Calais is the new Normandy for the Islamists

YOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE it on trust that I am not an evil person or a racist; but after reading this piece the easily convinced leftists among you will think differently.

                

                There is a wildcat strike taking place in Calais that is weakening French border controls and encouraging illegal immigrants (not migrants as the British media are describing them) to make a dash for Dover, knowing that once they land on English shores they will never be sent back. So their incentive is very great – the prize is worth the effort.

                

                These illegals - as they should be termed - are mostly all young men. There are very few women and children among them. If they are married then they have left their families behind, and have paid four figure amounts (and where did they get such amounts in the first place?) to cross the Mediterranean in un-seaworthy vessels to land on the shores of Italy: and upon their arrival they are hosted by Italy before they make their way north to France and south to Calais, where they have been told, the streets of London are paved with taxpayer's gold – as they are, compared to what they are use to in the countries from which they fled.

                

                Once they get to Calais, they try to make it to Dover. They are given, presumably by the French, 30 euro's a day to live on, and issued with, of all things, mobile phones. The liberal media seek to portray them as the 'desperate ones' in order to solicit sympathy to their cause.

                

                They deserve sympathy for their plight but they do not deserve to come to the UK. The free movement of peoples from within the EU are already straining our national health and education services; and are also undermining our housing. The British taxpayers are beginning to exhaust their reputation for tolerance that our politicians patronisingly suggest we have in abundance.

SUCH AN attitude, held by our democratic politicians, is the very attitude that drives public opinion further and further to the Right until, as we see in many parts of Europe today, they are proving ever more popular in the polls.

                

                Let us think for one moment of the truck drivers who are caught up in all of this. Not being part of a bourgeoisie liberal profession, like many of our liberals, they face the daily harassment of their vehicles being used by these young men to smuggle themselves into the UK, hoping to live on welfare. If, however, they are found in occupation of their vehicles, then the drivers face, I think, a £5,000 fine: and as I read recently, if the Lorries are carrying food stuff, the whole cargo will have to be unloaded and disposed of because of any possible human contamination.

                

                If these truck drivers, who are trying to earn a living for themselves and their families, are suspected by the authorities as carriers of illegal migrants they are expected to pay the fines. It is outrageous that ordinary working men and women, whose only purpose in life is to earn a decent living for themselves and their families; should be subjected to this costly indignation.

                

                Just watch the various videos that have been created of the events at the port of Calais, now visible on the internet. You will see young men attacking and breaking the locks of these trucks heading for the UK and boarding them. They are not desperate. Their actions are disgraceful and no sympathy should be shown for their actions. They are not the poor and dispossessed of the earth the Left would like us to believe.

                

                 The lorry drivers are doing all they can to avoid a fine and the removal of their unwanted cargo. Such drivers are becoming worn down by the activities of people who are costing them their livelihood. I have more sympathy for these men and women than I do for the illegal migrants who are ruining them in order to claim benefits this side of the channel.

                

                 These illegals should have been sent back to whence they came long ago. I do not blame Italy for acting humanely as they did by rescuing them. But Europe should have turned them back to Libya from where they sprung.  Europe left Italy to pick up the mess. This migrant invasion (for this is what it is) should never have taken place, and would never have taken place 40 or even 30 years ago. Or even before the 2011 bombing of Libya by the British and French in order to help overthrow Gaddafi, the one stable force in the region that would have kept ISIS at bay – but Cameron and William Hague knew better.

                

                 It was the 2011 bombing of Libya and the overthrow of Gaddafi that unleashed our present mess of migrants retreating to attempt entry on European soil with the advance of ISIS; which may never have occurred if Gaddafi had been left in power: and all because of the political ambitions of the Cameron and Hollande governments that orchestrated the Libyan debacle which brought them temporary applause for their actions.

                

                Having got rid of Saddam, it left Libya vulnerable to whosoever had the power to rule in his place. But the sad fact is, is that no one was left strong enough to gain power. The West in the guise of the UK and France helped Gaddafi's opponents to seize power. But all they did was unleash the very sectarianism Gaddafi had held in check because of his authoritarian rule over his people.

               

                Now we have ISIS advancing its control of Libya and driving more and more people to the north shore of Libya to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. The British people have unfortunately suffered a dearth of qualative leadership in the country from within the three main parties, and have done so since the rise the liberal state 70 years ago in the UK, after the ending of the Second World War. In those years only one true statesman shone above all others, and she has been the hated from within her own party as well as the opposition parties.

                

                Our actions in Libya have only provided a beachhead into Europe for ISIS and all the other Islamist organisations who will find comfort within the 15 million Muslims that now swamp the continent – what a fuck-up!

               

               

Naivety exemplified

RUSSEL BRAND TOLD HIS followers not to vote; but after a meeting with Ed Milliband, he changed his mind - suddenly it became cool to vote as long as you voted for Labour, was now his message.

                

                Ed thought he had played a master stroke that had wrong footed his opponents during the election campaign. Our prime minister-in-waiting believed he had uncovered a zeitgeist missed by the other parties and the media locked up in London. Brand's views, so both Milliband and Brand believed, could deliver millions of extra votes to Labour among the youth that Brand appealed to. If true, labour would be elected with a majority, when all the polls were showing that there was to be another coalition in the making with either himself or Cameron at its head – this 'alliance' with Brand could give Ed (or so he wanted to believe) the majority government that eventually went, in the end, to Cameron.

                

                 Brand, after the election result, is now toxic among his youthful disciples. He was last seen running like a thief in the night from the austerity gathering in London over the weekend: he had a car waiting for him, and he made his getaway. He attended the event to deliver a speech, which he did. There are photographs a plenty of this later day Che Guevara posing on the stage, and believing his reception would reflect the idolatry he feels his supporters have shown to him.

                 

                  The great man was contrite, if not exactly humble (that would be a step too far, even if he was capable of such humility); he blamed himself for the Cameron victory; which was the only part of his speech his assembled misfits agreed with. He, no doubt, hoped his act of contrition would redeem himself with his audience – happily for the nation it did no such thing. They were mad as hell with him and they freely displayed it in the most appalling language. However it fell short of a public lynching, but the animosity sent in his direction; and the foulness of the views expressed and directed to our later-day Che Guevara, sent him scurrying from the event after his contribution was so ill-received.

BRAND, IN THIS YEAR of the 200^th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo certainly met his own over the weekend. He had been ordered by his flock to fuck off and go back to Milliband: he was described as a "turncoat" in the same sentence that he was told to fuck off to Milliband.

                

                One woman screamed;"'Fuck you Russell. I hate you. He should not be on the stage here. Ask how much he has been paid to be here. You have no place here, you’re disgusting'. Another yelled 'You’re a turncoat, Brand. Sell me a book on revolution and then tell us to vote Labour. Fuck off back to Miliband you twat'. Not exactly a lynching, but for someone like Brand it would have appeared as such.

                

                 I wonder what he is doing now after such a reception: will it be coke or pot? I doubt it; although the image he seeks to present to the nation's youth would encompass a press innuendo surrounding such practices. But Russell has too much respect for the cash cow known as Hollywood to indulge him, accept by inference, in order to keep his youthful supporters on board.

                

                 Russell Brand and his briefly one time political ally Ed Milliband would thoroughly deserve the ignominy of (of for instance) appearing on Big Brother at some time in the future, once they fade from the celebrity limelight. But while Ed will eventually be delivered up to the House of Lords (which of course as a Marxist, his father would have also done had he been offered it); Brand will continue to purvey his own unique brand (sic) of humour to those lefties that forgave him.

RUSSELL BRAND was a commercial brand, a brand that however, like the mayfly, commands only a short life span. He remains inarticulate to most of the country. But he gathered his appeal among the trendy youth; and even at that, not the very intelligent ones. He may have engaged a few students studying social science and media studies in his comic opera, but he became overwhelmed by the belief that he had orchestrated a following that was always delusionary.  

                

                 Both Brand and Milliband believed themselves before the election, to be the foremost individuals who would bring about the end of austerity. In his 'secret' meeting with Brand, Milliband assured (as he did the unions that provided the pivotal role in his election to the leadership of the Labour Party) that he would support an end to austerity by introducing further increase in taxation and borrowing to protect the welfare state; the imprint of failed Labour governments since the 1950s.

BRAND understands little about politics or economics and is easily persuaded by someone whose lineage has overindulged themselves in the subject. Brand was any easy target for Ed Milliband; Ed was use to promising the earth to those, like the unions, who he needed to advance his career. But on this vital occasion Milliband failed.

                

                Milliband proved his naivety, and his unsuitability for high office, by even approaching Brand for his support. There were many heads swaying from side to side in disbelief among his party workers and his parliamentary colleagues, at his night time rendezvous with the comic book revolutionary.

               

                I suppose Brand should be sympathised with; but after the ghastly way he used his 'comedic talent' to humiliate Andrew Sachs, he deserves little sympathy from anyone; but he will get it from what is left of his coterie of supporters and hangers-on.

               

                If he does remove himself from public life (which his ego will of course prevent) he will be able to retire as a multimillionaire like the many landlords he fought against.  As far as his wealth is concerned; he was paid the market price for whatever it was he did, and so deserves it – although the imbeciles, who once believed in him and attended the Great March for Austerity in Parliament Square, will beg to differ. They tolerated his wealth, for as long as they felt he was on their side – which is all part and parcel of the Left's hypocrisy.

                

                But once Ed attended Russell's nocturnal court and word got out that Brand had anointed Ed with his blessing – then the game was up for both of them; and good riddance to both of them. Neither had anything to contribute to nation in the 21^st century – politically they were both hidebound by the past, where class envy drove politics and very nearly the country to destruction.

               

               

                

Sir Tim Hunt is the victim of the times we live in

WHERE SIR TIM HUNT, the Nobel scientist, was wrong in what he said, was in saying it in public. In terms of what he said it may have sounded mildly sexist; and should have only outraged the fanatical feminist students of the type who seem to rule over Oxford University like the stasi at the moment; spying upon fellow students male and female alike. But even in this climate of the liberal auto-da-fé, where political correctness has leached into the very depths of our democracy, the mildness of Sir Tim's remarks should not have lead to him losing his position at University College London (UCL).

            

                   Now eight laureates have come to Sir Tim's defence, and also Richard Dawkins has waded in on his behalf. What was it he said that lost him his position? He observed ‘Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. 

Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.’

               

                I imagine that both female students and their male tutors each develop feelings for the other and both are at an age when, if their feelings get the better of them, they can handle the result. But I think the remark by Sir Tim that has caused such an outcry is the patronising observation he makes that, emotionally speaking, women are the weaker sex; i.e. '… and when you criticise them, they cry.’

                I think this is the crux of the matter: It was this remark, the feminists and their neutered liberal male friends objected to. Now an eminent scientist has been dismissed from his university because of this piece of fluff.

                Things are getting out of hand – free speech and free opinions held are daily being stultified by academia, judges, human rights lawyers, and politicians. Mouths are being forced shut by our society's liberal mouthpieces. These paper tigers are overseeing the demise of free speech and we are going along with it fearful of being charged with a Cromwellian sounding "hate crime" or worst of all being accused of racism – which finishes any career at a stroke.

                We who disagree with the liberal hegemony are entering a nightmare comparable to 1984. If you think I exaggerate the reality; then think of Rochdale, Rotherham, and Oxford among other towns and other cities whose local authorities including the police, kept quiet out of a sense or fear of political correctness. When Asian Muslims abducted white female children from the streets to be passed around to be raped and sexually abused it was tolerated by the authorities. The politically correct authorities including the various councillors themselves as well as social workers and the police, all turned the other cheek.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS was created in our universities; first of all in their social science departments at various universities in America – and as the old saying goes, when America sneezes the world catches a cold; and this is what happens academically. Multiculturalism was the ideology of liberal social science departments; and political correctness was its disciplinarian arm, whereby any well or ill considered remark could fall foul of the dreaded hate crime, if the remark fitted the template of anti-political correctness as judged by its overseer within a kind of liberal Star Chamber of the sort belonging to those Oxford feminists.

                Sir Tim is a victim of a modern madness that has gripped the UK, Europe, and America. All the social media did was to bring his career at UCL to a speedy close. In the age we live in UCL would have ended Sir Tim's career anyway - it would have taken just a bit longer.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS on our campuses is so dominant that a single word or phrase can destroy the career of a talented Nobel Laureate.  Such behaviour should worry our democracy before it is too late - but it does not. Political correctness is, along with its parental guardian, multiculturalism, are becoming a totalitarian stain on our democracy; primarily because of the way our sceptical politicians and academics on our campuses keep their mouths zipped out of fear. We are living through a kind liberal McCarthy era where it is the Left who are pursuing academics like Sir Tim.               

                It is cowardliness in the extreme for UCL to pander to feminists within the academic community, whose trivial pursuit of Sir Tim over this issue, has led to his dismissal from UCL. He has been given the feminist black spot on social media, which may now keep him from any academic tutoring in the future; depending on how far the politically correct virus has spread into other parts of Europe. It is simply puerile, that such behaviour toward a science laureate, for merely an off the cuff remark, should bring to an end such a worthy academic teaching career that students would have profited by.

                He can however boast that he is up there with Galileo Galilee, as far as being persecuted is concerned; by a wholly irrational ideology (in Galileo's case, Catholicism), in his case ultra-orthodox feminists, who would spit in the face of any male looked at them below the neck-line.

                This cannot continue if we wish to continue to live within a healthy democracy; where free speech is sacrosanct, as is writing what you believe - in both cases with the exceptions of slander libel - which the law prohibits in any event.

                At some stage hopefully, there will be the fight back against our liberal hegemony; and let us pray it does not herald an authoritarian regime from the Right. We see its possibilities in northern and southern parts of Europe over immigration and the EU's insistence on the free movement of peoples. As we know from the history of both the Left and the Right, they both have unsavoury extremes – now let us hope the Left with their multiculturalism and political correctness, does not herald uber- nationalism of the type that haunted Europe 79 years ago. Today we live with liberal extremism in the form of political correctness – but for how much longer and at what cost?

               

               

               

               

                

Another gladiator enters the politically correct den to be mauled

THERE ARE FOUR PEOPLE; two of which I will always listen to, the other two I will always read; because in this dystopian, politically correct culture of ours, they are all unapologetically anti-'progressive's'[1] and refuse to be bamboozled by the modern thought police who's full time occupation seems to be looking for the slightest slip of the tongue on the social media (the latest victim being the Nobel Laureate, Tim Hunt).

                

                The four anti-political correct musketeers are David Starkey, Jeremy Clarkson, Rod Liddle, and Richard Littlejohn. These pioneers offer us a return to the natural order of sensibility that the English adopted in the form of a pragmatic and tolerant nature - which the politically correct, certain as they are of being on the side of history, can neither show any kind of pragmatism or tolerance toward those who counter their views. They see themselves as shaping what they believe to be the 'progressive' agenda and anyone who takes a contrary view has to be ruined - on social media.

                Today it is David Starkey's turn. The historian has drawn comparisons between the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and the Nazis. A bit over the top you may think; but, bless him, he retracts nothing. He accepts that those who disagree should challenge him, whether in the media or within the SNP and debate with him what they find so appalling in his views.

                

                He gave an interview to Sky News where he rowed back on nothing he had said. He was asked by his Sky interviewer what were the points of comparison between the SNP and the Nazis, during which he jocularly compared the kilt with lederhosen. But he insists, as I do, that such comparisons between the Nazis do not suggest death camps and anti-Semitism (but I would, however, like to know the SNPs policy on the Palestinian Jewish question).       

            His reply to the question of comparison deserves to be quoted; ‘I’m not saying they are about to set up concentration camps, I’m not going to say that we are going to see a Kristallnacht of English businesses in Edinburgh. Of course we’re not,’ he told Sky News.

‘But the resemblances are striking and are worrying. We spent years fussing in Britain about completely minor fringe things like the BNP and whatever, they are nothing compared with the Scottish Nationalist Party which has seized control of a whole country and is pushing this kind of radical agenda'.

               

                He was challenged by his interviewer to explain how it could be undemocratic if over 50% of the Scottish electorate voted SNP. Starkey's reply was a historian's reply, ‘Lots of people have voted for very unpleasant leaders. I shan’t mention the word Hitler. Democracy doesn’t always get it right.’ This was Churchill's point about democracy being less than perfect, but being far better than the alternative.

               

            Starkey was pressed to apologise - his reply consummated his belief; ‘No of course not. We have this awful, idiotic, PC politics.

I said nothing about Scotland, I said a great deal about the SNP. The SNP is a virulently nationalist party of a type that we have not had in Britain.

‘It models itself on the continental extreme nationalist movements of the 1930s, that’s when it’s founded. It’s time we called things by their proper names.’ 

                Many within the Labour Party will agree with such sentiments, as will the Tory Party.  Only the fading Liberal Democrats would challenge Starkey's views south of the border; but even they have kept silent in the belief that they will once yet again be undermined by the commonsense of the English people.

                Starkey is right; the Scottish Nationalist Party is indeed socialist in their prescription for Scotland; which is why Nicola Sturgeon sought an arrangement with Old Labour under the stewardship of Ed Miliband, had he come out on top last month. Ed Miliband, up until the last moment and under continuous pressure from his advisors, finally relented and said he would not enter into any arrangement with the SNP - but it was too late.

                However, what it did prove was Starkey's very point about Scottish National Socialism. It was not about death camps or anti-Semitism, but about a nationalist party pursuing a socialist agenda

               

 SNP SUPPORTERS also bare comparison with the Nazi brown shirts; by the way they behave toward their party's critics. They used social media to troll those who oppose their party north and south of the border. The recently deceased Charles Kennedy who, like many others, lost his seat to the SNP this May was trolled and called a drunkard, and far worse during the election campaign: it was a nasty and brutal, and exposed the Scots to the nefarious and stereotypical charge of being a nation of fried Mars bar eaters who have a soft spot, like Rab C Nesbit for a daily diet of gallons of the 'heavy'.

               

                During the campaign for a referendum on Scottish independence SNP thugs took to the streets to attend and try to prevent any hustings event held by the Labour Party. It is the SNP and not the Tories who became the real Nasty Party.

                If they want independence, then give it to them; the sky will not fall in and all they will become in time, is not the nation they fought to make independent from the Union, but a mere province of a monetary and political union within the EU. They do not seem to understand that political union within a federal Europe, will by its very nature have to dissolve the nation state – what the hell do they think federalism means? All they have to do is look across the Atlantic towards the USA if they want to see an example of a federal union.

                It is only emotion that keeps the English establishment intent upon preserving the Union. From the Royal family to the Conservative and Labour parties; and finally, the Tory press that only gives a fuck for the Union. By doing so they are like some infatuated lover who will do whatever is necessary to preserve an adulterous relationship with a fem-fatal who is only out for what she can get.

                The SNP are the puppet masters pulling the strings in the knowledge that our two main parties will do whatever is needed to accommodate them in order to preserve the Union (and in Labour's case; their very party itself). No wonder Nicola Sturgeon was courted across the pond by the American media.

                If the Scot's feel that the English have shackled them in anyway by becoming part of the Union; then let them be cut adrift to fend for themselves. Let them go their own way and stop this infatuation with the Union once and for all. It has to end. The Scottish people spoke at the last general election.

                Our emotional tie with Scotland makes us weak, and allows the SNP to dictate to us. We, as a nation should call, not the SNP's bluff but the Scottish peoples. Give them another referendum and if it transpires that the majority of the Scots wish to leave the Union - then let them.

                David Starkey is right. I however believe that Scotland has been more of a drain on England than we have on Scotland, despite their over-hyped pot of gold in the North Sea, which they will see diminish over time, with no other natural resource to replace it (its independence will be oil dependent on its future). While in England shale fracking will go ahead and if the projections prove correct, England will not need to rely upon any foreign country for its energy needs.

                Let Scotland have its way. It is only English establishment sentimentality that keeps the Union alive. Scotland wants 'independence' then let them have it; let them stand proud once more without what they see as the English drag anchor – we can do without the Scots, but if they can do without the Union only time will tell.

---

[1] I use the term in the sense of Left's adoption of it in the facile use of its meaning whatever the Left sees as progress.

If Israel dies, then so will Europe

ROCKETS LAUNCHED from Gaza have been landing on Israel for several days without comment from the Western media. You have to turn to such publications as the Jerusalem Post, Harrettz, and Arutz Sheva to know what is going on. This is the usual pattern: Israel is attacked by Hamas' rockets and Israel responds with its Iron Dome defence system…the silence continues, and the rockets keep coming and Israel issues a warning to Hamas of a ground intervention if the rockets continue… the silence continues - and so do the rockets.

                

                The Israeli prime minister whomsoever he or she is, now has no choice but to engage Hamas on the ground; tanks and heavy artillery are sent to Israel's border with Gaza: men and women are mobilised ready for combat and are sent into Gaza … the silence ends. Washington and the Western media begin to take notice. Washington pleads for restraint by Israel; while the Western media send their correspondents into Gaza (no doubt at the invitation of Hamas) to report Israeli 'atrocities' committed on Palestinian civilians who are being used as human shields by Hamas.

                

                The Western journalists in Gaza are escorted to the latest Israeli bombing 'atrocity', by Hamas – it is a hospital. This is where the Western media enjoy a symbiotic relationship with what even the UN regards as a terrorist organisation. The self-inflicted suffering endured by Palestinians because of the acts of terror by their overseers, is blamed on the Jews; and the Western media strum Hamas's tune.

                

                Once more the Israeli's are put on the back foot by the international coverage of their actions; and are now seen as the aggressors – even seen as war criminals by the liberati and the Left generally. There is no evidence that the IDF (Israeli Defence Force), or the Israeli government, ordered the targeting of Gazan civilians. This is not to say that some individual members of the IDF did not commit such appalling acts. But so did rogue individuals in the American and UK military in Iraq. This does not mean such acts were sanctioned by their respective governments. All conflicts produce such behaviour, usually by people who have witnessed the killing of a comrade in a way they consider a cowardly manner by a ruthless enemy.

                

                The Palestinians want a state of their own, as do the Jews who have found one. The trouble is, that the Palestinian state they seek is 'occupied' by Jews. The Palestinians do not want a two state solution because they do not accept the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. Indeed, if you visit Palestinian websites they talk openly of a Palestinian state that covers the land of Israel.

                

                 But all we hear in the West is talk of the belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu to any two state solution. This is because such a 'solution' is predicated upon the Israeli Jews return to the Diaspora, as far as the Palestinians are concerned.

LET US CONSIDER this. What would happen if every Jew in Israel suddenly decided they had had enough of this; and turned again to the Diaspora? What would happen if the Palestinians were finally given their state under such an 'arrangement'? These questions have never been considered by Western liberals whose only function is to hope that the Jews remove themselves, or be removed by the Palestinians (with the help of the many Arab nation's that encircle Israel) itself: not of course to be rounded up and to be put in gas chambers as an earlier 'solution' to the Jewish problem attempted. Good God No! The liberal enthusiasts for a Palestinian state would never sleep at night if the Jews were sent on such a journey once more – their departure must be clean; which is why I suggested a 'voluntarily' one.

                

                 But let us promote, for arguments sake, the state of the Middle East and the West without Israel. Does the West believe itself to be more secure without Israel? The last thing such an evacuation will deliver is peace to the region. After the celebrations in the Arab world and among the Western liberals at the final victory of Palestinian statehood; the Left will be in ecstasy after Palestinian statehood; but disillusionment will follow, as it has among many of South Africans blacks with the National African Congress since they took power.

                

                 Political factionalism, religious communalism as well as secularism will still dominate the Middle East. The evacuation of the Jews will not change the body politic of the Arab world. With the march of ISIS, as with the Islamist cause generally; the Palestinian people may be far worse off with a state of their own, than they were on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

                

                 As for the West, it will have lost an ally of great significance in the Middle East; at a time when the Muslim world is in chaos. Israeli intelligence gathering is the finest in the world, and without the presence of a Jewish state to gather intelligence throughout the region on behalf of democracy; then by not standing full square behind the Jewish state, the West stands to lose another war in the battle against Islamism: perhaps even a significant battle when in Europe particularly, it accommodate 15 million Muslims.

                

IF ISRAEL goes to the wall, then so shall Europe. Today Europe is in a state of navel gazing, transfixed by their addiction to a federal EU. But they should adjust their political antenna toward the Middle East and forget about internal EU politics (they are even burying their heads in the sand when it comes to Putin).

                

                 If the Jews were once more driven back into the Diaspora, and a Palestinian state were to follow their exit, it would not represent an end but a new chapter in human suffering; a far greater suffering than we see today in the Middle East.

                

                Here is one scenario. Because of Western weakness, ISIS manages to create a caliphate but only embodying Iraq and Syria. At the same time, after much secularist in- fighting between the two Palestinian factions, the state of Palestine finally settle downs to communal tolerance.

                

                Suddenly the Muslim world could realise their new power after the interregnum provided by both events. Finally the Palestinian question will have been 'settled'. Muslim leaders throughout the Middle East would be mad if they did not see the greatest opportunity not seen since since the days of Saladin, to vanquish what many Muslims today regard as the crusaders - you think it fanciful? Well, just wait until it filters into to the Muslim conscience.

                

                 The Ottoman Turks tried and failed to extend its empire into Europe in the 14^th and 15^th centuries. Today however, Islam would find it much easier to spread the faith with over 15 million Muslims already in situe within Europe. Its success however would depend upon Shia and Sunni factions within Islam forming a united front to advance the cause of an Islamic world caliphate beginning with Europe.

                

                 Until such a marriage takes place the West, in the short term has little to fear. But what would provoke such a union would be the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

                

                 Under the circumstances of a Palestinian state there are many other scenarios, but I cannot think of any that would secure a peaceful outcome for Europe. Muslims despise the liberal overtures represented by multiculturalism – having planted themselves within the host; they bide their time until the demographics favour the caliphate within Europe; and Europe will finally go the way of ancient Greece and Rome…time will tell.

               

The importance, once more, of national defence

I HAVE TO TALK DEFENCE once more. This time, not only about the forthcoming further decreases promised by Cameron to the MoD's already paired down budget; but also to the way we are deploying our forces. It seems that our military are being used now as some kind of paramilitary wing of the Department for Oversees Aid, instead of being used for its primary function of defending this nation.

                

                Our army has already been reduced to a mere 84,000, to be topped up by the recruitment of 50,000 reservists (or part-timers; or weekend soldiers). But even these 50,000 reservists have yet to materialise. Despite this, another round of cuts to the defence budget is promised by the newly invigorated Tory government emboldened by their recent election victory.

                

                 At this moment the Royal Navy are sweeping up human detritus in the Mediterranean. HMS Bulwark the navy's amphibious support vessel is acting as a kind of …what? Max Hastings suggests a ferry service for migrants: he is not far off the mark. The coast of Northern Libya is the Dunkirk beachhead for those migrants from the various conflicts that currently engulf Libya, Iraq, and Syria, all seeking to make their way to Europe.

                

                 These wretched of the earth are paying unscrupulous people vast amounts of money to provide transport from northern Libya to Italy; and having survived this treacherous sea journey in 'boats' that are ill-fitted for such a journey: they will sooner or later be given European citizenship, if they succeed, as they surely will be, due the EU liberalarti. They will then have ready access under the EU's free movement of people's treaty to join us in the UK.

I DESPISE CAMERON; not because he presents himself as a Conservative, when he is obviously no such thing (he is instinctively a social democrat); for why would he allow his chancellor to pare to the bone this nation's ability to defend itself; while staying loyal to the overseas aid budget? I despise the man because he despises his party's own true conservative traditions. Cameron is a modern media creation. He lives and breathes the modern media as did his mentor, Tony Blair.

                

                Recently Barak Obama requested that Cameron sticks to the NATO rule that all member nations commit two per cent of their GDP to defence: Cameron has yet to promise to do any such thing, indeed, he is about to do the reverse at a time when, I for one, believe there is a definite 1930's feel about today's Europe. There is no Hitler on the horizon, but there is a threat and an equally disconcerting attitude among our leaders in Europe to bury their heads in the sand when it comes any kind of military preparedness to meet such a threat…in fact they do not acknowledge that such threat exists.

                

                 So, what is the threat to Europe? At a non military level we see the threat crossing the Mediterranean in the thousands; and as far as the UK is concerned, we see the same threat currently bottlenecked in Calais.

               

                 As for the military ones; our politicians in Europe are depending as they always have done during two world wars; and the peace following the latter, on American military might to see off any threat; first from communism, and now from Vladimir Putin if the worst comes to the worst.

                

                 Another threat, and a far more problematic one for Europe, is the growth of Islamism and the success of ISIS (and for those of you who believe Iraq, Syria, and Libya, to be faraway places that need not concern us … then look to the Mediterranean to be convinced of the opposite.

              

                Europe has 15 million Muslims living on its soil; brought about through the modern liberal conscience; whose feelings of guilt regarding their various countries colonial histories, have welcomed those from Europe's colonies to come live among us. This will sooner or later end in tears when comes to the Muslim communities spread throughout Europe.

                

                An increase in defence spending has never been more needed since the 1930's; but it seems that it is not going to happen despite Obama's plea to Cameron. The only way to shake Europe from its complacency would be for the USA to announce the withdrawal of all military support from Europe. We Europeans have grown fat on the handouts of the American taxpayer, with little appreciation for what America is providing. In the UK, for instance, we have only been able to create and continue to support the NHS, because American military might has subsidised a large part of our defences.

               

                In fact many European liberals despise America despite what it has achieved for them in the past. So why, when America is now looking toward the Pacific region rather than Europe, does she not do what the Roman's did in the fifth century after Rome was on its last legs … and order its European cantons to look to themselves? The same message needs to be sent to Europe. Only then will they take the continents defences seriously … and only then would Cameron and Osborn, as well as all the other European leaders become invigorated with the needs of national defence.

                

                When it comes to America, she is molly-codling Europe. It is the USA's presence in Europe that allows the likes of David Cameron to cut back further on the MoD's budget; knowing that the US taxpayer will pick up the bill. In other words Europe's leaders, including of course our own are living off American welfare.

                

                 But we do so only because it serves the interests of America; when such an arrangement ceases, as it will; Europe will be left to its own pitiful devices. We chose the NHS over defence spending; we also chose overseas aid over defence spending. We have made our choice and we must now live with it.

               

If Israel dies, then so will Europe

ROCKETS LAUNCHED from Gaza have been landing on Israel for several days without comment from the Western media. You have to turn to such publications as the Jerusalem Post, Harretz, and Arutz Sheva to know what is going on. This is the usual pattern: Israel is attacked by Hamas' rockets and Israel responds with its Iron Dome defence system…the silence continues, and the rockets keep coming and Israel issues a warning to Hamas of a ground intervention if the rockets continue… the silence continues - and so do the rockets.

                

                The Israeli prime minister whomsoever he or she is, now has no choice but to engage Hamas on the ground; tanks and heavy artillery are sent to Israel's border with Gaza: men and women are mobilised ready for combat and are sent into Gaza … the silence ends. Washington and the Western media begin to take notice. Washington pleads for restraint by Israel; while the Western media send their correspondents into Gaza (no doubt at the invitation of Hamas) to report Israeli 'atrocities' committed on Palestinian civilians who are being used as human shields by Hamas.

                

                 The Western journalists in Gaza are escorted to the latest Israeli bombing 'atrocity', by Hamas – it is a hospital. This is where the Western media enjoy a symbiotic relationship with what even the UN regards as a terrorist organisation. The self-inflicted suffering endured by Palestinians because of the acts of terror by their overseers, is blamed on the Jews; and the Western media strum Hamas's tune.

                

                 Once more the Israeli's are put on the back foot by the international coverage of their actions; and are now seen as the aggressors – even seen as war criminals by the liberati and the Left generally. There is no evidence that the IDF (Israeli Defence Force), or the Israeli government, ordered the targeting of Gazan civilians. This is not to say that some individual members of the IDF did not commit such appalling acts. But so did rogue individuals in the American and UK military in Iraq. This does not mean such acts were sanctioned by their respective governments. All conflicts produce such behaviour, usually by people who have witnessed the killing of a comrade in a way they consider a cowardly manner by a ruthless enemy.

               

                The Palestinians want a state of their own, as do the Jews who have found one. The trouble is, that the Palestinian state they seek is 'occupied' by Jews. The Palestinians do not want a two state solution because they do not accept the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. Indeed, if you visit Palestinian websites they talk openly of a Palestinian state that covers the land of Israel.

                

                 But all we hear in the West is talk of the belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu to any two state solution. This is because such a 'solution' is predicated upon the Israeli Jews return to the Diaspora, as far as the Palestinians are concerned.

LET US CONSIDER this. What would happen if every Jew in Israel suddenly decided they had had enough of this; and turned again to the Diaspora? What would happen if the Palestinians were finally given their state under such an 'arrangement'? These questions have never been considered by Western liberals whose only function is to hope that the Jews remove themselves, or be removed by the Palestinians (with the help of the many Arab nation's that encircle Israel) itself: not of course to be rounded up and to be put in gas chambers as an earlier 'solution' to the Jewish problem attempted. Good God No! The liberal enthusiasts for a Palestinian state would never sleep at night if the Jews were sent on such a journey once more – their departure must be clean; which is why I suggested a 'voluntarily' one.

                

                But let us promote, for arguments sake, the state of the Middle East and the West without Israel. Does the West believe itself to be more secure without Israel? The last thing such an evacuation will deliver is peace to the region. After the celebrations in the Arab world and among the Western liberals at the final victory of Palestinian statehood; as was shown by them with the overthrow of the apartheid regime in South Africa; the Left will be in a state of ecstasy after snorting the political cocaine of Palestinian statehood; but disappointment will follow, as it has among many of South Africans blacks with the National African Congress since they took power.

                

                Political factionalism, religious communalism as well as secularism will still dominate the Middle East. The evacuation of the Jews will not change the body politic of the Arab world. With the march of ISIS, as with the Islamist cause generally; the Palestinian people may be far worse off with a state of their own, than they were on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

               

                As for the West, it will have lost an ally of great significance in the Middle East; at a time when the Muslim world is in chaos. Israeli intelligence gathering is the finest in the world, and without the presence of a Jewish state to gather intelligence in that part of the world on behalf of democracy; then by not standing full square behind the Jewish state, the West stands to lose another war in the battle against Islamism: perhaps even a significant battle when in Europe particularly, it accommodate 15 million Muslims.

                

IF ISRAEL goes to the wall, then so shall Europe. Today Europe is in a state of navel gazing, transfixed by their addiction to a federal EU. But they should adjust their political antenna toward the Middle East and forget about internal EU politics (they are even burying their heads in the sand when it comes to Putin).

                

                If the Jews were once more driven into the Diaspora, and a Palestinian state were to follow their exit it would not represent an end but a new chapter in human suffering; a far greater suffering than we see today in the Middle East.

                Here is one scenario. Because of Western weakness, ISIS manages to create a caliphate but only embodying Iraq and Syria. At the same time, after much secularist in- fighting between the two Palestinian factions, the state of Palestine finally settle downs to communal tolerance.

                

                Suddenly the Muslim world could realise their new power after the interregnum provided by both events. Finally the Palestinian question will have been 'settled'. Muslim leaders throughout the Middle East would be mad if they did not see the greatest opportunity since the days of Saladin to vanquish what many Muslims today regard as the crusaders - you think if fanciful? Well, just wait until it filters through to the Muslim conscience.

                

                The Ottoman Turks tried and failed to extend its empire into Europe in the 14^th and 15^th centuries. Today Islam would find it much easier to spread the faith with over 15 million Muslims already in situe within Europe. Its success however would depend upon Shia and Sunni factions within Islam forming a united front to advance the cause of an Islamic world caliphate beginning with Europe.

                

                Until such a marriage takes place the West, in the short term has little to fear. But what would provoke such a union would be the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

                

                Under the circumstances of a Palestinian state there are many other scenarios, but I cannot think of any that would secure a peaceful outcome for Europe. Muslims despise the liberal overtures represented by multiculturalism – having planted themselves within the host; they bide their time until the demographics favour the caliphate within Europe; and Europe will finally go the way of ancient Greece and Rome.

               

The Labour Party has second thoughts

WELL, IT WAS LEFT UP TO none other than Hattie Harperson herself to announce what Nigel Farage told us the Labour Party would have to do sooner or later. I admire the thick skin of all politicians (or those with the ambition to rise from the backbenches); but the Labour Party's U-turn on an in/out referendum on Europe can only deepen the cynicism of an already distrustful electorate. Hattie sounded so pitiful in her explanation of her party's U-turn that I had to turn the volume off.

                

                The U-turn was not based on a deeply felt principle for the right of the British to have their say in the dismantling of their nation state; but purely on the electoral demographics, the reading of which by Labour after the general election result convinced the party to finally wake up to the fact that many of their traditional northern supporters had crossed over to Ukip, as Nigel Farage had been telling the country for the during the previous five years.

                

                 Today's Labour Party is like the criminal recidivist whose lawyer pleads on their behalf for a second (and a third and a… well, etcetera) chance to go straight. The Labour Party has little respect for democracy and their country's constitution. As a party, whose true belief is in a federal union (which of course is what political and monetary union means), to now fall into line with the Tories whose own Damascene conversion was also due to the success of Ukip, tells us one thing at least – Nigel Farage has caused an earthquake in British politics. He almost single handily broke up the two party system whose parties had taken it in turn to rule over us for the past 70 years.

                

                 Ed Miliband refused a European referendum, unless some new constitutional change was demanded from Europe of a Lisbon Treaty proportion. But as far as our membership of the EU was concerned, this would be fixed in perpetuity. This was the arrogance of a true Marxist, and the son of an LSE lecturer, and war time refugee who set about changing the economic and social system of his adopted country.

NEITHER LABOUR OR the Conservative Party can be trusted on a referendum. But Labour even more so than the Conservatives: the Labour Party, ever since Jacques Delors presided over the European Commission for three terms, between 1985-1994, the party has been in hock to his vision. Delors' influence on the British Labour Party was profound and turned the party whole heartedly toward the European Commission's mastership of the continent. Jacques Delors spoke the Labour Party's senile language of socialism and the naive and bellicose anti-Tory Kinnock became infatuated with him.

                

                 The Labour Party under Neil Kinnock steered the party (and hopefully the nation) toward his own allure for Delors, believing him the Lord advocate of social democracy for Europe (no doubt based upon the Swedish, or even Danish, model). He later himself became a commissioner after his failure to lure the British public (who became embarrassed by his mere presence) toward his ambition to become prime minister of Great Britain. Thankfully the same kind of sanity among the British electorate also conspired to rid us of the same sought after Ed Miliband premiership.

                

                 Kinnock's native talent for rhetoric secured him his position as Labour leader. In 1985 at the Labour Party conference he attacked the Liverpool Militants with a bravado performance which finally released the Militant Tendency's grip on the Labour Party.  But from then on his character failed him as far as the British public were concerned. He eventually retired to Europe to become a commissioner, fulfilling a life-time livelihood, like his wife, of living off the public tit. They are both now, thanks to the British and European tax payers, living more than comfortably on the pensions garnered from their various public offices.

HATTIE HARPERSON, now standing in for the defeated Ed Milliband until another leader has been chosen; seeks contrition over her party's denial of an in/out EU referendum at a time when penitence from a politician is regarded by a sceptical public as nothing more than part of a new political strategy. Politicians rely upon human emotion, and they believe the public have the same attention span of gold fish that gives them further opportunities. But now, through social media, this memory is no longer so short and the politicians have to perform various acts of remorse in order to remain solvent in pursuance of their careers.

               

                The Labour Party does not deserve to govern this country. Its history of governance since the end of the Second World War until 2010 has been one of total failure…what about the NHS I hear?  I reply but what else? The creation of NHS is Labour's one and only popular achievement and the Labour Party have been feeding off of its popularity to this day – it is, and has always been Labours trump card. At every election the failure of Labour to run an economy has successfully used their creation of the NHS to tempt the public to supporting them yet again for office, and further economic failure.

                The NHS has improved my life, but not before it nearly destroyed it. The NHS cannot continue to function as it does today; and only the Labour Party clings on to the belief that it can; and the general public also wants to believe. Emotion out-strips reason when it comes to the NHS.

THE LABOUR PARTY'S U-turn on the EU referendum is cynical in the extreme. The vast majority of Labour back benches are pro EU. The party's latest decision is a feeble attempt to attract back lost northern Labour voters from Ukip. The Labour Party under Tony Blair sought to replace the indigenous working class with a new electorate, and he turned toward Europe's open borders for such a replacement. Already the Labour Party believed they could count upon the support of the Asian communities that had grown since the 1960s.

                

                 Blair abandoned the indigenous white working class knowing that, through sentimentality, they would vote Labour through family tradition. He took them for granted in other words, and by the time they caught on and turned to Ukip, Blair thought he had created a new electorate which over time would replace the white working class as Labour's primary constituency through his support for open borders in Europe.

                

                 Blair abandoned the white working class because he could no longer see any future for them within the Labour Party. The old industries that the Labour Party could rely upon for their support had long since been sent to pasture – all that was left was the creation of a new constituency that would supplant the working class – immigrants.