Homophobia and Tyson

Phobia: noun: a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

Synonyms

anxiety, aversion, avoidance, awe, disgust, dislike, dread, fear,hatred, horror

AT THIS TIME OF the year, and every year since I was a child (I am now 65), the BBC has, despite its past monopoly of sport coverage; still likes to see its annual Sports Personality of the Year (SPOTY), as the kind of Oscar ceremony for all kinds of athletic achievement. Unlike the Hollywood variety where only the great and good pick and choose those to be crowned with an Oscar; the SPOTY is left to the discretion of the viewer to pick the most outstanding sportsman of the year. But this year controversy has left the liberal conscience that crowns the BBC, in a state of confusion.

                

                The World Champion boxer, Tyson Fury who deserves, after beating the undefeated world champion Wladimir Klitschko, the right to be included as a contender in the BBC's SPOTY award. This award is about sporting achievement and little else. These were the sole boundaries that the originators of this award at the BBC set. SPOTY had no other limits attached to it than the accomplishments of sportsmen and women. But little did the originators of this prescription know of political correctness; which the current BBC has immersed itself in.

                

                Tyson Fury opposes homosexuality – so what? He also has antiquated views on women – so what? He also shares the modern view of paedophilia, and therefore, neither of these politically correct stains brings him into contention with political correctness. It is only his 'homophobia' that threatens him. Only homophobia is capable of dismantling his entitlement to enter Sports Personality of the Year. An entry the BBC would like to eject him from; but, I suggest, the votes now supporting his stance are accumulating in his favour rather than the BBC's political correctness.

TYSON FURY'S achievements as a minority would have been exalted by the BBC. Fury was, after all, from traveller stock. A minority the BBC would have readily supported, and indeed did so after his victory over Wladimir Klitschko. Fury was from an ethnic minority background that the liberal BBC lefties would and did support after his victory.

               

                But his inopportune remarks on the eve of the SPOTY has sent the BBC into a tizzy; which in theses 'modern' times of political correctness is so easy to do. Fury's opinions are just that; the accumulation of thoughts and prejudices of the type all parts of the political spectrum are guilty of, including the liberalista that now oversees and governs the BBC - an institution we all contribute to via the licence fee but have little in common with the liberal hegemony that now drives the BBC and therefore should be exempted from paying its the licence tax.

               

                 Fury may be a bigot, but he suffers no phobia as far as homosexuals are concerned. For a phobia is a fear of something whether it be spiders, snakes, or a thousand other fears such as enclosed spaces, open spaces, or fear of height. Phobias are an irrational expression of fear.

                

                 Fury does not fit such a description of fear in terms of homosexuals: he is after all a world champion boxer who fears nothing that in the boxing ring he comes up against – bigot, yes; homophobe …no!

                 The Left create phobias almost at will. When someone holds opinions and views they find outrageous then phobia is a useful tool to use by the Left to close down all debate. I have a fear heights and enclosed spaces, in other words acrophobia and claustrophobia (both legitimate phobias). What I do not have a fear of, irrational or legitimate, are homosexuals or Muslims. Muslims are, according to the teachings of the Koran opposed to all same-sex relationships. This does not mean that Muslims have a phobia (i.e. a fear of Gays) but oppose them because of their faith – and the practices of anal penetration may disgust them despite the teachings of the Koran.

                

                  I oppose Islam because in whatever guise it presents itself; it is a religion still stuck in the middle ages. The Islamic faith has never been tested like Christianity in the cauldron of a Reformation: and this is partly why, in the Arab world, Islam still clings to the plough rather than advancing towards the scientific and technological revolution that stimulated the Western world after the great 16^th century Christian divide.

TYSON FURY'S SO-CALLED homophobia is no such thing, for there is no such thing. Prejudice? Yes. Hate? Yes. Bigotry? Yes. Fear, in terms of how we recognise and understand it – no! Homophobia is the creation of political correctness; that liberal poison that has left people afraid to speak out and give their opinions for fear of being charged with the gravest crime in the liberal lexicon – bigotry, and its composite; the hate crime which homophobia, or any other kind of politically correct phobia the Left determines to be none PC.

                

I will vote for Tyson Fury as sports personality of the year.  I have little appreciation of sport of all forms but my loathing of the BBC is such that I am prepared to try and get one over on them by supporting Fury. Homophobia is not an irrational fear or otherwise. Fear does not drive those who oppose its practice - only disgust.  A disgust of the liberalista, that now occupy every nook and corner of what Marx called capitalist societies superstructure. 

                

                Tyson Fury should stand his ground; stay true to his beliefs, and not be intimidated by the kind of insipid liberalism that he now faces. His views on homosexuality, you will be pleased to know, I do not agree with; but only his right to express them.

                

                There is no such thing as a homophobe or for that matter an Islamaphobe (but the latter is for another piece). Bigotry is the only legitimate term to apply to those the Left liberalista see as suffering a kind of phobia, which gives the intended target of their political correctness a feeling of suffering a kind of psychological condition which automatically negates all argument or criticism, and undermines them. Fearful of the liberal domination of every quarter of society; people feel themselves less free to speak other than among their trusted kind; for fear of the black spot of racism being handed to them.

                

                 Dismiss homophobia as a term manufactured by the industry of political correctness. It has no legitimacy in any lexicon other than that manufactured by political correctness. Homosexuality was rightly legalised in the 1960s. At the time gays faced blackmail and prosecution for their practices. Thankfully no such cruelty is inflicted on gay people today; but prejudice is another matter. Gays are rightfully protected by the law. I remember the 1960's-70's when 'gay bashing' was the favourite sport of the bigot. Before its legalisation gays could be picked on at will: although protected by the law if assaulted; among the police at the time there were officers who thought homosexuals deserved what they got, unless the assault left the victim near to death.

               

                To refer to gays in all sorts of ways people will find intolerable is no proof of those who find such practices intolerable, in any way justifies them being labelled with a phobia that was plucked from the air by the liberal political correctors.

                

                Tyson Fury stated his opinion as a Christian, who no doubt as most Christians do. It was his view that the Christianity does not tolerate homosexuality. It is there in the New as well as the Old Testament. Gays are not very popular under either Christianity or Islam. Nevertheless Tyson Fury deserves his chance without intervention from the BBC tradition of political correctness. Fury should be allowed to enter the SPOTY and be given his chance to become its latest to be honoured – even if every PC lefty at the BBC has to attend grief counselling as a consequence.

               

               

               

               

                

The New Year

THE OLDER YOU GET the shorter your horizon when it comes to the future. When you are halfway through your sixth decade, and on the cusp of a new year, you hesitate when thinking about the future; you no longer take the future for granted as you once did in your youth. Time then was plentiful and you could plan ahead with every expectation of seeing completion.  When you are old, you have to use great care about the future; you must never tempt fate by planning an outing even several months into the future.

                

                I know 65 is not considered old today; but even in the past it marked the entry point into retirement; a period of slowing down; a period when activity is restricted by your age from all sorts of youthful activities. For some and many more in the future, humans can be expected to live another 35 years. But I have health problems and I am therefore highly sceptical of becoming an eighty-year-old let alone marking up a century. I do however have the septuagenarian's outlook on the future, which is a realistic accommodation with the future; this is why I look to the New Year more in hope than expectation that I will survive until the next New Year.

                

                  In any case, the future for the elderly, especially those who no longer have a spouse or relatives prepared to put the effort into keeping them solvent, is pretty grim. I would no longer wish to receive a telegram from the by then King Charles or William than I would welcome being kept alive by artificial means when I could no longer lead an independent life, free from the clutches of what is called a retirement home where group activity is encouraged and the elderly are in the control of well-meaning and compassionate people, but are nevertheless reliant on others; and the frailer they become as the years pass the more they show the symptoms of the childhood from which they sprang, and there follows from this, in their final months, being fed by hand; being taken to the toilet; having incontinent nappies changed for them – surely death is not so bad that we cling to this indignity.

THE NEW YEAR is now upon us and the young, as they should, look toward a prosperous and happy future. They know that they will see another and another, and yet many another New Year, and, as they should, think in terms of progress; of advancement in whatever field they work, whether in the solid grounding in any skill they have been apprenticed to, or any academic discipline they have been fortunate enough in studying for.

                

                The productive life has always been for youth. Ambition and drive, followed by a comfortable living, is the ambition of ambitious youth. They can treat, for at least 40 years, the future as being taken for granted in terms of them being alive to realise their ambitions. Many will not make that transition to some kind of happiness. Diseases affect the young as well as the old; many a military career has been stopped in its track by a bullet, or piece of shrapnel. But on the whole, the horizon for the young is vast in terms of life expectancy.

               

                So now I start my 66^th year on this earth. It is a time when I have always, ever since childhood, seen Easter as my next horizon. I have always loved the spring, and in my later years preferred Easter to Christmas, as the overture to spring. Christmas is for childhood, and Easter is for warmer temperatures that every retiree seeks.

IN MY YOUTH I had a newspaper round; it was the best job I ever had. The newsagent I worked for was local, and the business he worked for had a local monopoly on the distribution of newspapers. Some of my customers each year ordered something called Old Moore's Almanac; a predictive booklet that told its readers of its prophecies for the following year.

               

                I now, in deference if not reverence to Old Moore, seek to lay claim to his powers temporarily, and predict the political events that after New Years' Eve will come to pass over the coming twelve months. Of course, guesswork is not an exact science - or even a science. But there is sufficient trails laid by the events in 2015, to allow for a creative speculation on our nation's immediate future.

               

                This coming year will continue the process of European decline, accelerated by a 'remain' victory in the up and coming EU referendum; however meagre Cameron's negotiating demands; however contemptible the EU's lack of any kind of meaningful response. The EU knows that Cameron would vote for our membership of the EU, even if it demands from the prime minister, Herod- like, he should kill all of the first-born of all Eurosceptics.

               

                 In 2016, migration will remain the number one issue for the indigenous people of the UK. Last summer's great influx from Syria, Iraq, and even Pakistan, has been tempered by the winter. Come the spring and summer the tempo will once more pick up. Coupled with the continents open borders policy; the UK's welfare system, housing, education; and most important of all, the NHS will be undermined by the sheer weight of numbers seeking entry to the UK.

                

                 Islamism will continue to prosper, not necessarily from military victories, but from the 15 million Muslims resident in Europe – 2.5 million of who live in the UK. These vast numbers represent a forest within Europe which Islamism can hide and strike at the kafir at every opportunity.

2016 WILL BE a year dictated by foreign rather than domestic concerns. This does not mean that domestic economics and politics will not be important, especially in Europe, and particularly in the UK with the possibility of a Corbyn premiership fuelled by government failure on all economic and political fronts. While a referendum victory insufficiently won, in terms of the weight of numbers, only keeps the Eurosceptic cause alive.

                

                Corbyn will not win in 2020, and there is nothing that can happen in 2016 to change the public's mind about him. If the Labour Party had a more agreeable leader (agreeable to the public that is) then the Labour Party would be the favourite to win in 2020.

                

                There will be instability within both the main parties in 2016. Whatever the outcome of the EU referendum, the problem of Europe will not go away for the Cameron Tories; if they win the referendum, then there will follow more desertions to Ukip from Tory MPs many among whom have the full loyalty of their constituents – so politically and economically we will be living in an interesting time in 2016.

                

                So this is my ' Old Moore's Almanac' for the coming year. I am indeed old and getting older; time is not on my side, and I do not want to witness the terminal decline, made so by our politicians, of Western civilisation. Liberals may think it the ravings of a reactionary who despises modernism in all its cultural forms. Well they would be right, but for the wrong reason.

All Welby can do is turn the other cheek

ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY, in his Christmas Day address he branded ISIS 'a Herod of today'. He then said that Christianity faced 'elimination' in the Middle East. He is of course right: but all he is capable of doing is warning of the real possibility without suggesting how to prevent it. He, like many Christians, will see it as a fate-accomplice, and in accordance with the Christian precept; they will 'turn the other cheek', as they would if the same horrors were being visited on European Christians by Muslims.

                

                Was it not the archbishop's predecessor, Rowan Williams, who suggested an accommodation with Sharia Law? Those Christians now being brutally murdered by ISIS in so many creatively sadistic ways have to turn the other cheek if they can no longer flee Syria and Iraq – they have little choice. The Anglican Church deserves to go under. The church that stood side by side with the nation when Hitler tried to create his European imperium is no longer with us. The pulpits in this green and pleasant land that once echoed with patriotic sermons of the type would be shouted down today as racist: today any form of nationalism is racist.

                

                Peace and love, the main arteries of Christianity, weaken our nation's opposition to a cruel and bloody enemy like Islamism. Peace on earth and goodwill to all men is an ample message when peace exists: when, however, you are not offered peace but only conflict and war with an enemy that despises you and your faith; then Christian gentility has to show a different face if it wishes to continue its 2015 year journey. In the past Christianity has buttressed the nation's spine, believing that its duty was to the country in which it functioned and stood by it in times of war and conflict.

                

                This is the Christianity I believe in; and if it had never been practiced Christianity would never have survived the previous 2015 years. My brother who is an artist reflected this idea in one of his paintings: the painting was of Christ on the cross, and tucked into his loin cloth was a berretta pistol symbolising the Christian fight back which the modern Anglican Christian church now refuses ever to contemplate; even if it led to the destruction of Christianity itself. So why become a Christian?  It lacks any belief in justice that is worth killing to preserve. The modern teaching exemplifies this pacifistic impulse, in an age when Christians are being slaughtered wholesale in the Middle East.

               

                 The Anglican archbishop mouths Christian platitudes about peace and love being the true Christian message – well so be it in a wholly Christian world. But we live in no such world and the Anglican Church, if it wishes to survive must stiffen its sinews and learn to accept that if the church wishes to survive it must defend itself. All earlier archbishops and their clergy understood this; but today the Anglican Church is riddled by fear and liberal guilt. There will come a day when the Christian message harvests all humanity to its core values of peace and love; but this is not the time, and until that time is reached the Christian Church must challenge and destroy the enemies of the country they serve – Islam has no love for Christianity. Its tolerance is based purely upon demographics until it gets the upper hand. It has no real Christian value of living together.

               

                   Earlier English Anglicans protected their national monopoly from the intrusions of the Catholic Church. Now the whole of Christianity has to protect itself from the intrusions of Islam. Islam (not Islamism) is growing in confidence. There is no redeeming New Testament in the Koran: Islam believes in the kind of proselytising through conquest that the Catholic Church in Spain once did in the Americas in the 17^th century. Islam has had no reformation only tribal schism and an everlasting medievalism that is still with it today, centuries after Christianity dispensed with this model.

THE ARCHBISHOP of Canterbury has nowhere to turn to help his Christian brethren in the Middle East. All he can do is pray that what may be left of the Christian believers in the Middle East after ISIS has finished with them, may create, as the Jews had to do, a Diaspora among Christian countries; and hope that throughout the coming centuries they will not, like the Jews, be persecuted and pulled from pillar to post before they are able return to the Middle East.

                

                 It is the feeble and pathetic nature of modern Anglicanism that it cannot, as once it did, rally Christianity toward using violence in order to keep Christianity in one piece. Turning the other cheek may bring forth martyrdom and respect, but it will not save the Christian faith. We are once more at war with Islam. If by saying this you term me a bigot or racist; then given the source from which such charges are laid – it is like water off a duck's back: and I care little. For on either count, I know I am not either bigoted or racist.

                

                  The Anglican Church will have to accommodate, like Rowan Williams' overture to sharia law, a fateful compromise, that within a few generations will see Anglicanism dwindle to a sect at a time when secularism and multiculturalism flourish; and just like the Anglican Church, liberal secularism, like liberal Anglicanism, will accommodate its lack of ruthlessness in tackling the advance of Islam and suffer the same consequences.           

                                

Vote 'remain' at your nation's peril

I BELIEVE the 'remain' argument will win the day whenever Cameron allows his people to vote in a referendum on our membership of Europe. I do not see that there is any chance whatsoever of the 'leavers' winning. The only hope those of us who wish to see our nation leave this fantasy land of misplaced hope is for the 'remain' vote, whenever it comes, not to be so overwhelming that there is little or no chance of revisiting the issue at a later date. If the result was tight then there would still be hope for a different outcome at some future date.

                

               The actions of our various politicians over the decades border on the sinister, and have done so ever since that wretched, lonely and inaccessible figure Ted Heath, signed us up to something called the Common Market; which he trumpeted as a purely trading arrangement that would benefit the British people. At the time of the first UK referendum, there was no talk of political and monetary union; let alone any talk of a Federal or United States of Europe: when it was mentioned Ted Heath laughed it out of court as pure fantasy and stigmatised those who had the foresight to envisage such an outcome as swivel-eyed loonies.  As a consummate believer in such a federal union, Ted Heath did not wish to scare the pigeons away and so tempered his message - slowly, slowly catch the monkey seemed to have been his metaphor for eventually enticing his nation into becoming a United States of Europe.

                

                Heath knew what he wanted for Europe and come what may was determined to see it accomplished, and any political leader of his own party that stood against this European ideal would be sulkily chastised via the media. And this is what happened when Margaret Thatcher, a Eurosceptic became prime minister. Heath (who by then still called himself a Conservative) would readily accept invitations by the media to any interview that challenged the prime minister of his own party – something which Margaret Thatcher never did when Heath held prime-ministerial office.

               
                There is a fanaticism about the Europhile that suggests they will do whatever they deem to be necessary in order to accomplish their end. It is such as these who are the true fanatics: those who wish to remain distant from this whole EU enterprise are traditionalists, who seek the preservation of the nation-state throughout Europe (not only the UK) and stand opposed to the dismantling of all our European national and cultural heritage, that a federal Europe would bring about.

THE EUROPHILES are the true fanatics because they believe in a dystopian project that will destroy national democracy and the nation states throughout Europe. Brussels is an elitist centre-point for the great expansion of the grand European Union project that will need at some point to find a strong emperor-like figure to lead the whole continent once encased in a unified whole.

                

                Why do I say this? Well look at the EU; look at how it is overseen. It has an unelected Commission and an appointed president; a neutered parliament whose purpose is to rubber stamp everything the Commission sets before them; where decision making lay with the unelected Commission - the true powerhouse of the European project.

                

                The whole EU project has never had a democratic base or culture: indeed there is talk of the post-democratic age among the bureaucrats and there are whispered references to it around the dining tables of the European political classes.

                

                 A strong and powerful individual will be given primacy over the whole of the EU; over the Commission and over the parliament. It will be the only way to coordinate a functioning federation of diverse cultures with their varying democratic heritages: and allow (whether for good or bad) quick decisions to be taken uninhibited by debate.

                

                The blueprint of a federal Europe has taken its inspiration from the USA model. The European nations will become provinces rather than states as in the USA, which will be divided into regions, with their neutered assemblies. But Brussels will be a Pound Stretcher version of Capital Hill overseeing the continent. Such a concept as a United States of Europe cannot possibly work according to democratic principles when applied to Europe. A strong man with a strong arm and fanatical belief in the whole enterprise will be needed before the new dystopia is seen in any kind of complete form. He or she will demand almost totalitarian powers to clamp down on dissent which is bound to emerge once the people of each nation are faced with the diminution of their nations.

                

                Under the Roman republic, the Senate appointed a dictator whenever Rome was under threat from an enemy: once the threat was overcome the dictator (usually a victorious general) handed back power to the Senate. Perhaps this is how it will start in Europe. The continent may face internal unrest of such dangerous proportions that the lethargic and impotent European parliament will have to be brushed to one side and replaced by a dictator (if not in name) who will brutally bare bear down of the unrest; but in a culture where there is little or no democracy will the appointed one hand back power?

               

                 

                

A seasonal homily

AT THIS TIME of year, the hundreds of thousands of followers who read my blog look to my Christmas message as part of their traditional Christmas and have done so for nearly two years. Having to compose such a homily tests my numerous literary inscriptions to their limit: but I welcome my yearly challenge. Three weeks before Christmas my mind turns to my seasonal message.

                

             As you who so slavishly indulge me by reading my blogs over the year; I owe it to you to put you on the right path for the coming year. But this year I have reflected upon the modern meaning of Christmas. The historical meaning, of course, was the celebration of the birth of Christ, and there was a time when, especially at this time of year, all Christian churches of whatever domination were full, and in some cases to overflowing. People instinctively paid, through attendance at midnight mass, their homage to the real significance of Christmas. Carols from Kings were always the curtain raiser to Christmas at the BBC. The Christian religion was the backbone of the celebrations. It was the intended backbone, without which Christmas meant very little.

                

               Okay, it may have been the case that by the 1960s the dwindling effects of Christian worship began to relapse and secular society began to make inroads; and was later to emerge fully crowned. But for those like me who were born in the late forties and early fifties; we still understood the meaning of Christmas; even if we never attended church apart from weddings, christenings, and funerals. In our schooling we understood the meaning of Christmas and it was not all about presents (although, to be honest, it was what we looked forward to most): but we were taught the true Christian significance of this time of the year. It was the birth of Christ; as Easter was meant to mourn his crucifixion.

                

                Both Christmas and Easter have become, no longer part of the religious calendar; but the spending calendar. Commercialism has long since overtaken the religious spirit of Christmas. We have Black Friday extended into Saturday and the week following. As far as commercial interest is concerned the greatest significance of Christmas is not the birth of Christ, but the presence of bargains on the high street, in the Malls, and online. Commercialism has robbed Christmas of its original religious purpose. Bargains become the true purpose of Christmas; and it also applies to the New Year sales.

IN THE UK, once atheism predominates as the author of a secular society; then what is the point of Christmas and Easter? What is the point of spending the billions of pounds world-wide on celebrating both festivals? Or for that matter, any other religious festival: atheism brings forth the iron heel of disbelief; the iron heel that destroys faith and reduces humanity to the nasty and pitiless extremes of living without a religious faith and censored by secularism.

                

                The modern symbols of Christmas have to be decadence and decline. Gorging and spending are now the seasonal priority. Drunken women falling down in town and city centres and exposing parts of their bodies which may be considered the highest form of eroticism when sober; but become slatternly and squalid when drunk: men in turn usually end up abusing and fighting each other, usually with a beer glass, and over either football or women.

                

                Families come together to celebrate the season and crowd the dinner table on Christmas day, pulling crackers, and wearing the contents on their heads. All is peaceful and merry. The spread before them is the product several visits to Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda, Morrison's; and the new kids on the block Aldi: over-consumption (i.e. gluttony) leaves the living room overcrowded with lifeless bodies snoring and farting the afternoon away: but ready to begin again come the evening.

                

                In such an environment alcohol is the blue touch paper that loosens the tongue, and resurrect ancient injustices felt by certain family members to other family members. It takes little for a father and brother to square up; it takes only alcohol for a snide remark well targeted to transform the peace into a great shouting match between various family factions. But although these may be the extreme exceptions; we know that many arguments are started within family members at Christmas; when the Christian message of love should be at its zenith and once was, today that message, in our secular society, falls on deaf ears.

THE ONLY socially good thing about over consumption at Christmas is that it keeps store and supermarket employees in their jobs, and allows them to over consume on behalf of their own families at a discount from their employers.

                

               Christmas today has lost both its Christian and pagan heritage. In purely religious terms there is no longer any point to it apart from what; one or two million church goers? Consumerism (and atheism) has taken over this festival. I do not doubt that in certain communities throughout the Christian world; they celebrate their faith; whether they live in North or South America, the Christian religion is hanging on and may it long do so.

               

               My Homily is reaching its end. I do not wish people to stop celebrating, only to remember what they are meant to be celebrating: and it has nothing to do consumerism or even (a creation of mass consumption) Father Christmas/Santa. Christmas and Easter are part of the religious calendar; the first to celebrate Christ's birth; the second to mourn his death and celebrate his resurrection.

                

                 So, I hope my many thousands of followers will take my homily to heart and think about its profundity in the months leading up to next Christmas; when I shall once more give you the benefit of my wisdom on another aspect of a celebration that will continue to exist, if only in its commercial,  for as long as democracy and the free market survives.

               

                 

Bits and pieces (9)

BBC IMPARTIALITY (by now a contradiction in terms) is once more being questioned in the run up to the EU referendum. This benefit-reliant institution is as impartial as any football supporter; it has feather-nested itself with £2 million of EU funding over the past three years. This taxpayer funded institution still insists to its viewers as well as the wider world that it is impartial - it wears its 'impartiality' as proudly as young virgins once did their chastity.

                

                But this is no longer credible. The BBC has never been truly impartial; it has always represented the 'official' or what I would describe as the establishment view. From the 1960s up to today the British establishment has evolved into what now has become a liberal hegemony, and as such, its presence has been felt everywhere throughout society and no more so than at the BBC.

                

                The BBC is not impartial, as many of its past employees have attested. But for those of us who do not countenance such hegemony, we resent having to pay £149 a year only to suffer having to view and listen to the 'impartiality' of the BBC. The BBC has become the conduit for subtle and not so subtle multicultural propaganda, as well as a vehicle for keeping this nation in the EU.

                

                 The BBC is pro the following; which, if it were a truly impartial institution that imperiously asserts itself to be, would not propagandise for any political ideology as it regularly does. First of all it subtly and not so subtly on occasions, promotes multiculturalism and its conduit political correctness; it supports the EU, and preaches in the form of bias reporting of manmade global warming; it proselytises on behalf of feminism, homosexuality, and now includes its latest addition to uniform political correctness, support for trans- gender appropriation.

                

                 It is the Guardian of the airways and if it was funded by private subscription (like FOX news) and people were given the choice to pay for it, then I for one would have nothing to complain about. But why must I and millions like myself have to pay the BBC tax? If it were done away with I could select a news channel from that part of the political compass I belong to; and yes, I would subscribe to Fox News. There are thousands of channels from which to choose, and the BBC to my limited knowledge is the only one to impose a tax (not only to watch and listen to the BBC's output) but arrogantly on owning a television set – now I can with confidence say that there is no other broadcaster in the entire that demands a state tax on the mere ownership of a television set.

                

                  I do not want to destroy the BBC; I only wish to see it put on a level playing field with other broadcasters, and sink or swim in the media market place. In other words, it must be made to compete. The BBC has always boasted (but not so much lately) that it is the premier broadcaster in the world. If it still believes this then becoming part of the private sector should present them with a great opportunity in the marketplace. What is true is that the BBC worldwide cache of respect and trust is real; and will stand it in good stead if the licence tax were done away with – in fact if I shared this confidence in the BBC's 'impartial' antecedence as the institution itself does, I would be calling out for independence.

               

*                             *                             *                             *

'Safe Space'

"We are starting the process of consultation with Oxford City Council this week in advance of submitting a formal application for consent to remove the Rhodes plaque."

Oriel College

UNIVERSITIES ARE SUPPOSED to be the beacons of free speech and open debate. Such institutions are meant to unlock the mind and encourage free thought and expression and use these tools in study and open debate without any form of censure allowed; for no matter whether an opinion is rational or bizarre, both have their honoured place within the precincts of university life. University life is the fulcrum of free expression and the test bed for ideas, and no idea or thought should be erased from any university. When the fulcrum is, through political correctness, moved one way or the other and gives an imbalance to what is and what is not allowed to be spoken of or debated in academia; then those who have managed to upset the balance through political correctness and the spinelessness of academia to prevent such an assault on free speech; should be made to dress as court jesters and herded around the quadrangles before being put in the stocks and pelted by those they have offend with wet sponges.

                

                Oriel College Oxford was established by Cecil Rhodes an alumni and benefactor of Oxford; whose scholarships have put many young and talented people through its doors from all over the world. Gifted people who could not afford a place at Oxford were given a Rhodes scholarship to the best academic education in the world. Rhodes financed the building of this new Oxford College and thousands of Rhodes scholars have passed through it and continue to do so today. Cecil Rhodes sought to educate the brightest and the best; he did so, by favouring the less fortunate who had the intellect but not the financial means to study at Oxford without any kind of disqualification on grounds of race or gender. So the very least Oxford could do was to create a statue of their benefactor over the college he created. So now stands Cecil Rhodes proud, and looking at the latest of his arrivals on his plinth flanked by two candy twist pillars; he stands proud of what he achieved with his legacy – a legacy which political correctness now challenges.

               

                In the latest attempt to censor Oriels' founder; the Oriel PC brigade are seeking to have Rhodes' statue removed from his plinth and what is more they have found sympathy among the Orial fathers. In response to a few free speech deniers, the abject behaviour by the Orial authorities is born of fear. The man whose money created the college and funded the education of those less fortunate from all over the world including Africa; is now castigate by students, some of whom are where they are thanks to the man they so despise - when such hypocrisy is shown by the  Left it of course goes ignored. If those sanctimonious students of Oriel who support the removal of Cecil Rhodes, should now look elsewhere for an education: If these individuals mean what they say about Rhodes; then in all honour they should never have taken his money in the first place; and even now they can save themselves from the charge of being hypocrites by leaving the college and allow other students who have no such compulsion to bite the hand that feeds them to be given an excellent education.

                

                Oriel College is behaving cowardly toward the critics of free expression, as well as the college's benefactor.  They are kowtowing to a few of their students; fearful of being seen as racists, they oblige every contention their students' raise on the issues of race, gender, feminism, and Gay rights.

                Instead of debating the issues these students disagree with; Oriel treat's them like the spoiled brats they are: the college acts in loco-prentice while their students live among them; and the college behaves like their parents in giving in to them at every opportunity; without even challenging their arguments in open debate. Orial College is a disgrace to the very notion of free speech and open enquiry that every academic institution should measure up to; Oriel deems itself worthy, as an institution of the very highest education; but if such practices by its students are yielded to, then Orial college will succumb to lower standards and will be seen as valueless. The only thing the masters of the college have in preventing their backbones from bending to breaking point  is the starch in their shirts; little else stops them from crumbling before the hegemony of their students.

*                             *                             *                             *

 

The front line

FIGHTING IN the front line is the work of men. Not all men; but men who can kill without a second thought or hesitation and have the physical strength to enter close quarter combat with other men when what may be required is not a bullet (that's easy) but a life and death struggle where the physical advantage keeps you alive and a knife rather than a bullet has to do the job. Physical combat is still, as it has been throughout history, the job of men; but not all men.

               

                In the modern army those parts of it who are almost certainly guaranteed to encounter hand to hand fighting are the Marines, Paratroopers, and of course the SAS. Women are now to be allowed to join the Royal Marines. Physically, women are not as strong as the men they will be required to fight with. This is not an anti-feminist rant; but a warning that allowing women onto the front line to fight alongside men will inevitably change the order of battle in our enemies favour.

                

                The government are intent upon allowing women to fight on the front line. Is it a matter of equality, as many feminists that will support this move suggest? It is not. It is a matter of promoting serving women into a category once sufficiently occupied by men; but simply because men are in such a short supply women are being allowed to join the front line.

               

                The government after its defence review in the last parliament pared our army forces to the bone; and then sought to replace them by what was once known as weekend soldiers. The government announce the recruitment of 25,000 part timers to replace those professional soldiers that were abandoned (and not for the first time) by the politicians.  But the recruitment of these reservists have fallen well short of the government's expectations; so the women will have to shoulder the shortfall.

                 It is this and only this that has promoted military women to the front line; in order to keep the much restricted defence budget on track; and in the resulting deaths of many of these women; I hope their parents sue the government by using this argument.

               

                

The "Crunch Talks" mirage!

WHAT IS BEING DESCRIBED as 'crunch talks' between Cameron and the EU will take place tomorrow: at least Neville Chamberlin had a piece of paper to wave as he disembarked from his plane in 1938, after signing the Munich Agreement and heralding it as; 'peace in our time'.

What will Cameron have to wave in front of the media when he returns? We have already been told by his advisers and spin doctors that the prime ministers' plan for stopping welfare to migrants until they have been resident in the UK for four years is now a none starter. This was meant to be the very least Cameron had hoped to bring back – but when he started, Cameron had 15 demands; now he has only four. But this week the British people have been told that even this thin serving of gruel is no longer (if it ever was) achievable. So what is the point of this 'crunch meeting'?

                

               Remember? The main issues of immigration and the free movement of peoples and open borders for loss of sovereignty and the supremacy of European law over English law. The issue of open borders has been cataclysmic for Europe; the scenes last summer as swathes of migrants crossed the Mediterranean and hundreds of thousands found their way into Europe via Italy, Turkey and Greece: scenes that will be repeated next summer, thanks partly to Angela Merkle's invitation last summer.

                So, we know what the bottom line for the British people is in any meaningful negotiation; and the four-year wait to receive benefits, comes nowhere near the mark. Cameron bamboozled the British public. The reform package he promised to deliver to the British people before a referendum was nothing more than mutton dressed as lamb. He hoped his European 'partners' would have bent a little in order to give him his pyrrhic victory which he believed would be enough to sell to those Tory voters who had not joined Ukip, and whom he believed to be so effortlessly pleased; along with the Liberal Democrat and Labour voters.

               

                All Cameron was after was a big enough voting constituency to keep us in the EU. He knew it would not take much to keep those Tory voters that had not joined or voted Ukip on board, but he got it wrong; the EU refused him even this pauper's gruel to sell to his people and he will come back humiliated, and it will be the British people who will share that humiliation.

POLLS ARE SHOWING a small advantage to both sides of the argument[1]. But from the perspective of the Europhiles, remaining in the EU represents life or death for the union and they are now in a state of panic and about to use the same forewarnings they used unsuccessfully before the euro was rejected.

                

              Those same individuals and institutions that counselled joining the euro; are now warning us of the consequences of leaving the EU: my hope is that those voices welcoming our membership of the euro will be treated with well-deserved contempt on this occasion.  

                

              The nation-state is alive and well in all four corners of the world. It is only within Europe that the impulse of the nation state is being seen as medieval, and only by our European elite who think they know best. The people of Europe may want to remain members of the EU - but ask them whether the price to be paid for such an alliance is their nationhood and their culture; and the dislocation of their own laws to Brussels; then they begin to comprehend what a federal political union actually means when the idealistic rhetoric is pushed to one side, and the romance of the whole venture has had a bucket of cold water poured over it from which reality closes in.

A FEDERAL UNION IS unworkable, but as with the euro the EU federalists will press on; for destiny beckons and no obstacle, whether it be reason itself, will be allowed to hinder the construction of a counterfeit United States of Europe. Much European arrogance has been expended on this project and it will not, at any cost[2], be allowed to fail, no matter the misery and sacrifice it may cause millions of Europeans now and in the future. Political and Monetary Union is a ghastly mistake that will haunt generations to come if it is continued with.

               

               David Cameron is as fixated by the whole EU project as the whole political elite of Europe. In terms of numbers, such a constituency is minuscule in terms of the population within their individual countries and throughout the whole of Europe. But they have the power and leverage it provides; and will pursue it arrogantly by dismissing any or all of the eurosceptics arguments as 'populist' - i.e. supported by the proles, plebs and peasants of the continent of Europe. Such arrogance drives the people they so deride into the embrace of right-wing extremists; and then they complain that such people are Nazis.

                

                Cameron and the pro-EU sophistry he is instinctively drawn to, as all of his generation were; and the next generation will also be drawn to throughout their liberal education; in order to prepare them for political office. Cameron will not betray his past. He only promised, after all, to negotiate for party political reasons – to keep his party together after Ukip enjoyed their success in the European elections; as well as last May's general election when Ukip garnered four million votes, but won only one a single seat.

                

                 Cameron will return from his 'crunch talks' not waving pieces of paper but flanked by spin doctors who will, after Cameron's address to the press after this 'crunch meeting', then be sent forth to brief the media in such terms that (at least in the Tory press) he will have achieved remarkable results on behalf of the UK. Results of the kind I know not what – we will have to wait and see. But if the spin is positive for staying in the EU, then liberal media will also join in the conservative presses praise of Cameron and once more, and no doubt not for the last time, the white indigenous working classes can go hang. .

               

               

                 

                   

               

               

               

---

[1] However, since writing this piece, the latest poll put the outer's nine points ahead.

[2] Including, as we witnessed in Greece, Italy and Spain; where ordinary people have and still are paying a heavy price for being allowed (in an act of solidarity) to become members of the euro when it made little economic or political sense to do so.

Red Ken resurfaces – be afraid; be very afraid

KEN LIVINGSTONE has been brought back to political life, just when you thought his wretched presence could no longer damage the country. This one time leader of the Greater London Council, 1981-1986, before it was abolished by Margaret Thatcher in 1987; went on to become MP for Brent East from 1987 -2001 eventually ending up as Mayor of London in 2000 as an independent and again in 2004 as a Labour candidate: in 2008 and 2012, he unsuccessfully tried to get re-elected as Mayor of London. After this he disappeared into the shadows; he appeared less and less often in the tabloids who loathed him: however he had the occasional outing on the BBC or Channel Four; and wrote the odd piece for the Guardian; but he no longer had what he always craved – power: power of the kind all authoritarian instincts crave; the power to rule unambiguously without the need to face re-election. 

                He knew this would never happen in this country; but he admired those countries where democracy (seen as bourgeoisie construct) was done away with. Cuba for instance; this socialist playground for Western bourgeoisie Marxists[1] who arrived in the country blind to the decay inflicted on the colonial architecture: architecture once noble and pleasing, but since 1959 had been allowed to become corroded and crumbling: everything about this overly perceived romantic yet iconic Western Marxist socialist state, has always existed in a time period that had been in stasis since the revolution. The bourgeois Marxist visitors to Cuba over decades remained blind to the political prisoners; blind also to the imprisonment of homosexuals: a community of which no Marxist state then and no Muslim state now could ever tolerate.

                

                 If you needed evidence of the physical throwback to an earlier decade then all you have to do is book a holiday in Cuba and witness the 1950s Cadillac's that still flourish to this day on the streets of Havana, 56 years after the Marxist revolution deposed Batista.

I HAVE HARPED on about Cuba because I bet Ken Livingstone and the socialists of his generation see Cuba as a kind of Mecca for the success of socialism. For those like Ken in the UK, Havana has been their socialist Holy Grail. Ken's generation (myself included) were seduced by the events of 1959 when Fidel Castro and (especially) Che Guevara broke out from the Sierra Maestra and overthrew the dictator, President Fulgencio Batista in his Havana lair.

                

                 Livingstone still dreams the dream, as does Jeremy Corbyn which is why the latter has resurrected the former and chosen him to (would you believe) conduct a defence review for an incoming Corbyn led Labour government to implement. Livingstone rises from the dead to once more do his nation the same kind of disfavour he has always prided himself upon.

                

                The brutal kakistocracy known as socialism which both Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn seek to imprison the British people in would be disastrous for the UK[2], or any other civilised country or civilisation that became its victim.

LIVINGSTONE IS a creature of the past who was rehydrated by the comedy of errors that made Corbyn leader of her majesty's opposition - Evelyn Waugh could not have scripted the scenario any better. Livingstone has once more, thanks to Corbyn, been given back his voice on the political stage. He may not command the same position of power he once did; but thanks to our latter-day Prince Mushkin, who now leads her Majesty's opposition; Red Ken has risen once more. And there is little doubt, that if asked for, Corbyn would give him a safe London seat to stand in.

                

                 Livingstone is by now the pensionné-terrible who loves to speak his politically correct mind and whose only orgasm in his later years is achievable by making Tory's angry, and upsetting the Daily Mail readership that he despises with the same alacrity he loathed every Labour prime minister with the possible exception of Michael Foot whom he merely pitied.

                

                 The Livingstone of old would use our latter-day Mushkin to advance his own ambition and exploit his naivety to his own advantage; just as in the Lord of the Rings Grima Wormtongue nearly succeeded in controlling King Théoden. I think Livingstone is a suitable comparison to literatures Wormtongue and has been so throughout his political life. He exudes Wormtongue's same kind of Heap-like slithery charm: he keeps his true political purpose hidden from the media and when he appears on our screens, a more affable and genial interlocutor could you could never imagine.

                

                 On such occasions he becomes 'our Ken' in London and among its liberal media, as well as the multi-ethnic communities that are on the point of displacing the white indigenous population of our capital city. Ken Livingstone is the creature of Metropolitan London and will always find a place to feed within its radius. Livingstone will always find a well rewarded media home in London. He will never be forgotten by such a media; a liberal media supported by the British tax payer as far as the BBC and partly by Channel Four are concerned.

KEN LIVINGSTONE has been a failure. He has done little in his political life to advance any other individual than himself. He tweaked the right buttons in London where the white indigenous population have been long done away with and sent to Essex and other parts of the south and eastern counties. From East Anglia to Kent the white indigenous population that once garnered their capital city have been deported from London by the migrant influx. Soon the London populace will comprise a minority of the white indigenous population; and Livingstone would leap with joy at such a prospect.

                

                Livingstone and those who think like him or sympathise with him now comprise the Metropolitan London elite; every portal of power in the city is under their control from parliament, the arts; and the media either support him or sympathise with his views.

               

                I read a piece several months ago about Livingstone as mayor, was set upon turning London into a city-state; a kind Florentine throwback to the age of the Medici with no doubt himself being the latter-day prince of his city-state.

                

                The Livingstone's and Corbyn's have been the ruination of their party – do not give them a second chance at ruining the country.

               

                 

               

               

               

---

[1] Ken included

[2] As history has already proven