Feminists win again

WELL OUR MIDDLE CLASS feminists have got their way once more. From 2017, perhaps the most original mind of all time will have to vacate his place on the £10 note in order to make way for the most shallow.

           

            Jane Austen is set to replace Charles Darwin. George Gissing referred  to Austen's contribution to literature, as nothing more than 'village gossip': and as my well read brother said, on hearing the news. 'She wrote six novels with the same plot'. I however, am not as well read as my brother, but after reading Pride and Prejudice, I never went near another Austen novel, although I have watched adaptations of her novels on television…and my brother was right - it was like watching BBC repeats.

           

           Pride and Prejudice infuriated me. I wanted to strangle Mrs Beckett and shake the bones of her weak and insipid husband until they lay in a pile, crushed at my feet. As for the arrogant Darcy, he was right in his opinion of the Becket family, but his infatuation with Elizabeth Beckett allowed his feelings to get the better of his rational and wholly objective analysis of the Beckett family auction, where the matriarch wielded the auctioneers hammer.

            

           Austen was no writer of significance and has only been seen as such by modern feminists whose sense of literature seems only to encompass what George Orwell once described as shop-girl literature. Austen was no George Elliot, or Emily and Charlotte Bronte; all of whom were more worthy of a place on a £10 note than this earliest example of  Mills and Boon 'literature'.

TO REMOVE DARWIN from a bank note to replace him with such an insignificant personage as Austen could only have been accomplished at a time when sexism is treated in much the same way as treason in the Elizabethan age.

            

            The Bank of England has kow-towed to middle class feminism. But the middle class feminists are as ignorant of literature as a chimpanzee tearing up the works of Shakespeare. There were far more worthy women authors than the wretched Austen to merit a place on a bank note.

            

            It has also been pointed to the feminist tribe that one of their own, the Queen, has her head has a permanent place on ALL bank notes of whatever denomination. But the middle class feminists are not royalist by nature and therefore see the queen's presence as inadmissible. So what about another great woman who recovered the countries fortunes? What about Margaret Thatcher? She at least deserves a presence on a bank note before Austen - but feminists do not even regard her as a woman - so she has also been declared inadmissible.

            

            The appointment of Jane Austen as a suitable replacement for Charles Darwin on the £10 note is nothing more than political correctness without any literary merit; and the administrators of the Bank of England, like every other public institution, has bowed down to middle class feminism; fearful of being regarded as sexist.

           

             Sexism, racism, homophobia and Islamaphobia, have all become the modern replacement for traitor, and anyone in a position, like the new Governor of the Bank Of England, to go against such a brew so early in his appointment would not be thought a clever move in such times.

           

           

           

           

An answer to png683

UNDER A PIECE in today's Sunday Telegraph about Europe written by Christopher Booker, the following reply was authored by png683 in the public comment section, and it is worth reproducing, as it expresses an aspect of our relationship with Europe that is one of inevitability; a fatalism that the Europhiles hope will find a ready home among the British people. The full png683 reply is as follows:

'Leaving the EU won’t solve any of Britain’s problems, which are primarily lack of competitiveness, ruinously high household debt levels and a servile relationship with the US.

The EU is the world’s biggest free trade area – that means it discriminates against imports from non-members. If Britain pulled out, multinationals and home-grown exporters would be seriously hurt, not to mention the all-important City of London.

Major industries operate globally today. The UK has sold off most of its industry and is now mainly a branch-plant location. It must compete with developing countries for foreign investment on the basis of its low-wage, non-union labour force – and EU membership. Foreign capital would simply leave if Britain pulled out, increasing unemployment and debt levels.

The most reactionary forces in Britain want the UK to leave the EU because their control of the country is threatened by Brussels (and Europe’s leading nation, Germany). They are supported by an army of little Englanders, energized by crude propaganda and understandable anti-immigrant rage. Their cause is greatly helped by the EU’s undemocratic structures and practices, mismanagement and corruption.

But UKIP isn’t the answer to anything. If successful, it would actually increase British dependence on the US, which has proved so dangerous and damaging in recent years. Rather, Britain is ideally placed – by history, tradition, culture and entitlement -- to lead the push for reform of the EU and help to build a better continent'.

First of all, Britain's problems will not be solved by being a member of the EU - simply because, if we remain chained to this body, Britain will no longer exist as a nation state under political and monetary union. As for this country's competiveness, it is surely more healthy to continue away from such a social democratic entity as the EU, that seeks to restrict through over regulation, its natural ambivalence to capitalism.

            Being the world's greatest free trade area would be fine, if it were such. Its area may be great, but the freedom of its trade will be brought into question if the UK left the EU and they refused to trade with us. But even if the UK remained within a United States of Europe as a mere canton, with its history and culture now abandoned - is this truly what the  English people want?

            As for the City of London being, along with  'multinationals and home-grown exporters', seriously hurt. Well, the 'all-important City of London' , like any financial free market, can never be any friend to a stifling over regulated entity such as the social democratic European Union would seek to impose. A social democratic United States of Europe, would, by its very political nature, show a certain encumbrance toward the financial markets. Whereas a United Kingdom (if both Scotland and Wales wish to keep it as such) would, because of its empirical nature, welcome minimal but effective regulation.

            As for the flight of foreign capital if we left; I doubt that any multinational or financial company would forgo the lowest taxes in Europe; which, by being separate from the EU, we would be able to offer them… on top of having the right to negotiate our own trading relationship with the rest of the world. Despite what we are told, and what png683 seems to believe, we would still be able to trade with the rest of Europe.

            Free trade is free trade, and if the EU believes in it and practices it, they cannot deny it to any other nation. Meanwhile the Germans will continue selling us their BMWs by the thousands; the French their wine, the Spanish their tourism… and not even a social democratic Europe as a whole would forgo making a profit out of 63 million British citizens.

            As a referendum gets ever nearer, the scare stories will abound.  The more shocking and alarming they become, it will only serve to prove  the true measure of how desperate the Europhiles will have become, if they see no movement in the polls in their direction leading up to a referendum.

PNG683 says, 'The most reactionary forces in Britain want the UK to leave the EU because their control of the country is threatened by Brussels (and Europe’s leading nation, Germany'). By 'reactionary forces', he obviously includes the likes of myself.

            For a start we 'reactionary forces' no longer control this country, and have not done so since the beginning of the post war years. Over that period the so-called 'progressive' agenda has taken hold of our whole culture. Today this nation is under the control of a liberal hegemony that does not recognise political parties. We 'reactionaries' are indeed worried that the control of our nation is being freely handed over to Brussels without any kind of input from the British people in the form of an in/out  referendum. If such a referendum were to be given and resulted in a victory for the 'in' lobby; then we 'reactionaries' would bow to any overwhelming verdict, just as I hope png683 would if it went in the other direction. Us 'reactionaries' are supported, according to  png683, by Little Englanders… but are they not both the same thing?

ALTHOUGH WE know nothing of png683's true identity; he does give us a clue to his politics through some of the phrases he deploys; phrases such as us Little Englanders being, ' energized by crude propaganda and understandable anti-immigrant rage;' while our cause is, '… greatly helped by the EU’s undemocratic structures and practices, mismanagement and corruption'. Yet despite this png683 still has faith in a United States of Europe.

            Png683 is pro-European Union, but a reformer. He could be a member of any Europhile wing of any of the three major parties, and would support David Cameron's so-called,  re-negotiation of our relationship with Europe. Png683, like Cameron, believe it to be purely a matter of democratic reform…at least he has grasped the fact that the EU's current undemocratic set-up can be cynically likened to the reign of Louie IV (the Sun King) - where also, in modern Europe, unelected commissioners parade like the king's eunuchs, under the unelected President José Manuel Barroso latterly of Portugal - and a onetime Maoist, no less.

            What makes me believe that png683 is either a Liberal Democrat or a Labour Party supporter or member, is his following contribution, 'But UKIP isn’t the answer to anything. If successful, it would actually increase British dependence on the US, which has proved so dangerous and damaging in recent years. As a onetime Lefty myself before becoming a 'reactionary Little Englander', I was anti all things American. At the time I would have entered into a Mephistophelean pact to see the  USA brought to its knees - even if it had meant sacrificing my nation.

            The Left have, since the end of the Second World War, hated the USA, so when such a phrase as anything is better than an, ' …increase British dependence on the US'  is used, it must originate from the Left.

            As for Ukip; on the two most important issues of this time in our nation's history - immigration and a Federal Europe; they are in tune with the indigenous British people who are not racists or xenophobes, but merely people who wish to remain homorganic, as many of the nations from which our migrants arrive still remain.

            The European liberals would like to pronounce the nation state dead and buried, and it would be if it were not for nationalist parties like Ukip mushrooming throughout the continent. Ukip is not racist - and not to believe in multiculturalism is not racist. Ukip has reached out to many voters that none of the other pro-European  parties wish to embrace - this does not make Ukip, or their supporters racist.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK png683 for allowing me to disabuse him of his opinions regarding those of us who stand full square against a United States of Europe. The nation state is not dead on the say-so of the likes of Barroso, or, in this country, the likes of Peter Mandelson, Nick Clegg , Ken Clarke, and the whole cacophony of establishment voices determined upon seeing this nation state reduced to a mere canton within a Greater Europe comprising just nine regions.

            As a 'reactionary Little Englander' I have said above that if it is the wish of the British people to abandon their indigenous culture through a referendum, then so be it. At the age of 63, I would not stand in the way of a future that had the overwhelming support of the British people. I would die contented, if not happy, had a referendum been allowed and overwhelmingly endorsed in favour of being a canton within the continent of Europe. At least the British people would have had their say. But as things stand now, there is an almighty stink emanating from Whitehall that seeks to always undermine the electorate whenever they seek a referendum.

           

           

           

           

           

           

Spare a thought for our crestfallen san-culottes

I HAVE THIS IMAGE. It is a room in a flat, where the curtains shut out the light. Something of a violent nature has occurred. The flat screen television has had its lead severed from the mains, and in the small waste paper basket parked by the sofa can be seen a laptop poking out. Two empty bottles of wine, one lying on its back, the other sitting upright beside an empty glass. The smell is of bladder  processed alcohol that emanates from a bucket beside the sofa; while on the sofa lies a sleeping individual blissfully unaware of the world.

            

             This, to me, is hopefully the image of a republican after the wall to wall coverage of the birth of a future king at St. Mary's Hospital in Paddington, London: an address that has become all too familiar with the world's media and the people they serve.

            

             The birth of the Royal heir has indeed captured the imagination of the world ( with the exception of Europe). In America where royalty is judged according to celebrity status, Kate and William are considered AA listed.

            

             Like all new born babies, Kate and William's look like Winston Churchill and will do so until he reaches the heady age of six months. Then he will start to show resemblances to his parents and the crinkly mounds and slopes of birth will have been conquered by these few short months…for as great as the great man was,  no one would want their newborn to continue with his likeness much beyond birth - including the great man himself.

BUT WHAT A MISERABLE DAY  it was for our tribe of republicans. The BBC did what they felt they had to do on the day as usual[1]. It was not always so, as the BBC could be trusted to reflect the popular will within and outside of London when it came to the monarchy; today the geography of England outside of London is a foreign country, it seems, to the modern BBC, who have to bribe their employees to live in Salford.

             

             Royalty is the one trusted institution that the British public can rally around. The politicians have disappointed, and any suggestion that any of them could be considered a president within a republic would bring a tolerant people on to the streets.

            

             The birth of a future king beyond Elizabeth, Charles, and William, must cause much misery to a republican, as it suggests that their hope of a republic will be further delayed with every new-born heir that is offered up. The republican hope is that a politician will one day prove more popular than a monarch, which is indeed hope forlorn.

            

             The republican high water mark was Princess Diana's death when the royals were brought kicking and screaming back to London from Balmoral for her funeral. But these republican salad days are long gone and the house of Windsor is more popular now than it has ever been, and I hope many more heirs will follow young George, and we have many more days when the Royal family are given wall to wall coverage by the media: days when sour-faced republicans cry into their wine, cursing the great deluded unwashed who, without a semblance of decorum, fawn and fret in front of the television lens over the birth of a future monarch.

           

             As for me, well, I will wet the baby's head - cheers! 

---

[1] After all, they only survive as an institution through taxation.

It's the block vote stupid

A POLL CONDUCTED by Tory donor Lord Ashcroft, suggests that if Ed Milliband is successful in his desire to see trade union members allowed to opt in to donating to the Labour Party, then it could prove very costly to the party.

            The poll's findings found that only 12% of Unite members would join the Labour party if given this choice. Unite members were also asked in the poll how they would vote if there were an election tomorrow, and the results were fascinating. Less than half would vote Labour on 49%, while 23% would vote Tory, and Ukip would get 12% support, leaving the Lib Dems with just 7%.

            You can see in these figures the injustice of the present system where trade union members have no say in how the union bosses spend their money. They were just taken for granted by their union who still believe that if they are members of a trade union, it follows as surely as night follows day, they must be supporters the Labour Party. This is the fiction the union bosses have believed for decades, and between say, the post war Atlee government and the rise of Margaret Thatcher, the unions could feel comfortable in such a belief. But they kept on believing long after Thatcher ignited the home owning democracy that liberated so many council tenants.

            This is why both unions and the Labour Party hated Margaret Thatcher so much. She broke the cosy relationship between the union members and the Labour Party. The 1970s gave birth to Thatcherism, and I need not refresh the memories of people my age, why this was so.

            If Ed Milliband succeeds in his battle with the unions regarding party funding, it would be no mean achievement. But for a Clause IV moment to arrive, he would have to abandon the Divine Right of the Block Vote. Only this will convince us sceptics that the unions have been castrated from all power and influence within the Labour Party; until then Ed will not be taken seriously.

BUT THE runes do not look very promising for Ed.  After the Falkirk vote rigging scandal Ed promised an investigation into such vile practices. The nation sat glued to their televisions and queued at newsstands to await the announcement of the nature of Ed's investigation into the long history of crooked union practices.

            When it came, Ed announced that Lord Collins would lead the investigation. Well, we thought…a Lord! The Labour Party are against the House of Lords, so any member appointed to lead an investigation must truly be independent and can relied upon to council a fare outcome.

            Well an interesting article by Andrew Pierce in the Daily Mail has poured buckets of cold water over Lord Collins. When just plain Ray Collins, in 1985, he was regarded as the 'Office Manager' at Transport House, the old Transport and General Workers Union headquarters. In that period all finalised voting slips were held in a cupboard at Transport House. At the time, Ray Collins must have been invested with the oversight of such valuable documents. However 9,500 ballot papers vanished from Transport House, almost a 1000 of which were later discovered torn in two and found on a rubbish tip in London. As 'Office Manager, Ray Collins would have known where the ballot papers had been stored.

            But this was not to be the end of it. According to Andrew Pierce, in 2009 Ray Collins was a player in another voting scandal. It revolved around the election of a parliamentary Labour candidate in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency in South London, which was rocked by a vicious dirty tricks campaign. By now Collins had become the General Secretary of the Labour Party, and ordered the ballot papers to be brought to the Labour Party Headquarters and put in a sealed box in another secured cupboard similar to that at Transport House in 1985.

            Once more the box was broken into and the whole process had to be begin again. Which brings me to the candidates that were fighting this election. The Blairite candidate for this constituency was Georgia Gould (aged 22), and the daughter of Philip Gould a close advisor to New Labour and a cohort of Tony Blair. The outcry that followed  destroyed any chance Georgia had of ever being chosen as a candidate.

            Collins did his best but it was never enough. He is now a Lord of all things, given in pandering service to both the trade union movement and the Labour Party. Now to be regarded by Ed Milliband as an independent voice.

OF COURSE, vote rigging has always been part of trade union culture, and so is taking union members for granted; but now Ed insists that things will change, with prospective Labour Party candidates having to fight an American style primary instead of the current corrupt  practice that very nearly saw Georgia Gould selected as a party candidate.

            But sadly as welcome as all this is, the unions will still dominate party democracy in the one area where it matters to MPs, members, and activists. Much of party policy is debated and voted upon at the annual party congress held each autumn. Here the unions wield the block vote and can, so to speak, have complete control of the party's tiller. They will oppose the leadership and membership on any debate that they consider not to be in their interests.

            The block vote is perhaps the worst abuse of democracy of all. It is comparable to the ancient  Divine Right to rule that many monarchs enjoyed up to the arrival of  William of Orange. The 'block-head' vote comes from a similar archaic pedigree as the Divine Right, and should have been done away with decades ago; it was not brought to an end however, simply because it came to the aid of the leadership when it faced a challenge from the activists who were overwhelmingly of the Left and dominated conference (especially in the 1980's): but even then, their loyalty often came at a price.

            Only when this ancient and (in terms of democracy) feudal practice has been finally done away with by a Labour Party leader, then, and only then, will another Clause IV moment have arrived for the party leadership. In the meantime both union leaders and Labour party members, but especially its MPs, should take full cognisance of the poll commissioned by Lord Ashcroft.     

More bits and pieces

I PREDICT that within the next three decades, paedophilia will be made legal after the age of 10. It is a shocking prospect but one which fits neatly into the liberal paradigm. To today's liberals this suggestion will be shocking ( that is of course, if any of them read it). But such a 'liberal' embrace of such a poisonous subject actually occurred during the 1970s, when a group known as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), sought affiliation with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) later to become Liberty - and had it granted. At the time, the legal advisor to the NCCL was none other than Harriet Harman, and the NCCL's director was Patricia Hewitt the one time minister in a Labour government.

            

            At the time (1978) when PIE was affiliated to the NCCL, the organisation argued in favour of  incest and that all sexually explicit photographs of children should be made legal, unless the subject had suffered harm - and this was agreed to as a good liberal compromise.

            

            Of course, neither Harriet or Patricia has had to account for their behaviour today; but in 1976 the NCCL in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, asserted that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage…".  Is not progressive politics wonderful?

            

            No doubt the NCCL believed themselves to be ahead of the progressive liberal times and would be vindicated by history, as all progressive types believe themselves to be. No doubt the torch of paedophilia will be carried in coming decades by future liberals.

            

             For the liberal progressive triumph continues following the legalising of gay marriage and adoption… so then what other conservative dragons need to be slayed?  Well future liberals will see children in a different light. Paedophiles will, like the Gay community, deserve a  place in the great emporium of liberal tolerance.

            

             Children will be exposed to sexual abuse. Their parent's will have no right to plead on their children's behalf as long as the sexual abuse was 'willingly engaged in' by either their son or daughter. What a pit of moral despair we would have invited upon ourselves if the likes of Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman had been allowed to continue their paedophile brief on behalf of PIE.

*                                  *                                  *                                  *

NEXT WEEK the Government's Trident Review is due to be published. At the moment we have four Vanguard Class submarines carrying Trident ballistic missiles. This arrangement allows for a permanent presence at sea, and any reduction from four to two, or even three, would leave the seas empty of a UK nuclear deterrence for periods.

            

             I support the present arrangement, for without a permanent presence at sea any future enemy would have an easy target with no fear of a response: like beached whales our remaining  two or three submarines would be easy targets to be picked off , as they would be tethered to a dock.

            

             So, if we are to have an effective  nuclear deterrent, it has to be effective or else  it will be another case of further billions of taxpayer's money washed down the drain. I would sooner see us with no deterrent, than one that falls short of any true meaning of the description.

            

             There is however another aspect to having a nuclear deterrence, other than its capabilities. Would our modern generation of politicians ever be prepared to launch a counter attack on an enemy knowing that it would result in the deaths of millions of human beings? I think not.

            

              I cannot imagine Cameron, Miliband, Clegg, or for that matter, any crop of future prime ministers even contemplating  unleashing the ultimate deterrent. They will say they would, but they will never be believed by their own people, let alone an enemy. If for instance, our armed forces fighting in Afghanistan have to take cognisance of civilian casualties before they open fire (whether from land or the skies) on the enemy; and if a sniper has to ask permission of a senior officer before he is allowed to kill the enemy[1]; then what spirit is there among our politicians for unleashing Armageddon?

            

             Our military has been  effectively neutered on the battlefield by politicians frightened of their reputations and the result of the next election. As a class, our modern politicians would never contemplate using a nuclear option under any circumstance. Since the Second World War, there has been only two prime ministers who would have launched our nuclear deterrent if it had proved to be necessary; Churchill and Thatcher (remember the outcry in the UK when she ordered the sinking of the General Belgrano?).

           

             If today's politicians and future politicians cannot be relied upon to push the final button; then why should we pour billions into the next generation of nuclear deterrence. It would be better, in these days of so-called 'austerity' to go naked into the world and keep our hospitals open.

*                                  *                                  *                                  *

THERE IS ANOTHER REPORT that has caught my eye…a secret report no less. The sponsor of the report is the Unite union and its author is Steve Hart. Hart is a name familiar to those of us one time Labour voters now in the early 60s. For Steve Hart is the son of the late Judith Hart the Left-wing cabinet minister who was prominent in the Labour governments of the 1960s and 70s.

           

              Her son Steve has, in his report, attacked Ed Miliband's Labour Party. But my interest was occasioned by his reference to Ukip in his 'secret' report. I, like many thousands of one time Labour voters in my age range, have turned to Ukip in latter life as many others should do. We are not racists or xenophobes, as Mr Hart likes to consider us because of our concerns about uncontrolled immigration and the European Union.

            

              This is part of what Steve wrote about Ukip; "The UKIP vote represents a dangerous, populist Right-wing vote which is swayed by anti-immigrant and anti-European rhetoric – and nostalgia for a comfortable world that never really existed," he latter continues, "These are all the hallmarks of pre-fascist movements – which is not to say that UKIP is fascist, because it isn’t, but to point to the dangers of ignoring them and the issues or attempting to chase them.’

            First of all Mr Hart has suckled at his mother's Left-wing breast and sees any form of nationalism as 'pre-fascist', such is the Left-wing orthodoxy. He also sees any criticism of  the swamping of migrants into our indigenous culture as racist. He then offers the formula, European scepticism plus anti-migration equals "pre-fascism". Despite the fact that the latter part of the equation has resulted in pressures on our NHS that may lead to its eventual decline.

            People like Hart are idealists who tend to ignore reality or insult those pragmatic minds that try to warn against such a folly. As a first time Ukip voter, I am not trying to recover a past that I believed to be rose tinted. As far as the charge of xenophobia is concerned, yes, I believe in the nation state; and what is wrong with such a belief? Whereas our political elite are fully prepared to destroy it and make us a mere county council[2] within the Greater Europe (and if this is not pre fascist, then what is?).

            As far as migration is concerned; Ukip, like most Tory and Labour voters, are concerned about their numbers, and how those numbers will affect the life chances, whether in education, the NHS, or housing, of the indigenous white population. Hart chooses to ignore such an impact, believing that it is a conspiracy of the Right.

            As a former aide to Ken Livingstone, Mr Hart's report is a tendentious piece that serves its purpose regarding the author's own prejudices. He is not (academically speaking), a neutral observer engaged upon dispassionate research. He is a Left-wing ambassador clinging to his mother's apron strings and seeking to fulfil her dream of universal socialist love.

             

---

[1] As has happened in Afghanistan

[2] Ken Clarke (not one would have thought a friend of Mr Hart) actually looks forward to the day

"three generations of imbeciles are enough"

“What we as eugenicists have got to do is to ‘scrap’ the old Poor Law with its indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.” Sidney and Beatrice Webb

HERE IS A SCIENTIFICALLY unproven observation but one which rings true. Most eugenicists have emerged from liberalism and socialism. Historically, among their number were the Webb's, Marie Stopes[1], John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, Virginia Woolf , D H Lawrence, and Oswald Mosley.

           

            Fascist has been the traditional sobriquet applied to the Right by the Left. But the Left itself [2](especially today) share the same impulses and outlook of fascism when it comes to eugenics (and also, in the case of national socialism - economics). Eugenics means filtering from the genetic pool those individuals who are deemed unworthy of the name human. Unworthy in the sense of an inherited mental or physical impairment that they, the eugenicists, deem unfit to survive and may prove to be a "burden" on society.

            

             Now, modern liberal's and socialists may say this is all true of the past, but today they proclaim themselves more enlightened, and more than a bit embarrassed by the behaviour of their heroes. But if I were, for instance, Archibald Church, an MP and member of the Fabian Society in the 1930's who introduced a Bill in parliament to press for the sterilisation of “those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community”: and if I returned for a brief visit to 2013, I would congratulate today's politicians for the advancement in eugenics that they had created; as well as the scientists for making it all possible.

            

            Also, if I were Archibald Church I would award a Nobel Laureate, not to a scientist, but to one of my own calling- a politician. It would be David Steel who, as a Liberal MP, introduced the 1967 Abortion Act in parliament that came into law. The act was introduced on the back of back-street abortions that brought ignominy, or, even in a few cases, death to those who were its victims, which, needless to say were tragic.

            

            Since the 1967 Act, the embryo has lost all status, while eugenics has flourished. We were told that the Abortion Act would mean no more than the destruction of a few thousand embryos a year. We now know, in 2013, that the act has resulted in over 240,000 abortions conducted each and every year. Which tells me that abortion is being used merely as another form of contraceptive which not only cheapens life, but encourages the belief that the embryo is mere waste matter, like toilet paper filled from the residue of a wiped arse.

BUT IF HEALTHY embryos are being disregarded in such a lazier-fare manner - then what about the unhealthy embryos. Well, while the healthy ones are subject to a time limit, those deemed eugenically flawed can be destroyed at any time before or soon after their birth. If this is not an act comparable to Nazism, then I know not what is.

            

             To help justify such an arrangement needs professional ethical legitimacy, and it comes from Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva[3] who wrote a piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics,  and sees new born babies as not actual persons and therefore subject to post-natal abortion.

            

             These two reprobates, for what else can we call them, are the perfect follow-up to Nazism. They consider that any human being born that cannot comprehend their environment as fully functioning human beings, has no entitlement upon life. This does not only include the physically or mentally disabled, but also any fully fit child immediately after birth (including themselves). At least the Nazis picked and choose who they experimented upon and sent to the gas chambers.

            

             They argue that not only does the foetus not have any automatic right to any kind of human status, they also consider that the new born are equally bankrupt of such an identity, and killing a newly born child would be no different from killing a 14 week foetus. Rather than being "actual persons", newborns were merely "potential persons". They then proceed to make their case.

            

             My point is that advocating a time line of abortion which includes birth, is being made today because back in the 1960s, Steel's Abortion act set time limits on abortion and judged those limits to be based on the same criteria[4] used by  Giubilini and Minerva, who prove the same criteria can be used equally to allow  us to "abort" the newly born.

            

            We see the lengths we can go to once abortion is legalised, and how far it can be extended on the  Abortion acts ethical criteria. While Giubilini and Minerva may not find much support (at the moment), David Steel has opened a Pandora's box.

THERE IS ONE group of people however, that can be killed off and their deaths  remain within the law. These are those born "severely" disabled. Now, "severely" covers many a cruel state handed down by either God or natural selection, depending upon your beliefs. But one such disability brought about by a missing chromosome is Down's Syndrome.

            

             It is an injustice to those with Down's syndrome to regard them as "suffering", as they are not; they are just different. But the criteria of "severely" disabled set down by government, which was meant to cover the most excessive forms of pain and suffering, has been applied to those with Down's Syndrome to reassure the prospective mothers by so-called medical councillors.

            

            Of those pregnancies diagnosed with Downs, 90%  are terminated. Only a eugenically inclined culture would ever consider such a situation. But there is something darker afoot because what Giubilini and Minerva  are advocating, applies today with those who have Down's Syndrome.

            

            This is eugenics pure and simple; and it is happening, not in a fascist society, but in one that has been run by a liberal establishment for nearly 60 years; an establishment that has increased its powers over that time until it now serves as a hegemony over the whole culture.

            

             Eugenics is indeed an ugly concept, but one which both Left and Right have subscribed too. But today's Right cannot be described as fascist regarding eugenics. The right today are anti-abortion. The Left believe in the women's right to choose, and in giving her such a right, the law has allowed millions of aborted foetuses to be sent to a very, very, early grave; as well advancing the procedure beyond it original purpose.          

---

[1] She called for the sterilisation of  the, "hopelessly rotten and racially diseased".

[2] By the "Left" I mean liberals and socialists.

[3] Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom, and the arts… an excellent  liberal cv.

[4] As they put it: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

The NHS fog must now be lifted

IF I WERE TO criticise a much esteemed institution for appalling cruelty, I would assume that my fellow countrymen would support me once they knew what had been happening… if only to re-establish its former respect. But when it comes to the NHS, it seems that for those on the Left at least, this venerable institution holds the same romantic status as Keir Hardy's cap, the Toll Puddle Martyrs, and the suffragettes in Left-wing folk law. To such people Aneurin Bevan is comparable to Ghandi and, dare one say in theses perilous times, Mohammed?

           

             It is because the Left have expended so much of their socialist energy into the great NHS experiment, that it became their one last remaining example of the success of socialism. Proudly boasting it to be the greatest healthcare system in the world, they came to believe it and anyone who took a contrary or even are reformist position was shouted down as being a Right-wing privatiser.

            

             So silence remained the order of the day if you were a Tory. As with immigration, the NHS became a no go area for conservatism between 1997-2010. With the election of a minority Conservative government in 2010, who had been pressed by the British people into a coalition; Tory party criticism of the NHS has since been advanced by the scandals at Stafford and Morecombe, as well as Liverpool NHS Trusts, and, as we learn today, in 14 other NHS trusts.

            

            Today the NHS England medical director Sir Bruce Keogh, releases his report. According to the Left's most vilified publication, the Daily Mail, '[Sir Bruce] will also reveal there may have been 13,000 needless deaths across these hospitals since 2005, proving that the appalling Stafford hospital scandal was not a one-off'.

THE NHS IS UNDER  assault, but for perfectly good and sound reasons; reasons which those who love the NHS should quietly reflect upon. There has been a culture of denial and burial of criticism; warnings have been issued to whistle-blowers among the staff. This culture of denial goes to the very top of the last Labour government. It rings true to me that it was in the 13 years of the last Labour government that such a culture of denial was seeded.

            

            The Labour Party's association with the NHS has been one of  an adoring mother toward a favoured child: and would countenance little if any censure or disapproval of their child. Indeed, if that child falls short of its parents expectations, they will still cling limpet like to their creation; as the Labour Party still does today, even after all of the scandal their past interferences have created.

            

            The NHS  has been kept alive by the suppression of whistleblowers by, in the first instance, managers, tutored to do so by Labour government ministers who were only interested in keeping the NHS dream alive. It may be difficult to prove but not hard to believe.

THOUSANDS HAVE DIED through deliberate neglect and cruelty, and they died during the very years when Labour poured billions into the NHS, a third of which went on staff pay, and in the case of nurses led to less responsibility. It was a period under New Labour when hospital managers proliferated and doctor's salaries reached six figures, and their hours decreased.

            

           The spin was meant to remind the public that the NHS is better served by those who created it, and certainly would not be so well provided for by the hated Tories. The people have always believed that, as it was Labour  who created this venerable institution, then it was only Labour that could be relied upon to support it - this, despite the fact that many of the NHS's voluntary workforce are retired Tories who also support the NHS; they also help by driving disabled people to hospital to keep their appointments. These 'territorial's' so to speak, are as part and parcel of the NHS culture as any other within the NHS army.

THERE HAS BEEN one good thing to come out of this cacophony of ill-treatment by NHS staff, and that is; first of all the whistle-blowers will, in the future, not be constrained by either threat or contract, from speaking out. Secondly, the Labour Party can longer silence the Tories (as they succeeded in doing on immigration),when it comes to the NHS.

            

            This scandal happened on Labour's watch; and the Stalinist methods used to silence those within the service (with Labour's support?) will no longer pertain…even if, God forbid, Ed Milliband wins in 2015.

            

            But Labour has not only sought to undermine the NHS's failings with their gagging orders; but they have also fatally wounded the NHS itself by another policy separate from covering up NHS scandals.

            

            'New' Labour under Tony Blair opened the floodgates to mass immigration - another scandal that should prove a warning to the British people, if they are misguided enough to vote Labour again.

            

             This influx has added even greater pressure to NHS provision, especially in times of so-called 'austerity'. The impact of immigration could prove to be the final nail in the provision of  socialised health care in this country, and if turns out to be the case, then it is a cruel irony indeed that the birthmother of the NHS, should turn out to have been its unwitting executor .