The Anglican 80

OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT FIGURES show that over the next four years £2 billion will be spent on those 20,000 migrants that call-me-Dave has agreed to allow into the UK. When it comes to even remedial maths, my brain reacts like an early 1990s vintage computer struggling to boot up. But thankfully Daniel Johnson, writing in today's Daily Mail has already worked out the yearly cost to be paid by the taxpayer to each individual migrant per year, and computes the amount at £24,000.

                 

                Liberal idealism acts as if money is harvested, whenever needed, from trees. As liberals, they have this self-perceived virtuousness that government has as if it were a law of nature, the unarguable right to gather whatever amount of tax from the citizens they need to fulfil any requirement relating to their consciences. Eighty bishops of the Church of England compiled a finger-waving correspondence to the prime minister, suggesting the taxpayer's largesse on this issue should be put to the expense of providing money for not twenty but 50,000 migrants.

                

                These bishops live comfortably enough in their little palaces compared to the norm within society (or even among the priesthood). They are especially gifted within wealthy rural dioceses, where the pastoral setting allows their various parsonages, if this is the right word, to flourish in comparative splendour compared to the citizens living even in the wealthiest of the church's diocese. Bishops live like (and are indeed) Lords and, therefore, no fear of any amount of migration from whatever quarter of the world it emanates will cause them any domestic discomfort.

                

                There are 250 Anglican bishops in the Church of England: and less than a third of them signed this rebuke to the prime minister. Yet the media has chosen to promote the 80 who pointed their fingers at Downing Street. I would like to know from which diocese did the insipid eighty emerge. Was their diocese rural? In which case they will not be visited by the migrant influx: It will be left to urban areas to soak up these migrants: and the people of these areas will have to live with the pressure their presence puts upon our social fabric locally.

              

                These 80 bishops cannot be ignorant of the fact of the social pressure that the addition of seven million entrants to the UK under the Schengen agreement has already subjected our NHS, education, and welfare bill to in a time when the country's deficit remains morbidly obese. All of these services have already paid a heavy price because of Schengen – now we are expected to trump such political liberal utopianism by adding to its naivety, the addition of 50,000 Syrians.

                

                 One hundred and seventy bishops refused to put their signature to the, I would like to say letter; but its length stretched to a document, such was the depth of the 80 bishops anger; but it was used by the media, particularly to parts of the printed liberal variant, to showboat in print the 80 bishops as if they were in some way a significant representation of the whole order of Anglican bishops – they were not.

                

                 There are probably many reasons why the 170 did not become signatories to the document: but I think that they all disagreed with the Anglican 80 – and rightly so: and should be applauded for such a stance. The 80 bishops represent the level of the liberal intrusion into the Anglican Church. Over the coming years (I hope it is years and not months), I have little doubt that the whole of the Anglican Bishopric will succumb to the enticement of liberal secularism, and prostrate themselves before its liberal 'progressiveness' irrespective of biblical teaching and biblical morality. Under such a regime, Christianity will lose out to secularism whose great secular pontiff is of course Richard Dawkins.

MASS MIGRATION comes at a great cost to society, as the Anglican 80 must know, but chose to ignore the social impact on the community they represent. Part (a very important part) of Christian teaching is personal sacrifice. When a Christian stands up for a cause; a cause that may demand some personal sacrifice, the Christian individual bears the sacrifice willingly because their faith gives him  the strength to do so however painful the burden asked of them by their faith.

                

                 I was not, or did not mean to be flippant when I eluded to the spacious surroundings the Anglican 80 find themselves in occupation of up and down the country in both rural and urban diocese. They have space a plenty in their particular inn to accommodate several families. However did the above-mentioned correspondence to the prime minister cite any kind of self-sacrifice they were themselves prepared to make? Thus setting an example to their flock, and by doing so make the message of Christianity relevant in an increasingly secularist society.

                

                Those 50,000 refugees[1] these bishops are eager, out of Christian and humane impulses, to welcome to our shore, should come at a price to themselves personally. They should be prepared to take in sufficient of these people into their own homes to fill every room – but sadly it appears that there is no room at these particular inns.

                

                I do not attend Church, and I am not a Christian, but I do know, according to his teaching; Christ would have wanted these bishops to do the right thing before asking the community to make sacrifices – he would have wanted his bishops to set an example.

               

---

[1] I use the term refugee instead of migrant because Cameron intends removing those 20,000 at source, among the refugee camps in Jordan and the Lebanon, thus making the UK their first port of call – which is the qualification for refugee status.

Cumberbatch

BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH is one of those awful representatives of luvviedom, who, because he is one of such who tread the boards and are eulogised by the critics; then elevated to blue ribboned celebrity status by the media; and as part of the tribe that believe themselves to have insights into the world of current affairs that the rest of us poor ungifted cannot possibly emulate. That gilded cage that the top echelons of the thespian fraternity live within, and twitter their profundities to the rest of us almost on a daily basis; is their sole remit to any pretence of reality. They live apart from the common heard, either in the Hollywood hills or in the more salubrious and trendy parts of London ignorant of the world outside that of their bubble-like existence.

                

                They flit from country to country by means of a high-end celebrity class luxury private jet, or slumming it in business class with Virgin Atlantic; they are then taken by limousine to the five star luxury of the trendiest hotel in whatever city they wish to bless with their opinions on arrival: where they are surrounded by the world's media and where a simple sneeze can ignite controversy.

                

                This is the shallow world in which Benedict Cumberbatch has taken up residence: the world of fandom; the world where a simple comment upon the weather can always bring them publicity. This culture of celebrity; this shallow culture orchestrated by the media but used by the likes of Cumberbatch to advance their views: views many of which are unrelated to their profession and where such views are no more worthy of respect than those of any other Englishmen whom the media ignore.

                

                Celebrity culture is the bane of Western civilisation. We no longer listen to the well educated, who find the world a far more complex arena than the luvvies can ever hope to understand; if they did they would shut up and listen, which they rarely do; they stick limpet-like to the liberal vessel floating uncharted in the world of unreality.

               

                 Benedict Cumberbatch has used his celebrity status to opine against the way this country has reacted to the Syrian migration into Europe: we, the UK, he insists, have been proven parsimonious in the number of these 'refugees' we are prepared to take amounting to only 20,000 over the next five years, and only from the Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, and not from those pressing their case on Europe's Eastern borders.

IF WE HAD NOT signed up to the Schengen Agreement on open borders (which has added, so far, over five million to the UK population), then maybe we could have accepted a bigger quota of Syrians – but we cannot. Cumberbatch and his fellow blue ribboned thespians will never come into any contact with the problems provided by mass immigration.

                

                 Perhaps, his ultimate educational residence, (after volunteering to become a teacher at a Tibetan monastery in Darjeeling) was the University of Manchester to study drama; which in itself would, he believes, qualify him to pontificate as a good liberally minded actor, on all the problems of the day, once he became successful in his chosen profession – but this could only come about if the critics elevated him and his performances as an actor to almost God-like status: only then would his romantic banalities be listened to regarding immigration.

                

                 After his latest declamation Cumberbatch will no doubt be hoping for the reward that all good liberal thespians crave for before a knighthood or becoming a Dame - the title of a UNHCR Good Will Ambassador.

                

                 If we were to compete with Germany in the amount of Syrian migrants we take in, the NHS would fall apart at a far more catastrophic rate than is currently the case: we now need to build hundreds of more schools just to cater for those extra hundreds of thousands of children that have arrived because of our support for European open borders: our teachers are leaving the profession in record numbers fleeing from ill-disciplined classrooms where dozens of different languages have to be catered for: while a million new homes are now needed to cope with the increase of population.

                

                 Social tensions are becoming ever more apparent (hate crimes have increased), and not only between the indigenous people and the rest. Many second and third generations of Afro-Caribbean's, Muslims and Indians also take exception to the open border influx from the continent. Indeed, the arrivals from Portugal, Romania and Albania, and every other member state of the EU that are entitled to live and work in the UK have united those migrants from our one time colonies; thus temporarily plastering over their own cultural grievances with each other which are never referred to by our media because of their very own racist connotations – because immigration and racism to our multiculturalist, is a black and white issue void of any shades of grey.

                

                 Now Benedict Cumberbatch wishes us to pour more oil on the fire by inviting hundreds of thousands of Syrian migrants to help contribute to the funeral pyre of our indigenous culture: a culture, part of which embraces the NHS and cradle to grave welfare. Neither of which will survive an assault that expands our population at an exorbitant rate in such a short time.

                

                The liberals like to blame the difficulties within the NHS on old farts like me, because we are living longer – no mention of the impact of five million migrants, which Cumberbatch wishes to add to,  being blamed on the decline of the NHS. As far as the NHS is concerned; if I could wave a magic wand and return those Europeans who entered through open borders back to their various nations; then the 'living longer' blame-game loses its credulity (if, that is, it had any in the first place).

 LUVVIES, ALL LUVVIES, should do what they know best – perform: and at least go on a fat free diet as far as their emoting is concerned. I recommend that they zip their mouths, and before they open them again, study all the angles of a given pet venture into an area they know little of; and do not think the situation through before lending it their support. It appears to me that our celebrities, because their views are being taken so seriously by our celebrity culture, are pontificating emotionally (the natural impulse of all liberally inclined actors).

                

                 Benedict Cumberbatch is a good hearted thespian liberal who joins the pantheon of such. Once upon a time those such as Cumberbatch would have impressed their hand in a rectangle of newly laid concrete in Hollywood – the Hollywood equivalent of a knighthood. Now neither this or his talent, and the knighthood it is surely guaranteed him; should entitle him to pontificate upon global affairs that he has no more right, or even a workable knowledge of, to give his verdict upon. We of course also do the very same thing when we offer our opinions.

               

                But Cumberbatch's opinions like those of, for instance, Vanessa Redgrave and many, many other of their melodramatic liberal and pseudo-revolutionary kind, who hold little claim to popular opinion which they both despise anyway, because, when it comes to our indigenous culture, popular opinion to them means racism and nationalism, which between them amounts to Fascism. It means everything the liberal mind working in politics stands against.

                 

                

Doomsday Europe

A CONFIDENTIAL classified document leaked to Die Welt and taken up by the Gatestone Institute makes interesting and unnerving reading for the people of Germany. The document reports that by the end 2015, Germany will have received 1.5 million asylum seekers[1], with 950,000 arriving within the last quarter. Now, once Germany welcomes these people as Angela Merkle has done; their relatives will seek to join their kin on German soil: according to the document this could swell the numbers to more than 7 million - on top of which, the German authorities have estimated that 290,000 migrants have entered Germany without being registered.

                

                 But the most disturbing content of this report revolves around the levels of crime attendant upon the arrival of such numbers where crime, particularly among the youth has gone ignored by the German police fearful of promoting a backlash from the indigenous citizens of Germany. The report says; 'The behaviour of these highly delinquent youths towards police officers can be characterized as aggressive, disrespectful and condescending. ... When they are arrested, they resist and assault [police officers]. The youths have no respect for state institutions.'

                

                 This attitude of appeasement by the German authorities fearing a backlash reminds me of what happened in Rochdale, Oxford, Rotherham and other cities in the UK; where gangs of Asians were effectively given licence by the local authorities (who turned a blind eye) to the kidnapping from the streets, of young girls (usually from state 'care') who were taken to some hell-hole and gang raped. It was tolerated in our country because of fears of upsetting the Muslim population who British government after British government had and still has, at every opportunity sought only to appease, out of fear of being accused of racism by the 2.5 million Muslims that we call British.

               

                  In the case of Germany, the same kind of fear among the authorities operates. In Berlin a classified police report revealed that; '…a dozen Arab clan's hold reign over the city's criminal underworld. The report says the clans, which are dedicated to dealing drugs, robbing banks and burglarizing department stores, run a "parallel justice system" in which they resolve disputes among themselves with mediators from other crime families. If the state gets involved, the clans use cash payments or threats of violence to influence witnesses.'

                

                   In Duisburg according to the President of the German Police Union: 'In Berlin or in the north of Duisburg there are neighbourhoods where colleagues hardly dare to stop a car[2] — because they know that they'll be surrounded by 40 or 50 men. These attacks amount to a deliberate challenge to the authority of the state — attacks in which the perpetrators are expressing their contempt for our society.'

                

                   So this is the truth of mass migration. Liberal politicians and simple minded Bishops of the rapidly disintegrating Anglican Church shout, 'Come one, come all!', without even intellectualising the consequences for our society of such an invitation - dear God; how I hate heart driven idealism with little or no appeal to the brain.

ANGELA MERKLE has, by her dangerously misguided invitation to the mass influx of Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanistan's, and even Pakistanis into Germany; will, in the coming years prove socially hazardous for the Indigenous German people. Merkle will not be treated kindly by history for what she has unleashed upon her country and its indigenous culture; which she has now put under threat by her starry-eyed welcome to possibly 7 million Muslims, in addition to the 1.5 million already in residence within Europe.

                

                Those she has welcomed on her peoples behalf will never return to Syria; and the same goes for all other migrants from Muslim countries that have now forced their way into Germany from Eastern Europe at Angela Merkle's invitation to take refuge: it will count for little when peace is restored to the region from which they came and they will no longer wish to return. By which time Germany will have on its hands, as second generation of Syrians born in Germany, with the right to leap-frog EU border after EU border, because of Schengen.

                

                The EU was meant to bring our nations together into a single superstate; an ambition that was done to bring an end to European conflict that had plagued European history – but once more idealism was preferred to reason (let alone reality). Now we have the free movement of peoples, and very little harmony; as the growth of the Right suggests. If this wretched free movement had not taken place, then the debate about Syrian migrants would have taken a far smoother course and resistance would have been less, and sympathy for the migrants at least stomached, if not wholly tolerated.

                 

                 Age old boundaries have been done away with, with nothing more than a vision of childlike romanticism to replace them; resulting in misfortune after misfortune resulting in the chaos surrounding the single currency; and now we have Herr Merkle's invitation to increase the Muslim population of Europe from 15 million by, according the leaked report, a further 7 million.

                

                Which, given that the indigenous birth rates are falling in many European countries, and the propensity for large families exist among those Muslims that live in such countries; how long will it be before Western values are overtaken by Sharia Law? How long will it be before Owen Williams, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury's wish for sharia to be incorporated into English law comes about? Not very long once the demographics change.

                

                 What is happening in Germany, we in England cannot escape from unless and until we renounce the Schengen agreement which our spineless political supplicants to EU regulation are incapable of doing – so let the flood continue unabated until the same kind of conflict the EU was created to stamp out; re-emerges on the continent in a different form.

                               

               

               

               

---

[1] The status asylum seeker only applies to those migrants who seek refuge from oppression in first safe country they enter; which in this current crisis are the island of Lesbos, as well as Italy, and Turkey. Once they leave these safe havens and proceed deeper into Europe targeting Germany as their final destination – they then lose the asylum tag and become migrants…economic migrants.

[2] What we in the UK would consider no-go areas.  

The Principled One

SO, THE PRINCIPLED ONE is set to become vice-president of CND. Jeremy Corbyn has, it seems, turned the Labour Party into a protest group rather than having it remain a party. Think of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and his own naive attempt at trying to incorporate sharia law into English law and you discover the same mindset in Jeremy Corbyn. Each of them could be psychological creations from within a Dostoyevsky novel; they have a similar appetite for the innocence of romantic idealism in regard to human nature. They both think that human natures more unsavoury impulses can be deterred, either by Christianity or socialism – yet neither concept have proved itself civilised in its historical behaviour in attempting to improve human behaviour. Neither Christianity nor socialism has changed human nature for the better over the course of 2,000 years in the case of Christianity; or over the 200 or so years of socialism in one form or another, which has begun making its ideological rounds, firstly within Europe.

                

                The Principled One thinks he and his CND followers are the only creatures on this planet who believe the world would be better off without nuclear weapons. They seem to think we who oppose them, in their naivety, are lovers of the power and might of nuclear weaponry of the type depicted in the film Dr Strangelove; where Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (played by Sterling Hayden) lights, in his deranged manner, the blue touch paper that sets off a nuclear war.

                

                The Principled One believes those of us in the West, who less than enthusiastically back the nuclear deterrent will open the door to such a calamity via similar means as the black comedic scenario that the Strangelove film sought to present.

                

                If the West, the whole democratic West, if Harry Potter-like waved a magic wand and disposed of the West's nuclear capability; trusting (as no doubt the Principled One does) that the West's enemies will readily concur and do away with their own nuclear capabilities no longer feeling under threat from the West; will then lead to a world of milk and honey is a kind of (if there is such a concept) of unhinged naivety.

IF THE WEST sought to trust its nuclear enemies; enemies such as North Korea, Russia, and the latent addition to the nuclear-armed family, Iran: who insist to president Obama that its nuclear facilities are purely for domestic utility purposes. Upon such an assurance, an eager American President now serving his final term in office is fully prepared to accept -  and a deal was done; but as a sell-out to America's only trusted ally in the Middle East – Israel.

                

                We know that if America, France, the UK and Israel, keep their nuclear weapons then those Western nations without them will be protected from their use by the West's enemies. Nuclear weapons kept the peace between the West and the East during the Cold War because of the concept of mutually assured destruction. Communism's global reach was limited to parts of Eastern Europe because of them; and there is no doubt in my mind that had we not in the West, had a nuclear capability while leaving the Soviet Union with one – then Stalin and Khrushchev would have conquered Europe, because (especially Stalin) would have threatened them and been fully prepared to use them.

                

                 Nuclear weapons, if ever used, would at least bring a permanent end to wars between nations (but within nations – it is another thing) and vast millions of humanity: it was the prospect of this nightmare that mutually assured destruction kept at bay. The Principled One would do all he could to wreck this admittedly incongruous concept of mutually assured destruction. The concept, however, in the face of 'the nuclear bomb', worked during the Cold War because however evil at the time the Soviets or Chinese were; they were not stupid: if they between them destroyed capitalism by such means; then communism would also fall. In other words the nuclear age put a spoke in the works of the Marxian dialectic of Historical Materialism. Nuclear power, a concept of which Marx was unfamiliar with, effectively destroyed the symmetry and the 'inevitability' of Communism – or what Marx was to described as the scientific method, which resulted in nothing more than the kind of reading of tea-leaves you may run into at a spiritualist séance.  

                

                If the Principled One wins the day and (God help us all) becomes prime minister; then those sinners will no longer have to wait upon death to go to Hell; for the Principled One will have already created it on this part of the earth. Not through any feelings of malignancy – but through an innate naivety.

                

                Jeremy Corbyn has been, at best, seen as a pest. Not as you may expect by the Tory Party; but by his own party: a party whose fidelity to failure the current leader and his supporters celebrate; and does so because, through some perverted Marxian concept of communist inevitability mentioned above: the longer the current Tory government remains in power, then the sooner the Marxian nirvana will take hold of the people.

                

                His message is, let them govern. The age of austerity will bring about the age socialism. The Principled One does not care about winning government; only about transforming his party and steering it away from decades of 'betrayal' from the Right-Wing Labour leaders, starting with Hugh Gaitskell, and continuing with Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, and ending with that great opportunist and apostate, Neil Kinnock; who spoke like a socialist but acted like a Gaitskellite.

                

                Betrayal after betrayal by the leadership has kept true socialism at bay within the Labour Party. Betrayal has been the mantra the young and naive simpletons of the Labour left have chorused ever since Gaitskell and beyond. Now the party has principles enunciated by the Principled One himself and no obstacle (even the prospect of failure at the polls) will deter him from inflicting on the populace a life-time of incoherent ramblings aimed at the outer reaches of common sense while eviscerating any sign of any pragmatic approach.

                 

                

Nazism is ill-understood by Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN, the Jordanian UN high commissioner for human rights, has heavily criticised the UK's immigration policy regarding those fleeing the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan comparing our countries treatment of these people to Hitler's treatment of the Jews. Many of those fleeing Syria are ending up in refugee camps in Jordan – we, the UK, are giving over a billion pounds to help these people forced into such a perilous state to keep them safe in such camps – more, in fact,  than any other European country.

                

                 The UN high commissioner has little comparative understanding between what happened to the Jewish people under the Nazis and what he sees as our 'treatment' of the Syrian migrants. It is pure hyperbole; the seething outrage of an irrational mind on this one issue. I sympathise with his frustration at the treatment of these people. Life and circumstance is, however, often more complicated than emotional resentment; and this is the case with the Syrian migrant influx. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein knows nothing (or so it seems by his remarks) about the influx of migrants into the UK during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970's from the old British Empire, who mistakenly our politicians thought we had a duty of awarding British citizenship, and creating the Commonwealth.

                

                 Was this the gesture deserving of a comparison with the Nazis? I will not lie that such influxes tested the tolerance of the indigenous population, but any act of racism at the time was restricted to the individual or small quantities of individuals; never baring any close comparison to the hundreds of thousands of Brown Shirts causing mayhem in Germany 76 years ago, that Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein alludes to.                            

                 

                 Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein must curb his language. He is ignorant of the European open borders policy, which in the UK's case has permitted an additional five million people to share our shore, and wrought much tension upon the social fabric of our nation - a nervousness that can only inflate into out and out social unrest if hundreds of thousands of Syrian migrants were forced by the EU to be taken in by the UK.

                

                Either we allow, as in the case of Angela Merkle, a million migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and even Pakistan to become citizens of our country; or we have the five million from within Europe under Schengen – we cannot tolerate both; and Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had better understand this; for he appears ignorant of the circumstance of countries, like the UK, who oppose such an influx from the Middle East.

                

                I would welcome half a million Syrians to become part of our society Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein; but not as an addition to the numbers already allowed in under Schengen. Our leaders in Europe have fucked up good and proper, by meddling in the Middle East to the point where in Libya France and the UK interfered militarily against Gaddafi to successfully bring about his overthrow, which only poured oil on the fire. History will say of the behaviour of the West's various military involvements in the Middle East, that such a participation in the region made the situation a hundred times worse for the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria, than it was for them under the dictators.

                

                In fact, I would not be surprised if history treats Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad much more kindly than today's politicians and many commentators. I bet, given what has happened in these countries due to our meddling, the three dictators will be seen, yes, as brutal. But perhaps they had to be to prevent the different religious faction from doing to each other what they are doing today – and I also bet (although they will not admit to it publicly) that in their heart of hearts, Blair, Bush, Cameron, Obama and Hollande all wish they could turn the clock back, when, in particular, in Cameron's case he sees the mass migration into Europe.

                

                So, Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein; I agree that the West has fouled up, and as a Jordanian representative of the UN, it must be most irksome to say the least, considering how hard pressed your nation is in coping with refugees from (mainly but not exclusively) Syria.

                

                But to compare the UK's reaction to this great tide of humanity in such terms as you do is not only very silly but will prove unproductive in terms of the people you are trying to help. Western politicians have done great harm to the people of Iraq, Syria and Libya, by their involvement. We in the West have behaved like democratic imperialists believing that our actions would lead to fully fledged democracies in nations that were never suited to become democracies in the first place.

                

                Blair believed in a kind of nation building in these dictatorships once the dictators were swept to one side. The kind of nation he wanted to be the architect of was liberal democracy. It has, however, done more harm than good. But we are where we are. Then where are we Europeans now as the continent of last resort, and northern Europe the preferred final resort to the, by now, economic migrants?

                

                Europe, like the West generally is in terminal decline. It is not a question of if, but when. But it is Europe that will succumb first despite the attempts to create a United States of Europe to keep the continent's democracies solvent. Immigration will destroy Europe. But its destruction began not by the present influx of Syrian refugees; but by colonial guilt, and in Germany's case, the 70-year guilt that Nazism bequeathed future generations of Germans including Angela Merkle.

                

                Colonial guilt in Europe produced the ideology of multiculturalism, and this began the fall of European culture. Europe is in a dizzy state at the moment due to the latest influx; its indigenous people's have had to suck-up to the multicultural agenda which promotes diversity rather than integration. Such diversity will fragment people of different cultures each demanding their own cultural practices; many of which run contrary to the indigenous cultures throughout the continent.

               

                Therefore, before Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein criticises in such stark, and to the UK, repellent terms his opposition to our prime minister's policy on Syrian migration; let him, first of all, consider the reactions from, not only the indigenous population; but also from second and third generation migrants who oppose the Schengen influx.

                

The Paul Revere of mass migration.

LORD GREEN OF DEDDINGTON, the chairman of the think tank MigrationWatch UK, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, has said that the UK's population will increase by a further three million by 2020, requiring the building of three cities the size of Birmingham, which would mean a level of yearly net migration into the UK of 600,000 between now and 2020.

                

                Lord Green and MigrationWatch must be taken seriously. His web site is trusted by all sides of the immigration debate and Lord Green himself is no foul-mouthed bigot; which, no doubt, must disappoint many liberals who are unable to tar him with the Nick Griffin brush – in the past, although his prognostications have proven correct he has been distrusted by the liberalista within and outside the media, many of whom have questioned his interest in the subject of migration at all; as well as his motives in pursuing it and to what purpose he intends his findings to be put. In other words, such people hide a suspicion silenced by our laws on slander and libel – but around the Hampstead dinner tables, no doubt they are more forthcoming.

               

                How often has it to be said? Migration is not the problem - however mass migration is the problem: uncontrolled migration is the problem: open borders are the problem. It is this that concerns Lord Green, as it concerns me. We should cherry-pick the brightest and the best from wherever they live, and in whatever corner of the world they come from to live and work among us providing they obey our laws and respect our customs, and not expect there customs to be put on an equal footing with the indigenous culture.

                

                 This is where multiculturalism has clouded a very important issue – the issue of our indigenous culture and its long-term survival under multiculturalism. We who share MigrationWatch's concerns must get our terms right. I will return to the issue of migration and the figures released to the commons select committee by Lord Green; but it is the ideal of a multicultural society that spells ruination: an ideology (for that is what it is) that made any scale of migration acceptable to those who believe in multiculturalism. Such apostles of this religion champion something they call diversity - numbers, it seems; do not matter; only the rainbow of different cultures that is to be celebrated by the multiplicity of different tongues and faiths brought to society. The trouble is of course that diversity and integration are sitting at the opposite ends of a magnetic pole and each repels the other.

NOW BACK TO Lord Green's observations to a commons select committee, regarding numbers and the warnings he gave them about the future of mass migration. But before I do so let me briefly put to one side the next five years that Lord Green suggests the UK population will increase by a further three million; and concentrate briefly upon what has already occurred in the past seven years since Blair signed us up to Schengen and its open border policy of allowing unlimited migrants from all member states of the EU into the UK. Written into Schengen, was a kind of settling in period for individual EU members, if they wished to take advantage of, it gave a period several years before each nation had to comply – Blair waved it away and insisted upon immediate implementation, resulting in an additional five million to our island population.

                

                Since Blair opened his country' borders, all social aspects of our welfare state have been subjected to Blair's premature invitation to the rest of the EU to invade us and join in: the NHS, education and social and private housing; have all been put under everlasting pressure by the EUs open border regime.

                

                Today the NHS is in deficit to the tune of billions (blamed by the liberal media on old farts like myself who have the indecency to hang around for far too long). There is no mention of the increase in the population from, particularly, Portugal and Eastern Europe due to open borders: the liberal media, particularly, but not exclusively, the BBC, never seem to attribute the NHS' difficulties to anything more than old farts like myself who, so they imply, are deemed a burden on the NHS. God forbid the increase in the migrant population should have any bearing on the NHS – but it has a mighty bearing not only on the NHS, but schooling, teaching and housing.

                

                 Lord Green's observations have to be taken seriously. We can no longer trust our own political class on the issue of migration. Better, on this issue, Lord Green than our main parties, who wave not the hammer and cycle, but a rainbow coloured flag of pure gullibility. 

                

                Those who support mass migration and open borders: those like well-meaning and emotionally driven liberals with little or no thought for the social impact their naivety will have on society in the future. Their sentiments stand with those of big business: the hard-headed (and on other occasions considered hard-hearted by the liberalista) capitalists who welcome open borders and migrants; they give opportunity to maximise profits through cheap labour. This unholy alliance between opposites will become quite combustible when the people say enough is enough.

                

                 Among the most vocal opponents of mass migration are not only the indigenous population, but also second and third generation ethnic minorities who also feel threatened by vast numbers added to our population over such a short time period. For as much as the Left like to paint opposition to mass migration as a racist issue –it is certainly not.

                

                  Lord Green controls the most trusted of statistics on this issue; and may he continue to do so. The social impact of the kind of migration we face, which combines the open border type with the vast refugee/migrant populations now landing on the shores of Italy and Greece, and from Eastern Europe via Turkey, serves as warning for the near future, and Lord Green is the Paul Revere of mass migration.

                               

                

Cameron deludes himself and the public

THERE ARE TWO ACTIONS that David Cameron will never take: the first is leaving the EU, and the second is pressing the nuclear button. Both actions are inconceivable, and the European Commission, Angela Merkle, President Hollande, and Vladimir Putin also know this to be true – dam it, Cameron himself knows it to be true. On Sunday's Andrew Marr programme Cameron said as much on the question of him being prepared to leave the EU: asked the question by Marr whether he was prepared to leave the EU, Marr received this circuitous answer, '[in the negotiations] I leave nothing out.' Not Yes or NO, but the more vacuous and cowardly obfuscation – no wonder politicians are held in such contempt, and the public are turning to Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn rather than put up with this state of affairs.   

                

                Cameron is a Europhile; fully committed to the EU, who was forced into renegotiating our relationship with Europe because of the rise of Ukip – his heart is not really in it. He is the last person to be renegotiating reform of the EU on behave of the Eurosceptic people of England (I will not say the UK). This man has a record for dissembling. He told us he would never sign the Lisbon Treaty [1] if (that is) we were not signed up to it when and if he came to power. This was a nod and a wink to Gordon Brown, who took him at his word, and signed the Treaty in Lisbon on 13 December 2007: three years before Cameron was elected to office as prime minister. Cameron knew that he could promise his Eurosceptics never to sign it knowing that the Labour Party under Gordon Brown (if for no other reason than his personal hatred of the Tories) would sign-up to the Treaty before the Tories ever came to power.

                

               Without the pressure from Ukip, Cameron would have freely signed the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron was leading his somewhat Eurosceptic party by their nose[2]; and those who became wise to his dissembling went over to Ukip who, at the time, Cameron had nothing but a haughty contempt for; and presented a distasteful caricature of them to the media. But as Ukip made advances in local and European elections, Cameron had to take Nigel Farage and his party seriously: he had to eventually promise a referendum on EU membership, but only after pressing for reform of the EU on the commissioners which he thought, in the tradition of European solidarity, would try to accommodate him in his suggestions for keeping England if not the whole of the UK within the EU.

                

                We have to wait and see what Cameron achieves, but any concordant that leaves in place the Schengen agreement on the free movements of peoples; or the gradual strangulation of our national sovereignty, by continuing to elevate EU law above the sovereign laws of our nation state, and its ability to debate and create them in our own parliament with little or no reference to the European Court of Human Rights or Justice; or any other infernal body of the EU - will not do. 

NOW WE COME TO Trident and Cameron's readiness to press the button and Jeremy Corbyn's unwillingness under any circumstance to do so. I loathe Corbyn deeply; not as an individual (although his naivety upsets me and makes me angry; but never to the point of wishing to be the receptacle for any kind of physical violence to him), but I loathe him for the damage his loathsome nostrums will do to the country if he were ever to become prime minister.

                

                Where I do however have certain sympathy for him is in his admission that he would never, under any circumstances, press the nuclear button. This is the genuine honesty of the type Corbyn proselytises. He says what no other of this country's current leaders have ever been prepared to do – to be honest with people regarding pressing the nuclear button. During the Cold War political leaders were fully but unhappily prepared to respond to any nuclear assault by the Soviet Union on the West.

                

                Today when nuclear deterrence is still, unfortunately, needed; no one in this country believes Cameron when he says he is fully prepared to press the button in extenuating circumstances. He is no more prepared to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, than he has been to bomb civilians in his fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, or ISIS if civilians were being used as human shields. In fact he and the West condemned Israel for ignoring the human shields deployed by Hamas in Gaza when they were forced by Hamas rockets showering Israel, to intervene in Gaza.

                

                Corbyn is at least honest enough to admit he could never press the nuclear button. Cameron lacks such honesty. He is fully prepared to press the button if needs must; or so he says. But like everything else he says, it is for the moment; the only function of his rhetoric is to delude the British people and score another point or two over Corbyn.

                

                 A Republican president would be prepared to use it; Putin would be prepared to use it; Kim Jong-un would be prepared to use it; Netanyahu would be prepared to use it: and Iran when they get a button to press will be prepared to do so – or at least in all of these cases the public throughout the world genuinely believe them when they say they would press it. But Cameron and Hollande representing the only two European nuclear powers would not be prepared to press the button.

                

                Our leaders lack the ruthlessness of their enemies to fight a conventional war; let alone a nuclear one. In fact, as a supporter of possessing a nuclear capability; it is only worth the billions of tax payer's pounds to pay for it, and keep it functioning, if this country's leaders are prepared to use it – which they are not; in which case why pour billions of tax payers money into such a deterrent if it is only a symbolic deterrent. This is why Putin is outmanoeuvring the West; he knows we are weak; he knows we lack the ruthlessness to stop him, and we will eventually pay the price for our feebleness and lack of any kind of response other than the limp rhetoric and fatuous warnings which go ignored.

                

               David Cameron is becoming unconvincing by the day to his public, when it comes to the EU and our nuclear deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn is like the child who shouts out 'the king has no clothes'; and indeed it is the case when it comes to the EU and our nuclear deterrent.

               

               

---

[1] The treaty which incorporated the free movement of peoples

[2] Trust me, as a former member of the Bullingdon Club, to do what is right.

Gun ownership – a sanctuary from tyranny, and criminality

WE HAVE ANOTHER MASS KILLING in America, this time in Roseburg, Oregon; and carried out once more by a deranged individual; another loner whose neighbours paint an unnerving portrait of his behaviour. The gunman was 26-year-old Chris Mercer-Harper who targeted the Umpqua Community College and took nine lives. This individual was allowed to amass a small arsenal of weapons because he had no criminal record - just a record of disturbed mental behaviour which this small community either ignored or knew little about. Chris Mercer-Harper needed treatment; treatment which it appears he never received; or his parents, rightly believing he could never have committed such an appalling act; never sought or may have tried to seek help, but with little response from the local medical authorities.

                

                 Much easier therefore (as with the many similar incidents in America) to simply to focus upon gun ownership and how to control it, rather than the disturbed minds of the various individuals who have spilled so much blood on college campuses to satisfy their deranged impulses.

                

                 Gun ownership is once more under the liberal spotlight; and not only in America. It is also in the spotlight of UK liberals who loath the very name of The National Rifle Association (NRA). UK liberals who always turn their noses up to those aspects of American culture that they find almost primitive in the wholly snobbish way they make such judgements that treat the NRA as a kind of red neck right-wing body who prefer country music to Sebelius.

                

                 I believe that every American citizen without a criminal record, or a record of mental illness, encompassing by-polarism or any other disturbing mental behaviour correlated by the psychiatric profession to be potentially dangerous; should not be allowed to own a gun, or even a pair of nail clippers.  Chris Mercer-Harper as well as those in the medical profession within Roseburg should be placed under the spotlight- not the NRA.

THE NRA is the liberal's bogeymen. They have power in the land – great power in fact; and American liberalism resents this. It is part of the American Constitution that every American citizen has the right to bear arms. This was written into the American Constitution because it was the citizens right to arm themselves against tyranny: the kind of tyranny that may arise if an American president refuses to accept the judgement of the American people via the ballot box and seeks to ignore the constitution and continues to govern with the aid of a sympathetic military.

                

                 Not even Obama is demanding the outright ban on all arms, but certain calibres of weapons. But the NRA rightly insists that any restrictions on the velocity of the guns, will lead in the future to further restrictions leading to an overall ban. The NRA are right in such an assumption. The right to gun ownership exists for the time when either the law breaks down, or a future government abandons the democratic principles upon which they were elected; and seeks to govern without the input of the people in perpetuity – in other words a dictatorship.

                In the UK, at one time, it was as easy to own a gun as it is today in the USA, providing (as in the USA) you did not have a criminal record – and also it is to be remembered, that the police were never armed; but for a truncheon, a whistle, and a night-stick.  There is a recorded incident in the 19^th century where a constable in pursuance of an armed robber stopped a civilian and asked for his gun, which was immediately handed over, and the chase continued.

                

                I believe in the right to bear arms as once did the government of the UK. But as far as the UK was concerned this liberal tolerance to civilian gun ownership expired after the First World War when Europe was in the thrall of revolution; the British government demanded the return of rifles.

IF THE REPRESENTATIVES of the law cannot provide any kind of protection for their citizens; then such citizens should be allowed, as they are in America, to arm themselves: to protect their families from those who enter their homes; who they do not know whether they have a violent intent or not. Under such circumstances it is the protection not of property but the family that live within the property that is the main concern of the family– and they should be allowed to be armed.

                

                 In Switzerland almost every one of its citizens owns an automatic weapon of the type used by the Swiss army: this is because every citizen dose national service and is allowed to keep his or her weapon when he or she has served their time.

                 

                 As I referred to above, in the UK it was once very easy to buy a weapon and most citizens kept a revolver handy in the 19^th and early part of the 20^th century. I am reminded of, and referred to in a previous blog, of an incident I once read about. It took place in London in the 19^th century under Victoria. An armed robber running from the scene of his crime was being pursued by a constable; the constable was of course unarmed. He stopped a citizen and asked him if he had gun readily available, the citizen nodded in the affirmative, and he handed it over – and so the chase continued. It was not known if the robber was caught or met the kind o fate he was prepared to inflict on his victim; but the story when I read it was meant to demonstrate the commonality of gun ownership in England a short time ago in our history.

               

                 Gun ownership has legitimacy when the forces of law and order cannot protect its citizens, and refuse to attend some crimes as unimportant because of their frequency such as shoplifting and burglary. It is the primary duty of government which is in effect the state, to protect its citizens from internal criminal threats and any external foreign threat. When both these duties are now being undermined by austerity; then the people, in order to feel safe in their own homes should be allowed, to legally own a gun.  If not the only people who will own guns will be the criminals, who do not seem to have too much trouble in getting and owning them.

               

                 In the end the family armed is the final redoubt (when all else fails) against all forms of tyranny and criminality that threaten their lives when the state singularly fails in its duty to protect the law abiding from the anarchy of the criminal or despot – America has got it about right.

               

 

German Masochism

ANGELA MERKLE is coming under ever more pressure after her decision to take in 800,000 migrants from Syria, who will now be able to participate in Germany's generous welfare provision. The weekly newspaper Die Zeit said 'Dr Merkel's decision to open Germany to the refugees may have been the "most spectacular and most far-reaching" of her chancellorship'. Germany is beginning to understand what such an invasion in such a short time can mean to the social fabric of Germany. The De Zeit article added, 'It could also be the decision with which the party chief has alienated her CDU (Christian Democratic Union) like never before. Has Merkel, at the apex of her power, engineered her own demise and even her fall from power?"

                

             The German President Joachim Gauck said the government will have to 'promote the construction of apartments and build schools, hire teachers and kindergarten staff, adjust the labour market and vocational training, teach the German language and law - and do all of that at the same time'. This is the reality of such an invitation by Merkle: Herr Merkle need not feel alone in the pursuance of her idealistic impulses because the whole of the European Union made the same misjudgement when they signed up to Schengen, part of which involved open borders. Open borders between the EU nations that the signatories of Schengen signed up to is the very reason that Europe cannot possibly contain within its boundaries a further; what may turn out to be millions of migrants from the world's trouble spots – it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

MY FEAR, as a UK citizen, is that once Germany absorbs the 800,000 migrants, which Merkle sees as only the first tranche of her impeccable humanitarianism which will eventually award them German citizenship – upon which they will then be entitled to enter every other EU country as citizens of Europe. This is the mess the Europhiles have orchestrated under Schengen. So in the future, not only will the citizens of Europe be socially and compulsory made to bleed within each other; but also those other cultures that have little to do with the West, such as those Angela Merkle has invited into Germany and ultimately Europe; will have the same rights of citizenship, as any other European.

                

                If, as a citizen of the UK, our politicians had not signed the Schengen Treaty; this piece I am writing would never have had to be written. But it has been needed to be written; if only because the original migrants under the free movement of peoples have now been added to by the overflow from European foreign policy misjudgements. In particular (but not exclusively) Syria; whose numbers are daily encroaching upon European soil in order to reach their particular nirvana – Angela Merkle's Germany.

               

                Europe would have been better able to absorb such quantities of migrants from Syria if Europe's open border policy had not been in existence. This is not to say that we would have accepted some millions from Syria, even then; but we would have had the unquestioned ability had it not been for the free movement of people within Europe to do so. Our European leaders could have had one thing or another - they could not have had both.

GERMANY HAS HAD much to put up with. When the country was divided between East and West after the ending of the Second World War; the West German people gladly poured billions of Deutsch marks into uniting the country; they have also poured further into saving the euro and Greece, the EU's greatest defaulter in euro crises.

                

                 Now, thanks to the German chancellor, ever more billions are being spent to create an additional infrastructure for those 800,000 Syrians, with more to follow will; as Herr Gauck has said, Germany will require more schools, teachers of every kind and discipline, as well as new apartments.

                

                 The German's are the continents most industrious of peoples, who have, since the Second World War, paid time after time for their Nazi past – this national self-flagellation is no longer required of them. They should no longer feel so guilty, that their chancellor invites legion upon legion of migrants into their country because of something that happened 70 years ago.