically speaking, (at a stretch), part of Europe. But, despite this, our European leaders have little wish to grant Turkey’s 80 million Muslims immediate entry into the EU.
            For, as our European leaders know all too well, Europe’s people would not accept such a development. This is probably because we in Europe already have some 16 million Muslims living among us and this already unsettles Europe’s people as they ponder the modern madness of Islam, as well as their political leader’s readiness to allow free entry into Europe of such a creed.
            The largest religion in Norway is Islam. I did not know this until I heard it in a broadcast. At first I thought it was a mistake; but it was confirmed by my brother who was also present. I found it difficult to comprehend, unless a large part of Norway’s population were atheists.
            I still have reservations about this statistic, but if true, it must have added to Breivik’s justification for his appalling act. For, as a Christian (especially a fundamentalist one), this gauge must have played its part in the rational that was to drive him to such destruction.
            If you read into the final sentence above any kind of excuse for Breivik’s actions, then you will be disappointed. For this killer should never be allowed into free society again. But as things stand under Norwegian law, the maximum 21 year sentence could leave Breivik with the hope of once more tasting freedom before he dies - which would be a slap in the face for both his victims and their families.
            I believe in capital punishment and Breivik is a prime candidate for the ultimate punishment. But things being as they are in Norway as well as the rest of Europe, Breivik may even be let out of prison before the middle of this century.

I BELIEVE THAT WHEN A RELIGION, any religion, takes over completely the mind of its followers to the point where they find death equated with martyrdom and, in the case of Islam, provides the martyr with enough virgins to help relieve his  sexual frustration in perpetuity, then such a faith has no place within Western culture. Especially if such martyrdom has been earned through seeking the West’s destruction.
            Modern Islam is still an antiquated faith; and it has no place in modern Europe. The last time when such a religion was present throughout European Christendom, it was under the authority of the Church of Rome and, like today’s Islam, it sought both its own ascendency, in the case of Rome through the Crusades and the total occupation of mankind’s souls. Which is what modern Islam seeks to achieve today.
            Today’s Islam, like yesterday’s Roman Church, seeks its own ascendancy throughout Christendom (or the West) -  just as Catholicism had once sought its own progress through the conquests of southern America.
           
THE CRUSADES WERE A POPISH ATTEMPT at the recovery of Jerusalem from Islamic  control. Its many participants may have been devout Christians seeking this ancient city’s liberation from Muslim occupancy. But as we know as modern cynics; all was not as it seemed.
            I only mention the crusades because Breivik was a fan of the Knights Templar and sought inspiration through them.
            Why must such people like Breivik dabble in such romanticism in order to muster a case against such a foe? Modern Islam is no further forward than it was when it was founded in the 6th century. Today it is proud and boasts its lineage, and sees no reason to modernise its scriptures or displace the teachings of the Koran in order to accommodate themselves with the West.
            On the contrary, modern Islam seeks only to salvage the infidels and make them Muslims. But such a momentous achievement can only be accomplished if the West itself allows sufficient numbers of Muslims to live as free citizens among them.
            I do not suggest that every Muslim who lives in Europe is here as part of a religious attempt to take control of the continent. Obviously this is not the case. But, as the Islamists’ know all too well, before you can harvest a crop you must first of all plant the seed; and this is what has happened: not as  a deliberate course of action by the Muslim world. But through the actions of European governments, including the UK who through the promotion of Multiculturalism allowed the infestation of such a modern religious imperialism.


THE LIBERAL AUTO-DE-FE


MELANIE PHILLIPS, the journalist who writes for the Daily Mail and the Spectator has been vilified online by various liberals, who have accused her of being partly responsible for the actions of the Norwegian slayer. It was (according to our champagne Bolsheviks’ reasoning) her various pieces attacking immigration and Multiculturalism that in part drove Anders Breivik to such lengths.
                It  appears that conservative writers like Ms Phillips are now to fall victim of the liberal auto-da-fe that has been part of our culture ever since Tony Blair took up residence in Downing Street. For it was his government that imprinted Multiculturalism and its concomitant political correctness on our society from 1997 onwards. It was through ‘New Labour’ that the bile was first channelled.
            Those who opposed immigration were regarded as racists, and so kept their mouths shut. The same applied to Multiculturalism. To question the impact both would have on our culture could never be tested, unless by extremists like the BNP whose rhetoric, as we have seen, led to the debate on both subjects being shut down. Only conservative journalists like Ms Phillips dared pick their words carefully and put their necks over the parapet, and advance a cogent argument against immigration and the new orthodoxy of Multiculturalism.
            For her pains she has been described online by various members of the ‘progressive’ Left as, ‘evil witch’ and has been told that her ‘… vile outpourings have substantially contributed to fear, hatred and violence’. As well as such comments as, ‘you have blood on your hands’.
            Such language in another context, would find a ready contrast with the kind of rhetoric used by the bigoted BNP. Such words will now enter the lexicon of Left-wing bigotry – a dictionary that the Left once thought only belonged to the Right.

MS PHILLIPS WENT TO great (and in my opinion unnecessary) lengths in today’s Daily Mail, to prove just how wrong her assailants had been in their opinion of her. Anders Breivik’s actions were those of an individual probably enthused more by drugs and a Freudian dislike of his father (who was a Norwegian Labour Party supporter) than any irrational hatred of those he killed.
            Today we learn that Muslims are now living in fear following Anders Breivik’s actions. Why this should be, I do not know. Were those he killed Muslims? If Breivik’s motives were purely ideological then surely so should his targets have been. For according to one bulletin I heard after this atrocity, the largest religion in Norway today is Islam itself – without doubt, this would be the spur such a mind needed to attack the Muslim community in Norway.
            I also read, according to a poll conducted amongst the Norwegian people, the most vilified minority in that country are its Jews. The poll was conducted by Norwegian students and therefore, as they say, may be scientifically dubious.
            Anders Breivik’s actions (as Ms Phillips argued in her Daily Mail piece today) are as irrelevant to her writing as blowing up an abortion clinic would be to anything an anti-abortion journalist may write.
            Ms Phillips is not liked on the Left because she often does very well in articulating the conservative viewpoint – which the Left cannot stomach at any price. Having advanced from writing for the Guardian (as many an adolescent must do), she now occupies a position that the Left cannot ignore, and as such she should welcome the Left’s bigoted outpourings. For it demonstrates the power her writing has, and she should continue to produce it.

LIKE MS PHILLIPS, I too am shocked by Thorbjorn Jagland, the Norwegian prime minister, whose comments since the outrage have amounted to a capitulation to the Islamists. Jagland has suggested that European leaders should adopt a more ‘cautious’ approach when talking of Multiculturalism; and further, that European leaders would be ‘playing with fire’ if they continued to use the rhetoric that David Cameron and Angela Merkle used in describing Multiculturalism’s failure.
            Quisling comes to mind when I read such comments from a Norwegian leader. I thought more of Norway than this. Is this the country that every year sends us a Christmas tree to plant in Trafalgar Square as an appreciation for what we did to defeat Nazism?
            Prime Minister Jagland should be warning his small population that Muslim immigration into his country will only confirm Merkle and Cameron’s views of Multiculturalism; instead he seems to be warning them against such views.
            Breivik’s actions were a solitary act. They had no remit other than his own inadequacy. He acted as a flawed human being; he was not at the head of a Right-wing al-Qaeda. He was a loner who carried many emotional problems that could only have found their reward by his actions.
            The debate about Multiculturalism and immigration need not include Breivik’s actions; although the Left will, as usual, use them as if they were the final word on the subject.
            The liberal-Left, it seems, are using Anders Breivik’s actions to bolster their liberal auto-da-fe in the UK, by defying conservatives to speak or write against either mass immigration or Multiculturalism.
            It is up to the centre-Right to guide this country’s political helm; for even the Left in all parties will acknowledge that the majority in this country are overwhelmingly against either mass immigration or Multiculturalism.
            So, Melanie Phillips should ignore her intractable enemies and continue with her journalism without any concern for her critics on the Left.
            She exemplifies, on these subjects, the opinions of the British public. The British public are and have always been against mass immigration and Multiculturalism. The latter being the dogma that Ms Phillips describes as, ‘the doctrine that gives the values of minorities equal status to those of the majority’.
            The UK has its own culture. A culture that has evolved over centuries; a culture that today, in this contemporary but vapid educational curriculum, has been much tampered with by modernism and political correctness - this latter being the product of liberal social engineering.
            This country’s culture should remain the dominant and true culture, to be unsurpassed, overridden or even equalised, by any other that seeks citizenship from any other parts of the world. The British culture is and should remain dominant. If those who wish to live among us from other corners of the world seek to change this via the European court of Human Rights, then, as a signatory of such a document, we should abjure our responsibilities to it.
            Like everything European, our law makers have proceeded without the British elector’s agreeing to whatever acceptance they have made to various European demands made upon us. This is because those on the liberal-Left of all the parties in the UK seek European political and monetary union – in other words a Federal European Union; or, in the common parlance - a United States of Europe.
            So, Ms Phillips must push on regardless. The more she is criticised from the Left, the more she must feel invigorated by such attacks. For her words have hit a nerve amongst her enemies and she should open a bottle of Merlot in celebration of the fact.
           







OUR LAWMAKERS MUST DEBATE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


THE GOVERNMENT HAS JUST LAUNCHED its E Petition website. This site allows people to start a petition on a matter that concerns them; and if 100,000 signatures are collected on-line, the subject of the petition will be eligible for debate in parliament.           This of course means that it will not be automatically debated; but will be “considered” by a committee of scrutinisers, to judge whether it is a fit and proper subject for parliamentary debate.
            Now the Sun and the Guido website have decided that a debate should be held on the return of capital punishment. Whether, such a debate will be allowed if the 100,000 signatures are collected, is very unlikely; just as a debate on our continued membership of the EU or immigration, would also fall foul of the censors black pen.
            But it is about time that parliament did debate the return of capital punishment. There is a general malaise among the British public on the issue crime generally. Many have given up reporting various crimes; and are despondent at the many incidences of people stepping in to help a victim, or attempt a citizen’s arrest; who have then found themselves locked up and facing punishment.
            Capital punishment, if debated, would at least let the people now where our lawmakers stand on this issue at an individual level; and then, come the next election, to decide for themselves whether the issue would be enough to re-elect their MP, whether he or she be for or against capital punishment.

I BELIEVE IT IS INDEED TIME ( having been given the opportunity to do so by the E Petition), to gather support for a debate on capital punishment in parliament. For far too long have our politicians been allowed to ignore the wishes of the majority of people, who, poll after poll suggests, support its reintroduction.
            We pride ourselves on being the oldest democracy whose customs and practices have been copied by other countries. The fact that universal suffrage (the true requirement of any proper democracy) is just over 80 years old, seems to have been ignored when we boast of being the fully grown of all democracies.
            Such a boast should be challenged. Does our modern parliament accede to the people’s wishes and allow a debate in parliament on the return of capital punishment, providing 100,000 signatories are found to support such an ambition? Or would the committee of scrutinisers brush the issue under the carpet?

MY OWN VIEW ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT has fluctuated somewhat over my 61 years. I have taken the position that began with out and out opposition; believing that the state had not moral right to hang, draw and quarter, or burn and gas its citizens.
            I then, after some twenty-one  years of consistency, from the age of 19 to 30, began to ask myself; why should not the state in a democracy have the right to hang, burn, or gas murderers ? After all, such people would have committed the ultimate crime by so cruelly depriving their victims of the one thing they themselves were still able to cling to – life itself.
            It is not (for me at least) a matter of an eye for an eye. Although it appears a wholly sensible approach to the situation that may, in the modern age, and after decades of liberal thought, actually prove helpful in bringing about a decline in murders in this country.
            But if not, at least the transgressor of this ultimate of all crimes will know that if they forfeit another human beings life, they will surely forfeit their own. In other words a benchmark will have been set.
            From the age of thirty my objection to capital punishment no longer embraced a moral argument for its resistance. But rather it became a matter of human fallibility and the prospect of the innocent being sent to the gallows and being unwittingly “man- slaughtered” by the state.
            I could not still not support  the re-introduction of capital punishment while such fallibility remained. Of course any system that encompasses the ultimate punishment will always fall foul of injustice. But with the introduction of the science of genetics into criminal pathology, such mistakes can be limited even further.
            I believe, that with genetics, a benchmark has been reached that will make safe many more murder convictions, and once this threshold has been crossed, capital punishment, in my view at least, becomes not only practicable but justifiable.
            You will be glad to know that I have no wish to see, as had been the case during our medieval past; human beings taken to ancient Tyburn (now Marble Arch) and hung, but with life remaining long enough to have their bellies emptied with the knife before their death; ahead of then having their bodies quartered.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT should once more be placed within our judiciaries’ armoury. To speak of making such a punishment as humane as possible will not way-lay the liberal critics who will fight this reform to its end. But nevertheless, the most innocuous of ends should be the remit of any capital punishment: and any end should be brought via the most mildest of means.
            We cannot continue in the same vein as before. To do so will further undermine the people’s respect for the criminal justice system. Capital punishment should once more be restored, or at the very least debated within parliament and both the Guido website and the Sun should be supported.