Islam and science

                                                                        

PROFESSORS AT University College London (UCL) are troubled by their Muslim students dropping out of lectures on evolution as part of UCL’s biology course. It appears that, like fundamentalist Christians, they believe it was their God that created all that is around us, and anyone that contradicts this, is a blasphemer.

                At least Darwin has managed  to achieve  inter-faith agreement between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims on something – even if it is only their mutual loathing of Charles Darwin and all his heretical works.

                I do not see what the Muslims have to fear by listening to such a lecture. If I professed a religious faith, I would welcome the opportunity to smite all arguments that ran counter to it. I would welcome the chance to put the lecturer right on the things he had got wrong.

                Not only is it impolite to refuse to attend a lecture that the tutor has probably spent hours preparing for; but I would question just how strong the faith of  these students really was,  if they could not contemplate  (or even fear?) listening to a reasoned alternative to their faith.

                Were they mindful of the possibility that they may be persuaded by the lecturer, and feared the consequences? Has any of them an understanding of Natural Selection? As men of science, are they not in the least bit curious to know what all the fuss is about?

                These students will one day, in many cases become doctors. They will, if they are successful,  treat NHS patients on the basis of the knowledge they acquired at UCL. But as a long term recipient of NHS care, I would, if not distrust their advice,  nevertheless be wary of such closed minds.

                I believe in science, and its enquiring ethos. It presupposes an open mind ready to absorb information that will help us understand our existence and will provide the knowledge that will undoubtedly help improve the human condition and advance our need to know how we became what we are. Science is coldly objective… and the object of its function is knowledge.

                These students are not men of science because they censor curiosity. It is curiosity that launches a man of science on his chosen branch of the scientific tree. There should be no prohibited branch of that tree. The tree of science (like that of knowledge) should be a liberating experience, not a cause for ignorance, which is what these students exemplify.

                If a person’s faith is rock solid, he or she will be able to challenge and defeat whatever science comes up with; but they must understand the arguments. These young Muslim students will make adequate doctors and nothing more. They will not challenge Darwin because they run from him. They will not break any new ground in their field of expertise; but merely labour in the fields.

WHEN WAS THE LAST time a scientist of either Muslim or fundamentalist Christian devotion win any Nobel prize for any branch of science? To such people curiosity is anathema if it runs contrary to their faith.

                Charles Darwin hit the nail on the head. What was once considered a theory has become a practical scientific reality through what is known as neo-Darwinism. Neo Darwinism represents the great mans’ vindication.  Crick and Watson, the discoverers of DNA helped elevate Darwin’s discovery from a ‘theory’ into a scientific fact.

                Neo-Darwinism is the science of genetics. A science that vindicates evolution as the sole impulse for animal and human development.

                As an atheist, I believe a God of any faith or description is not needed. But I appreciate that for millions of people, the scientific explanation is not an adequate explanation, and for such people, they will remain vulnerable; just like the UCL students who chose to abandon lectures on evolution. Their vulnerability however should not be allowed to stand in the way of science if their religion disagrees with its findings.

                Science requires an open mind; not one imprisoned by faith if it leads to such actions as those taken by Muslim students at the UCL. These students should be told that they either follow the course they agreed to join on entry, or they should go elsewhere to seek their education.

                But of course no such thing will happen. Those professors who are troubled by the behaviour of their students of biology will be in hock to all sorts of politically correct pressures to help keep them studying: and of course the students themselves understand these pressures and will work them to the full.

                Darwin himself suffered from the truth of his findings. For he was a Christian and it troubled him that his findings ran contrary to his faith. He was once meant for the church but his curiosity and his need to understand overcame his religion; but not before his daughter was taken from him. This determined him upon his course - he no longer felt in thrall to religion.

RELIGION SHOULD only be tolerated if the particular faith itself is tolerant, and not only of other faiths, but also of none believers. I do not think Islam is a tolerant religion, or if it is it works very hard to disguise the fact. I feel sure that if the much hoped for caliphate came about, all faiths, as well as all atheists would fall victim of one of Islam’s many forms of medieval evisceration.

                Those students who close their minds to any new knowledge are not worthy of a place in higher education. They should consider whether their true vocation lay not in medicine but as imams in a mosque. Medicine is linked to Darwinism, and an understanding of Natural Selection at the molecular level may not make them better doctors, but would certainly make them better informed ones.

                

THE COMEDIANS?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

WHAT WE NEED IS A SINGLE ISSUE PARTY

"If and when the economic circumstances were right and to Britain's advantage, we should certainly consider doing so [joining the euro]."

Paddy Ashdown

ONE OF THE REASONS for the European Union was to curb German power after it had led the continent into two world wars within three decades of each other; at a cost in lives of some 30 million people.

                Another reason was to bring an end to all of  the internal European conflicts that had plagued the continent for centuries. The European nation states had made a habit of each drawing blood from the other through various alliances of convenience; and after the Second World War the politicians set about changing things.

                In justifying where we are today with the EU, those Europhiles who are at its beck and call whatever the anti-democratic behaviour it exhibits, will point to such reasons for justifying their support for a ‘Greater Europe’; as it is becoming known on the Right, since Angela Merkle and Nicolas Sarkozy so easily dismissed two elected foreign leaders and (in all but name), appointed their successors.

                What we are watching is an ascendant Germany once more. It is the wealthiest nation in Europe and its leaders (without any referral to their people) have poured billions of their people’s hard earned taxes into rescuing, not Greece, but the idea of a single currency; and their reward for saving it, will be their increasing power within a Europe of  political and monetary union, based of course upon a single currency.

                For German ascendency, such profligacy spent on saving the euro, is an investment in German power of the kind deployed against Greece and Italy. But Merkle dare not put it in such blunt and crude terms to her people. For they may conclude that German history is yet again repeating itself; be it through much more benign methods than her earlier historical ascendency.

GERMAN POWER AND INFLUENCE over a whole continent will now be made absolute – not by any Nazi doctrine or other such prejudice: but merely through the hard work and efficiency of its people who create the wealth that has elevated their leaders to such a powerful position - a position where the rest of the world wishes to purchase their products.

                The wisest act that any political leader of this country did, was to keep us away from joining the single currency. Gordon Brown kept us free from its maligned influence and should be thanked for so doing. In doing so we may not be fully  immune from the consequences of the single currency’s disappointment; but we can, if we so chose, keep ourselves independent from the ascendant Germans.

                When last week David Cameron met Angela Merkle to discuss what we were told were to be a series of diverse issues - although we all know the issue they were most interested in. They gave a press conference afterwards which, according to one report beforehand, Cameron never wanted, but Merkle insisted should take place – so it took place!

                At this press conference Cameron seemed a somewhat poor relation of Herr Merkle while trying to remain prime ministerial. His whole posture had nothing to do with any sense of inferiority on his part, but more to do with  his own innate belief in a Federal Europe which he tries to conceal from his own people. But, after the events surrounding the euro zone, his admiration for Germany’s leadership, despite her anti-democratic behaviour regarding Greece and Italy, never failed to impress

                So, even after the catastrophe of the sovereign debt crises in Europe; a United States of Europe, headed, it seems by a flourishing German economy, is still in prospect.

                In this week’s New Statesman, George Eaton has collected a fine selection of quotes from the old pro-European guard, who have renewed their belief in the euro after remaining somewhat shy of comment  until now. The names Heseltine, Blair, Ashdown, Clarke, Hutton and Mandelson, have all come out to renew their faith, so to speak, in the euro. They remind one of the Communist Left, at the fall of their own cherished ideal… yet they still believed!

WHAT THESE yesterday’s men who continue to support the euro also seem to be supporting is the following.  For a single currency to work, political and monetary union must predate its introduction. This was one of the reasons for the euro’s failure. It was an obvious error of judgment pointed out at the time. But, it seems, Blair, Heseltine and Ashdown, were like the proverbial three monkeys when it was introduced so naively – idealism can leave you deaf, dumb, and will blind you to reality.

                The next time it will be done properly. We have Germany’s word on this. What will probably happen, will be a single currency of fewer nations and an outer ring of those 10 nations that refused the salesman’s pitch at the time.

                But just what does it mean to become part of a single currency? Those three monkeys fall somewhat short on any detail when they continue their support for a single currency.

                Because of political and monetary union – the single currency’s pre-requisite; we will have to abandon the nation state and its sovereignty. We will no longer have the complete independence that allows us to make our own laws  as a free people. We will fall foul of the Gormhangast that is Brussels; and we will find it increasingly difficult to determine our own futures; and for what? To stop us from fighting each other? As was the original purpose.

                Those who still support a single currency have to explain the consequences of such a monumental folly in terms of the nation state and its sovereignty. We have already seen how a nation’s sovereignty will be treated by a European super state, by Germany’s treatment of Greece and Italy.

                Heseltine, Blair and Ashdown, must have the honesty to tell the British people what their enthusiasms for a single currency will mean to the nation state and its sovereignty. They will have to confront the British people with the prospect of denying them a nation; after millions have died and suffered in its creation.

               

THE BRITISH PEOPLE MUST defy such poisoned overtures from Europe to relinquish their past as a nation. By calling for the abandonment of our nation state, which is what a European single currency will mean – then, if this is not treason, what is?

                I challenge those yesterday’s men to deny that their continued support for a single currency will not ultimately lead to a federal Europe of cantons… where nations once flourished.

                The European Union is the most undemocratic institution outside of  the once Soviet Union. Yet little is challenged by the British media when it comes  to the European Union. They seem to accept the way Greece and Italy have been treated; but seek the moral high ground when it comes to Egypt, Libya and Syria.

                We have been for- warned by what happened in Italy and Greece, of what we can expect if this whole United States of Europe sees the light of day.

                The British people have already tasted the medicine, via the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and its autocratic governance of our law- making in this country. If the British people allow our politicians to accede to further federalist acts, then we must turn to a party whose  sole reason for  existing is keeping this island nation free as a nation. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), is such a one ‘policy’ party – but what a policy!

               

                

THE WINDMILLS OF YOUR MIND

NO MEMBER OF THE MONARCHY should ever give public expression to any political or controversial opinion. It is the only way this institution can remain above all party politics and keep the nation’s support. This is why the next heir to the throne would be a disaster as King. Prince Charles could not help but interfere publically on important issues of the day and fall foul of party politics… which would be the end of the monarchy’s neutrality and threaten the institution itself.

                Which brings me to the Duke of Edinburgh and his outburst against wind farms.

                The Duke is seen by the liberal establishment as a cantankerous old fart with imperial delusions and prejudices - and with an embarrassing tongue to boot . In other words all of the qualities that I find most endearing in him. But, unlike his son, when he speaks out it is usually within the confines of a private conversation that is leaked to the media by the person he is having the conversation with. In this case it was with the managing director of a leading Dutch owned wind farm company, Mr Esbjorn Wilmar.  Mr Wilmar along with two- thirds of other wind farm companies are foreign owned and, in total, all such companies receive £500 million in subsidies from the British taxpayer - while such technology is adding £90 per annum to the average electricity bill.

                These sinister looking windmills dotted over our rural landscape, and looking like something the BBC’s glue and cardboard department dreamed up for a 1970’s episode of Dr Who, are not by any stretch of the imagination, ‘elegant’ and ‘beautiful’, as the Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has described them. They are as aesthetically Orwellian as the European Commission is politically … and not fit for purpose.

                The Duke apparently told Mr Wilmar that such farms were a ‘disgrace’, and would ‘never work’, and  those who support them are being seduced by a ‘fairy tale’; because the turbines would need a backup capacity.

                The monarchy could do very well financially by such developments. This is because the Crown Estate owns almost all of the seabed off Britain’s 7,700-mile coastline. So the Duke is looking to the country’s interest and not that of the monarchy. He could let it all happen and see  millions pour into the Crown Estates.

               

I LIVE IN GREAT YARMOUTH and many of you may have visited the town while on holiday. If so you could not help but see the thirty or so turbines anchored a short distance off of our shore. These have proved to be merely the first tranche and will be added to in the coming months by several hundred more; and there is great excitement among Yarmouth’s town councillors about the new jobs this expansion will create.

                Hundreds of local jobs will become available at a time when they will be in short supply in the rest of the country. My town will receive a boost. But what will the nation receive from such technology? In one part of the country the turbines had to be stopped during a gale because of local complaints about the loud sound they making.

                According to today’s Telegraph, ‘The Duke’s views are politically charged, as they put him at odds with the Government’s policy significantly to increase the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines’.

                This may indeed be true, but the Duke never made his comments for public consumption and never would (unlike Charles). He gave his honest assessment of his dislike toward these structures and never arraigned Mr Wilmar  to make them public.

                There will be more people who share the Duke’s view of wind turbines, than those who support there contagion. We are, as the lyrics from a popular song suggests, ‘on the road to nowhere’ with this technology. These overbearing structures costing (in the end) billions in taxpayer subsidy will fail to meet the challenges set them by the environmentalist lobby; among whose sons and daughters are the politicians who they cajoled into creating these latter day windmills.

NUCLEAR ENERGY and all things nuclear has been cursed by the Greens; and their argumentative message has filtered through to the middle class youth whose parents and grandparents remember their own hippy-dippy battles with the establishment in the 1960s; and for this reason if for no other, are prepared to tolerate their irrational offspring. The baby boomers have a lot to answer for regarding the heritage of protest they bequeathed to their progeny.

                It may be the belief of modern youth that anyone beyond  30 is beginning to calcify, and at which point should be ignored, ridiculed, and put to rest. But if modern youth ignore such alarms from such a generation then you will repeat their mistakes.

                Modern nuclear energy is the most efficient and the cheapest form of energy provision. If we pursue wind energy at its expense purely through our prejudice of the nuclear option; then we will suffer energy shortages not seen since the blackouts of the 1970s, when the coal miners  and electricity workers brought the country to a standstill.

                The Duke will be supported by far more of his people than Chris Huhne on this issue; especially as they have seen their fuel bills rocket;  in part, by the environmental levy they are making the utilities pay.

                The environmentalists carry more weight, and have more say with the politicians than does the electorate. It is refreshing to hear a public voice, that actually speaks for the people, and does so with appropriate bluntness.               

               

                                 

Monoculture and David Starkey

SOMEONE CALLED TONY HUDSON, writing for politics.co.uk, has reported on comments made by our turbulent historian, David Starkey, during a debate on the teaching of history in our schools. During the proceedings Mr Hudson has Mr Starkey being reported as saying 'mono-culture'  is 'absolutely and unmitigatingly white' outside of London. The inverted coma and the hyphen dividing monoculture, were, I assume Mr Hudson’s own creation.

                Because earlier this year 77 people were killed by a deranged Norwegian who used the term monoculture; Mr Starkey’s use of the same word to support his point of view seems to have placed him, in some people’s minds at least, as someone who is empathetic to Anders Behring Breivik’s unhinged behaviour.

                Monoculture is as legitimate a term as Multiculture and the sinister inverted comas are unnecessary. Starkey is right; outside of London, the UK is a monoculture and has been so for millennia. It is only within London’s boundaries that such an expression can be regarded as in any way offensive. I do not know whether Tony Hudson lives in London or not; but if not he should  get out more and solicit the views of the people in whatever , village, town or city he lives in. For I can tell him, as an anti-fascist, that I am not upset by David Starkey’s comments. In fact I agree whole heartedly with them.

                We are still managing to hanging on to our white monoculture, despite the attempts via the multiculturalism of the liberal establishment to dissuade us through political correctness, and the use of the law (hate crimes).

                According to Tony Hudson, Starkey’s remarks ‘… are also likely to prompt anger in anti-fascist circles’.

                Who are these anti-fascist circles that Mr Hudson feared may be offended? For I know of no one who would describe themselves as a fascist.  Anti-fascist is a term monopolised by the Left, who believe themselves the only worthy possessors of the crown.

                Fascism is an ugly word for an ugly ideology. Because it is nationalistic in nature, does not mean that all nationalists are fascists. Fascism has also latent colonial ambitions that sought to  divide humanity on racial grounds. Believing that there are superior and inferior races of people that occupy this earth; the superior races (belonging to the fascist nations) should seek governance over the inferior peoples.

                I know of no one who fits such a description. But I do know many like myself who, like for instance, the Chinese and Japanese, wish to preserve their unique monoculture . I wish to keep England, at least, a monoculture. A culture free from having to walk on glass for fear of offending some minority or other: a culture that is proud of its history and wishes to teach it to each and every generation passing through its schools.

                Being a nationalist, which I feel comfortable in assuming David Starkey is, does not make one an automatic fascist. To have a love for ones country and its traditions and history, once made you a Tory as well as a nationalist. It does not, despite what modern liberalism (and it appears Mr Hudson) wishes, make one a fascist.

MONOCULTURE SHOULD be the riposte to Multiculture instead of becoming another iniquity in the liberal lexicon. It is not a matter of colour but culture. Since the previous government’s premature signing of the Shennen Agreement, which allowed hundreds of thousands of white immigrants to enter this country from eastern Europe; it has become as much a question of numbers as cultural diversity.

                If there are people throughout the world who are in fear of their lives who wish to seek asylum, then, if proved genuine, should be allowed sanctuary. Britain has always fostered such an arrangement. After all, did not Karl Marx and Lenin find a temporary home in London?

                Monoculture should replace the infamous inanity of multiculturalism which  only exacerbates the differences between minorities, leading, at sometime in the near future, to open conflict on our streets. If minorities cannot accept the culture they have chosen to live within, then they must move on. For the culture they live with is an English culture which they must learn to accommodate themselves  to; just as any white English man or women would have to accommodate themselves to  Indian, Pakistan or West Indian culture; should they visit or chose to live in such countries. Why must we be any different? Why must we be called racist for wanting to keep our culture the preeminent one which those from all racial minorities must adapt to or leave.

                David Starkey is right and should keep on saying the things he does. Tony Hudson, on the other hand should refrain from implying that fascism is a uniquely Right-wing disease. Did not the German Nazi party call themselves National Socialists…and with good reason?

                Both the Left and the Right have their extremes; and both extremes inflicted a great deal of misery on the previous century. Nothing in what Starkey says is extreme: it is an impassioned plea against that alienating ideology of Multiculturalism and its reductionist tendency of giving, under the banner of diversity, equal status to all cultures, including the host culture. This is the real extremism: and if it is challenged, either the word fascist or racist is banded about.

                If only Orwell were alive to see what is happening. We have the Multicultural credo of political correctness and the Orwellian sounding hate crime: and we are forced by law to walk on eggshells for fear of offending a particular minority. We will soon have to look over our shoulders before sounding off about immigration, in case a designated and inappropriate politically incorrect faux par is overheard by one of Mr Hudson’s anti-fascists, who then proceeds to do what he believes to be his civic duty, and report what he has overheard to the police.

                This is the real extremism, that overhangs the country today; and it will only get worse. So enjoy annoying your liberal opponents while you can Mr Starkey, because this particular horse still has a long way to run.

               

WHO IS VOLKER KAUDER?

AS THE EURO CRISES continues apace, an unfamiliar German has started abusing us. He is Volker Kauder of Angela Merkle’s Christian Democrat Party; and he seems quite upset with the UK. He accuses us of ‘Only going after [our]own benefit, and refusing to contribute, is not the message we’re letting the British get away with.’

                He later put it more succinctly accusing us of  "only defending [our] own interests", and, in the language of an earlier period in German history said that the European nations were speaking German in that they are backing Chancellor Merkle’s diktats.

                I do not know how well regarded this buffoon is in German politics; but he has done the Eurosceptic cause in the UK a great deal of good. The likes of poor old Nick Clegg, who is struggling to keep the vision of the Greater Europe alive, must be banging his head hard against his copy of the Lisbon Treaty, which he has had engraved in concrete in his back garden as a show of solidarity and a replacement for his much beloved gnome.

                Germany ( and here I mean its people) have seen their hard earned taxes poured away, like so much dirty dishwater, in order to keep afloat the euro and prop up a corrupt and indolent Greece; a country which  should never have been allowed to join the euro in first place, and soon, no doubt, to be followed by Italy, Spain, Portugal and…well, you name it!

                The German worker is indeed the most efficient in Europe. They work hard and pay their taxes – an obligation which many Italians and almost all Greeks seem unfamiliar with.

               

HERR KAUDER                attacks us in the UK for defending our national interest as if this were the height of immorality, instead of  the virtue that it undoubtedly is for any nation state. If we were conjoined in solidarity with the rest of Europe as a mere canton of the Greater Europe, then I suppose Kauder would have a valid point. But thankfully our politicians have not yet managed to  corral their people toward this unhappy fate - although it has not been without trying.

                National sovereignty should not be a bargaining chip for any form adventure that our political class embarks upon; and while we still have enough of our sovereignty left, those on the continent are free to do whatever they like with theirs. But do not expect the same passivity from the people of the UK, as the Eurocrats have found among other once proud European nations.

                This awful word ‘solidarity’ that is meant to replace a nation’s self interest in Europe, is a  socialist construct that has been bought into by what were once known as Conservative parties throughout Europe; but who have evolved into social democrats alongside the Socialist and Communist parties who have also traded themselves into becoming social democrats.

                Even the modern UK Conservative party is attempting to rearrange its ideological goalposts, and has been doing so since the reign of Harold MacMillan in the 1950s-1960s. But with MacMillan it was done to un-tether us from empire, not to abandon the nation state. His One Nation Conservatism however, evolved Toryism into a mainstream social democratic party in the European mould.

                We need not go into Ted Heath’s governance of the Conservative Party to realise the direction, this once proud, patriotic, and nationalist party was heading. It met with a brief obstacle however when Margaret Thatcher came to power.  As the last of this country’s great statesmen, she stopped the slippage and fought for nationhood. She turned a decomposing national economy into a fully functioning and much respected entity.

                The Greater Europe that had also been the dream of Napoleon and Hitler, has now become , through the foreign debt crisis, the anxious and desperate hope of the European political elite.

               

VOLKER KAUDER  represents that desperation. He attacks the UK because it was the UK that warned the rest of Europe against such an ill thought through and utopian concept of monetary union that they eventually proceeded with.

       When the euro zone was created, such a diverse and unworkable  stratum of economies were  ignored by its architects (one of whom was Mario Monti) the newly assigned leader of the Italian nation and its parliament. Mr Monti is a fervent Greater European and believes to this day - even after the travails that have so undermined his conviction  he still sees only opportunity for the euro currency.

                For Herr Kauder to accuse this country of acting in its own self interest is stiflingly hypocritical; especially  when we were left high and dry by Germany in 1993 after they cut us adrift from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in order to rescue France. We however learnt our lesson then, and it was one well learned. What it taught us is that Germany and France will always put their self interest before any concept of a greater European solidarity.

                I believe that German and French politicians are in a state of near panic over sovereign debt, and are lashing out in all directions, and as ‘perfidious Albion’ is the traditional target at such times, I suppose we must make allowances for Volker Kauder.

 

 

 

               

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ELECTED GOVERNMENT?

THIS GOVERNMENT AND ALL governments waste taxpayers money on a monumental scale. The previous government poured billions of pounds into a new computer system for the NHS only to see it fail. The MoD wastes billions on projects that cost twice as much to complete than was contractually agreed, and arrive years behind the time scale determined at the time of purchase. Tens of billions of pounds are wasted annually by our representatives (far more, by the way, than city bankers get in bonuses), but with little comeback.

            But what happens when they get it right? What happens when a piece of technology costing millions to put in place actually does the job it was designed to do? Then those who use it are told not to - at least at a time when it is most needed.

            The ordinary officer of the UK Boarder Force, the body which polices our entry points to keep out illegal entrants, must have jumped with joy when they were provided with a new piece of equipment that scans the passports of entrants to the UK and allows them to check whether the passport matched the holder by crosschecking to a computer data base. This technology replaced the reliance upon the border guard  to compare the ID photo on the passport with the face staring at him or her over a desk.

            Is not technology wonderful? Well it would be if we took the trouble to use it. But the trouble in this case, was that the technology took longer than the cursory glance to fulfil its task, which at our airports and seaports busiest times, became a nuisance. So it was decided that at such times the technology would be unplugged to shorten the lengthening queues.

            Now what this meant was that at such times and over a four year period hundreds of thousands of people entered this country without being subjected to little more than a nod of the head.

WHAT ARE WE PAYING OUR politicians for? First of all they, as legislators, cannot make and pass laws unless they refer to Europe first, or face seeing them undermined by our judges… which, you must agree, makes our appearance at the ballot box a fruitless enterprise.

        Then there is Theresa May: if we are to take what she says as the truth, then our civil servants are all a law unto themselves acting without her authority. This is not as fanciful as it seems, for our politicians are as much in hock to the public sector as they are to Brussels. It seems that when the public become perturbed about an issue within a particular branch of the public sector, and the government wishes to soothe such anxiety; they demand changes that meet the public’s concerns.

             What happens however; is when the politicians pull the leavers that are meant to assuage the public, the public sector ignores them completely, and continues on as before.

            This is what happened over the issue of inter-racial adoption. The politicians are now finally convinced that the colour of a child’s skin matters little to the child when what it needs are two parents willing to love it, and make the sacrifices for it that any other parent would do for their own biological children.

            However, our social workers have their own take on such an arrangement. With their investiture at a third rate university espousing all forms of political correctness, and armed with the latest academic fad (usually from across the pond) on adoption; our fully qualified social workers do not fear the dimwittedness of politicians who now nothing about interracial adoption and the danger it poses for the African, Asian, and West Indian child … etcetera. So certain are they in their latest academic dogma that they feel themselves morally obliged to carry on as before, for the sake of the child’s cultural identity.

            In other words, the politicians can issue all the instructions they like to their public sector ‘professionals’; there is little the politicians can do because the Multicultural society they themselves were the architects of, give the social workers ample justification for their noncompliance.

            From wasting the tax payer’s money and handing over power to the European Union; as well as  allowing government agencies to ignore government demands. It leaves us, the voters, to question our very relevance to the democratic process; or whether there is democratic process to be part of.

 

THERE ARE CURRENTLY 650 members of the House of Commons and 750 members of the House of Lords. We are represented by 1400 members of both houses. The basic MPs salary is £64,766; on top of which, with the usual allowances, the ordinary back bencher can add generously (by ordinary people’s standards) to his basic salary: and if he or she have the ambition to reside on the government or opposition front benches; or serve on one of the many Committees; then, they can earn anything from between £79,082 and  £197,689[i].

            Considering the powers they have allowed to be removed from both themselves and the British people, and given to Europe; and considering the billions they have wasted on various forms of public expenditure; and considering the folly of many of their decisions over (for instance) immigration, and the added cost to the public purse of such wrong decision making; should we not be paying closer attention to our elected representatives instead of a few bankers whose bonuses are a populist distraction from where we as a people, clinging on precariously to our nationhood, should be concentrating our energies?

            We face a problem of overcrowding in this country. First of all generically; but also politically: and it is with the latter that, in these harsh times, I feel we should pay greater attention.  For several decades I believe we have seen a diminution in the quality of this country’s leadership, and, considering the power they have abdicated through treaty after treaty with Europe in that time; they have made their vast numbers redundant to any practical governance of this Island.

            Of the 650 MPs; 450 should suffice. As for the second chamber. I would make it an all elected one if it were not for fact that it would see itself as ethically equal to the first; and it would be correct in so doing. So like the Commons, the Lords should have a limit placed upon their numbers and also upon the quality of expertise of their numbers

            First of all, for a second chamber to outnumber its elected lawmaking counterpart is an insult to the electors; especially as it is a revising body based upon appointment.

            The second chamber, if only as a courteous act to the elected first, should contain lesser members. It should become a workplace instead of a club. Of the 750 members of this club, 200  could be gotten rid of immediately, and those who serve in the future should be picked from those professions that any nation deems worthy of such advancement; instead of what the politicians deem a reward for services to their party.

            The second chamber should be populated by those with experience of the world of business and those with academic excellence in subjects that will oil the country’s economic success. The first and dominant chamber is the place for the people to decide who they judge to be worthy of their vote; but even this can only work if those they elect are truly free from any kind of foreign intrusion negating their law making.

            We have a parliament designed, in numerical terms, to meet the needs of a long gone empire, instead of an island nation of 60 million people; while America, a country several times lager in both space and population to our own manages with a Congress of  434 , and a Senate of 100. So both houses have 866 fewer members serving on the public tit than does our own parliament… while representing a population of 300 million people.

 

OUR POLITICIANS HAVE WASTED  billions; allowed, as a deliberate act of policy, the uncontrolled  entry of  hundreds of thousands of immigrants from all for corners of the planet; and allowed our nation’s sovereignty to be slowly abandoned to the European project - while denying us any say through a referendum for fear of the people reclaiming it for themselves.

            All parties have colluded with Multiculturalism; the Tories through fear and the Labour Party as its author. But the British people had no say on any of  this. Multiculturalism has created the new breed of witches and witch finders. John Terry, the Chelsea footballer (not one of my favourite people) has fallen victim to becoming a modern witch…or racist as we now like to call them.

            In all, the politicians have done a thoroughly bad job for the British people and their island nation. In 90 per cent of the cases, our modern politicians have fallen well short of their historical predecessors. Substance has been replaced by style and image; and so we get the end product of this shallow process…a kind of photogenic contest between the politicians whose leaders are now chosen by the electorate to ‘govern’ us in X Factor style, via the  Leadership Debates that were the main feature of the last general election; and went a considerable way toward the election of a coalition government.

            Voting is only useful if the people you vote for have both the independence and power to make laws that go unchallenged once adopted by parliamentary due process; voting is only useful if the politicians see their primary historical  function as protecting our national sovereignty; voting is only useful if we abandon the professional, superficial and telegenic master of the sound bite; and finally; voting is only useful if the people are trusted via referendums to determine their country’s destiny without the shallow heads monopolising  such fundamental decisions.

           

---

[i] Figures taken from the Tax Payers Alliance

OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE, WHEN IN A FAITH WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE

ANJEM CHOUDHARY, the Wolfie Smith of Islamic fundamentalism, has had his latest organisation, Muslims Against the Crusades, banned by the Home Secretary. Of course, he will quickly make up a new name and continue to burn poppies on Remembrance Sunday; while the nation (or hopefully, most of it at least)  are remembering the sacrifices that our service men and women have made on our behalf.

            Choudhary is an attention seeker who has called for the assassination of the Pope, branded Christmas as an evil celebration, and suggested that Muslims will have more children and take over Britain. This latter observation is not too far from the truth considering the 250,000 abortions undertaken annually in this country.

            Under our current set up, there is only one thing to do to stop this man’s self-publicist impulses, and that would be to give him a place on the next series of Big Brother. All he craves is his 15 minutes of fame. If he really had any genuine sympathy for the Muslim cause he has spent most of his life pursuing, he would have done  what many British Muslims have already done, and departed these shores for Pakistan to be trained to fight in Afghanistan.

            But the martyrdom many Muslim’s seem to thirst for by fighting the infidel, does not appeal to  Anjem Choudhary. No, his niche is coming up with the most offensive slogans he is capable of, and then garnering the maximum publicity from them. Like some copy writer in an ad agency his equivalent to, ‘Go to work on an egg’, is  ' … Hell for Heroes’, the title of a demonstration that he and his small band of cowardly  mujahedeen planned in opposition to our presence in Afghanistan.

            Well, at least we have a presence in Afghanistan, while Anjem Choudhary, it seems, wishes to stay as far away from the place as he can. Taking on NATO is not for our role playing martyr. Not for him the vagaries of  the sniper’s bullet; not for him the nightly sweats, wondering whether a drone has targeted him as he drives from A to B in some part of northern Pakistan.

            Choudhary not only insults the sacrifices of those he sees as the enemies of Islam; he also affronts the sacrifices  made by his own kind who have martyred themselves for the cause that he can only support at a comfortable distance, in a country where he is free to speak his mind and test this freedom to its limits; and when the patience of the country has worn thin, he still remains free.

           

CHOUDHARY’S  CONTRIBUTION to the struggle entails no real sacrifice. His martyrdom entails not death but only publicity. Publicity designed to outrage the British public. But if for one moment he thought that, as happens in the Muslim world, his offending behaviour would lead to his real martyrdom, then he would be more selective over his choice of words.

            Choudhary represents the exhibitionist coward. He knows that he cannot be taken from the streets and tortured as many Libyans and Egyptians were before the Arab Spring. He knows that he will face at worse, a comfortable cell in an open prison somewhere in England where he will enjoy all the facilities of a British seaside guest house circa 1960.

            Not for him the fear of looking up to the sky in half expectation of an American drone discharging its munitions in his direction. No, for Choudhary, it is the simple life. He and his little band of brothers prefer to stand on street corners hurling abuse, knowing they will be protected from public’s anger by the British police; while harvesting the publicity that his little acts of petulance are guaranteed to cause.

            The worst thing we can do is to give this seeker of media hype what he craves; we should treat him with the satire he deserves, instead of taking him as seriously as he wishes us to. He is an embarrassment to his own cause, and would willingly accept a Big Brother contract if he could no longer get our attention .