The pantomime of party civil war

CIVIL WAR IS an ugly business, but in party politics, it is also a form of entertainment for those in whatever party not engaged in it. But today we have a party entering the early stages of such a war, and another on the verge of such open conflict.

                

                 But the distinctiveness of the civil war within the Tory Party is feared by the very people who should be celebrating it. Those Labour backbenchers may have shared a kind of personal joy at Ian Duncan Smith's nuclear resignation. But after celebrating in the numerous publically subsidised bars in and around Westminster; and waking the next morning in a far less salubrious state than they were in immediately before the explosion - they must have had second thoughts. The moment had past. Now with much deliberation, those celebratory Labour backbenchers suddenly fear for the prospect of their own party's future. The parliamentary Labour Party is no friend of George Osborn and David Cameron; but neither are the majority of them any friend of Jeremy Corbyn.

                

                Those who are the most reflective in the parliamentary Labour Party would not be considered (especially after the rise of Ukip) fantasists if before this year's end a general election is called – and yes; Corbyn wins it. I believe such a prospect would terrify the Labour backbenches as much as the Tories, as well as the rest of us. We are living in uncertain and dangerous times; and what seems fantastical, imprudent, and thoughtless today, may give us a Corbyn government in the months hence.

                It will be the result of the EU referendum that will ignite such an outcome. If the vote goes either for remaining in or leaving; unless the vote is conclusive neither those for or against will be happy and will continue the struggle.

WE CERTAINLY LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES. Europe is the cause of the main conflict within the Tory Party. It has always been the case within the party throughout the Thatcher, Major, and now the Cameron years. The party can no longer rely upon the loyalty of its eurosceptics that undoubtedly opposed (especially under John Major) membership; but nevertheless supported the leadership when it came to all legislation bereft of any EU import.

                

                 Both the main parties are in various states of civil war. If it were an eight furlong horse race then after the third furlong the Tory Party are in the lead, but only just. Creeping up behind the Tories is the Corbynista Labour Party; and both are vying for the prize of being ahead of the other in the battle for their respective parties.

                

                 The liberal political and pro-EU consensus that has proved the dominant paradigm for the past 50 years in Europe is facing a challenge it has never had to face before. Paradigms change; it is of course the nature of social evolution. But when it comes to the EU, all paradigms have only pointed in one direction – toward a United States of Europe.

IN THE UK, its people have become ever more disillusioned with party politics. Since the rise of Tony Blair and the Conservative Party under David Cameron; Cameron has tried to emulate his mentor. Both the main parties have fought over the centre ground of British politics; but neither of each party's supporters have been endeared by the outcome of such an accommodation comprising of focus groups and  the tapestry of free loaders that now coalesce around all party leaders spewing forth their pre-requisite advice on becoming a prime minister.

                

                We now have a civil war in the making for both our main political parties. As in America the establishment parties are no longer credited with anything more than promises undermined or broken once in power – thus, we have Bernie and Donald trying to become their party's candidate for president. This is the patina of modern centre ground democracy; not only in the USA but throughout the Western democratic world. All over Europe the people are experimenting with new parties with a harder edge[1] either on the Left or the Right they are filling the vacuum created by the traditional mainstream parties.

                

                Who knows? The conflict within our two main parties currently under way, may bring true and real differences back between the parties. There is a rebellion underway in 90% of Western democracies – a rebellion of the voters; not of students whose revolutionary romanticism leads to civil conflict; but of ordinary citizens who have had their noses squeezed between the thumb and forefinger of the liberal establishment, and by such means to be escorted to the ballot box and given a vacuous choice of candidates. Vacuous in the real sense that the establishment parties are just vultures fighting over the occupancy of the centre ground of British politics; and gulling the people with the kind of rhetoric that feeds our sentimentality.

---

[1] I will not use the term extreme. The main parties have no appeal to those who have become disenchanted with phoney parliamentary exchanges that are more theatre and pseudo indignation, than they are in any real sense  distinctive and different.  

More of the same

YET ANOTHER OUTRAGE on Europe's soil: Brussels' airport and underground were visited by Islamists with bombs attached and ready to detonate. Once more the blood flowed freely from the bodies of 34 killed and over 200 injured, many, sadly, in the coming days and weeks, or even months, depending on the nature of their injuries will add to the total of the known dead. In November last year, 128 people were killed in Paris by Islamist's following an earlier attack at the offices of Charlie Hebdo where 11 were killed and 11 others were injured.

                

                Throughout Western Europe, and especially, but not exclusively among those countries whose empires extended into the Muslim world; large populations of Muslims have been allowed to seed and grow. Liberal guilt for colonialism has transformed the demographics' of the whole European continent; and even today liberal countries, like those in Scandinavia whose liberal credentials have inspired the liberalista of the left in the UK, are now having second thoughts; especially, but not exclusively, after the events in Stockholm and Cologne on New Year's Eve.

               

                 In Stockholm, its liberal media kept the events of the abuse of Swedish women by Islamic migrants well and truly censored. The same in Cologne could not so easily be put to bed by the media; especially after Angela Merkle had invited a million refugees from Syria onto German soil without even questioning their authenticity: come one come all was Frau Merkle's message - the German people will welcome you.

OUR POLITICIANS throughout Western Europe have welcomed Syrian, Pakistani, Afghanistan and Algerian Muslims to come live with us: in other words, the various colonial waif and strays from throughout every part of their, the European West's, one-time various empires.

                

                Our liberals in the UK took it upon themselves to alleviate their colonial guilt by inviting all nature of citizens to become UK citizens. Pakistan became a nation independent from India, but their people were given residency in the UK – a people of the Islamic faith, of whom there is a forest of 1.4 million living within the UK where any ISIS interloper can find sanctuary. They find it because, as we have now seen in Belgium and parts of Paris, as well as Rochdale in the UK, there are no-go areas for the police to enter for fear of pricking the racist sensitivities of Muslims.

                

                 In France, the liberal guilt for the way their country treated the Algerians during their colonial governance also led their own liberalista to welcome thousands of Algerians to become French citizens. Now in the decades that have followed, whole communities of Muslims have been left to deteriorate in France.  Although there may be exceptional examples to the contrary, the Muslim Algerians have harvested a wealth of resentment toward their liberal 'liberators'.

NOW WE COME TO Europe's response to the latest outrages and it mimics the previous ones to Charlie Hebdo and the later Paris bombings. The politicians prate the same words 'this is an attack on Europe' and calls for 'solidarity' among the nations of Europe. Then there is school photograph were Europe's leaders and commissioners stand alongside each other looking sternly into the camera in an act of the said 'solidarity'.

                

                 While on the streets of the particular city attacked, journalists, microphones in hand, solicit the feelings of obviously shocked citizens hoping to capture a tearful response from the interviewee to lead the news. As you will have gathered I am deeply cynical about the behaviour of journalists on such occasions; but I think with cause especially over the reporting of the migrants trying to reach Europe.

                

                  After each tragedy and after the official photograph of 'solidarity' comes the mass immolation for the dead: small plots of land at the centre of where the murders took place become shrines; a tapestry of flowers with notes expressing the sympathy of the giver; and candles light up those simple messages of 'solidarity'. Expressions not of anger (at least not among those the media interviewees) just of bewilderment like the blank, frightened stare a rabbit has when a car delivers it to whatever Valhalla the creature may be heading for.

                

                 Expressions of pity for the deranged minds that carries out such hideous acts; rather than anger and a determination that goes beyond mere words to fight back, seems to be all we have. The events that follow these horrors are turning into a circus. Emoting rather than acting is our preferred reaction, as it will be after the next atrocity.

                

                 Europe is weak; they just hope that ISIS and all forms of Islamism will just go away. Well it will not; and it will not because they have the upper hand, especially within Europe. They have 15 million other Muslims to seek sanctuary among throughout the continent. In Belgium earlier this week the authorities captured the organiser of the Paris attack. He was found in Belgium among a community of Muslims. He apparently walked past the local police station almost daily from what I have heard on Sky; without ever being challenged and questioned – and why? Well we in the UK can tell you why. Areas of cities with a monopoly of Muslim people are treated differently from white areas (reverse racism).

                

                  As we found in Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and other cities with a sizable Muslim population; a blind eye was turned by the authorities to the behaviour of gangs of Muslim men who abused and raped children for fear of being called racist – to a social worker such a charge as racism is the equivalent of being associated with a phobia as measured by the politically correct. This blind eye taken by the authorities in these towns and cities in the UK has been replicated all over Europe; until there are no-go areas where policing stands back and allows Islamists to take control.

                

                  The city of Paris is literally surrounded by tenements built to house the French working class in the 1960s. Now they are occupied by Muslims, originally from Algeria but added to. In other words Paris is surrounded by embittered Muslims in an age where Islam is once more on the march. The Muslims now encircling Paris: Muslims, many of whom are unemployed with little skills to attract a job in the market place, other than the mean spirited of jobs is all they have to look forward to – so much for liberal guilt.

FRENCH LIBERAL GUILT invited Algerian Muslims to France. The same guilt that, in the UK, brought forth the Pakistani community whose additional seeding by family relatives has harvested 1.17 million Pakistanis. But according to the UK 2011 census there are 2,706,066 Muslims living in the UK, and 2,660,116 of which live in England.

                

                 There will be more mass burials to come because of Islamism[1] and there will be more photographs taken, and flowers bought, tagged with messages of sympathy. And there will be the useless calls for 'solidarity' from the leaders of Europe – at least I am yet to hear that awful word slip from the tongue of our prime minister; but let us not speak to soon. Submissiveness is the EUs only recourse to Islamism and the Muslim world.

---

[1] A fake nomenclature meant to separate the Muslim population from those who wish us harm.   

The nation state is not dead: either here or in the USA

IF UK VOTERS vote to leave the EU, the whole pack of cards may tumble: so say many Brexit supporters, and more than a few of the remains; but both camps will have very different opinions on such an outcome. The Brexit's who see themselves as the EUs nemesis would be dancing in the street. The remainers would be distraught to the point where they would not accept the result, however huge or marginal.

                

                I am with the Brexitiers and will vote to leave, and I will have little compunction in so doing. At the moment the debate is being ostracised by the fear factor; what has become known as 'Project Fear' by the Brexitiers. But economic arguments are coming to the fore, and will work in tandem on the remainer side with Project Fear. If the economic arguments for remaining were overwhelming which they certainly are not; and if the Brussels' commission were elected which it certainly is not; and if the EU parliament was a legislative body which it certainly is not; I would sill vote to leave this very unsavoury bureaucratic concoction that has only one destiny, a kind of Napoleonisation of the continent, and as such it can only function with an emperor like figure at its head.

                

                If you think me insane and that I am composing this piece from within a secure unit in a mental institution; at least read my argument for such a suggestion[1]. At the moment in this minimalist democracy we call the EU, who's many bureaucrats use such terms as the post democratic age to describe this continents way forward; democracy will no longer be set at the premium any democratic nation state believes in. Democracy does not need to be handcuffed but liberated from such a restriction.

                

                A bureaucracy is encumbered by a very slow process, it pours out unhurriedly dictum after dictum; it reminds me of the Circumlocution Office in Little Dorrit where time is languid and policy is of course long in its eventual application. This describes perfectly the EU, a reversal to a totalitarian bureaucratic age; an age blighted by tortoise-like indecision until the decision that eventually manifests itself is impractical to all but the bureaucracy that gave it its place in the world.

THE EU IS OVERWHELMED by lengthy officious procedures turning out vast amounts of; in many cases, minor and inconsequential rules and restrictions that undermine Europe's competitiveness. The EU is submerged in red tape; be it to do with all forms of manufacturing or the individual. I predict that if we vote to remain a member of the EU at some point in its future it will look to a single figure to oversee the continent and to have the final say overriding all other pseudo-democratic institutions. As was the case in the Roman republic: when Rome was under direct threat from an enemy a dictator was appointed (usually a successful general) until the threat subsided at which point he handed back his sovereignty to the republic.

               

               It will sooner or later be proven impractical for 27 nations with 27 different cultures to work in harmony except (as during the Roman Empire) through duress. Each nation will have at some point have cause to complain to the commission over some proposal or other that the commission has dreamt up which is opposed by one or several member states; thus will begin the circumlocution process causing further months and even years of reflection by the bureaucrats before the aggrieved member(s) nation can be given a favourable or an unfavourable decision.  By then the whole purpose of the legislation will be forgotten, even by the Commission. The bureaucratic adagio-like progress will sooner or later threaten the whole system of the EU. It will become a laughing stock; it will become a cause for much satire across the continent until; it will become unworkable and institutions ever more sclerotic.

                

                Corruption once barely tolerated will become the norm and be treated with a shrug of the shoulder, has as happened in Greece over decades; as well as, so it seems within the European 'parliament', with the MEPs allowance scandals. If the ideal of a European Federal Union is to continue; then the only way it will continue to function will be through a powerful Napoleonic-like strongman who will need unlimited power to keep these 27 diverse cultures and traditions in check. Call him a dictator; but if this is what is required to keep this idealistic dream of a United States of Europe alive, I am sure the political classes will readily agree – but of course, a dictator can also be incompetent, and more ruthless, than the great unelected European Commission.

                

                Such a dictator (let us call him an emperor – an EU emperor is more fitting historically for the continent) will be accepted because we will be in the post-democratic age; and the people of Europe (by the time this EU project is well into its adulthood) will have little knowledge of a true functioning democracy where an elected parliament make the laws by which the people are governed. Such a concept once the norm throughout Western civilisation will have been displaced in the European Union. The price of a European Union will be forgoing (as we already are beginning to) democracy, sovereignty, and the nation-state.

BUT THIS GRAND PROJECT is now being put under threat. The great European ideal dreamed up after the Second World as a purely free trade area; has evolved into the concept of a European super state. Who would have believed that this concept could or would lead to a federal union? There were a few at the time in the 1970s who were against such a project and they came mainly from the Left; some even speculated as I have done that this project would not stop at free trade but would lead to some kind of superstate . They were however disparaged by those who wished us to become part of Europe, as swivel-eyed loonies. Ted Heath a Europhile, extemporary insisted that such an outcome was ridiculous. But it was the socialist Delors who persuaded the Left that they could turn Europe into a social democratic paradise (the same Delors who has since questioned the sanity of a one size fit all single currency for every single EU member regardless of economic differentials). The Labour Party became enamoured with Delores and now are supporting the remain campaign.

                

                The more I think about this scheme for federal union, the more I perceive it to be madness. Like all political ideas that sound reasonable and attractive in theory;[2] they eventually lead to one form or other of human misery: as far as the EU is concerned we see the embryonic beginnings of that human misery in Greece today. This whole edifice must be broken up. It must lose its political idealism and become less swivel-eyed in its defence of the grand project. The EU is not the future, but a replicant of previous attempts to bring about yet another utopian paradise that misunderstands human nature.

                 

---

[1] Well in truth the argument for a dictator to oversee what will eventually become a federal union was suggested by my brother, a suggestion which at first I naturally pooh-poohed. After all, for such a provision to come about there would have to have been a kind of petrifaction of democracy by bureaucrats – surely that cannot not happen?

[2] Socialism, communism, and fascism for instance. 

Turkey has declared a royal flush in the diplomatic poker game

TURKEY KNEW she had the upper hand. Our weak and pathetic EU leaders have added to our open border problem and paid Turkey double what they offered in recompense for the return of immigrants from Greece who crossed illegally. They, the EU leaders, manage to make our situation worse with every decision they make. As part of their current deal comes the promise of the free movement of Turkish people into Europe. So our present difficulties with open borders will have been added to as part of a trade-off with getting rid of Syrian migrants: by doing so these feeble apostates of the nation-state will only replace one problem with another – if it works. If it does not and the tsunami of human flesh continues to enter Europe; it will be added to by the ability of Turkish citizen's to travel throughout the EU.

                

                These perfidious representatives of every nation they speak for who tirelessly work on behalf of the grand EU project, will stoop to all kinds of practises and make all sorts of promises to keep the EU show on the road. They put EU loyalty before national loyalty, which makes them double agents caught between the various EU countries they represent and the greater European ideal. They want to be rid of the great migration problem emanating from Syria and other Muslim countries in the Middle East, and as from far afield as Afghanistan and Pakistan. They wish to do so in order to concentrate everyone's mind once more on their beloved European project. And they are prepared to pay any dishonest price to do so; as we are seeing with the EU's negotiations with Turkey.

                

                This European migration is a distraction that the EU is prepared to pay a heavy price to avoid in order to keep on track the European ideal of federalism; for they know the damage it can do to any prospect of achieving a federal union which open borders exemplify. And this is why the EU representatives have cow-towed to Turkey and given that country all that they have asked for in exchange for ridding the continent of outside immigration.

WHAT A HAPLESS BUNCH we have representing us in the UK, as well for that matter, other countries in the EU. But I am only concerned about my own nation; it is up to the people of the other member states to speak up for themselves. Turkey is now, by the demands it has succeeded in making, cocker hoop. The movement of peoples has played into Turkey's hands. Turkey can now demand anything from the EU. Our 'representatives 'at the EU are fully prepared to go to any lengths suggested by Turkey to eliminate the hundreds of thousands (and perhaps many millions) of migrants entering Europe.

                

                We on this continent are in a terrible mess brought about ultimately by European federalism; a concept even at this late moment in EU history, our prime minister insists he opposes. But if Cameron truly believed that either this was not the intended purpose of the EU; or if it was, he would give us his word that the UK would not be part of it; he cannot deny that he knew the true intent and purpose of the EU.

                

                Cameron believes in a United States of Europe and has worked to bring it about. That was until his party, many of who were and still are sceptical became attracted to Ukip. At first Cameron thought to swat them away as a boggle-eyed irrelevance until Ukip started to steal Conservative support. From that moment, Cameron began taking Ukip seriously and was led eventually to promise a referendum on this county's membership of the EU. It was an undertaking that promised deep-rooted reform to the EU to put before a referendum. Cameron knew that he could not deliver on what he promised; so he once more appealed to his party to trust his judgement and yet again people kept (however precariously) their belief in his judgement; especially over an issue that meant so much to our people. And the politicians wonder why the public who vote them into power are so cynical about promises to purchase power. The English are the most distrustful of party politicians and cynicism has always proved well founded; and may such suspicion of their politicians remain.

                

                Whatever those who believe in remaining tell you about the dangers of leaving; remember this, they come nowhere near to the dangers of remaining. This dangerous experiment will explode in their faces. Every interwoven strand keeping this body together will unravel, as it nearly did with the euro - and still has a near certain chance of doing the same again in the future, the next time successfully.

                

                 Political union will be resisted, which is why European politicians do not like to mention it in public. When the people of Europe fully comprehend the nature of the federalist beast they are being asked to become part of they will resist, and ancient national antipathies will resurface once more as we are seeing in the EU today over migration. This great historical folly, of a new kind of Bonapartism that our European bureaucrats are mapping out for the people of Europe, will end in tears for the peoples of Europe. I will vote to leave knowing that it is a lost cause. I am afraid that people often have to learn the hard way; but, this time, I hope it will not be too late to get back on the right track of nationhood.  

                 

                

Corbyn desires his own removal

THIS IS ANOTHER JEREMY PIECE. The Dear Leader has vowed to roll back the EU 'reforms' made by David Cameron by creating a coalition of hard Left anti-austerity parties in Europe if (God forbid) old Greybeard wins.

               

                 I have (honestly) yet to see a smile light up Jeremy Corbyn's face. He personifies seriousness and 'corbyning' should become one of its synonyms. Whether he is talking politics or commenting on the summer weather: there is something anal about the man, hinted at in his need to collect drain covers. He was never born to be a leader and he knows it; but a deliverer of child-like answers to complex problems in the form of idealistic platitudes without any intellectual substance to make them more convincing: platitudes and rhetoric rather than empirical evidence, is Corbyn's method of debate. Corbyn has a set of socialist values which he trumpets and regards as superior to any of those in support of the free market and democracy, and he refuses to listen to any counter-argument that may seed doubt in this belief.

                

                 Corbyn did not want or expect to become the leader of the Labour Party. It was his predecessor Ed Miliband that changed the voting rules that Corbyn took advantage of. But even then he did not expect to become the leader; it was meant as a gesture of the type the Left is always keen on making. But we are where we are. Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party and he does not want to go into the next election as its leader. He knows he has little chance of winning, and if he did, and became prime minister; he would be lost in the job. His political principles would be tested and he cannot afford such a test.

                

                  In order to retain power, he would have to compromise as all party politicians have to do once in power; it is the democratic reality of power within a democracy dependent upon the nature of the majority. Compromise is that most hated of expressions that Corbyn foreswore as a socialist. After seeing it implemented by previous Labour governments once in power, he vowed never to countenance it himself. Corbyn is not prime ministerial material. He knows it; he does not want to burden himself with such a responsibility because he may be forced to compromise his principles and be seen as yet another betrayer of the Labour Party, which he would try avoid at all costs having seen the fate of numerous other leaders of the Labour Party, and their excoriation by the Left.

                 

                 He wants out. And one of the ways he chooses is by attending an anti-trident protest in London rather than joining his party's supporters up and down the land to support keeping us in the EU. He welcomes his overthrow and has even added the Marxist ex-finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis to his economic team. Which he hopes will pile on the pressure for his removal among his parliamentary 'colleagues'; for he no doubt feels he will have even greater Kudos with the Left if he is deposed by the majority of his own backbenchers.

JEREMY CORBYN is a Eurosceptic, as was Michael Foot and Tony Benn; both of whom he must have worshipped. Corbyn is avoiding the debate. He knows that this country can thrive alone; as did Foot and Benn. The international aspect of membership of the EU is tempting to socialists, but it is a vain and an unworkable prospect. Although its anti-democratic format would have its appeal too many a Marxist, along with the Leftist curricula vitae that people like Barroso, and many others similar to him in Brussels enjoy.

                

                The thought of losing national sovereignty that united Foot, Benn, and even Enoch Powell; is perhaps pertinent to Corbyn. Perhaps nationhood and its sovereignty are as deeply embedded in Corbyn's political psyche as they were in Foot and Benn's. But Corbyn (probably because he would have to ally himself with the Cameron[1]) will try to keep himself as far away from the debate; and if at crucial moments in that debate he can conjure up another anti-Trident rally[2] to address, he will do so. Corbyn is a Eurosceptic caught between a rock and a hard place. His primal fear is to be called a traitor by his own supporters who are his real constituency: those hundreds of thousands who made him emperor at three pounds a go - as well, of course, his real puppet masters, the unions.

                

                I truly believe that Corbyn is out of his depth and cares little for his nation as long as it remains a free market economy. He deplores our history, although how much he has studied, freed from Marxist interpretation, I do not know. Socialists like Corbyn are not interested in any counter argument to their own. Their beliefs are, like the Mosaic Laws, carved in stone to be preserved for all time. Corbyn's Moses is Karl Marx, and Corbyn has no hinterland except for drain covers; he is preoccupied with and the un-scientific socialism of Karl Marx. He, like the many thousands of Marx's believers, outside of academia, have never read Das Capital from page one to however many thousands of pages to the end.

                

               In fact, apart from a few academic nerds, this well known but little read volume has anyway been trumped by the very system it sought to undermine. But try telling that to Jeremy Corbyn. Socialism is like anti-matter to Capitalisms matter. The two can only combust if allowed to drift together beyond a certain point. Social democracy was meant to be the retardant that would finally allow a blend between socialism and capitalism that would benefit both systems – but it has not.

                

East is east and West is west, and nary the twain shall meet. It is one thing or the other. There is no compromise possible. With this, I agree with Jeremy Corbyn. Matter and anti-matter are irreconcilable opposites in nature, as well as in politics; and Corbyn must have the courage to say so. We know because the commentators have told us; that no matter what we may think of Corbyn, he is a man of principle – well we must wait and see whether he substantiates their belief in him as a true man of principle.  

               

---

[1] Which would not earn him any brownie points with the Left.

[2] Or, for that matter, a Gay pride march, or any other of the whimsies the Left refer to as 'progressive' causes.

Yesterday's men

IT IS SIMPLE REALLY: if you care little for your nationhood, its sovereignty, and most significant of all, your democracy; you are duty bound to vote to remain inside the EU. But I think many people who naturally just want to get on with their day to day lives are not predisposed to any detailed study of the European Union; and why on earth should they be?

                

                 Such people would balk at the disassembling of their national identity and all that is concomitant with it. A federal union of the type many of the EU commissars look to and have already adumbrated is America[1]: we are however not dealing in states which we wish to become part of a union, but nations with their different tongues and cultures being turned into states before they become part of a Greater Europe. What in effect Brussels is attempting is nothing more than an empire – what they hope will be a peacefully adopted one; but an empire nevertheless: but it is nations that are the units and not states that are now being primed to join the Borg collective.

               

                 There is nothing new or modern in the aims of the EU: did not Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany, all at one time or another have Empires and colonies? What the EU hopes is that their road will be a far gentler introduction to the same concept. They wish to expunge the very soul (nationhood, sovereignty, and democracy) out of each and every nation and turn them into cantons ruled centrally from Brussels. You cannot have a federation of nation states unless you allow those nations to remain independent with their own laws and customs: it would not work. Of course, each canton may be allowed to keep its national name plate; but to what purpose? It would be ostensible and little else.

NOW WE COME TO Peter Mandelson, who along with his onetime master, are far more interested in the pecuniary prospects for themselves in this nation becoming absorbed into a federal union within Europe. He has now entered the debate. I would have thought that Cameron would have tried to persuade him to steer clear of it; but in the past couple of weeks things have not been going well with the remain campaign which is why all they have is 'Operation Fear' as Boris rightly refers to their attempts to win this argument using the hyperbole of dread and horror. And it may end in the work - for we are still three months away from the 23^rd of June.

                

                The remain campaign, so far, has only fear and abuse to use against those favouring Brexit. They have no credible and rational argument to make. They can only frighten and scare the British people;[2] it is all they have. I would like to believe that at some period during this debate they can summon up a convincing argument for this nation giving up its sovereignty, for I would really like to hear it.

                

                Now Peter Mandelson has entered the debate. He was if you remember the puppet who was Blair's Wormtongue who secreted his venom among the media like a poisonous snake threatening and cajoling on behalf of his puppet master. He it was who first admitted that Tony Blair deliberately encouraged mass immigration into the country to replace the diminishing Labour voting working class, and to put a poker up the arse of the Tories. He now thinks he still has (if he ever did) an influence among the electorate, and so has given an interview to Radio Four; where he uses extraordinary language.

                

                 He does little more than issue bile in the form of accusing Brexit campaigners of 'fantasy politics' and talking 'absolute rubbish'; and Brexit would cause an 'immediate economic shock' and suggests a long, costly and messy divorce. This, if I am to believe the Daily Telegraph, is the extent of his contribution. If the divorce is long and messy; it will be because of people like Ted Heath, Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Tony Blair, and of course, himself, who fostered us all out to an anti-democratic European fantasy.

                

                 Mandelson truly believes that all Europhiles are on the side of history, and those of us who disagree with them are living in the past and running scared of the Brave New World that the likes of him are seeking to create. Mandelson has been part of the Brussels' commentariat – a commissioner, no less, taking up the trade portfolio – not exactly an objective observer; rather a wiling, and well-rewarded member of the club.

                

                 Mandelson, like New Labour, belongs in the past. He is part of the past just as the European Union is. This Union does not represent any kind of modernity but rather just another chapter in the European continents decline – a recognised decline, and the EU is a desperate formula to arrest it. Of course, if it had worked – if the euro had worked, even then a federal union would have had to have gone through the kind of turmoil that America had to go through before it could all itself a union.

THE EU IS NOT THE great hope for the continent. It has no competitive guts; it is instinctively socialist when it comes to the free-market. It ties any entrepreneurialism up in red tape; it regulates like a laxative and makes the continent uncompetitive to the point where they have to rely on the one successful member of the club of 27.

                 

                 Germany is the golden goose that keeps laying the eggs of gold; and it continues to do so because of the hard working and ambitious German people; whose leader, after spending billions to bail out the euro, last year invited to come live with her people one million immigrants from outside of the union, thus encouraging wave after wave to follow.

               

                 Mandelson is one of yesterday's men whose smooth tongue has lost its appeal to a rightly cynical British public - once bitten twice shy, as they say. When he was a European commissioner he was, of course, appointed: in the EU the ballot box is like a clove of garlic to a vampire. The box is only produced every five (?) years to elect a parliament that is all but sterile; an assembly whose sole purpose is to rubberstamp the Commissions decisions in payment for a generous salary and fringe benefits; with the freedom to abuse them when any EMP is tempted to do without so much as a slap on the wrist. No wonder our politicians at Westminster are emulating such crooked behaviour: if they can do it, then why not us?

                

                 The EU should be avoided at all cost. It will end in tragedy; and I would ask the British people to go with their instincts and their natural cynicism toward politicians; an approach which has served them well in the past. Do not listen to the Blair's and the Mandelson's; do not think that any politician or businessman is your superior in what you believe to be right for your nation. Both politicians and businessmen are not what they seem to be. For instance, over the coming weeks leading up to June 23, an assortment of well-heeled businessmen will paint a dire prospect for this country if we chose to leave. They did, if you remember, put their heads above the parapet to frighten the Scots into remaining part of the UK.

                

                  Ask any such high ranking businessman before you debate with them whether his or her company receives (like for instance the BBC) 'payments' from the EU. The group of business people who bring more in taxes to this country than the much larger ones[3] are small businesses; the un- complacent ones who work all hours to keep their families in a comfortable standard of living. These are the people which EU red tape does the greatest harm; ask them if they want us to remain in the EU.

                Mandelson should have long been forgotten by now: his time has passed just as Ken Clarke's, Michael Heseltine's and poor old John Major.

---

[1] Although those opposed to the anglosphere on the commission would deny any such allusion.

[2] As Cameron tried to do (successfully as it turned out) during the Scottish independence referendum.

[3] Here I make reference to tax avoidance that has troubled the electorate since 2008 when the latest recession began. We have Amazon 

Corbyn desires his own removal

THIS IS ANOTHER JEREMY PIECE. The Dear Leader has vowed to roll back the EU 'reforms' made by David Cameron by creating a coalition of hard Left anti-austerity parties in Europe if (God forbid) old Greybeard wins.

                

               I have (honestly) yet to see a smile light up Jeremy Corbyn's face. He personifies seriousness and 'corbyning' should become one of its synonyms. Whether he is talking politics or commenting on the summer weather: there is something anal about the man, hinted at in his need to collect drain covers. He was never born to be a leader and he knows it; but a deliverer of child-like answers to complex problems in the form of idealistic platitudes without any intellectual substance to make them more convincing: platitudes and rhetoric rather than empirical evidence is Corbyn's method of debate. Corbyn has a set of socialist values which he trumpets and regard as superior to any of those in support of the free market and democracy; and he refuses to listen to any counter-argument that may seed doubt in this belief.

                

                Corbyn did not want or expect to become leader of the Labour Party. It was his predecessor Ed Miliband that changed the voting rules that Corbyn took advantage of. But even then he did not expect to become leader; it was meant as a gesture of the type the Left is always keen on making. But we are where we are. Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party and he does not want to go into the next election as its leader. He knows he has little chance of winning; and if he did, and became prime minister; he would be lost in the job. His political principles would be tested and he cannot afford such a test.

                In order to retain power he would have to compromise as all party politicians have to do once in power; it is the democratic reality of power within a democracy dependent upon the nature of the majority. Compromise is that most hated of expressions that Corbyn foreswore as a socialist. After seeing it implemented by previous Labour governments once in power, he vowed never to countenance it himself. Corbyn is not prime ministerial material. He knows it; he does not want to burden himself with such a responsibility because he may be forced to compromise his principles and be seen as yet another betrayer of the Labour Party, which he would try avoid at all costs having seen the fate of numerous other leaders of the Labour Party, and their excoriation by the Left.

                 

                He wants out. And one of the ways he chooses is by attending an anti-trident protest in London rather than joining his party's supporters up and down the land to support keeping us in the EU. He welcomes his overthrow and has even added the Marxist ex-finance minister of Greece Yanis Varoufakis to his economic team. Which he hopes will pile on the pressure for his removal among his parliamentary 'colleagues'; for he no doubt feels he will have even greater Kudos with the Left if he is deposed by the majority of his own backbenchers.

JEREMY CORBYN is a Eurosceptic, as was Michael Foot and Tony Benn; both of whom he must have worshipped. Corbyn is avoiding the debate. He knows that this country can thrive alone; as did Foot and Benn. The international aspect of membership of the EU is tempting to socialists, but it is a vain and an unworkable prospect. Although its anti-democratic format would have its appeal too many a Marxist, along with the Leftist curricula vitae that people like Barroso, and many others similar to him in Brussels enjoy.

                

                 The thought of losing national sovereignty that united Foot, Benn, and even Enoch Powell; is perhaps pertinent to Corbyn. Perhaps nationhood and its sovereignty are as deeply embedded in Corbyn's political psyche as they were in Foot and Benn's. But Corbyn (probably because he would have to ally himself with the Cameron[1]) will try to keep himself as far away from the debate; and if at crucial moments in that debate he can conjure up another anti-Trident rally[2] to address, he will do so. Corbyn is a Eurosceptic caught between a rock and a hard place. His primal fear is to be called a traitor by his own supporters who are his real constituency: those hundreds of thousands who made him emperor at three pound a go - as well of course his real puppet masters, the unions.

                

                I truly believe that Corbyn is out of his depth and cares little for his nation as long as it remains a free market economy. He deplores our history, although how much of it he has studied, freed from Marxist interpretation, I do not know. Socialists like Corbyn are not interested in any counter argument to their own. Their beliefs are, like the Mosaic Laws, carved in stone to be preserved for all time. Corbyn's Moses is Karl Marx; and Corbyn has no hinterland except for drain covers; he is preoccupied with the un-scientific socialism of Karl Marx. He, like the many thousands of Marx's believers, outside of academia, have never read Das Capital from page one to however many thousands of pages to the end.

                

                In fact, apart from a few academic nerds, this well known but little read volume has anyway been trumped by the very system it sought to undermine. But try telling that to Jeremy Corbyn. Socialism is like anti-matter to Capitalisms matter. The two can only combust if allowed to drift together beyond a certain point. Social democracy was meant to be the retardant that would finally allow a blend between socialism and capitalism that would benefit both systems – but it has not.

                East is east and West is west; and nay the twain shall meet. It is one thing or the other. There is no compromise possible. With this I agree with Jeremy Corbyn. Matter and anti-matter are irreconcilable opposites in nature, as well as in politics; and Corbyn must have the courage to say so. We know because the commentators have told us; that no matter what we may think of Corbyn, he is a man of principle – well we must wait and see whether he substantiates their belief in him as a true man of principle.  

               

---

[1] Which would not earn him any brownie points with the Left.

[2] Or, for that matter, a Gay pride march, or any other of the whimsies the Left refer to as 'progressive' causes.

Tony Blair is hated at home – rightly so.

HAS THERE EVER been a more shocking piece of social engineering in a democracy? The plan was to change the demographics of the United Kingdom; not through any invasion of the type used by the likes of the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans or Nazis; but by a prime minister opening up his country's borders long before he even had to in order to strengthen his party's appeal – or rather his own appeal as the deliverer of New Labour.

                

                 We all knew from Peter Mandelson that the Labour Government under Tony Blair opened up our borders without going along with the EU's bedding in period of seven years before it was needed to come into effect. Mandelson has admitted that his puppet master wanted to change Labours traditional electorate from within the working class (which was shrinking) while those that were left were deemed antiquated and hostile to New Labour. Blair also sought to rub the noses of the Tories into the dirt. He hoped that the Conservative Party in the country would rebel; and they did, but only by turning to Ukip who gained four million votes at the last general election.

                

                 Blair opened our country's borders willingly and purposely; believing the country needed fresh blood to champion the cause of his New Labour project. He decided that the British working class had to be replaced, and, to him there could be no better way of keeping his project alive and flourishing than by the importation of replacements. And 685,000 of the replacements came from Poland. Blair's attempt at social engineering will have serious consequences. The joke he wished to play upon the Tory Party will come back to haunt him. He will be seen in the future as a counterfeit statesman of little consequence by history. He will find his mark in the annals, however, more through his misjudgements than through his achievements - which apart from winning three general elections  has very little to commend himself to history. Thatcher also served three terms and saved the country; while Blair ruined its social fabric through his social engineering.

                

                  My brother suggested that the Poles were given preference because Cheri Blair is a Catholic; and the introduction over time by Polish Catholics into the UK would strengthen the UK Catholic population to the benefit, not only of the Catholic Church in the UK; but also to Cheri Blair and her husband; the latter in terms of grateful Poles keeping his project alive.

                 

                  I thought at the time, that my brother was being somewhat in need of a more rational perspective, to put it kindly. However, I am prepared to accept that such a prospect was considered by the Blair's, not as a prime objective; but as an additional benefit to their misconceived and perilous restructuring of the UK's demographics to what he thought would be to New Labour's benefit. Blair is an egoist par excellence: he considers himself almost celestial outside of his country's borders. In all parts of the world (especially the money making parts) Tony Blair is treated, especially in the USA, as a money spinner on the speech-making circuit.

                

                  By falling in line with George Bush junior after 9/11; Blair established himself in the most financially lucrative country in the Western world. He addressed Congress with tumultuous applause. Once he engaged the American public as he did in his speech to the American Congress on that fateful occasion; his celebrity was guaranteed internationally, and he joined the lucrative speech-making circuit commanding six zero sums for a 40 minute speech; after he was forced from office by the ever mordant presence of Gordon Brown in his political life. 

TONY BLAIR has done great harm to this country. He is hated as much at home as he is revered among the wealthy abroad; he consorts with tyrants, and his lawyer wife defends such tyrants using human rights law.  He has harvested millions from such associates abroad; and whatever happens to this country the Blair's will be safe and affluent. They care little about the indigenous population; if their wages are driven down by imports of cheap Labour; if their schools, hospitals, and homes are put in what may turn out to be an unrecoverable position brought about by Blair's Merkle-like invitation to two and a half million migrants to come swamp the system; then so be it.

                

                 The Blair's will not be put out by any of this because they can buy their son and daughter's education and healthcare; and a home in some out of the way cull de sac or crescent hidden by trees or other such foliage from the indigenous proles, where they need never see or experience the social landscape Tony Blair has created – except of course if they need a Polish plumber or Philippine maid to cater for Cheri's needs.

                

                 The Blair's remind me of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. The Blair's are as hated in their country as were the Marcos' in theirs. If the remain supporters wish to win in June, then one of the first things they must do is to clamp shut Tony Blair's mouth. While, as much as I loathe the very sight of the man I voted for on three occasions; I hope he ignores such advice and attend his ego.

                

                 Social engineering has never had a happy history. It was tried by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler among many others over time. Driven by ideology and idealism, both Communism and Nazism turned their creations into a nightmare for those who lived under them: and so it will prove with Tony Blair's experiment in the genre: multiculturalism is the latest ideology that blueprints Blair's social engineering and it will have the same consequences, (and not only for the white indigenous, but also for the post-war Asian and Afro-Caribbean population) as all other forms of political idealism has.

                

                Blair is no friend of the UK. He cares little for his nation; he cares little for its indigenous culture, and he certainly cares little for any rational argument that opposes his vision. He would never tolerate criticism or advice from more practised seniors in the civil service if their advice contradicted the project. He thinks himself immutable, like a Grecian god. His word is the word and he expects it to be obeyed.  Each electoral victory added to his sense of demagogic status. Like all celebrities (which after all he really is) he floated in the ether of fame – loved abroad and hated at home.

               

An insidious and ever growing threat

HOW OFTEN HAVE you heard someone like me (on the Right in politics) use the phrase 'Political Correctness gone mad'? Well, those of my persuasion should desist from ever using it again. Political Correctness does not go mad; it is mad.  Political Correctness (PC) leads to a totalitarian assault on free speech: autocratic impulses runs through it like Blackpool through a stick of Blackpool rock. PC is can only be an evil presence in a society that embraces libertarian values such as free speech. This Orwellian concept of the hate crime is pernicious to liberty. To write or say nigger[1] (as the worse example of many hate words) can end careers and even lead to prosecution. But how many times have I heard the term 'house nigger', or just plain old nigger used by one black person against another with little criticism (let alone a murmur of disapproval) from the liberalista?

                

                They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions: so it has proved to be the case with the ideology of multiculturalism, now adopted throughout the Western World and underscored by PC; and the dreaded legal device of the hate crime. We are faced with a new Puritanism and it comes from the Left[2] this time and not from the Right. It started off as all Leftist political ideologies tend to do, with an idealistic 'progressive' impulse which everybody could agree with (for we all know that it is wrong to use abusive language). But when such well-supported sentiments are carried further than many of those who originally supported the idea intended then PC has gone too far.  

               

                Something begins to happen. Soon the use of language is put under a microscope and the PC parameters are widened to contain new additions to the PC lexicon; which in turn means widening the law to include them; behaviour is studied, and it is not long before the knock on the door reminds one of the Stasi in East Germany – you think I go too far; well let me tell you of the experiences of a 15-year-old school boy who, after discussing immigration with his fellow pupils he used the school's computer to brief himself up and went to the Ukip website (his father is a member, and one of the four million who voted Ukip last May, including myself).

JOE TAYLOR was flagged as a political extremist by his school's deputy head master after he clicked on to Ukip's website using his school username to log in. He was reported to the police by his teachers. The teachers claimed to the police that he had been using a 'politically incorrect websites'. Joe was then brought in for questioning by the police. Joe was also referred to a team of experts whose original purpose was to prevent vulnerable youngsters from being groomed by ISIS.

                

                Joe was taken to be interviewed by the police. During his interrogation, he was accused by his interrogator of being a 'Ukip activist' and said he was wrong to have visited the website. It is one thing to bring to the authorities attention, for instance, a young Muslim pupil tracking ISIS on the internet; both for his or hers sake as well as our own. But what the hell were the teachers, aided by the police doing, in questioning a15-year-old for using the Ukip website.

                

                Ukip is a legitimate political party which I have voted for, for the past four years after voting Labour from 1968 when I reached the voting age, to the rise of Gordon Brown. Ukip does not deserve this kind of treatment; especially when it is used to implicate a 15-year-old whose father happens to vote Ukip. Perhaps Joe should be taken away and put in the care of state until he reaches 16.

I CAN ONLY assume from the behaviour of Joe's teachers, that they are Leftists to the core[3] and they consider Joe's behaviour to be in need of a Marxist type form of re-education in the hands of the government's unnamed team of specialists alluded to earlier.

                

                 It is truly frightening what is happening in this new dystopian PC world. It is creating a purge of the English language (idiomatically speaking). It is barring all forms of distasteful colloquial expressions such as nigger and faggot. There are many hateful expressions that must be put up with, if we as human beings wish to remain free. Humans can be nasty to each other; this we all know and in time such racist forms will be eliminated without reference to the law. Civil society and only civil society will conquer all forms of prejudice, but only over time when civilisation overcomes these antiquated forms of nasty expression.

                

                Multiculturalism and PC were responsible for the events in Rochdale, Rotherham, where gangs of Asians seemed to have a free hand when they removed children from the street assaulted and raped. The police knew what was happening as did social workers and local politicians. But fearful of PC they all allowed these gangs to go about their nefarious business free from prosecution. In Rotherham, it was even aid regarded that they owned the town.

                

                 Jo Taylor was not ignored by the employees of the modern state; he was quickly jumped upon. In Rotherham, a teacher said that children were seen getting into the cars of Asians after school: but such behaviour went unreported by the school. Everybody understood what was happening but they feared what would happen if they did do something. They were scared of being called racists and like the police, social workers, and teachers they kept their mouths tightly shut.

                

                Jo Taylor, on the other hand, had no chance. He was white, and therefore, a right and fitting target for the liberal inquisition. There was no chance of the teachers at his school being charged with racism. But I bet you these same teachers would have behaved in exactly the same way as their colleagues did in Rotherham if Jo had been Asian. A different set of values would then come into force; PC values and consideration of the black spot of racism being given you[4].

                

                We are still in the early stages of a nightmare. When it comes to an end is anyone's guess. All three of this country's main political parties have bought into multiculturalism and because of this we cannot predict an end to the nightmare.

               

---

[1] Which, whenever referred to in print has to have four asterisks between the N and the R

[2] I will use the term broadly to include liberals in all the political parties; by which I mean the Left within all the parties

[3] As it appears that vast majority public sector employees are of a leftist disposition; they better predisposed to hunting down bigots than Asian rape gangs.

[4] Although I doubt that young Jo's teachers would have worried about such things; as they are probably vigorous participants in the brave new Multicultural world in any case.