Friday, December 26, 2014

Give a cheer for the preppies

EARLY THIS MORNING I watched a documentary on Sky News about preppies; those families in America who believe we live in troubled times and are preparing to survive all sorts of calamities that could threaten their families: calamities comprising of natural disasters, diseases like Ebola, terrorism (such as a dirty bomb); or even their own government if it were to stray from the American constitution and turn away from democracy – which was after all, what the right to bear arms was written into the constitution to help prevent. Which is why the ownership of guns remains legal in America; with the exclusion of course of those with a criminal conviction.
            
            At the affluent end of the preppie spectrum[1] we witnessed in the programme an entrepreneur who bought an old nuclear silo from the government, and transformed it into luxury survivalist apartments converted from the actual launch site of the IBMs; that went 10 stories underground and contains several $3 million apartments for the wealthy. The facilities in other parts of the silo included a cinema, large swimming pool, and an armoury. It even contained a large area for growing the residents own food, and a cell built with exactly the same dimensions and contains the same furniture found in an ordinary police cell in any American police jail…for anyone of gets cabin fever and punches a fellow resident; the cell gives them time to calm down.
            
            At the other end of the spectrum we have many communities who have come together to defend their families and neighbours. These preppies comprise hard working, in many cases professional middle class Americans who wear no ideological badge: indeed, they would see themselves purely as American patriots who believe in its constitution. From those I saw in the documentary, they were not red-necks in any understanding of the term; and neither were they paranoid (a label they are all too aware will be pinned to them).
            
            The head of one such family was seen teaching his teenage children how to handle an intrusion by a stranger into their home when the emergency they expect occurs. The father taught his 15-year-old daughter how to use a hand gun; and he insists that at least two warnings be given before his daughter draws the gun; and if the intruder ignores the third, only then will he or she be shot.
            
            What is being taught by the father to his children, is how to handle themselves and keep themselves alive if any such event occurs that may threaten them if they lose their father and mother. They are not red-neck  anti-communists as many, by now, antiquated Western liberals may still believe them to be. They have only their families survival at heart. They are not driven by political ideology, but by the unexpected; whether from a political cause, or from a natural disaster.

I BELIEVE THAT multiculturalism will, along with mass migration, in time, bring great social instability to the UK. But we in the UK have no culture of preppies as have the United States. Perhaps being the small island that we are, such social tensions are a far more likely threat to the social fabric of this country, than whatever the American preppies see as a threat to their own.
            
             So before we use such terms as loons, and paranoid, to describe our cousins across the pond; I suggest we think carefully about our own situation, instead of smugly and self-righteously pooh-poohing their fears as paranoid delusions.
            
             Time will ultimately tell. But I think that the way those American preppies think is wholly laudable. They are, small 'c' conservative men and women, as are the vast majority of the white indigenous English population. This does not mean that they all vote Tory, or in America's case republican. They believe in the family as the mitochondria of society that keeps it functioning, as it does biologically as a part of the human cell. And in this country all the main parties have small 'c' conservatives branding their backbone – that comprise the core vote of the two main parties.

WE IN THE UK are no longer allowed to own guns, unless we are part of small group of certain individuals like farmers…nothing, in fact, comparable with the USA. But there was a time when UK citizens did have that right. But it was abandoned following the end of the First World War, when parts of Europe were threatened by Bolshevik revolution in light of the Russian experience in 1917.
            
            Our returning soldiers had to hand in their weapons, and from then on the ownership of guns (with a few exceptions) were banned. But before the First World War, we had a similar arrangement to that of America. I have read of one account involving a London bobby in pursuit of and armed villain who stopped a citizen in the street  and asked if he had a gun. A gun was produced and immediately handed to him – the police remained unarmed.
            
            So gun ownership has a long history among citizens, even within Great Britain. The American founding fathers had the good sense to protect their citizens by giving them the right to bear arms. It was a wholly sane addition to the American constitution: one which does not leave the American citizen defenceless, but gives them the right to protect themselves and their families from all sorts interlopers… even aliens.
            
           Those preppies in the SKY documentary have made the right choice. Not because either today or tomorrow anarchy, driven either by nature, politics, or terrorism will come upon them. But because by doing what they are doing is eminently sensible…and if their fears come to nothing; what harm are they doing?  I would sooner we, in the UK, were given the same blessing by our unwritten constitution to bear arms as the American written one has given the American citizen.

IN THE UK TODAY the citizen's faith in justice has almost evaporated. The liberal concept of justice has abandoned the victim in favour of the perpetrator who needs to be put upon the road of reform. The victim of criminality invariably becomes the victim of the justice system. Once a crime has been committed; it seems that the liberal consensus decrees that the true victim is the perpetrator.
            
            Sentencing goes against the victim; as the perpetrator is often given a sentence by a judge which will often seem fair, but will be cut in half by the behaviour of parole boards, usually comprising faint-hearted liberals who would have believed Hitler to have come from a broken background and deserved a second and third chance.
            
           Under such a pitiful arrangement  the citizen's only hope is to allowed to be armed. But it will never come to pass in the UK - but in America, the constitution still guarantees such a right to it citizens, despite liberal president Obama's attempts at seeking to un-arm his citizens. As for the UK it will have to do the best it can. At 64-years-old, I will in all  in probably be dead before what I believe will happen, occurs.

           
  


           



[1] As seen on Sky

The EU is a master-stroke of incompetence

IT IS NOT ONLY ABOUT open borders. The EU is a disaster waiting to happen for the whole European continent. Political and monetary union was conceived as a means of ridding the continent of brutal and costly wars between nations over centuries culminating in the Second World War. Far better, so Europe's politicians and their bureaucratic apparatchiks thought; to tie the continent into the homogeneous whole that is European federalism; where potential conflict could be reined in by the liquidation of the nation state - and thus see an end to nationalism; that harbinger of conflict on the continent for hundreds of years.
            
            To do this the ordinary citizens of Europe had to be filled with such emotional and sentimental concepts such as solidarity, a potent expression used frequently by those in Europe outside of the UK. But they also had to be slowly tempted into full blooded federalism. This was achieved by flim-flam – especially in the case of the UK. What was once known as the European Economic Community (EEC); also known in the UK as the Common Market created under the Treaty of Rome in 1957, has turned into the architecture for a Federal European Union.
            
            The original six member economic community has grown into a 27 member union with ambitions for political and monetary union. At the time of the Treaty of Rome our Europhile politicians within the two main parties, told a sceptical British public that it was to be a purely free trade arrangement and nothing more; and any talk at the time, from anyone who suggested anything different, was to be considered a swivelled-eyed loon – especially by Ted Heath; who single handily sold out his country's nationhood for a dystopian vision meant to assuage further conflict between European nations.

WHAT IS NOW HAPPENING is the creation of a unified European Empire. The nation state within Europe, as well as its accompanying democratic structures, are now to be considered a part of history. The nation state is to be regarded as a primeval form of governance comparable to the ancient tribal structures that once adorned the continent of European antiquity.
           
            In Europe today the Brussels' bureaucrats even talk of a post democratic age. The New European Empire is expanding. Eastern Europe is being enticed into the European family. The Ukraine is being seduced into becoming part of this domain by the EU. The Ukrainians are eager to join; and if need be give up their nationhood (which they won back from Russia) in its pursuit of membership. Yes… the very nationhood they re-captured from the breakup of the Soviet Union; they are now only too willing to being sold off to become a mere province within a federal United States of Europe.
            
            In trying to attach the Ukraine to the new European Empire, the EU has ignored Russian sensibilities; and as a result Putin has helped the Russian eastern Ukraine retake the Crimea…a province of the Ukraine which was once Russian but was ceded to the Ukraine by the erratic and at times comical behaviour of the Soviet leader, Khrushchev, who, with one wave of his hand, handed it over to become part of the Ukraine; an illegitimate offering considering it was never sanctioned by any legitimate democratically elected government within the Soviet Union.
            
             Khrushchev treated the territory as some kind of bauble to be given away at his own expediency. And now the EU finds this legitimate grounds for demanding the Crimea's return to the Ukraine?

THE EU will no doubt tempt other ex-Soviet colonies to join the new empire; which it will always continue to do in the interest of a Greater Europe. But you would have thought that considering the impact it would have on Putin, Europe would have at least provided a credible military response if things turn ugly. But since the fall of the Berlin wall all European defence budgets have been butchered by the continents political parties wanting to provide the feel good factor for their constituents (especially before an election).
            
            The EU and Nato having nothing to threaten Putin with unless they yet again seek to rely, as they have had to do in the past, on America (a nation by the way, which  has always met with much ill-will and envy on the European continent).
            
            But as America sees its future in the Pacific region and no longer within Europe; the EU have to shoulder a greater responsibility for the continent's defence. And I do not think they are ready to do so. The 2008 financial collapse, and the pitiful failure of the European single currency, have forced austerity onto the agenda - while the most economically powerful country on the continent is infected by its 20th century history into passivity; and will not take the military responsibility that such economic power demands. Germany is weak in one respect. The people still have the feeling of culpability for the Second World War. Today in Germany, Green concerns have risen to first place in the German people's list of priorities.

THE EU is a kind of incomplete experiment; believing itself to be an all powerful Empire and still growing; while also believing itself to be more powerful than it actually is. There is the emperor with no clothes aspect to its boasts; with its unelected president and his commissioners strutting on the world stage with no democratic legitimacy to justify themselves. In fact Putin has more democratic legitimacy than either the EU president or his commissioners.
            
             Empires arise organically, and the fate of history ends them… while the European Empire is nothing more than the vanity project of European politicians; from the Treaty of Rome onwards. It is an empire whose architects are European bureaucrats (the winged monkeys of the unelected commissioners). Bureaucrats who will, given time, stop serving and begin influencing and then controlling the future of the EU.
            
             Commissioners believe whole heartedly in the 'project'; and they know their bureaucrats believe the same. So why not let them run things (like dotting the eyes and topping the tees) while they, the commissioners, enjoy their salaries and eventually, their generous pensions, by performing various superficial and often ceremonial functions. While the EU parliament sit there ready to rubber stamp all the bunkum the bureaucrats hand down to the EU commission , who then pass it on to the parliament for approval.

THIS MENAGERIE of various forms of cupidity that haunt the EU institutions such as its parliament brings another critique of the EU…its very corruption.
            
             All sorts of corrupt practices such as signing into the European parliament (in order to get your allowance) and then leaving the parliament to pursue perhaps a mistress. If any attendant parliamentarian serves two terms in the European parliament, he or she usually retires a millionaire on the legitimate earnings from being a member of the European parliament; after claiming extras; and if they chose to follow the many opportunities to abuse the system, then they will retire even richer -  all at the expense of the European taxpayer.
            
           The EU is corrupt from top to bottom and the EU taxpayer's seem to care very little; and while they indulge in such indifference, politicians will take full advantage. There is no other profession as easily corrupted as that of a politician; whether nationally or within the EU. But when it occurs nationally as it did in the UK MP's expenses scandal, the press will be on to it.
           
            Politicians are as corruptible as any other quarter of the population. But politicians are paid from the public tit; and it is the taxpayer they are robbing from and not an employer in the private; which is bad enough. Read your Charles Dickens if you believe this a new phenomenon – it is not, but only worse.
           


           

            

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Major Judith Webb tells it as it is.

WOMEN ARE BEING ALLOWED to serve in the infantry from 2016. This is what the MoD has decided: and in this age of political correctness no male dare question the wisdom of such a manoeuvre. Sexist is the cousin of racist in the liberal lexicon, and it will be spat out at any male who disagrees with the MoD.
            
             So any such doubt must be expressed by a woman; and one has stepped forward. Major Judith Webb has raised doubts about the effectiveness of women in front line combat.
            
            Major Webb is the first woman to command an all male squadron. Although the major believes in equality, she insists that women are 'physically different'. If women are to proceed in training on the same basis as men then it has been predicted that just '34 women' will be tough enough to meet front line action: unless, that is, standards in training are lowered to accommodate the PC agenda. In which case it will weaken our fighting strength and effectiveness and make it more likely that we will lose engagements with the enemy.
            
             Their will come a time, as there always is in armed conflict, when man to man fighting takes place – often dirty fighting, that has little in common with training but with street fighting.  It is fighting where physical strength  applies and the Queensbury rules have little place. When struggling to keep yourself alive in such an arena of combat physical strength and stamina counts; and once man on woman fighting follows; under such gruelling conditions - I am afraid that testosterone will out.

FRONT LINE combat is the one arena where women must continue to remain homeless. All other disciplines, whether in the army, navy, or air force; should be open to women and they should be welcomed. Women make good pilots, whether they fly helicopters, transports, or fighters on the front line of aerial combat.
            
             In the modern navy, women can in many instances outperform men. The modern Navy is technology dependent , and women can compete and even better men at this level of expertise – but the front line is different, it is flesh against flesh. Sooner or later on the battle field, as we found during the Second World War, or latterly in the Falklands; dirty fighting man to man can decide the outcome of a battle, and even the war.
            
             So you can understand why Major Webb and many MoD officers baulk at this latest PC (for this is all it is) confection. The front line belongs to the men with a few female exceptions that will succeed in matching the training of men.
            
             My guess is that the  politicians will eventually lower the training standards to accommodate women onto the front line. It goes, after all, with the grain of feminism and political correctness; the two ideologies that know little about armed conflict and the nature of war; but to whom the modern liberal political culture are held in thrall.
            
             On the BBC's Today programme, Major Webb s who retired in 1986 said: 'We had a maximum of four women in my squadron and it was perfectly natural and normal for the guys would do all the heavy jobs and those jobs that were physically demanding while women would do the slightly less physical it was just the normal course of events.

When we are talking about an infantry section of eight guys and you’ve got one person who is not actually as physically strong or as physically capable as the other seven over possibly an extended period of time, which is what has not been tested, that could create an effect on our combat effectiveness,’ added major Webb, who was the first woman to command an all-male field force squadron in the British Army."

            The woman's role in the armed forces has nothing to do with equality but ability, and usually physical ability. It is ability under the stresses of combat that has to be taken into consideration. This is the only criteria when faced with an enemy. A kind of enemy that poses a real threat to our country, as was the case during the First and Second World Wars.

            Women, on the front line combat role up against an enemy comprising solely of
 men will lose out when it comes to men and women dirty fighting. If I could be convinced by any example that British women could be as ruthless and equally so as the men in combat; as well as equally proficient in man to man combat, then I would willingly admit that I was wrong. But in such an engagement the UK would be put at a great disadvantage if the contribution of women to front line combat proved a failure under flesh to flesh combat with an enemy who does not believe in women soldiers.

            As far as the army is concerned, it still comprises male on male combat. This is not to say this situation will remain, but while it does, for the sake of our country, it must continue. As far as individual man to man combat is concerned, the place of women must remain insolvent.

WOMEN HAVE MADE great advances in all fields of front-line combat within the RAF and the Royal Navy, doing front line jobs of killing the enemy. But such advances in women's front line ability have never extended to the infantry  -  where the Glasgow handshake may save a life when combating an enemy.

            Men should be left in charge of man to man combat, where all sorts of primitive devices are used to keep themselves alive. Women had no place on the beaches of Normandy; and for those feminists who think the contrary…let them see the first 40 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

            Major Judith Webb has brought to the debate a female council of sense to the MoD's wish to allow women to fight in the infantry on the front line. She should be listened to. If not our armed forces will be compromised on the battlefield, and as such this must be considered sedition. Sedition brought about by political correctness. Any deliberate weakness in a combat situation will always be exploited by an enemy; and such a weakness qualifies, in this case, as being deliberate. Feminist equality will, when it comes to the battlefield and hand to hand combat, prove facile and dangerous to the outcome of any military engagement. It is not about being anti-feminist, but about winning a military engagement or a war, which has little bearing on feminism. Why is it that in sport, the role of women and men are seen as being different? It is because men and women are different; and this applies equally to man on man combat on the front line.




           
           


            

Monday, December 22, 2014

Gain without pain?

BECAUSE OF A SHORTFALL in tax receipts, government borrowing will have to increase by a further £75 billion in the coming year according to a report in today's Independent. Our national debt at Q1 2013 stood at £1,377 billion (1.3 trillion ), or 88% of our GDP. Servicing it has meant finding £43 billion; roughly the size of our defence budget from taxation. Now George Osborne, purely for political reasons due to a forthcoming general election, is seeking to borrow more to dangle before the public in extra spending in order for his party to remain in power.
            This is not a cynical game played by one party, but one played by both the main parties months before any general election when in government. Our politicians are prepared to borrow or even beg on their knees to the markets (at whatever levels of interest) in order to retain their hold on power.
            Because of the 'austerity' that Osborn has demanded from the government's spending departments, the market will oblige Osborn in his borrowing. But his austerity package has had little or no impact on the deficit so far.
            The UK public has had a mere taster of what austerity really means. Both our main parties are promising further competitive spending in the run-up to next May's general election; after which the taxpayer will be the ultimate source of financing for probably the next six generations, in order to conciliate the deficit.
            The financial markets will make their judgement and demand a level of interest on all further government borrowing that rises in accordance with the tax intake of the nation they are lending to. In other words, if our government wishes to continue to borrow (for instance)  through issuing bonds, the market must be confident that any promised interest on  them will be forthcoming at the time the government proposes; and if at any time the market judges that the government cannot honour such an arrangement, the market will not buy government bonds.
OUR NATIONAL DEBT is a drag anchor on future generations, and will continue to be so for as long as politicians continue to put themselves and their party interests before that of the nation. The so-called 'austerity programme' has been no such thing; it has hardly scraped the surface of what is needed to be done to reduce the national debt to anything like sustainability, let alone its elimination - which will never happen, nor should it. Nations, like families, have to borrow.
            But as with an addiction to gambling; our politicians have taxed, borrowed, and spent to feed their addiction to power; and the exemplar for such behaviour has always been the Labour Party when in power. But with Labour it was not only about retaining power, but also about ideology – a truly naive faith in the state as provider -  a major component of socialism which Ed Milliband is intent upon resurrecting.
            Gordon Brown added over 300,000 jobs to the public sector; some 90% of whom he calculated would vote Labour. The kind of  percentage he believed prevalent within the public sector  as a whole. Tony Blair on the other hand saw tax and spend as (like the Tories) a leverage for continuing in power. But even he thought that allowing Portuguese and Polish migrants into the country in 2004 would bring an electoral benefit to Labour now he had dispatched the white working class into irrelevance.
            Through the shenanigans of politicians we have a bloated public sector which accounts for nearly 40% of our GDP. In other words it is the private sector that has to bear this burden through the taxes they and their employees pay - and this state of affairs cannot continue.
            The state sector has to bear the brunt for the state's clinical obesity. And when they came to power in 2010 the Tories promised economic austerity: austerity, in any true meaning of the word, has never taken place. The meaning was prostituted by the incoming 2010 government for effect after the 2008 financial crash. Let me run  a few synonyms by you and let you judge for yourselves whether what this government has done measures up to any meaning of austerity: gravity, rigor, severity, stringency, and harshness. Do any of these measure up to what you have experienced as recipients of government austerity? I doubt it.
            Before you answer; let me remind you of what austerity once meant in equally troubled times in the 1930s. Then austerity meant, in the UK, people like my father having to work, not for wages but food tokens. He had to bike several miles a day to dig holes for telegraph poles to be planted like trees; he had to provide his own shovel; and he was given a food ticket as payment.
            When the work was completed, he was told he had to sell his bike before he qualified for national assistance – you can understand why means testing has been out of favour for so long among the left in all the main parties. But without it human nature abuses the process, as we see today when means testing is frowned upon by all the main parties.
FOR OUR NATIONAL DEBT to reach manageable levels it will require more than what this coalition are prepared to do. They are not prepared to cause any kind of real hardship within the country because of their need to cling to power.
            It will be the same with the Labour Party, if they win next May. The Labour Party is ideologically addicted to public spending and will promise the earth. They will deliver of course because it is not their own money they are spending; and they can demand ever more in taxation from the rich leaving the economic structure of the nation's economy even more fallible to complete destruction - more so than it was after their last trespass into the nation's economy under  Gordon Brown.
            There is a myopia abroad among the main British political parties that can only concentrate their minds on power. Party political power has become the raison d'être for the governing political parties. They can no longer do what is required to heal their country's economy; they function only for a second (or third) term; and will coalesce their efforts to this one and only purpose… is it little wonder that Ukip has so successfully called their bluff?
           



Dictionary More








Wine and the state

EACH DAY I visit my computer to write a political blog which I have christened Polemic. It is a Right of centre political blog, and I have been adding to it for probably five years on a daily basis. Each day I start tapping the keys at about 13.00: I am joined in my creative struggle with a bottle of wine which I consume while I am typing. I usually finish my piece by about 15.30. After that I make additions and review a recently started short story. I review it daily; and may add an odd paragraph or two after I finish writing my blog.
            
             Each day I consume a bottle of wine plus two glass more from another bottle; but only while writing. It gives me the incentive to open myself up. My meaning is that I can express myself freely without any resultant misgiving discouraging me from writing openly and giving free expression; without the encumbrance of fearing what people think, which would, of course, inhibit my creativity (such as would be the case without the wine). Being plagued by doubt, as I am. I could not give vent to my thoughts without the stimulus garnered from the vine.
            
           Wine helps to unleash my true feelings; feelings which I may suppress, but are unlocked by the grape. I never get drunk. In fact at the age of 64; the last time I did get drunk was in the 1970s when I was in my twenties; and it was as expected of me, as it was any other young man of my age.

THE THING IS, modern society relies upon fear and guilt to function and demand cuts to the cost of the NHS; and the likes of myself have to pay the price. For instance; my daily consumption of wine without doubt exceeds the limit that some department or other within the NHS sees as boarder-line alcoholic; if not as yet, considered intoxicating enough to turn me into an alcoholic: until, that is, maybe the next NHS revision on consumption of alcohol is reduced even further because of the burden consumers of alcohol put on the NHS.
           
             I am approaching retirement next March. I will probably reach 70; but after that, I am living on borrowed time anyway; and who's to say that I will not fall fowl of dementia and have to be kept alive in some institution being looked after by a group of sadistic, and underpaid staff.
            
            This same state-inflicted guilt, also applies to smoking and obesity. The state is becoming ever more sinister. The use of the term "nanny state" is a euphemism  for state control over all sorts of social activities that were once considered normal as part of a free society where human beings took responsibility for themselves, but are today considered to be anti-social in their behaviour; and are therefore being added, almost on a daily basis, to the list of what not to do according to the state, and at what cost to the NHS.
            
            The state has control of our personnel freedom; and we have allowed it to become such. We are advised to drink no more than this or that for a healthy lifestyle; or eat this or that to stop obesity. The state now regulates our drinking and eating habits. How long will it be before our "unhealthy" ideas are undermined by such an approach.
            
            They justify themselves by saying it is putting a financial burden on the NHS…and this is the worm eating away at our freedom of choice. Because the taxpayer pays for our healthcare, and politicians distribute the taxes; both the NHS and the politicians feel they can force us to change whatever behaviour they feel not to be in our interests. This is because the individual has handed over responsibility to the state; and once you give that away; the state can dictate what you can eat or drink and in whatever quantities.
           
             The liberal state becomes your Victorian moralist state who you have given power to: for instance, its demand you stop smoking, and put limits on the consumption of alcohol you choose to drink. They also tell you to eat, not what you want to eat, but what they consider to be part of the best diet – all in the name of saving the NHS budget.
            
             In a society based on private medical insurance; none of this would be important. In such societies free-will is respected. It is not for the state to dictate your choices; but for the individual to decide for themselves. It is arrogant and nanny-statist to point a finger at a particular individual for eating the wrong kind of food, or drinking from outside of arbitrary set limits. Under a private system of medical care, the rights and wrongs of a particular form of behaviour does not matter…for as long as you can pay via medical insurance; no form of self-inflicted disease will be judged; but treated.

THE STATE IS becoming ever more involved in our daily life style choices. Choices which, if the state deems them inappropriate and a financial burden on the state controlled health service; then restrictions will surely follow. The latest is obesity. Europe has just ruled that obesity is a "disease"; the implication of which for the taxpayer and our country's deficit could prove dire. But as Europe rules… so must the UK obey.
            
            While writing this piece I have been drinking my wine, and have just finished a bottle – and as I hope you can realise from your reading of this piece, I am not in any way incoherent. My judgement, such as it is has not been rendered disjointed by the above piece.
            
             Private insurance is no soft option, but it is better than allowing the state to provide for your health care, as it dictates the kind of human behaviour you should follow if you wish to be treated by the NHS – I would sooner take my chances within the private sector. But then I am approaching 65 and retirement. Other, more younger citizens, may wish to continue to buy into state healthcare provision; but will have to meet its demands for longer waiting lists and times, to see a consultant.
            
             The NHS has treated me well; apart from two failures; one of which was a pulmonary embolism which went undetected for over 24 hours after being taken by ambulance to A & E. The other was an earlier failure by my GP practice, who delayed sending me to my local hospital in great pain for over week. I was anaemic and in great pain and required four units of blood when eventually sent to hospital; where they discovered I had a duodenal and gastric ulcer caused by the anti-inflammatory medication I was on for the treatment of my spondylitis.
            
             The reason I never turned to a no fee, no win lawyer, was because, up until these two instances; the NHS had treated me well and had rid me of a great deal of pain, as it had served me up with two new hips. But if tomorrow I fell afoul of the same life-threatening conditions then I would pursue a legal case against the NHS. In the meantime I will continue to drink the grape while working on my blog…an nothing can hinder my purpose in so doing.

           

           


Major Judith Webb tells it as it is.

WOMEN ARE BEING ALLOWED to serve in the infantry from 2016. This is what the MoD has decided: and in this age of political correctness no male dare question the wisdom of such a manoeuvre. Sexist is the cousin of racist in the liberal lexicon, and it will be spat out against any male who disagrees with the MoD.
            
            So any such doubt must be expressed by a woman; and one has stepped forward. Major Judith Webb has raised doubts about the effectiveness of women in front line combat.
           
            Major Webb is the first woman to command an all male squadron. Although the major believes in equality, she insists that women are 'physically different'. If women are to proceed in training on the same basis as men then it has been predicted that just '34 women' will be tough enough to meet front line action: unless, that is, standards in training are lowered to accommodate the PC agenda. In which case it will weaken our fighting strength and effectiveness and make it more likely that we will lose engagements with the enemy.
            
            Their will come a time as there always is in armed conflict, when man to man fighting takes place – often dirty fighting, that has little in common with training but with street fighting.  It is fighting where physical strength  applies and the Queensbury rules have little place. When struggling to keep yourself alive in such an arena of combat physical strength and stamina counts; and once in man on woman fighting follows; under such gruelling conditions - I am afraid that testosterone will out.

FRONT LINE combat is the one arena where women must continue to remain homeless. All other disciplines, whether in the army, navy, or air force; should be open to women and should they should be welcomed. Women make good pilots, whether they fly helicopters, transports, or fighters on the front line of aerial combat.
            
            In the modern navy, women can in many instances outperform men. The modern Navy is technology dependent , and women can compete and even better men on this level of expertise – but the front line is different, it is flesh against flesh. Sooner or later on the battle field, as we found during the Second World War, or latterly in the Falklands; dirty fighting man to man can decide the outcome of a battle, and even the war.
            
            So you can understand why Major Webb and many MoD officers baulk at this latest PC (for this is all it is) confection. The front line belongs to the men with a few female exceptions that will succeed in matching the training of men.
           
            My guess is that the  politicians will eventually lower the training standards to accommodate women onto the front line. It goes, after all, with the grain of feminism and political correctness; the two ideologies that know little about armed conflict and the nature of war; but to whom the modern liberal political culture are held in thrall.
            
            On the BBC's Today programme, Major Webb s who retired in 1986 said: 'We had a maximum of four women in my squadron and it was perfectly natural and normal for the guys would do all the heavy jobs and those jobs that were physically demanding while women would do the slightly less physical it was just the normal course of events.

When we are talking about an infantry section of eight guys and you've got one person who is not actually as physically strong or as physically capable as the other seven over possibly an extended period of time, which is what has not been tested, that could create an effect on our combat effectiveness,’ added major Webb, who was the first woman to command an all-male field force squadron in the British Army."

            The woman's role in the armed forces has nothing to do with equality but ability, and usually physical. It is ability under the stresses of combat that has to be taken into consideration. This is the only criteria when faced with an enemy. A kind of enemy that poses a real threat to our country, as was the case during the First and Second World Wars.

            Women, on the front line combat role up against an enemy comprising solely of
 men will lose out when it comes to men and women dirty fighting. If I could be convinced by any example that British women could be as ruthless and equally so as the men in combat; as well as equally proficient in man to man combat, then I would willingly admit that I was wrong. But in such an engagement the UK would be put at a disadvantage if the contribution of women to front line combat proved a failure under flesh to flesh combat with an enemy who does not believe in women soldiers.

            As far as the army is concerned, it still comprises male on male combat. This is not to say this situation will remain, but while it does, for the sake of our country, it must continue. As far as individual man to man combat is concerned, the place of women must remain insolvent.

WOMEN HAVE MADE great advances in all fields of front-line combat within the RAF and the Royal Navy, doing front line jobs of killing the enemy. But such advances in women's front line ability have never extended to the infantry  -  where the Glasgow handshake may save a life when combating an enemy.

            Men should be left in charge of man to man combat, where all sorts of primitive devices are used to keep themselves alive. Women had no place on the beaches of Normandy; and for those feminists who think the contrary…let them see the first 40 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

            Major Judith Webb has brought to the debate a female council of sense to the MoD's wish to allow women to fight in the infantry on the front line. She should be listened to. If not our armed forces will be compromised on the battlefield, and as such this must be considered sedition. Sedition brought about by political correctness. Any deliberate weakness in a combat situation will always be exploited by an enemy; and such a weakness qualifies, in this case, as being deliberate. Feminist equality will, when it comes to the battlefield and hand to hand combat, prove facile and dangerous to the outcome of any military engagement. It is not about being anti-feminist, but about winning a military engagement or a war, which has little bearing on feminism.




           
           

           
                       

           




           






Sunday, December 21, 2014

The four in five story that compares the NHS to like Lidl and Aldi

LIBERALS tell us that without the foreign doctors and nurses the NHS would implode. I have never believed this, but it makes a good story to tell when arguing against those who dispute the benefits of mass migration.
            
            The other day we were told that four in five new nurses recruited by the NHS are foreign. After reading this I thought; what on earth is happening to our state education system when we have to import Poles to make sandwiches (a 'skill' we no longer, it seems, posses), or work in department stores – and now we cannot even produce home grown nurses? These stories may have added grist to the liberal mill; but if they are true then the state of our liberal comprehensive educational system is more wretched than I first believed.
            
             But we now learn the "four in five" story can be explained by unscrupulous tailoring of the truth to benefit the pro-mass migrant cause; and it throws the ball back into the liberal court and demolishes the NHS foreign worker dependency argument. It is a canard and a deliberately created one. The idea that the one state provisioned institution that the British people have any great affection for would collapse if foreign workers did not become its rampart, was no doubt ment to persuade into a more welcoming frame of mind regarding mass-migration, the British people.

WE NOW LEARN that the NHS receives 100,000 training applications for 20,000 training places each year. We also learn that its costs £70,000 to train a nurse for three years – for the same amount the NHS can recruit three trained foreigners; 6,000 of whom were recruited last year.
            
            Nurses in their 40s who left to start families cannot find jobs to return to; on top of which the government has cut the number of nursing places from 20,829 in 2009/10 to 17,219 in 2012/13 – although it rose last year to 19,206[1]
            
            What this seems to be telling me is that the NHS is looking abroad, not because they cannot recruit at home, but because it is cheaper to recruit abroad …cutting out the need to train home grown candidates for the nursing profession. It has nothing to do with supply as our liberals believed it to be from the "four in five" story.
            
            This tells us that the NHS are recruiting nurses (as well as doctors directly from countries like Pakistan, and India), where they are desperately needed within their own countries. What do the liberal's feel about this? When the liberals get the wrong end of an argument, silence usually descends until provoked, by a new set of circumstances surrounding a new topic.

THIS COUNTRY can adequately supply its own nurses without the need to look abroad. We look abroad for economic reasons, and not for any perceived shortage. It is cheaper to buy abroad than it is to teach home grown nursing talent – just as it is to pick sprouts in a field in Lincolnshire.

WHEN IT COMES to mass migration and the liberal middle classes living in the better class of London residency; it is to their benefit that such migration occurs.
           
            In India during the years of the British Empire; those civil servants sent from the UK to help govern it on our monarchs behalf, left a country where their lower middle class status bought very little in terms of the employment of servants service their needs. But once in India servants were literally two a penny. Despite being minor civil servants comparable to a worker in today's benefits agency – once in India they were ranked well above what they would have been in the UK.
            
            So it is with mass-migration. The London liberal middle classes can now afford to employ servants from Europe, under the free movement of people's directive; as well as from other parts of the world. Oversees servants who could barely eke out a living, for instance in parts of Asia (the Philippines) came to London and received free board and lodging and a minimum wage, not a national one of course, but their employers concept of one.
            
             Mass migration has served the London Metropolitan elite very well, and they see no reason to halt its progress throughout the rest of the country; and anyone who opposes such an entrenchment within our culture is crowned a racist. It seems to me that it is not from the Right that Orwell's dystopian vision embedded in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four will sprout; but from the Left, with their apocalyptic vision of a continental super state built upon multicultural foundations  -  foundations built not upon inclusion but diversity. For multiculturalism is all about diversity.

THE METROPOLITAN liberals love the importation of cheap labour. To them, it is like shopping at Aldi. Human labour has been cheapened by the free movement of peoples and globalisation. The London liberal elite opposes any attempt to stop mass-migration because it serves their needs. They of course will dress up any opposition in the rhetoric of racism.
            
            Liberals are the archetypical hypocrites when it comes their own self-interest. They will campaign and protest, and author letters to the press on behalf of the poor, or any other liberal cause. But when their individual needs conflict with their high minded liberal principles; it is their personal needs which will always overrule their 'idealism'.
            
            Mass immigration has no conceivable benefit to the country  -  only to employers and the middle class liberalista. Since the time of Enoch Powell when a mere 50,000 migrants entered the country annually;  we now have 500,000 entering, not including the illegals: and to pretend as do the liberals, that such numbers will have little impact on the NHS, education, housing, or the welfare state, contradicts the mathematics of volume on the  people of any society from such a large intake of migrants. The liberalista are living in the twilight zone from where they carry their back- pack of a liberal conscience. They believe themselves to be welcoming in employing immigrants (especially as cheap servants). In doing so they care little for the impact their "welcome" has on the indigenous population.
            
             The liberal conscience only concerns itself with immigration and not the white indigenous people whose lives are being disorientated and even laid low by the influx. The white working class are despised by the social liberals within the two main political parties in parliament. We are seen as plebs by the Tories and proles by Labour: we have no purpose to serve in their modern "democracy"; a term which is anyway facing extinction within the European Union.
            
              But neither pleb or prole is considered as insulting in this politically correct society as being comparable in any way to Nigger, Taffy, Jock, Paki, or Paddy. We are living in a nightmare of political correctness which allows and prohibits the use of inoffensive and offensive terms according to the liberal lexicon. Freedom of expression including using insulting use of language is part and parcel of a free form of elucidation within a democracy.
           
              Democracy should, and have in the past, tolerated (at least from the 1960s) all forms of argument and expression. By using the law to prohibit such forms of expression that the liberalista finds objectionable, they are conjuring up Orwell's  dark vision.
           


                       
           
           




[1] All figures are taken from the Daily Mail, a paper which is not on many liberals reading list, but let them contest them instead of sneering at the newspaper.