Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The ever thickening Red Line


RED LINES have a historical pedigree among politicians, and they should be used cautiously. For instance, the red line was used by Neville Chamberlain who was reported to have told Adolph Hitler to steer clear of blitzkrieging Poland. This was Chamberlain’s red line, and when it was crossed, the Second World War began.
            Today, Barack Obama now faces his own ‘red line’ being crossed by Syria. There is, almost on a daily basis, evidence that sarin gas has been used in Syria. The use of such a chemical by Assad would be a game changer, according to president Obama on his recent visit to Israel: implying military action in some form.
            In the Western democracies, the public are generally given to expect military action when a politician draws a red line. If they fail to do so, the architect of such a challenge can expect little sympathy from his or her own people; and utter contempt from the targeted enemy.
            
            So a great deal of backtracking has been taking place. There is no doubt that Syria has chemical weapons by the lorry load. The question is, did one of those lorries fall into the hands of the Syrian opposition made up of  anti-Western jihadists? If so, did they use them in order to hold president Obama to his word, knowing that any American intervention against Assad would benefit the jihadists.

THE WEST SHOULD steer clear of any military involvement in Syria unless, and only unless, a threat to the state of Israel comes about through the fluidity of events. Israel is as concerned about Syrian chemical weapons as they are about Iranian nuclear ones: and are fearful that Syria’s chemical weapons do not fall into the hands of the Syrian opposition, whose fanatics have little use for diplomacy.
            These chemical weapons will indeed fall into the hands of the Syrian opposition if they, as the Western political leaders wish to see, the successful overthrow of the Assad regime. The West has no procedure for allowing the tons of chemical weapons falling into opposition hands once Assad has been overthrown.
            
            Assad’s overthrow would be welcome to the West, but it is not an end-all. It merely opens up another chapter. A chapter more dangerous than that which preceded it for the state of Israel. The Arab Spring has unleashed anti-democratic forces: elected, may be, but intolerant of both Christianity and Judaism. In Egypt the Coptic Christians have been attacked by Islamists of the Islam Brotherhood, under the charge of Egypt’s president Morsi who refuses to intervene according to latest reports.

THIS WHOLE Arab Spring that was once celebrated by our political leaders as an advance toward democracy; has turned out to be no such thing. The ‘liberated’ Arab world has fallen fowl of Islamism, as we in the West have chosen to call it. But the Arab Spring has always been about Islamic jihadism. 

 The despots that reigned, for a period, supreme over Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and now Syria, have all now left their occupancies to Muslim extremism. We should have left well alone. Instead, in our Western naivety, we believed that such nations could become part f the democratic fraternity.

There is one aspect to the events in Syria that should cause us in the UK great concern. Many young British jihadists have gone out to Syria and will presumably return home and go back and  melt away into our Muslim communities. They will have many well honed skills used by terrorists, and, come the hour make first class commissars.

I wonder if there are others, who, like myself, are fearful for the country’s future… and I do not mean from Europe. The Muslim world is in turmoil, and it blames everything that befalls it on West. The West in return behave like paper tigers, who will growl endlessly but are afraid to bite. There comes a time when the growl no longer scares, if it ever did, Islamic terrorists. Instead they smell the fear of Western politicians, and this only whets their appetite.



            

Monday, April 29, 2013

UKIP must remain calm


INTERVIEWED ON Sky News, Ken Clarke has played the race card against some candidates and supporters of Ukip. He said, “I’ve met people who satisfy both those descriptions in UKIP. Indeed some of the people who assure me that they are going to vote UKIP I would put into that category. And I rather suspect that they have never voted for me.” Expanding upon this he used descriptions such as  clowns” and “indignant, angry people” .
His comments follow those of David Cameron, who, you may remember used similar language; “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, he called them (at least Clarke only targeted some of Ukip’s supporters). That there are such people in Ukip, there can be no doubt; indeed, there are still a few Tories left on the Government back benches, but they are, like those Ukip ‘racists’, in a small Eurosceptic minority.
The truth is, Ukip poses a threat to many Conservative councillors come next Thursday (the Sunday Telegraph suggests they could take 100 seats, mainly from the Tories) when local elections take place. The Tories are genuinely fearful that their Divine Right to rule is being put under such stress. So on this final Sunday before the polls open, Ukip are being bombarded with below the belt rhetoric and smears to frighten off those Conservatives who were considering voting Ukip.
Ukip should remain calm and withstand the comments from these paper tigers. There is in this country (as Ken Clarke made clear), an ever increasing circle of voters who are disillusioned or angry with today’s political class and are turning to Ukip, and they should continue to do so.
I have had it put to me that today’s  assaults and the talk of Ukip disunity were part of a campaign organised between politicians of all parties (for it is not only from the Tories that Ukip are benefiting) as well as the Conservative and liberal press. Private polling within all the main parties have shown the impact that Ukip has had on their various electoral expectations and they do not like what they have been told by their pollsters.
Remember when the floodgates of immigration were opened by the previous Blair government; and remember the charge of racism  hurled at those who questioned such a policy? Then it was Labour playing the race card, usually aimed a Conservative MPs, as well as the party generally, as the source of such contamination. Now the likes of Cameron and Clarke are playing the same card to try and stop Conservative voters from voting for Ukip.
KEN CLARKE is a yesterday man. Even in his political prime he got everything wrong. First as an enthusiastic (even ecstatic) knife wieldier at the time of Margaret Thatcher’s removal from office. His greatest claim to fame (even to this day) is his championing of  European Federalism, and would, even today, after the pain it has brought to millions, still be prepared to join the euro.
            This man will support whatever Europe insists upon. He will stand firm against any politician that challenges his European ideal. There is nothing Europe can do, right or wrong, that will not meet with his total support. I only once came across such a stubborn, almost bigoted stance to a political idea. It was at the time of my membership of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) between 1973-4.
Then it was to the Soviet Union we all bowed and scraped (I was, if you like, a plebeian Ken Clarke). No policy that emanated from the Soviet Union could be challenged by any member of the CPGB. But then, as with Ken Clarke and European Federalism, there was no enthusiasm for doing so in any event. Even after the events in Hungary (1956) and the then Czechoslovakia (1968), we put the responsibility for such events down to Western propaganda and interference.
UKIP should hold firm and disregard the bile that appears and is being poured over them ( just three days before local elections). The Westminster political class are out of touch with the people – even their own polls suggest such. The people want major issues dealt with – major issues such as Europe (enter Ken) and immigration.
They know that come the end of this year, a new influx of probably 350,000 migrants (according to a BBC poll) will arrive on our shores from Bulgaria and Romania – yet Ken Clarke, as a Europhile, would undoubtedly welcome such an addition to our already overpopulated island.
Those Conservatives in the shires and throughout our towns and cities, who believe that the virtues of Conservatism have been weakened by David Cameron, should rebel en-mass, because their allegiance to Cameron has been ill-rewarded. He has used traditional Conservative rhetoric to maximise his parties vote and nothing more. Cameron has as much traditional patriotism for his country as the Labour Party.
Those traditional Conservatives must send a message to their party. If it cannot change, then we stay with Ukip until it does; and if it does not, then the party needs to go its separate ways, away, that is, from Europe.
Within the Labour Party, among their own traditional voters the same concerns occupy them also, but as yet on a lesser scale. Nevertheless, many of them will also vote Ukip. Loyalty to Labour is entrenched even more deeply than such loyalty to the Conservative party among its own core vote. With Labour, class politics still ring a chord among their voters embedded in family tradition passed, without examination, from generation to generation.
If nothing more, Nigel Farage will have done his country a great service if he can force the political class to steer away from European Federalism, if that is, they wish to hang on to power. Ukip is the party of the moment and it should not be over concerned with the bile that its opponents, in a state of alarm, desperately seeks to pour over them.
Ukip has nothing to lose and they should remember this. It is because the main parties have so much to lose, that they have turned nasty toward Ukip. Come next Thursday Ukip will hopefully exceed the Sunday Telegraphs expectations  more than the 100 seats they predict.

           





Saturday, April 27, 2013

Let Clegg make the case to the public


THE HOME SECRETARY Theresa May, is suggesting temporarily tearing ourselves from the clammy grip of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), long enough to deport Abu Qatada, that mighty costly thorn in the side of the British tax payer.
            
             She is examining  this strategy and if it proves possible; what would then be expected to happen would be opposition from her coalition partners who look upon the ECHR with the same  majesty that 4th century Catholics looked upon the Vulgate of St Jerome.
             
             David Cameron’s argument would be, that if this were to happen then Nick Clegg and those with a similar allure to the enticements of European Federalism, should have to explain to the British public why they have to continue paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in benefits, and legal fees; as well as the cost of Qatada being detained at her majesty’s pleasure.
            
             Clegg would not be standing up for a great principle in English law (although Ken Clarke believes he would); but, as a Europhile, he would only be objecting to Mr Qatada’s departure, under such circumstance that went against the ruling of the ECHR; that great liberal fifth column that keeps terrorists happy and free from justice.
            In any case Clegg and Clarke should be forced onto our screens to explain their opposition to people who are fed up with this man’s contempt for the people and the culture who provided him with generous resources to keep himself and his lawyers from goading the British people.

THE BRITISH people must return to making their own laws once more supreme via the ballot box – this is democracy. People voting for the lawmakers to do what they said they would do in order to govern has been a centuries old recipe for sovereignty. Our lawmakers said nothing about English law being undercut by what amounts to be European  law. What are we voting for after all, if not to determine our own laws implemented fully by our national parliament?
            
             Clegg should be put in a position to explain this anti-democratic form of government which he supports; and the issue of Abu Qatada’s deportation is a good place to start. The law is sovereign - but only if it is a nation’s law. If, as Ken Clarke suggests, with or without the dictatorship of ECHR, no English judge would let a foreigner return to a land where torture is practiced – then this would be  something I can live with until the British people vote to reform such a law. What I, and millions of English citizens cannot tolerate is a foreign entity usurping our sovereignty in the way that Europe has been given the opportunity to do by our politicians.
            
            If I were in a position to do so, I would ignore the ECHR, on the grounds that this institution was signed up to without the consent of the British people. It was the circus of mountebanks in Westminster that signed us up to this convention, beginning in 1951: and I am saddened to report, that our politicians (at the time)  were the most eager of supporters of such an anti-democratic convention, in light, it has to be said, of the Second World War.
            
            For a nation to give up the ability to make their own laws and keep them sovereign over any foreign trespasser, is surely the bedrock of any democracy. All that goes against this is surely treason. But we have today in this country a political class that sees our future within Europe, and will do whatever proves necessary to keep this project alive. Even if includes the right under ECHR law to protect a Muslim terrorist who is hated in this country by its indigenous people; but, nevertheless, has demanded the benefits and his human rights represented by a lawyer paid for out of taxation.

ABU QATADA IS laughing at us. He uses the law like a football manager does the playing field. Instructed, via the tax payer, by his lawyers, he uses every opportunity available to him to remain in his British luxury (yes, even in prison), at  the forty-hour-a-week  working taxpayer’s expense.
            
             How can Clegg justify this to a law-abiding worker who pays his or her taxes believing they are contributing to his family’s health and education by doing so? What cases such as that of Abu Qatada show, are the people’s ever growing impotence and frustration and of their inability to act – to be given a say.  The anti-democratic manoeuvres made by our politicians to sign away the democratic cornerstones of our democracy; its independence; its liberties; the sovereignty of its laws – and, in coming decades, our ability to raise our own taxes and the independence of our budgets.
            
            The issue of Abu Qatada’s  human rights are important as a precursor of the great things to come, for Europhiles like Clegg, Clarke, Heseltine, and Mandelson - as well as  the whole political class; who are determined to bring about this nations absorption into the European Borg, and become (like those in the eurozone) part its collective.
           



           
           

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

The death of a great leader



Socialist governments fail because they always run out of other people’s money’

Margaret Thatcher


THERE IS  A MEAN SPIRITEDNESS at the heart of the Left; a cruel nastiness that negates the traditional values at its core. Values embodied by solidarity, brotherhood, equality and comradeship, have given the Left a sense of self-righteous  inevitability that their cause of socialism is historically predictable; despite the pounding it has taken by history.

            The mean spiritedness of which I write has been on display ever since the tragic death of Baroness Thatcher was announced. It is said that if you cannot speak well of the dead, you should keep your mouth shut - at least until after the funeral; thus allowing the family a few day in which to grieve.
            I can remember reading, when the late John Smith’s death was announced to parliament and a Tory standing beside the Speaker’s chair clapped. He was quickly set upon by his party colleagues standing near him, and was rebuked.

            I honestly believe that had it been Tony Benn’s death that had been announced yesterday, the Baroness would have shown more grace and compassion to her political enemy in his death than those hate-filled figures on the Left who have been dancing on the Streets of Glasgow, London and Bristol. She would no doubt have been measured and respectful, even if the deceased had been George Galloway.

IN THE 1980s I stood four square behind those who today turn what should be a time of respect for the dead, into pantomime; and a piece of street theatre. I shared their hatred of the ‘Wicked Witch of the West’. Margaret Thatcher was always loathed by us at the time - even more so than the modern Left; but she turned a dying country around (if only temporarily); and even today’s Guardian, of all papers, acknowledged as much.

            The UK has been blessed throughout its history in producing the right individual to make their mark whenever the nation faced a crises of survival. In modern times (I use the term loosely) we have had the great fortune to produce such great individuals; among whom we can count Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell, John Churchill, The First Duke of Marlborough, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher. Of course, such greats as Wellington and Nelson, were are also part of the same litany, as well as other heroes of the nation, but the list is too long to reproduce.

            Many of those paltry figures on the Left who enact their phoney dance of detestation for Baroness Thatcher, are too young to have ever lived in the 1980s; they instead live off the prejudices of Thatcherism that have been drummed into their heads by their parents. They may be joined by many others in the coming week leading up to (and, no doubt, including) the great lady’s funeral.

           
THE AGE KNOWN as Thatcherism, like any great age, displeases as many as it pleases, and so it is with that period of governance of  Margaret Thatcher. But in the end what must be asked is, did the Thatcher years save and advance our country or help further the decline we find ourselves in today. Or did she literally save our nation’s soul, which has always been trade and enterprise? Then surely the answer is yes.

            She was a species of politician rarely seen today – she had conviction, a goal, and the will to see it achieved despite being surrounded by feckless nail-biters within her cabinet who feared the loss of power; and a stuffy civil service to whom caution would be a motto had it a herald’s coat of arms. She was what the country needed at the time, and you only have to understand what came before her to see and appreciate what she achieved.
           
So then, what came before her? Well, from the mid 1960s, and throughout the 1970s the country was being undermined by union power. It is hard to believe today but trade union leaders acted like puppet masters to various Labour governments that held office during this period. They could be seen, almost on a daily basis, entering the lair of an elected Labour prime minister to make their demands. This behaviour even brought from prime minister Harold Wilson the reprimand that they should, ‘get their tanks off of my lawn’.

            Some hope; for this was a period when Downing Street entertained various Labour prime ministers. During the Winter of Discontent (WOD) 1978-1979, the public sector almost crippled the nation’s public services stretching from waste collection to the burial of the deceased. But the WOD was only the final straw in a short decade long history of union hegemony. Before the WOD, British industry was being slowly crippled by union action. During the decade there were power cuts due to striking miners; while car workers at British Leyland were the perfect comparison to those belligerent and bloody minded trade unionists in the film, I’m Alright Jack  made in 1959.

            What better soul mate for British Leyland’s ‘Red’ Robbo’ than the communist trade unionist, Fred Kite. The workers (as well as the weakness of its management) at British Leyland eventually destroyed this country’s ability to mass market a car; and as is always the case with the unions, there actions lost more of their members than they were ever to gain again.
           
During this period both Labour, and latterly a Conservative prime minister under Ted Heath, tried to reach a compromise with union radicalism. The Labour Party came up with ‘In Place of Strife’, followed by Ted Heath’s ‘Industrial Relations Act’. Both of which met with union contempt; and in the latter case a 100,000[1] people march in London, which I joined.

The unions were on a roll and they saw nothing on the political horizon that they could take seriously. They were in command. The people’s vote no longer mattered; just as today it matters little because of Europe.

BUT THEN IN 1979, the Tory party produced a leader that history was destined to promote to greatness. For all her faults, and they were indeed many, Margaret Thatcher turned our economy round. She put capitalism back on its right footing through confronting the unions, and  by defeating Arthur Scargill and his miners; as well as the privatisations of the various state owned utilities, along with the Big Bang that liberated the City from its ‘old boy’ network that could be compared with the closed shop; and advance it to a sector that today retrieves some £20 billion in taxes each year.

            What Margaret Thatcher did was give this nation another chance to prosper as it had always done from the Industrial Revolution and the beginnings of Empire. Such success had been procured by great individuals. Individuals of  the type we no longer seem to produce; infatuated as we are by  the cult of celebrity.

            I believe that Margaret Thatcher brings to an end those statesmen, monarchs, and military leaders who have popped up at the right time to keep our nation’s sovereignty intact. She was the last of a breed that kept this island nation afloat, and independent from any kind of absorption into a federal union with the rest of Europe. Something which those who wielded their knives at the time of her demise, truly believed in and still do to this day despite Europe’s decline following the euro. It seems that the Iron Lady has had the last word despite her juvenile disclaimers who will seek to dance at her funeral.

           

  
           
           
           

           

           


           


           

           



[1] A contentious number as always, but if it were five times greater, it mattered little to what followed.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Austerity and comrade Len McCluskey’s approach


THE LEFT, led by comrade Len McCluskey, have done what they enjoy doing most. They have given birth to a new acronym; this one, the TPAAA (The People’s Assembly Against Austerity), is claiming that ‘anti- austerity’ views are not being given a sufficient hearing. Unlike government quangos, left-wing protest groups are not tax-payer rich; so whoever is appointed as overseer to the TPAAA, does it either from conviction or (more likely) through a pathological class hatred of the Tories.
            
            Protest groups are part of Left-wing culture; while the right (with the exception of the extreme fringes) prefer to vote at elections and live with the consequences until they get their chance to vote again. Conservative voters rarely take to the streets; although the issue of fox hunting did make them break cover briefly.
            
            No, on the whole it is the Left that enjoys being glared at by Lord Nelson in Trafalgar Square; that hallowed theatre of protest for the Left. Poor old Nelson has had to stand on his plinth having to listen to the likes of Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn, and George Galloway, all ranting at the top of their voices; while being cheered on by  a sea of Socialist Worker Party posters and hate filled young idealists thinking themselves and their ideas, the only workable future.
            
            As for the TPAAA; its leaders, know or care little about the £1.5 trillion national debt that our country has been allowed to accumulate - for the most part under a Labour government. They only feed on people’s fears and worries, offering support but little else in the way of a workable alternative. They just lay claim to people’s emotions using their fears for their own political purpose.
            
            I have little time for today’s politicians from any of the main parties. But at least this government is doing something to try and remove the economic blight off the shoulders of future generations. If we continue without radical reform, then those protesting against the austerity measures will have to explain to their children and grandchildren why their standard of living is lower than that which they themselves enjoyed for the better part of their lives.
           
            Parents are prepared to make all sorts of sacrifices for their children’s future. There has never been a point, even during the last war, or even in post-war history, when such a sacrifice is needed. Such sacrifice entails real austerity. Austerity which hurts and will be seen as being unfair by many people.
            
             I, for instance, object to the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ that comes, like many other cutbacks, into force today. First of all it is not a tax, even if it feels like one. But it horrifies me that people are expected to take in total strangers if they have a bedroom to spare (and no, I do not live in council or any other kind of social housing).
            
             This so-called reform has more to do with the lack of space wrought by opening the flood gates to immigration, than it does to reducing the national debt. For the national debt will not be reduced by any significant amount by any of the reforms that are implemented today –  Ian Duncan Smith has already said as much.

THE LEFT however, has to accept that real sacrifice of the nature experienced by those war time and post war generations under rationing is today once more needed. I am not suggesting such devices should be introduced today; I am only alluding to the propensity of the sacrifice that that generation, immediately following the war, had to put up with – this was true austerity.
            
            TPAAA is addressing a condition of austerity that bares little equivalence  to that described above. Yet they will ferment anger and protest. Comrade McCluskey has appeared Bill Gates like to announce (not the latest Microsoft edition)  but the latest acronym in the Left’s protest portfolio.
            
             My mind is dizzy counting the many synonyms the Left have issued over my 63 years as a onetime socialist and communist. They announce themselves as if their significance mattered to the population, who, in 90% of the causes they protest in favour of; 90% of the British people disagree with.
            
             The liberal Left as well as their socialist cousins, including within all the main parties as well as the BBC, represent a fringe group compared with the innate conservatism of the British people. Yet it is the sway these groups have only to matter.
            
             The TPAAA is a protest group to far ( I know little about its finances). They, as a union backed organisation  will be brought out to attack this Coalition. But strictly under comrade McCluskey’s  baton.

IT WILL BE his orchestration that will decide the TPAAA’s future targets. Austerity is the hand- break that brings over consumption back to reality. A reality that the TPAAA little understands because, rather than blaming such over consumption on the public as a whole, they prefer to blame the rich and powerful.
           
            Whether the likes of the TPAAA, or the politicians, seek to find an easier route than the very limited approach adopted by this government; then any such approach will not only increase the deficit, but will bring about a further reduction in our credit worthiness by the credit agencies; which will demand higher interest to be paid on any borrowing by a British government as a consequence: and if such borrowing magnifies without counter action on our  national debt - then financially, we will become like Greece.
            
             So TPAAA  should be cast aside. For they have only an impractical and naive grip (known as socialism) on economic reality and will betray the very people they seek to represent if their socialistic, virus like ideas, are to find any kind of home within the general population. If this latest Left-wing acronymic attempt at resurrecting state ownership achieves any kind of success, then, like North Korea and its Great Leader, Len McCluskey will, along with the British people, be left living on potage or even be in receipt of UN aid
             
            If we cannot come to terms with our trillion pound deficit, then we will indeed have to rely upon UN aid. A situation that even Greece has not yet experienced.
           
             My advice to the British people is to bite the bullet. They must suck it up, and must accept changes that go well beyond those that the Coalition have yet to come up with. Our national debt needs to be reduced, at least by 50% in order to settle the markets and remove the spectre of further downgrading of our credit status. If this does not happen then we will, as a nation, end our decline through insolvency.
           


           
            

Monday, April 1, 2013

The Holocaust plus


THE HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM (HMM) in Washington DC has carried out a13 year study of the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis. The figure of six million which has been the benchmark number since the end of the war  has been revised up by the museum to between 15-20 million people.

Hundreds of scholars have studied, not only the victims of all of the concentration camps such as Auschwitz as well as the Warsaw Ghetto; all of  whose numbers account for the commonly accepted figure. But the HMM  has researched  42,500 sites of Jewish persecution by the Nazis over the whole of occupied Europe. These include, for instance, those Soviet Jews, whose ethnicity was never taken into consideration when calculating the 20 million Soviet people killed under the Third Reich.

But even the well researched concentration camp systems have come under the HMM’s scrutiny; for there were many of these that were not researched. According to a report in the Independent newspaper: ‘Researchers conducting the bleak work of chronicling all the forced labour sites, ghettos and detention facilities run by Hitler’s regime alongside such centres of industrialised murder as Auschwitz have now catalogued more than 42,500 institutions used for persecution and death’.
            I have always believed that the six million total also included the many thousands of factories the Jews were forced to work in all over occupied Europe, with little or no care given them because such labour was cheap and plentiful. But the concentration camps, because of their cruel and industrialized method of gassing victims, became the headline for future students of the Second World War.
            The editors of this vast project are expected to have their research published in no less than seven volumes by 2225. From France to Romania Jews died in their millions according to the study. As the Independent points out:  ‘The figure has shocked academics and more than doubles an earlier finding by the same team that up to 20,000 sites were used. It casts a disturbing new light on the sheer scale of the machinery of imprisonment and oppression put in place by the Nazis throughout Europe, from Italy to Russia.’
But I doubt that the latest figures will be believed. Just as the  original six million figure has met with resistance, particularly in the Muslim world, but also on the European far Right and more recently parts of the Left because of their support for the Palestinians.  It appears that the Left  will seek benefit from the same disbelief : they will all pour ever greater scorn upon these revisions. I hope that this seven volume study will be published long before the date set by the Holocaust Museum. For their research is vital for modern Jewry; especially the Israeli’s.
Because of the Palestinian situation, the Left will readily join the Right in seeking to belittle the findings when they are printed. Only the Jews could unite both the European Left and the Right in seeking their return to the Diaspora which, for over 2,000 years, they had been forced to face the hatred of those they have been forced to live among.
If these findings become accepted by worldwide academia, then the Jews have an even greater claim upon the creation of their nation state. For 2,000 years the Jews have tried to live among us none Jews, and they have been persecuted. The Jewish state gives the Jews what we in this country, ironically, in this era of European modernism are seeking to give away – our nationhood.
THE JEWS WILL NOT go quietly into the night as far as their statehood is concerned. We in Europe, on the other hand, are all too willing to forgo our national identity in the common cause of a United States of Europe, even after a 2,000 year old history of nationhood.
A Jewish homeland is the safe-guard against persecution. It represents a retreat from anti-Semitism…an almost genetically induced prejudice against which the indigenous people in whatever nation they have sought to live within accepts. The Jews are the world’s scapegoats for whatever economic calamity befalls the nation in which they reside…especially in Europe. If only for this reason, the Jewish state of Israel deserves our support.
A Jewish state was the only recompense for what the Jews suffered under Nazism; not only in Germany, but in all the countries the Nazis occupied which had their own indigenous anti-Semitic prejudices, which the Nazis could manipulate and profit from.
All over occupied Europe the Nazis allowed age old anti-Semitic prejudices to flourish. Even in the UK we had similar prejudices against Jewry among our soon to be dissolved aristocracy. But we never entertained their persecution. But within the rest of Europe, the Jews were the ready scapegoats for whatever economic failure occurred.
No other minority has suffered such loathing throughout history as have the Jews. These revised figures shock, but do not surprise me. They recalculate the orgy of hatred that reached its historical climax in Europe between 1935-45. It was not only the Nazis that indulged in the holocaust: the further East you travel in Europe, even to this day, the Jews are seen as sub-human vermin who sacrificed Christian children in order to drink their blood.
Poland, Hungary, Russia, Lithuania, and the Balkans to name but a few; all did their bit to get the ‘wretched Jew’ off their backs. Hitler found willing accomplices among the European continent’s eastern nations regarding the Jews. Many of those peoples who suffered under Nazi occupation would have been sympathetic toward Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.
The Jews had to have a homeland. They tried for 2,000 years to integrate throughout the world; but the world rejected them. Zionism was born of a miserable history. Nothing, not even the experiences of  black slavery, could surpass the depths of cruelty inflicted on the Jews during the holocaust – the Jews deserved a homeland, and they now have one.
The ancient land of Judea, re-christened (sic) Palestine by the Emperor Hadrian after  the Jews were forced into the Diaspora, was the one and true part of the world that had belonged to the Jews, and they set about reclaiming it after the Second World War.
The modern state of Israel was created, and today it is the bugbear of the liberal West. The Jews turned a desert into flourishing agriculture – something the Palestinians never did while they occupied it.
As both a culture and a successful economy, the state of Israel surpasses its Arab neighbours in the quality of the lives provided to its citizens. In the field of technology, it has a world renowned reputation. In its brief 67 year history, the modern state of Israel has surpassed, in every field of economic development those of its neighbours. It inherited a desert and transformed it into an oasis.
BUT  NOW THE existence of Israel is under such a pressure unknown during its short history. Not even in those dark days when the state was caught unawares by the Yom-Kippur war, and Israel nearly met its end, did the Israelis feel abandoned by America. But under the presidency of Obama, the Jews of Israel would be forgiven for now feeling abandoned.
            Later this month President Obama is due to visit Israel to demand that Israel abandons its homeland development on the West Bank.  If the state of Israel has expanded, it has been because of territories won primarily through wars started by their Arab neighbours. The Six Day War in 1967 began as a result of Israeli intelligence, who had policed the intention of its Arab neighbours, including Egypt and Syria, to destroy the Jewish state. Israel acted as any nation would have, given such intelligence. The victory left Israel with land, including the Golan Heights owned by Syria and parts of the West Bank.
            Between the 6th and 25th of October 1973; the Arabs once more tried their luck. This time leaving the Israelis ignorant of what was in prospect as they had left the Arabs themselves in 1967. It was, as many a British general has had cause say, ‘a close run thing’. But thanks to America and Richard Nixon who supplied the Israelis with the armaments they needed; this latest attempt to annihilate the Jewish state was once more put on hold.
            The Jews have earned their statehood and will defend it. Any two-state ‘solution’ that leaves Israel weakened will not be a solution, but an invitation to further conflict. For if Israel is ever weakened enough by a two state solution, then the Palestinians will abandon any agreement entered into to put an end to the Jewish state once and for all. It is the very idea of a Jewish state in the region that so upsets the whole Arab world.
Yet Obama sides with the Muslim world; believing that if Israel were brought to book then the Islamist tide would turn. This calculation takes naivety to a level that only one who is sympathetic to the teachings of Islam could come up with. In other words, president Obama is prone, at the very least, to Muslim overtures.
The holocaust, it seems matters little to a black American president, who sees only his own black people, as his main focus. He, it has been speculated upon, is a Muslim. If this proves true, then the state of Israel had better look to its own defences rather than relying upon its long time USA ally -  at least until Obama serves his final term and leaves the political stage. After which the state of Israel can continue its appreciated alliance with America.


           




















Europe – the modern tower of Babel


"They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withheld from them which they purpose to do." "Come, let us go down and confound their speech." The Book of Genesis 11:19

ERIC PICKLES, the Secretary of State for Communities, is instructing councils up and down the country to stop printing information into up to 200 languages. The councils have (if Eric is right) acted misguidedly, by assuming that such a process was part of the equality legislation, which they were obliged to fulfil.
            Pickles is also right in demanding that one language only should be used to inform the British people. English is already the first language used in business worldwide. If people chose to live among us, then they must conform to our culture and learn our language.
Only under a multicultural society would such a diversity of different languages be encouraged and entertained, which is why Crawley Borough Council spends £600 publishing an expensive 12-page Homelink lifestyle magazine into Urdu simply because a single resident complained they could not read English.
            Another case reported by Eric Pickles is Southwark Council, which, would you believe, translates all of its communications into over 70 languages. According to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the cost of translation services in the public sector amounts to nearly £100 million a year.
            This is diversity in action. Our schools in many parts of the country have to cope with up to a 100 different languages. Multiculturalism means that each language should be equal to the other and given the same resources; which often means the provision of translators.
In our hospitals and GP surgeries, translators are called upon to intervene between doctor and patient. In my own district hospital I counted 13 different tongues being used for various posters in and around the hospital. In my own GP surgery I once sat waiting to see my doctor as the sole representative of the mother tongue among 20 patients waiting to see their GP.
In the part of the town where I have lived all of my life (I am 63 today), I now hear foreign tongues where once Norfolk accents were heard, as well as other regional accents during the summer months. I can walk from my house to a branch of Iceland at the top of my road, and on many occasions have only heard a foreign tongue - usually Portuguese or Eastern European.
WE, THE indigenous people must remain supreme in our own land. Just as the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Pakistani, remain supreme in their land. If people from abroad seek residency among us, then they must first of all conquer the English tongue, instead of expecting multiculturalism to exonerate them from the task. They must then refrain from putting the culture they onced lived with above the one they now profess themselves belonging to. If they find this impossible, (which of course I would) then they should return home from where they or their ancestors came; and no human rights court should stand in the way of their deportation if they refuse to go.
            Not only in this country, but all over Europe, centuries old cultures are being diluted by multiculturalism – that great liberal wet dream. Europe has allowed (probably through a misguided sense of colonial guilt) each and every foreign tongue that we once ruled, to come and live among us.
             In doing so Europe has only augmented its historical decline. Colonial guilt and its repercussion of allowing millions of former colonists to live within the continent; has brought Europe to its eventual downfall.
LIBERAL WEAKNESS AND GUILT  has driven modern Europe, including the UK since the end of the Second World War. Which is why the European continent is now home to over 15 million Muslims, as well as millions of other nationalities unfamiliar with the countries they now live within.
            But my concern is with the UK. Eric Pickles has sought to reform Immigration by demanding that they should swear, as they do in the USA, an allegiance to the country they find themselves within; as well as its people and their culture, which they have chosen to live among. If they cannot fulfil such a requirement in the UK, then the European Court of Human Rights has no say in their deportation back to their various homelands.
            Multiculturalism is anathema to 80 per cent of the UK’s indigenous white population[1]. The other 20 per cent represent the liberal hegemony who control all the levers of power in a multicultural society. What this means is that a powerful, but numerically limited liberal dominion oversees every aspect of multiculturalism.
            I hope Eric Pickles is successful in his quest for a single tongue. But I believe he knows that it is not achievable. He is just making the right sounds to entice back to the fold those Tories who have gone over to UKIP. If so, Eric cannot be believed unless he helps rid the Tory Party of Cameron; which he has no intention of doing as one of his ministers.
           
           



           















[1] This is a guess; but an educated one

The supremacy of the minority


ALL MINORITIES have become privileged people in our liberal society. They are listened to most assiduously, and there complaints, which usually take the form of a campaign resulting in, shall we say street activity involving lighted candles; are all treated preferentially by our politicians. Whether gay, bisexual, black, brown, transgender, or members of the travelling community as well as, no doubt, in the future, paedophiles: all such minorities will be able to command the ear of  politicians and the liberal media.
            
              They now take precedence over the White Heterosexual British (WHB). In our town halls and throughout the country taxpayers money is being dispersed like oversees aid to these ‘special’ groups. Resentment is rife at the way the WHB taxes are being spent, as well as the way their concerns are ignored in preference to those of whatever politically correct minority is seeking what they regard as their entitlements. Those in authority over us (particularly in the town halls) have been well schooled into accepting multiculturalism and diversity. They treat any member of any minority with such keenness as if they had discovered a cure for all cancers.
            
              The Gay community for instance are like irascible children being dragged around a supermarket by their mothers demanding everything that takes their eye on the shelves; and if refused, they fall to the floor kicking and screaming. The Gays demand to be allowed to marry; so the politicians, many of whom are themselves are gay, kow-tow to what we are told is as their human right. Then gays demand the right to foster children – so enter Elton John to promote such an activity.
            
             Racism in football is being targeted. Racism is ugly and should be ignored by footballers if it amounts to verbal abuse. If it amounts to a physical threat then the criminal law is there to act, and should do so. But name calling of a racial nature has been made illegal; another privilege aimed at servicing minorities.
            
            On the football pitch when, has as happened recently, a black player has been  racially abused by another player, and the player accused is sent to the benches for two or three games -  then what power does this give to some chippy black player? Or more likely, a black player who wants nothing more than to gain an advantage in a game for his team. If professional footballers can dive theatrically; then such players can use their colour to achieve the same advantage for their team in a match.
            
            This is the consequence of outlawing ‘racism’ in football. It hands power to the black player and breeds fear into the authorities. Racism in football can only be ended by the passing of the generations, not by the FA or any other administrative body covering football worldwide .

AS FAR AS ANOTHER minority community is concerned; I believe even the liberals are losing patience with them. The so-called travelling community, who lay claim to land that they have no legal entitlement to own, but because of the tortuous legalities involved, they sit tight in claiming it as their own.
            
            First of all travellers are not gypsies; they are Irish vagabonds (called travellers) who have managed to accumulate wealth because of our liberal tolerance of their life-style, including until recently, the profitable use of slavery, targeting the homeless and imprisoning them, while using them as slave labour to help tarmac driveways.
            
            Many of these Irish travellers own countless properties in the Irish Republic; bought by their flouting of the law in the UK supported by the liberalarte throughout the liberal media including the BBC and the Guardian.
            
ANOTHER MINORITY  living among us are the Pakistani community – Muslims all. They are over two million strong and living as citizens of the UK. They represent the Muslim majority in this country. They have numerous, what we WHBs would describe as quangos, overseeing the welfare of their Pakistani communities and are welcomed onto, particularly the BBC, whenever an Islamic issue arises.
           
              In Syria today it is being claimed that 100 British Muslims are supporting the Syrian opposition, an admittedly minute assemblance, but upon their return to British soil could cause MI5 a great deal of worry if they return as Islamists. This is the worry that haunts our politicians. They, because of our country’s Islamic population are left fearful and constrained. Which is why our politician’s tied the hands of our soldiers in Afghanistan.
            
              Most of  the WHB are feeling excluded and have been forced to keep their mouths shut for fear of committing a hate crime. When children in Rochdale are kidnapped and abused by a gang of Pakistani men, the police are afraid to act; when there are honour killings, female circumcision and children brutally exorcised of ‘evil spirits’; the WHBs remain silent, as they have always had to, for fear of charges of racism, homophobia, etcetera.
            
              We as a country are going to go through very difficult and frightening economic times. Inter culture antagonism will grow as the housing shortage and pupil overflow in our schools grows, and the welfare state takes a hit. The NHS will face becoming a second rate service struggling to cater for a population which has been grown artificially by the previous government, hoping to bring the worst out of the Tories whom they perceived as pathologically racist.
           
              I can honestly say that, believing what I see as the kind of future this nation faces, I would not want to be born into it. Our children and grandchildren have been badly let down by my generation in particular – the so-called, want it all now, baby-boomers.
            
              But also by the ideology which was part of the baggage of that has been passed down through the generations since. This  liberal consensus set about changing the country and its institutions. It captured academia and all that flowed from it…tributaries of comprehensive schools, a loathing of the Grammar schools, and a hatred of private education. The left also seized control of another once great institution – the BBC. But it’s grip on every aspect of our system of education was a coup ďétat. For was it not the Jesuits who said, give me a child of seven, and I will give you a catholic for life.

EVENTUALLY, through the control of education; over generations the liberal culture, like a virus, achieved a hegemony over our nation’s culture; and sought about diminishing it. A liberal hegemony that gave birth to multiculturalism, and eventually the opening up of the floodgates to migration from all four corners of the compass.
            
            We, the majority of WHBs, have had to sit on the sidelines since the 1960s, our mouths tightly shut and frightened of being compared to Enoch Powell by the Left. A comparison, which, like that of being witches in the 17th century, was enough to keep ones mouth tightly zipped.
            
            But today Powell’s name is about to become part of a British Renaissance. He understood that cultures as diverse, as, for instance , the Hindu and Muslim cultures in India; they could never tolerate each other; and so it proved with the exodus of the Muslims from India, after hundreds of thousands of deaths on all sides. Thus East and West Pakistan emerged: followed by internal strife between Muslims; and Bangladesh was created.
            
             In today’s Muslim world Shia and Sunni Muslims are at each other’s throats. The only thing that seems to unite them is their loathing of the West and Christianity in particular; which is being persecuted throughout the Muslim world today with little apparent interest taken by the liberal media in this country.
            
            Minorities are minorities because they cannot live together. Their cultures are so diverse to be tolerated because they have entrenched cultural positions, cemented in their DNA over millennia. They can however tolerate each other through a kind of apartheid. They can have residency apart within different city districts. Districts like China Town, Golders Green, Seven Seas Road, Earl’s Court. Such names suggest areas of minority occupancy – including Chinese, Jewish, Irish, and Australian.
              
            But multiculturalism was not meant to be about apartheid, but integration. I do not know whether to pity or hate those liberal evangelists of multiculturalism who sought, on the one hand to allow diversity of different cultures, yet expect them to live together . What multiculturalism does is set cultures apart. The majority of WHBs only want their nation back. These islands have been our home for millennia. Neither the Romans, Saxons, the Viking raiders, or the Normans entered these isle without a fight. Yet today’s boarder agency is armed with only a rubber stamp and indifference to the threat to their nation.
            
            In a multicultural society the minorities have the upper hand and reign supreme over the indigenous peoples of these isles because of a liberal hegemony. The minorities sway is supreme and it still goes unchallenged through fear of the dreaded hate crime.

OUR RACIAL MINORITIES should adapt to the monoculture of the United Kingdom. They should not be allowed to introduce their culture as equal to it. But this is what liberal multiculturalism has set in train; a measure that goes against the beliefs of the majority of the British people; but because of liberal arrogance, has been allowed to proceed. This liberal arrogance is part and parcel of all the three main parties, and it is to them that the decline of the UK will be attributed to by history.