They still don't get it!

THERE ARE 600,000 unemployed citizens from the European Union currently receiving welfare benefits and accessing the NHS, schools and housing. A study by the European commissioner overseeing employment and welfare, confirms what many eurosceptics through the application of commonsense have always known. If you increase a nations population artificially as Tony Blair did; then once the floodgates were lifted, it was bound to have a social impact on the UK population.

            

            The report suggests that the impact that such a deluge of humanity has had on the NHS has cost £1.5 billion. The health service cannot afford such an escalation for very long and will either have to accept intervention from the private sector; pour further billions into the NHS[1], or introduce a system of private insurance. There is no other alternative except withdrawal from the European Union, to stop the influx if nothing else.

            

            Because of immigration (whether from the EU or from outside) we are faced with a housing shortage. One 'solution' is the dreaded so-called 'bedroom tax'; whereby those living in council or other forms of social housing are expected to let a total stranger into their home or pay a fee out of their benefits for refusing.

            

            No politician would let a total stranger come to live with them; so why should they expect those living in social housing and on welfare to take strangers in? This policy is similar in many ways, to the way the Soviets after the revolution behaved when they decreed how many people should be housed in a room; usually in properties taken from the rich, but also within the general population.

            

             In education. Our schools are facing over-subscription  also due in part to immigration. Once more, we have allowed an artificial increase in our population without considering the need to build more schools as well as houses. In some schools some 50 different tongues are spoken. None of  all this came about because of the unintended consequences of a policy of free movement of populations within Europe.

            

           This migration explosion by the last Labour government, now sitting on the backbenches, was deliberately and wilfully orchestrated. This great migration, not only from Europe, but from all parts of the compass, was a deliberate policy; and Red Ed conspired in it. So for the Labour Party to create the name 'bedroom tax' is duplicity. Red Ed's two- faced behaviour on the issue of the wretched 'bedroom tax' is typical of his nefarious way of doing things, as we witnessed in the way he treated his brother at the time the Labour leadership election.

ALL THE MAIN parties are to blame for the current plight of our nation, including immigration. The leadership of each of the main parties believes in a United States of Europe - which is the inevitable direction in which the continent is travelling.

            

           The government are happy to tackle illegal migration from outside of Europe; but this is not where the damage to our social structure is coming from. Theresa May likes to be macho with illegal immigrants from outside the EU. But the Tory rank and file understands where the real problem lies. May is distracting her party's supporters from the real concern over immigration. To Theresa May, there is no such thing as all immigration; but only the illegal immigration from outside the EU. This is the Tory's response to Ukip on the subject; hoping that Conservatives will be impressed by the Home Secretary's response to her party's 'gravest' concern.

            

I STAND ON THE SIDE OF the indigenous population who visit hospitals and surgeries every day, who witness at first hand the impact of immigration. Our politicians and the whole political class in London, who believe in immigration and Multiculturalism; never seem to bump into it in their post code areas - and if they do they welcome such affluence; for affluent such immigrants are if they live among them. For wealth can travel anywhere, and escape when needs must.

            

            Every day there are millions of white indigenous people who are confronted by alien tongues who are told to 'suck it up' by the Multicultural believing elite. This elite controls our law making; but who  no longer depend upon what in America is known as the 'native population' - in our case the white British

            

            Our political class live in Olympian isolation from the vast majority of the indigenous population. They can, in the main, afford mortgages, private schooling, and private healthcare. One such euro enthusiast who has been in the forefront of pressing for the UK's further integration into Europe is Richard Branson, who  has chosen to sell up hear and retreat to his very own private island.

            

            Well good luck to him - perhaps if we all had his options then immigration would not be a problem to us either. But we have no options; all we can do either is vote Ukip, or learn to live with the vileness that, over the past 40 years, our liberal political elites have woven into  this country's cultural fabric.

           

           

           

---

[1] Which can only be done at the expense of other spending departments; as further  taxation is now out of the question. As Ed Miliband has said and I paraphrase; 'It's the cost of living stupid'.

Red Ed is over enthusiastic

BEAMING WITH childish enthusiasm for the support he received from the public over his joust with the Daily Mail, Red Ed believes that the support he was shown for the defence of his Marxist father can be interpreted as support for his father's Marxism. So, along with his promised freeze on utility increases, he now dons (quixotic-like) his armour, to take on the water companies; and when asked whether he would intervene in other markets his response sounded keen, eager and passionate; as if in fact he believed himself to be the people's zeitgeist - he mistakes sympathy for support[1].

            

            But now Red Ed is prepared to go even further to see his socialist dream realised. Asked whether he was prepared to take action in other markets, his response was enthusiastic. He told BBC Radio Five live, "Part of it [tackling the cost of living crisis] it is about dealing with this issue of overcharging and rip-offs. Banking is another example where we’ve said we want to see more competition."

            

            He no doubt believes that every move he takes in his political life is in recognition of his father and his beliefs. The Daily Mail is not far off the point when it seeks to warn the British public of the Miliband legacy. The vast majority of people do not want to see the shroud of socialism lowered over this country - not even the Labour Party leaders of the 1960s and 1970s ever wanted this[2]; for they witnessed its impact during the years of union and student militancy that almost brought this country to its knees during the 1970s.

            

            That was an age of, in industrial terms, medievalism. The unions were briefly in control of the nation, and they held it to ransom; and would have continued to their desired end, if it were not for the election of Margaret Thatcher - that most hated of politicians by the Left, including those within her own party which succeeded in destroying her.   

EDWARD MILIBAND is his father's disciple. He believes in the socialist dystopia as did his father. He was no doubt closer to him than his brother who enjoyed an air of scepticism about the whole Marxist enterprise. Having no doubt learned of its cruelty and brutality free from his father's influence at Oxford.

           

            Ed Miliband, from his response to Levy's piece in the Daily Mail, appears far closer to his father's views than his brother, despite sharing the same education as his brother. David, from what I have read was never a believer in Marxism and tried to turn the Labour Party away from socialism and drive it into the arms of social democracy; a much watered down version of socialism. So watered down that even  European Conservatives would feel at home within its compass; a compass which David Cameron takes directions from.

A LABOUR GOVERNMENT  led by Ed Miliband would seek to orchestrate capitalism; allowing only those practices that met with his approval on strict socialist principles; as he is suggesting today in his interview with Radio Five Live -  I hope this interview was partly due to the intoxication of a victory won over the Daily Mail; but I fear not.

            

           Capitalism can be at times unfair, as I openly admit. But it is the greatest force for human progress that has ever been proffered up. A socialist system, on the other hand, has introduced nothing but stagnation, brutality and death to the tune of countless of millions of lives throughout the Marxist world.

            

            Ed Miliband must realise that socialism runs contrarily to human nature. If he wins the next election he will seek to impose restrictions on the capitalist system. By doing so, he will only confirm the Daily Mail's view of his father instead of those of the British public, prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

           

---

[1] What I found curious throughout Ed Miliband's exchanges with the Daily Mail over his father, is that nothing was heard from his brother across the pond. Not a whisper from David Miliband - he, apparently was not as outraged as Ed was about the treatment of their father by the Daily Mail; for in this social media world, David could not remain ignorant of what was unfolding in London.

[2] At the time the Cold War was in progress, and served as a warning.

Bits and Pieces 3

WE ARE supposed to feel sorry for those Greenpeace activists arrested by the Russians after trying to board the Gazprom oil platform. The Russian authorities are now set to lay charges of piracy against the activists.

           

            The international executive director of the group, Kumi Naidoo complained that charges of piracy were "extreme and disproportionate". He continued with the usual sufferer for a cause, and sacrificial victim comment, "A charge of piracy is being laid against men and women whose only crime is to be possessed of a conscience. This is an outrage and represents nothing less than an assault on the very principle of peaceful protest,". Mr Naidoo and his multinational warriors of Greenpeace knew full well what they would fall foul of if they overstepped the mark with Russia and the Putin government.

           

            Talk of being "extreme and disproportionate" in such circumstances is raw and adolescent. I cannot believe Greenpeace's naivety in attempting such an act. My first impulse was to say "serve them right": my second was to say, "serve them right". How infantile are these people. They, through sincerely held (be them romantic) views, showed little awareness of the Putin government and what it was capable of.

            Greenpeace will have to take whatever happens to their activists on the chin. It is no good appealing to support from the West. They must have known what they were getting into. Talk of being "possessed of a conscience" matters little, if whatever law is deemed to be broken from whatever nation outside of the countries they emerge from in order to become be part of Greenpeace. When in Rome, as the saying goes, you obey whatever law you find yourself up against.

            The trouble is that Greenpeace, along with many other protest groups that emerge from the West, are either naive or believe that the West will rescue them through the usual diplomatic pavane, that, admittedly, all of the world's foreign ministries enjoy partaking in.

                                    *                      *                      *                      *

WHAT HAS FORCING female teachers into wearing veils and forcing girls to sit at the back of the class to do with health and safety? But, apparently, it has, according to the school's head Stuart Wilson at the al-Madinah school in Derby, which has been forced to close, 'temporarily'. There have been claims that female teachers have been forced to sign contracts that incorporated the wearing of the niqab veil at all times.

            The school has been rightly closed by Ofsted, and I hope that when, or if, it reopens Stuart Wilson is no longer its headmaster. The al-Madinah was a government free school and its improprieties were quickly discovered and it has been closed. Compare this arrangement with the comprehensive system, where a single bad teacher is as hard to sack, as a recalcitrant Lord who has served a prison sentence from expiration of the second chamber.

           

             Al-Madinah, says it has a ‘strong Muslim ethos’. According to the school's web; ‘At the centre of our school is a community of pupils, able to enjoy learning in a caring Islamic environment which promotes a culture of high expectations and outstanding performance,’. What rot is this?

            This is Multiculturalism at work and at its worst. Head teachers like Stuart Wilson should be relieved of their responsibility for the education of our youth. How Wilson managed to be elevated to a position of responsibility as the headmaster of a school, should result in an investigation. He has bought into the Multicultural experiment and has been enthused by it to such an extent that he seeks to replicate as much of the Muslim culture into his school as he can - what an idiot. How did he ever rise to such an august status within our educational system?

           

                                    *                      *                      *                      *

THE DAILY MAIL CAN HANDLE ITSELF without my support; but I offer it anyway. It seems that the paper has the whole of the liberal establishment out to settle a few scores with the paper's editor Lord Dacre. Unconvincing and  self-serving attacks have been made on the noble Lord and his organ…and why, one must ask?

            Is it because they were really disgusted at the way Red Ed 's father was treated? Is it because the Mail on Sunday sent a journalist to a memorial service for Ed's uncle? Were they really outraged that a man (whose son insists he loved his country) and whose sole desire was to create a Marxist state and all that that has signified historically, was attacked by the  Mail?

            I think not. Those who have jumped to Ed's defence, like Michal Heseltine, have a history of being assailed by the Rothermere titles, especially when Heseltine's arch enemy Margaret Thatcher was so well supported by the Daily Mail, and usually at his and other Tory Left-wingers (Wets) expense.

            The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, also professes outrage at the way the communist academic was treated; but like Heseltine and Miliband, none of them condemned the way the Left treated Margaret Thatcher when she died. Ed Miliband even allowed himself to be photographed with an idiot wearing a black tee-shirt with the following inscription, written over what is portrayed as Margaret Thatcher's grave. 'Thatcher, a generation of trade unionists will dance on her grave'…and there stands Ed beaming at the recalcitrant's side.

  So let us have none of this phoney disgust by the liberal establishment.  It is revenge pure and simple. The revenge of super egos, criticised, and perhaps feeling humiliated by the way the editor of the Daily Mail has treated them in the past.

           

            

The brothers Miliband

'whether you are restating a case that has been traduced in theory or practice, or whether you are advancing a new case. I think that the book reads like the former . . .' David Miliband on his father's last book, Socialism For A Sceptical Age

GEOFFREY LEVY is the man of the moment. He has written an attack on Ralph Miliband the intellectual Marxist academic and father of Ed and David Miliband. Levy's piece must have caused ructions within the Miliband household; indeed, it is reported that Ed was spitting blood when he read the piece in the Daily Mail[1]. What David thought of it we do not know; but from what we know of his Blairite New Labour ideology; he would probably, out of loyalty to his family, condemn Levy for his composition; but would have sympathised with much that he had written?

            

            As Levy wrote, Ralph and his father came to Britain from Belgium in 1940 to escape the Nazis, whose attitude to all Jews has been rightly pronounced as evil and brutal. So Ralph landed on our shore and shortly after joined the Royal Navy. After the war he remained in what was now his adopted country and in the years that followed tried to turn this aged democracy into a Marxist state: and as inconsiderate as this process was, considering the way in which the UK welcomed him, Ralph no doubt thought we would all be better off  living within a Marxist socialist state[2]…but it was never his to call to make.

            

            Levy quotes the 17-year-old Ralph writing; ''The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.' This is more than a youthful indiscretion, as the Left will no doubt portray it. Once Ralph Miliband formulated an opinion or prejudice he kept to it throughout his life. But as much as he despised the British elites; he nevertheless availed himself of a fine education in his adopted country.

            

            He also sent is children to Oxford University - or should it be, he allowed them to be sent? Like all socialists who despise capitalism, Ralph ignored the hypocrisy attached to such an arrangement when it came to his own family, and thereafter continued condemning British elitism whether represented by the monarchy, Oxbridge, or the traditional pantomime villain of Marxism, the bourgeoisie.

           

            Ralph despised Stalinism in Russia - then why did he not try to fight it? After all, unlike Soviet Russia, British colonialism never killed 30 million of its colonists. The Marxist Stalin was arguably more evil than the Nazi Hitler. Yet Ralph's hatred for the British Empire seems to have surpassed his loathing of Stalin's evil works in the name of Marxism.

            

            The so-called New Left that Ralph Miliband would have considered himself to have been at the forefront of in the 1970s decried Stalinism and sought to redefine Soviet socialism as something called 'state capitalism'. Thus shifting the blame of Marxism's 'failure' onto the shoulders of their class enemies in the West.

            The simple truth is, that Lenin shared the same revolutionary purging instincts as Stalin; and if it was not for his premature death, Lenin would have proven himself worthy of Stalin's baseness. The same applies to Trotsky. In being a victim of Stalin it allowed Marxists in the West such as the Socialist Workers Party to reinvent Marxism for the benefit of the student youth. The great Marxist apologist writer, Isaac Deutscher, wrote a three volume life of Trotsky which was meant to save Marxism from Stalin's grasp. But it never did. Marxism means the control of man's souls by the state; and no deviation will be allowed; whether it was Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky, who governed the Soviet Union.

RALPH MILIBAND was wrong and his stature as an intellectual academic means very little in such circumstance. He, like his fellow Marxist academics E. P. Thompson and Eric Hobsbawm were all proven wrong by history. Socialism, in all of its many manifestations, has proven to be anathema to human nature - which is why it seeks to suppress mankind's natural impulses.

            

            What I fear; and admittedly this is mere speculation from someone who  knows very little about psychiatry; is that Ed Miliband has a long held (childhood?) wish to please his father and make him proud of him, as Geoffrey Levi insinuates in his article. Ed's wish to please his father could account for his betrayal of his brother in the leadership election to the Labour Party. He cares only for his father's respect, and he believes that the first stage of earning that respect is to lead the Labour Party.

            

             The last stage is to govern the country. Ed Miliband is no worthy suitor for the premiership of this country. He has issues that need counselling to resolve. His father had a far greater impact on him than he had on his elder brother David. As the quote at the top of this piece suggests, David Miliband understood all too well the fate of socialism.

            

              David Miliband was the right choice for Labour after Brown's defeat in 2010. The Labour Party wanted him as their leader, and he deserved to become its leader and would have proven successful as such. He had the support of the Party membership and the MPs - but, because of that wretched anachronism called the 'block vote', David's sibling emerged to lead the party.

ED MILIBAND (or so he believes) is his father's protégée and it is to him and only him, that Ed Miliband answers. The future of the country, or so it appears, comes down to electing a physiologically impaired leader[3] of this country's main party of government.

            

            The Daily Mail has given Ed a right of reply to their analysis of his father; and no doubt there will be those on Left who control many of our cultural institutions who will jump to his support and profess disgust at the way the Daily Mail has dragged a politicians relative into the sewer that is politics. The Guardian, Channel Four, and the BBC, will jump to Ralph's aid, as many who work within these institutions are the sons and daughters of Ralph's influence over them, an influence passed down through the generations.

            

            Ralph Miliband hated this country, as all home-grown, as well as foreign Marxists do to this day; and Geoffrey Levi will no doubt find it hard to find work after writing his piece, thanks to the new Left-wing establishment that still dreams Ralph's dream.

             

           

           

           

           

           

           

---

[1] The Daily Mail has given Ed the right of reply in tomorrow's edition.

[2] I myself, in my youth, believed the same. But I was no interloper, but born British; so at least it was entitled to seek a change to society.

[3] Only the second after Gordon Brown