Polemic: It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

Polemic: It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

It is official – our external borders are no longer secure

THE COMMONS HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE has brought out a report that says by the time illegal immigrants reach Calais from southern and eastern Europe (were lax boarder controls match our own) it is too late to stop illegal immigrants landing on our shores. Today's Daily Express, quotes from  the committee report thus; "Free movement rules within the EU had wrongly assumed external borders would be secure…." It then added; "They are not, so free movement means free movement for illegal migrants within the EU.”

                

                Another aspect of the free movement of peoples within Europe that will cause tensions in the near future is the question of European wide colonial guilt. It was, after all, not only the British  but the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Belgium, and German colonial powers that subdued many parts of the world's continents under their particular form of colonial rule.

                

                So the colonial guilt that British liberals felt after the fall of our Empire, was also felt by our liberally minded European ex-colonial nations. What this means is that all of the guilt-ridden European liberals, like our own, believe that they owe (on our, the peoples behalf) the people from their one time colonies the right of citizenship; and this is what has taken place all over Europe.

                

               Once the people from these one-time colonies are given their right to become citizens within  the countries of Europe they were once ruled by; then, because of the European open boarder policy, these people (now being citizens of the EU) will have automatic access to the rest of Europe  – only a liberal conscience could create such an unsolvable conundrum and the dreadful accompanying possibility of once more in Europe, reprising the rise of another Hitler,  through their liberal naivety and total faith in multiculturalism.

BUT LET US GET BACK to the home affairs report on boarder controls for those migrants  from outside of the EU, and the suggestion that once they reach Calais the game is up. The home affairs committee literates what most of us already understood was the case anyway. We (that is our government) have tried, first of all to  blame the French in Calais for their somewhat languid approach to illegal immigrants  crossing the channel in lorries. We then offered a few million pounds to the mayor of Calais to beef up boarder control including exporting to Calais officers from our own already proven to be inefficient Boarder Control Agency to help with the task. But all too little effect, according to the Commons Home Affairs Committee.

                

                We are now approaching in Europe the expunging of each individual nations indigenous culture; first by multiculturalism and then by the EU. The EU seeks the demise of the nation state (in a fortunate, and yet inadvertent co-ordination with multiculturalism) and its replacement with the Greater Europe which Europe's past dictators Napoleon, Hitler, and (under the banner of the Communist international) Stalin, all tried to invoke in order to unite Europe. Multiculturalism enters this same stream of ideologically driven panaceas that both on the Left and the Right proved disastrous for Europe's citizens in the 20^th century.          

                

                Mass immigration cannot be stopped because of multiculturalism and the people's fear of political correctness in opposing it:  which allows ever more immigrants, either illegals, or through European open borders, to take up residency in the UK. The indigenous white UK population have been forced through political correctness to always look over their shoulder, either in a pub, at work, or at a football match. We live in a PC society: our multicultural society will over time, create its own version of the East German Stasi who had neighbours spying upon neighbours to glean information they felt criticised the Communist state; as will no doubt the PC society who wish to oppose those who stand out against multiculturalism – only time will tell.

                 

The liberal Lubyanka that is the BBC

ANDREW BRIDGEN MP is on a mission to bring down a broadcasting Leviathan which demands on threat of imprisonment, and a hefty fine, a yearly tax of £5 billion from the British public. According to Bridgen; "On current trends, that will see 100 more people put in prison and over 300,000 citizens criminalised ". This Goliath of broadcasting goes by the name of the BBC: it demands financial remuneration from every television owner in the land: the tax is for the mere ownership of a television set – not for watching the BBC mind you, but just for owning a television

                

                The unfairness of this system would have been readily appreciated by medieval peasants who had to pay taxes of whatever value demanded by their robber barons and city sheriffs – such as the one immortalised in fiction through the story of Robin Hood.

                

                We are obliged to pay for services provided by the likes of the utility companies. When it comes to the energy companies we have a choice (if we wish to make it); when it comes to the BBC we have none; but when it comes to one of the BBC's  main competitors[1] – Sky: Rupert Murdock was given no such right by parliament to demand you pay him through taxation. You either bought into one or more of his services or you did not – the choice is yours. No one will be imprisoned or face a fine if they default with Sky; no one will be left with a prison record if they default with Sky. They will have their service terminated -  and even then Sky will welcome them back when they are financially able to buy their services once again when they become solvent.

               

                No prison and no fine; and no criminal record. Only a state regulated body such as the BBC would ever countenance either fining or gaoling a tax defrauder for owning a television set. This is madness: or it would be in a rational world; a world that the BBC governors and its chairman (sorry, chairperson) seems not to inhabit when it comes to broadcasting in the modern world. The BBC should no longer be able to go cap in hand to the politicians each year to increase the tax on television ownership, in the hope that they grant its yearly increase, and adding further to the prison population and criminalisation of BBC tax defaulters.

THE BBC has, over the decades, seen itself (along with politicians and a majority of the British people) as the finest broadcaster in the world. The institution was much loved by the British people (including myself). The term 'auntie' was a cosy reference that kept the population enamoured even under the Savile years in the 1970's and 80's.

                 

                 Andrew Bridgen referred to the BBC's mission statement and quoted the following; " [the BBC] exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain.” This implies at the very least, that objectivity free from all political bias, is the pre-requisite when it comes to educating and informing, as well as reporting, by a public broadcaster – the only part of this mission it has managed to live up to today, is to entertain (but even hear it is losing ground fast to it competitors).

                

                 The bias in the BBC on issues such as global warming, membership of the EU; multiculturalism, and immigration, cannot be disputed. The BBC's former employees have broken the silence on this institution's liberal bias. The BBC suffers the delusion that the nation is 100 per cent socially liberal and supports multiculturalism and immigration which gives them the right to dictate the liberal agenda that they support.

REALITY IS SOMETHING that, apparently, the BBC is out of tune with. They believe the whole UK  have bought into their multicultural liberal demesne; where they and they alone dictate the liberal agenda. They will not test this of course by doing away with the licence tax and allowing themselves to be cut adrift  into the private sector to survive on their own. The BBC dares not test its belief in its own superiority within the market place.

                

                 The BBC is becoming a liberal PRAVDA[2]; being allowed to continue by politicians who call themselves democratic. Now this broadcaster is looking into the possibility of charging the same licence tax for those who use its services on line. I firmly believe that the BBC believes themselves as vital to this nation's culture, as a water supply is to our people; and without it all cultural expression would be dead, and a new dark age would descend on these isles.

                

                  I doubt if Andrew Bridgen will ever accomplish his task of reigning in or better still doing away with the licence tax – but I wish him well in his attempt. 

               

               

               

               

---

[1] The BBC loathes any reference to competitors – especially Rupert.

[2] The old Soviet newspaper meaning 'truth'

Remember Bibi – you are only mortal

I WOULD HAVE loved to have been a fly on the wall of the Oval Office when Bibi Netanyahu had  finally been crowned the winner of the Israeli general election. The hugging-loving, golf-addicted, narcissist  president who now manages the affairs of the United States, and, God help us all, the world as well; must have been cursing the Gods when Bibi foiled his ambition to get rid of him via his interference in Israel's election.

               

                Sky News, and the BBC, were (using the Israeli exit polls) insisting it was neck and neck between the two candidates; and when Bibi Netanyahu appeared in front of the cameras to declare himself victor 'somewhat prematurely' they thought; the media must have thought he was attempting some kind coup. For such a declaration went against what they were telling their viewers in the desperate hope that the Left might still find a way of forming a coalition following the tight result they were predicting.

                

                 As it turned out Netanyahu, in terms of the Israeli system of proportional voting, achieved against every expectation from Western liberals – a landslide. Even if it only meant 30 seats: Likud can now govern comfortably with other centre-right parties.

                

                If you believe the liberal spin; the moment when Netanyahu made a final appeal to his voters on the eve of the poll, was the turning point. Why so? Well, because he warned his Likud constituency, and the other right of centre constituencies, that the Arab vote was being mustered to help keep a Likud coalition from office. Harretz, the left-wing Israeli equivalent to the  Guardian, was also reporting the same news independently of, and before Netanyahu's final appeal. But when Netanyahu warned his own voters of the same  news, he was called a racist.

                

                The Arab-Israelis account for 20% of the population and could therefore have had a significant impact on any Left of centre coalition if the Left had won the 30 seats the Likud Party achieved. Bibi Netanyahu knew this and he did what any shrewd politician would have done in similar circumstances (although, admittedly, there are very few circumstance to be compared to Israel's); he rallied his troops like Henry at Agincourt. He had earlier addressed the American Congress with a brilliant précis of the threat to the West, as well as Israel, of Iranian nuclear ambitions.

                

                 His speech to Congress was Churchillian in its analysis; comparable to the great man's warnings in the UK parliament of the rise of Hitler in the 1930's. Like Bibi Netanyahu, Churchill was seen as a warmonger by his political enemies for forewarning of the danger to democracy of Hitler's rise to power. In this imaginary comparison I would place President Obama alongside Neville Chamberlain. At least Chamberlain was probably driven by memories of the First World War, and no doubt these played a part in  his judgement when it came to Hitler - but Obama has no such memory to excuse himself from trusting Iran.

ISRAEL, ALTHOUGH MANY on its Left cannot admit to it, is a country currently surrounded by enemies who wish the Israeli state dead and buried; and what after-ward will be left of the Jews, will be driven out and once more back into the Diaspora (ala Obama). The Palestinians want the territory that is Israel for their own. They want the Jews out – but the Western liberals chose to ignore the inherent racism of such an ambition; yet continue to support such an ambition: and they do so without realising that they themselves are racist in the true sense of the word by supporting such a manoeuvre. The liberals only hide behind a two state solution to justify their attack upon Israel. When however Hamas start landing its rockets onto Israeli soil and Israel has to respond for the sake of their own people's survival; the Western liberals go into disproportionality mode whenever Israel is forced to respond in the most effective they know way of defending their people.

                

             Bibi Netanyahu is Right-wing – and so what? Churchill was considered Right-wing; and in the mid 1930's was meeting the same response to his warnings  of the rise of Nazism in Germany as Netanyahu is meeting today over his warning to Congress about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

               

             The Israeli liberal opposition sought a trouble-free way  to a negotiated two state solution; when there is no such effortless way out. The Palestinians are determined to see the Jews evicted from the Middle East. If you do not believe it then read the Palestinian web-sites – particularly Hamas's.

THE STATE OF Israel is an unconditional entity. A Jewish state is as bona fide as, if not more so, than the United States of America who replaced their native Indians, in a kind of mini-holocaust, with the detritus from Europe over centuries to help make the modern USA.

               

                Israel has as much right to exist on this planet as any other nation: indeed far more so than those who, through colonialism, laid claim to the world – including America. The Jews were the original settlers of Judea. The wailing wall in Jerusalem was not constructed by Palestinians.

               

               Ancient Judea was ruled by who else but the Jews. The Jews are the rightful residents of ancient Judea, which is now part of modern Israel.

PRESIDENT OBAMA hoped that the liberal opposition to Likud would have won out. He could have then orchestrated a two-state solution with a friendly, and he hoped, easily manipulated, Left of centre Israeli government who he could have used his undoubted rhetorical ability upon to flatter; and  who he hopefully could have settled the long serving conflict between Palestinians and the Jews; and  thus by doing so helped transform his presidency into such greatness; that it could only be comparable to  that of Abraham Lincoln.

                

                Obama won his presidency on his undoubted gift for rhetoric. But words can only go so far. They may get him past the first hurdle into the White House; but when it comes to  praxis far more is required than Obama was able to deliver . He is a wordsmith; a rhetorician of the first mould and a showman. But he is not a practitioner of the political arts; just a rhetorician.

                

                 Bibi Netanyahu  is a master of the political game – and if Obama had, instead of removing the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office, had, like Bibi, studied the great man, he may not have found himself moping in the Oval Office today.  

                

                 Obama is first and foremost, America's first black president - this was his first ambition; because whatever he did afterward, this would have readily given himself his place in American presidential history  – even if he spent the majority of his time on the golf course during his second term; leaving the world to fend for itself.

               

               

               

                

The racket that is multiculturalism

'While beautiful in theory, in practice multiculturalism had become a racket '  Trevor Phillips

TREVOR PHILLIPS, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (yes, another  Quango), has finally said what most of us none liberals already knew: that liberal Britain, the supposed acme of tolerance, free speech and progressive views; has in fact acted as censor-in-chief  to any opposition to mass immigration and multiculturalism by enlisting legislation to include hate crimes as a means of adding to our over populated prisons. On top of which, the casual references within the white indigenous population to nigger, sambo, paki, and the dozens of others, of what is now regarded as part of the racist lexicon; has been criminalised by the liberal ideology of multiculturalism.

                

                Bigotry would mean very little if a truly liberal progressive society was allowed it to flourish – at least free speech would have been protected and the Orwellian sounding hate crime would never have  been needed; as would the costly growth in prison cells needed to keep such views silent.

                

                There would, after all, be millions of anti-bigots to challenge the million or so bigots in a free society without reference to the criminal law to stop them expressing their opinions. The law should only intercede if a bigot went beyond a liberal society's cherished right to free expression, and tried to inflict physical harm on a member of any minority community: just as it would if a Jihadi set about beheading a British soldier in a part of London.

                

                 It is not bigotry that should be tolerated, but free speech. But under multiculturalism, where many dozens of different minority cultures are expected to live side by side (note, I do not use the term integrate, for this can never happen within multiculturalism, with its ethos of diversity) free speech has been strangled by multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is comparable to a cyclone silently gathering  its strength before finally imposing its destructive energy upon free speech; that salient feature of a liberal society.

               

                 Multiculturalism has been described as a 'beautiful theory' by Trevor Phillips. If he truly understands it; then it was never beautiful in any empirical or metaphysical meaning of the word. There is a saying that birds of a feather flock together. But as far as the white indigenous population are concerned this saying would be considered racist under the aegis of multiculturalism. But as far as the dozens of other cultures that are allowed board and lodging, and eventually citizenship in the UK; they are perfectly entitled to keep themselves apart from each other without being considered racist by the liberal hegemony and its multicultural cure-all for human inter racial conflict.

TREVOR PHILLIPS, I feel, is now trying to save his own skin by his               great multicultural rethink. When did such a change of heart first take place after all? Can Mr Phillips honestly say that multiculturalism was doomed to failure when he first took up his role as the chairman of  the Equality and Human Rights Commission? He now says that multiculturalism was a 'beautiful theory'. A theory that he must have once must have supported – for no-one supports an ugly theory.

                

                Perhaps he was naive. I was naive in my youth when I became a Marxist; but now at 65 the past is a foreign country to me and I only look to what is left of my future. I try never to look back (only for reference). But I do not think that Trevor Phillips can blame the naivety of youth for his mistaken faith in multiculturalism - as was the case with my own youthful idealistic belief in Marxism.        

               

               Multiculturalism (the diversity of different cultures living apart) negates a multiethnic society whereby all foreign cultures obey the same rules and laws of the country they take up residency within and become citizens of; even if those laws outlaw some of their own ethnic practices.

                

               The multiculturalists will say that this approach represents bigotry (and a few years ago racism) . But it is not the case because multiculturalism promotes as its lynch-pin, diversity – while inclusiveness within the white indigenous culture of the UK is the multiethnic approach that would have staved off a troublesome multiculturalism; which liberals were seeking to bring about but failed because of their innate political correctness.

               

               

               

               

               

               

Lord Bates pulls the plug on immigration

HOME OFFICE MINISTER Lord Bates is set to become the Left's villain of the week following Jeremy Clarkson last week, and Nigel Farage every week before Clarkson. The noble Lord has the temerity to point out that official figures show that one in four births in the UK were born to none UK citizens. Quoted in the Daily Express Lord Bates said: "In the year ending December 2011 an estimated 7.8 million people were born outside the UK and living in Britain, while 4.9 million were non-UK citizens.

"For the calendar year of 2013, births in the UK to non UK-born mothers accounted for 25 per cent of all live births. That is why we need to reduce immigration."

                Naturally Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband have waded in to criticise Lord Bates for stating the bleeding obvious; which did not need statistics to confirm  a-priori what the white indigenous British public already knew. Milliband and Clegg would have preferred these stats to have been kept under lock and key; at least until after this May's general election. But thankfully Lord Bates was concerned enough about the implications of such statistics on the white indigenous population to release them long before.

                Fifty-five per cent of the UK's population increase over the past decade was caused through immigration; and it will continue to do so as part of the miserable legacy of the previous Labour government who deliberately opened up the country to what Margaret Thatcher once referred to as a country 'being swamped' by immigrants; but she was not prepared for what both Blair and the EU intended.

                By signing up to the free movement of peoples within Europe; the last Labour government opened the floodgates to mass immigration from within and from without Europe; and the Cameron government has done little to turn the tide, despite failed promises of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands before this May's general election.

                We are nearing the tipping point regarding immigration: if it continues, with ever more  immigration, multiplied even further by ever greater birth-rates, then the ordinary and abandoned white indigenous people with their island's 2,000 year history behind them, will be brought to a slow end and replaced; but by what? A mishmash of different cultures fighting among themselves over the pickings of what will be left of the Britain that the white indigenous people created over centuries.

LORD BATES cannot possibly claim ignorance of what he has now announced. My guess is, up until the rise of Ukip, he preferred the safety of silence; as many others have before him (the racist fear effecting any response). Why the liberal establishment hate Ukip and loathes its leader so much, is because he was not afraid to articulate a large rump of white indigenous political opinion regarding the twin evils of the EU and multiculturalism. In doing so he has allowed a debate on immigration that would never have been tolerated by the liberalista that represents our establishment.

                Ukip, and in particular, Nigel Farage, have brought the other parties to heel when it comes to immigration. He was first described as a swivelling-eyed loony by various members of the three main parties who sniffley dismissed him. But Farage fought back. He is very intelligent and articulate; and he expressed many of the indigenous population's fears  about both the EU and immigration, that made millions of them unafraid to vote for his party. After last year's local and European elections; no longer do the other parties put two fingers up to this interloper upon the cloned three party system which the English public, are today being faced with.

                They no longer dismiss his party as racist but now take both Farage and his party seriously. Cameron would not have even offered any kind of referendum on Europe had it not been for Farage, who stole away many Tory voters that Cameron had dismissed as elderly and out of touch with the modern world that he and his modern Conservative Party now reigned over – until, that is, last May's European elections; after which Cameron had second thoughts.

THE FRIGHTENING official statistics regarding birth rates among the foreign gatecrasher's legally allowed entry, and those of the indigenous population, is unnerving. It is unnerving because there is no political party among the pro European triumphret who has the vision to see how the resultant catastrophe will unfold.

                The white indigenous population will, over time, if the trend Lord Bates describes continues; as it will of course continue to do so, because of the unwillingness of  the liberal hegemony to act to prevent it.  The white indigenous population will over decades become a minority within what was once their own nation.

                The genie was let out of the bottle by Blair's stupidity in the first place; but also accompanied by a Blair clone who was elected to the leadership of the 'Conservative' party - David Cameron.

                Cameron, like Blair before him, seems to care little about what is good for the nation's indigenous white population. All they care about is their own place in history and winning as many elections as they can, and to provide ever more column inches praising their efforts.

                Blair allowed into the country millions of east Europeans in order to represent a new foundation of future Labour voters to replace the white indigenous working class that was lost to the party by Margaret Thatcher, who released the union grip on all forms of ancient technology – especially in the printing industry. But also in many other industries such as coal and vehicle manufacturing where union power resided and tormented weak politicians that headed both the Tory and Labour parties; and almost turned the nation into a third world country, had i not been for Margaret Thatcher.

                Blair, or is cronies, eventually sought  to replace the ever diminishing white British working class vote, due to technological innovation and the demise of heavy industry, by looking to Europe for a replacement; and he settled upon eastern Europe – particularly Poland – a nation that shares his wife's Catholic religion and will, through his efforts, will no doubt eventually replace the Anglican Church as the country's established church – but what the hell, Anglicanism is facing its own liberal extinction anyway.

                Lord Bates has served his nation well by his contribution to the immigration debate; but whether his own party will take heed of his contribution is another matter.

               

               

               

Bring back our hustings - taken from us by the digital age

THE MEDIA BOAST was that 22 million viewers tuned into the general election debates in 2010. But what does this figure actually mean? It was not made clear to me at least, whether 22 million was the number of viewers for each debate; which would have been truly remarkable. Or what seems more likely; the figure needs to be divided between the three debates, leaving a pitiful seven million point whatever viewers for each debate - and how many of those same seven million watched all three debates? - thus making the 22 million count very dodgy indeed. This has now been confirmed by the Full Facts website, who have produced the following set of figures - Debate 1: 9.9 million. Debate 2:  4.4 million. Debate 3:  8.6 million  - All debates 22.7 million.[1]

                Let us also not forget that in 2010 there was a novelty factor at work which the media played for all it was worth. In the build-up to the campaign, the BBC, Sky, and ITV each seemed to throw their whole promotional budgets into advertising their coverage of one of the debates. But when it came,  (as the above figures show) the  viewing figures for each debate were not exactly proof of their popularity.

                But even with these figures - what happened? It became a beauty contest; where points were awarded by the media as much on the candidates televisual looks (the Richard Nixon factor) as on their response to questions. It was widely judged after the first debate that Nick Clegg (and we have seen how he turned out) had won.

                I believe it was because of these debates that we eventually ended up with a hung parliament and the coalition government that followed.

                I think David Cameron is right (despite my being a Ukipper) to steer well clear of these debates. It is not an insult to the electorate for him not to attend them; and certainly no act of cowardice. Let Ed Milliband cluck around Westminster disguised as a chicken if he so wishes, but Cameron is right not to allow himself to accosted by the media and made to do their bidding.

                Televised debates are burnished by the media and are therefore vacuous, targeting their cameras on a single bead of sweat making its way down a politicians forehead, hoping that the said politician will produce a handkerchief from his pocket and gingerly wipe it away, in the hope it will go ignored - but it will not go ignored; but become part of the next day's headline.

I AM 65 TOMORROW, and was around in the 1960s when a forum for real democracy known as the hustings took place and in my and every other town and city in the country. The candidates would take to the local market place on a gentle, warm May evening to make their final appeal to their local electorate the night before poll. The atmosphere was both serious and light-hearted among the generous crowds (nationally, probably greater than the media construct we face today) that listened to the various parties candidates.

                My town has always been a Tory town come a general election; punctuated, that is, by the rare relapse into voting Labour. All over the country the hustings provided entertainment of a kind the modern media could never reproduce. If a Labour candidate was thrown to the Tory wolves in a particular crowd; then a Tory one would face Labour wolves in turn. Such gatherings tested the metal (and wit) of the candidates, and made them better MPs through the experience.

                Our local markets  tested the merit of the candidates by asking intelligent, but often insulting questions followed by abusive comments, accompanied by taunts, boos and other form of derision. It was the test the people put their representatives through - and the candidates were fully prepared to give as good as they got knowing that the insults they were receiving, were primarily from the other parties' supporters and would not cost them votes – it was pure theatre and as good as a night out.

                I remember it was the 1968  general election. I was a first time voter and a Labour one at that: but also of a Marxist by conviction. A comrade and I attended a hustings on our market square, where the sitting Tory MP was to address the crowd. He was an accomplished fighter (some would say browbeater) at the hustings, having represented his constituency copiously as an MP for a decade. He was on the Right wing of his party, and was considered, even at that time, to be an old-fashioned Empire Loyalist - he had been born in New Zealand.

                My comrade cottoned on to this biographical tit-bit; and at an open air meeting he raised his hand to seek an opportunity to ask a question; he was acknowledged by the sitting MP. "Is it true", my comrade's lips twisted into a smile, "that you were born from aboriginal stock in New Zealand and cannot claim residency in the UK?". Our  MP's countenance briefly afforded a twisted lip and a hate filled stare – while, on the other hand, then a good measure of the people listening burst out laughing at the insult.

                This was typical of the kind of theatre that the hustings brought to an election campaign, before the stranglehold of television with its well ordered, modulated beige blandness and superficiality. Democracy is not facilitated by the media with these debates, but neutered. There was real and a times brutal local involvement at the hustings. A real battle of wits evolved during the course of the campaign between the public and the candidates. I am sure of one thing; that those who were never witness to a true hustings, would have found it far more democratic and entertaining than either Question Time, or the parade of the Ice Maidens the media wishes to inflict upon us through a well manicured presentation of superficial content.

AS YOU WILL have gathered, I am not a fan of televised debates. Instead of promoting democracy they trivialise it into a beauty contest where the appearance of a sweaty hand or forehead makes the headline rather than the response from any of the politicians. The television media have little to contribute to democracy through such debates. They should be done away with and I hope Cameron's refusal to allow the media to dictate their terms will be followed in forthcoming elections by other politicians from other parties

                The hustings were the true test of our candidates' ability at a local level. The politicians, after all, came face to face (literally) with the electorate: and if the television media tries to traduce this as all old hat; they had better think again. This was what democratic involvement by the people was meant to be all about – face to face contact. The visual media cannot replace such an organic link with the electorate at times of general elections by pitifully inviting party leader's to three televised debates – no wonder the figures were so low

                The hustings predated the digital age, and started in the steam age. They represented the closest contact the people had to their local representatives, and allowed them to test them locally - an arrangement that has never been allowed to exist in the digital age. In the digital age we must all obey the screen. Only through the screen can we be truly democratic; only the screen can steer us into…what?

               

               

---

[1] fullfact.org

Jihadi John – a Muslim icon?

MOHAMMED EMWAZI, aka 'Jihadi John', has either been described as the perfect employee by a company he once worked for in Kuwait; or a loner who kept himself to himself who was bullied at school. While a former ISIS militant described him as being 'cold and detached'. There are those who say that this amoral sociopathic personality was the creation of MI5. In other words MI5 were the Dr Frankenstein to the Emwazi monster. It was, according to such cretins, MI5 who created the sociopathic collector of human heads. Without MI5 persecution, this poor and gentle individual, would today be the perfect UK citizen, probably working as a BBC social affairs correspondent.

                

                Well, this latter (anti-MI5) caricature has been painted by a so-called 'human rights' outfit known as Cage; who gave a press conference after 'Jihadi Johns' real identity was found and announced to the world. Since then Emwazi's background has been churned over by the media. Apparently his father, Jasem Emwazi was accused of colluding with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. Jasem has been described as a 'bully and collaborator with Saddam' – as each day passes more facts and speculation emerges about Emwazi.

                

                 The press conference last Thursday was presented by three representatives of Cage including one John Rees who acted as the moderator during the conference. Rees was once a former leading activist of the Socialist Workers' Party, and also a national officer of the Stop the War Coalition, as well as now being a presenter on the Islam Channel.

                

                 Cage has charity status and as such is entitled to appeal for contributions from businesses and charitable trusts. Cage has been successful in its attempt to seek financial support. The Anita Roddick Foundation has so far bequeathed £120,000. While the Rowntree Charitable Trust has been duped into handing over £305,000 over a six-year period – this is a case of exemplary liberal naivety.

                

                 Cage described this young psychopath as an 'extremely kind' and 'beautiful young man'; Its research director Asim Qureshi who was the focal  point of the press conference regarding answering the presses questions has been outed by no less a figure than Guido who came up with a video made in 2006 of Qureshi addressing a rally outside of the US Embassy in London, from which I quote: "We have no fear. So when we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechnya, Iraq. Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel we know what the solution is and where the victory lies. We know that it is incumbent upon all of us  to support the Jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the west. Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!"

                

                 Cage should have its charitable status removed - if for no lesser reason than that Qureshi lives in a  £500,000 house in suburban Surrey with his partner. But will this happen? I doubt it because Qureshi is a Muslim and the liberal hegemony does not like upsetting Muslims. So Cage will continue. Whether the naive simpletons at  the Anita Roddick Foundation or the Rowntree Charitable Trust, remove their financial support or not is of course up to them – but history is littered with useful idiots prepared to support extremists, even those as vile as Emwazi.

IT IS THE LEFT who have always been attracted to particularly Left -wing dictatorships, and their sadistic unpleasantries in the past, and whose fascination continues to this day. The term 'useful idiots' was first used by Vladimir Illyich Lenin, to describe those British Left-wing, usually bourgeois, Fabian intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw, the Webs and H G Wells, who supported the Bolshevik revolution and wrote propaganda pieces exemplifying  everything good in socialism with reference to Soviet Bolshevism.

                

                Today the socialist Left, having been disillusioned by the failure of the Marxian dialectic incorporated in historical Materialism, have turned to another means of destroying their bitter enemy - the capitalist system. They are now fully prepared to sell their souls to the Islamist devil via a kind of Faustian pact with Islam to bring down the hated capitalist system; even if it destroys their socialist world view. Their logic being; that if Marxist socialism is to go down – then we Marxists will try to take capitalism down with us – their very own nuclear scenario.

                

                Anyone or anything therefore, that opposes such a system will be welcomed by the modern socialist Left – even if they associate themselves with a culture that isolate, and give in bondage women to whomsoever their Muslim parents wish to, through an arranged marriage; and if the arrangement is opposed by the women – then an arranged killing can be provided.

                

                Another aspect of Muslim culture which the Left ignores is the Muslim's fascination with female genital mutilation (FGM). Hundreds of thousands of such procedures have been carried out in this country over the decades: only to be ignored for so long by the liberal hegemony.

                

                The liking of (Muslim) Pakistanis for young indigenous white female under-age children entrapped into abuse, including rape,  went ignored by the PC authorities, like the police and social services in Rochdale, Rotherham, and Oxford (among other precincts in other towns and cities). Even today the practice continues. Such abuse of young children by Muslims still goes ignored – the liberalista fear the power of Islam within the UK and will mollify any outrage committed by any ethnic member of the multicultural community committed against a white indigenous individual.

JOHN REES, who sat as a moderator during the Cage press conference is not a one-off isolated Left-wing socialist, who takes his hatred for the capitalist system to such lengths that he is prepared to sell his political soul to any buyer who he sees promises an end to capitalism – even if the Caliphate he believes will come about, would be far more cruel and destructive than the capitalist system he has spent the whole of his wretched and embittered life, opposing.

                

                Mohammed Emwazi, is a terrorist. He has earned that title by his behaviour – and only HIS BEHAVIOUR. Nothing else matters to the families of the individuals from whom he separated heads from bodies. Emwazi's past does not matter; however much the liberalarti (I refer in particular to the Guardian) try to give it  some significance.

                

                MI5 never played any part in how Emwazi turned out – if anything, they should have  kept him in isolation. But the control orders that would have allowed this to happen were opposed by Nick Clegg and the Guardian, and were done away with as part of a coalition compromise.     

                

                Both the hard and soft Left[1], including the Liberal Democrats, have between them managed over time to become almost vassal-like servants in their attitude to the 2.5 million Muslims they have irresponsibly set to live among us over the decades. The Muslims, if they only knew it, have more power over our politicians than the white indigenous population have ever had.

                

                Mohammed Emwazi, will, I foresee, in three decades from now, be considered a martyr by the ever growing Muslim population within many towns and cities within the UK; which in many, particularly northern towns and cities, will have attained for themselves the majority over the white indigenous population: and the politicians from the three main parties will compromise accordingly; firstly on sharia law in order to get their votes.

                

                In 30-years time Emwazi will be seen as a kind of what?  I suggest a folk hero by the dominance of many Muslim communities in our towns and cities who both Labour and Tory will rely upon in order to become the government – and who knows; perhaps there will be a statue commissioned, of Emwazi posing in some Muslim dominated northern city; replacing a once British hero.

                Once the demographics change so will the attitude of our politicians, as Tony Blair found when he opened the floodgates to mass migration, particularly from Eastern Europe. He hoped to replace the white working class; and replace them with thankful Catholic Poles to begin with – he and his wife are, after all, Catholics themselves.

MOHAMMED EMWAZI'S presence in the UK relied upon (as all Muslims did) liberal colonial guilt. His family came to the UK and were immediately given a council house to live in by the liberal hegemony that has reigned over the decades from the 1960s onward, including today. It apparently was not enough, even for a new start.

                

                Emwazi is a cruel and vindictive pawn of ISIS. It matters not what drove him to do what he has done and will continue to do. He must be stopped and Cage must be allowed to wither on the vine of unwanted charitable donation. Cage describes itself as a human rights organisation; but it appears that it only considers the rights of the be-headers rather than their victims.

               

               

               

               

               

---

[1] By hard and soft Left, I refer to those within the two main parties.

God spare us from the Green Party

IF EVER THERE WERE  an argument against lowering the voting age to 16, we heard it yesterday in a studio at LBC radio, when the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, was interviewed by LBC's  Nick Ferrari. The interview has been played over and over again in the last 24 hours throughout the media, and each time I heard it, I had less sympathy for Ms Bennett's predicament.

               

                Nick Ferrari should win an award for the way he handled the interview. There is now another star to be added to the political interview firmament, among whom sits the likes of Paxman, Humphreys, and Neil.

                

                 Ferrari did not press Ms Bennett as the before mentioned triumphret would have done; all he had to do was to give the leader of the Green Party enough rope to hang herself, which she obligingly did. Ferrari was politeness exemplified -  even expressing his sympathy for her as she announced, after several skids before the final crash, that she was suffering from a cold which she made her mind blank.

                

                 Ferrari knew that the Green Party prospectus was almost imbecilic in its naivety (which is why all 16 year-olds should be kept well away from the ballot box until they turn 18). He confronted her with a few gently delivered questions such as how she proposed to find the cash to build 500,000 new homes – she was clueless. She remained clueless throughout the interview. Her performance even surpassed the one she gave Andrew Neil on the BBC's Politics on Sunday earlier.

              

               If the Green party wishes to sell its bizarre agenda to the British public - an agenda that includes not only building half a million homes without knowing where the money is to come from to pay for them as Ms Bennett, by her various silences seemed to acknowledge in her LBC interview – which, as part of the Green perspective, also includes doing away with our nation's defences, and allowing all and sundry, without restriction, to come freely to live among us from whatever portion of the world they chose to travel, without any kind of government obstacle.

                

               Everything the Green's produce in terms of policies are, I was about to write 'ill-thought through'. But this would have implied acknowledging an intellectual element resulting in a miscalculation that any party could and often does make. Intellectual miscalculation means using the intellect and getting it wrong, which is forgivable. But the Greens do not seem to apply reason to their policies, only un-costed idealism, which attracts the young to their breast.

THE GREENS should not serve as a utopian dream, but a dystopian warning. The Green party attracts those jejune among us of all ages with our simplicity of nature -  but in particular our youth. To our youth the Green's idea of ridding the nation of its armed forces, is, idealistically speaking, the way to bring peace and love into the world.

                

                The wide-eyed and credulous young to whom simplistic and idealistic solutions are part of their teenage make-up, who will readily fall into line with the Green agenda, should all be kept well away of voting until they receive a more mature understanding, based upon age and experience.

                

                 Natalie Bennett's  display was truly awful. She deserved the fate she received. She represented a party  of wide-eyed anti-intellectual but idealistic none-entities, who themselves enthusiast as dreamer visionaries who see their Green agenda as the only hope for mankind.

                

                 The Greens will only be taken seriously, God forbid, if they stood any chance of fooling enough of the electorate to win power.

NATALIE BENNETT'S ignominious performance, if it had been reproduced by the leaders of any of the three major UK political parties; would have certainly resulted in a busily attempt at creating a new party leader before next May's general election.

                

                The Greens stand for a dystopian world they would like to see become real – just as the Marxists in the 1960s/70's would have liked to have seen the imprint of a Communist dystopia on every aspect of the lives of UK citizens . The Greens are no better than the Marxists. The Marxists did not believe in the capitalist free market – and neither do the Greens.

              

                The Greens are almost pathetic in their naivety toward the need to abandon economic growth under capitalism only to replace it with what? Medieval forms of bartering? As for the youth, particularly the student youth, who share the Greens same kind of dim-witlessness, they are now being considered to be allowed the vote at 16 if Labour wins this May.

               

                 Ms Bennett did, rather ignominiously it must be said, do the country a favour by her curdled delivery and almost dementia-like ignorance of detail regarding her party's manifesto during her self-inflicted LBC water-boarding. Maybe, just maybe, the Greens will once more sink into the background, and remain there, until another generation  of 1960's ancestral hippydom comes once more to the for.