BARROSO PART TWO

THE EU COMMISSION PRESIDENT, Jose Manuel Barroso does likes winding us up. This one time Maoist has suggested the UK gives financial support to Greece as we did with Ireland; although, he is gracious enough to admit, we are not “obliged” to because we had the good sense to refuse membership of his club euro.

            Having created this mess Mr Barroso and his comrades now talk as if the approaching disaster is an act of nature instead of human folly. He blithely says, 'There is great danger of the crisis spreading to other euro-countries.

            'Then the whole euro area - with the economies and the prosperity of all - could stumble…’

            In other words, he and his colleagues have, in creating the euro, now exposed the rest of the world to the consequences of their actions: ‘…It does not concern any longer Greece alone. It is about securing the euro as a whole…’. Still he clings to the idea of saving his wretched euro: but now all must man the lifeboat in order to do so, including the UK; to save Greece by pouring further billions into keeping her afloat, on penalty of suffering her fate if we ignore Mr Barroso’s invitation to help with the bailing out.

            Greece, Spain, Italy, and Mr Barroso’s Portugal; all should never have been allowed to join. The heart ruled the head; “solidarity” - that left over of European socialism was allowed to override sound economic advice. But they went ahead anyway and launched the euro.

            Now Barroso talks as if he and his colleagues never went far enough instead of going too far; now Barroso talks of ever deeper European unification, both political and economical. It was not his fault or the fault of the people who thought like him that the Western world today is on the brink of a financial crises; a crises believed to be the worst in our country’s history. It was the eurosceptics, notably the British who stalled the European project at every turn. It was perfidious Albion that they accuse of leading the charge against Europe’s Napoleonisation, just as it did in the 19^th century.

            I can remember when the words, European Federalism, brought forth  much scorn from the Europhiles within all the British political parties. Whenever a Eurosceptic warned of European federalism in this country; the Europhiles that commanded the political decision-making at the time (and still do today), would then ridicule such suggestions. Ken Clarke in his John Major period used to endlessly mock his Right-wing back benchers when they warned against such a development.

BUT  BARROSO now demands that such a development should happen as quickly as possible in order to have a European wide central economy where economic decisions are left to the European Central Bank to decide, instead of individual national parliaments. Which is where political union comes in, and should have been in before the euro was ever contemplated – let alone introduced.

            Barroso’s argument seems to be that only under European Federalism could the so-called “pig” nations have shrugged off this assault. They would have done so by being part of the political European Federation, where the nation states would have been absorbed into the “Borg” mentality of Federalism. In other words the “pig” nations would have been automatically bailed out by the more economically prosperous parts of the federation, particularly those in the north of Europe.

            This madness seems to be without any end. The lesson is still not learnt. The collapse of the euro zone, and the pilfering of, mainly, the hard earned German taxpayers money to prop it up is indeed noble (I forgo the word stupid).

            Eighty per cent of Germans are against giving Greece ever more money to help them become solvent. Yet Angela Merkle is determined to hand over ever more of her peoples taxes to shore up Greece; a country that hates the Germans because of what happened during the Second World War.

            Could Barroso give me or anyone else a definitive reason for why the German taxpayer  is to be expected to pay such exorbitant amounts to a people that not only hates them, but has a primitive economy compared to all of northern Europe? All, it seems to me, that head Commissioner Barroso is offering, is a never ending fountain of money being channelled to countries like his own that should never have been part of the euro experiment.

I FEEL THAT OUR political elite in the UK are as determined as Barroso to forfeit our country’s national identity. It is all about timing as far as the UK’s establishment is concerned; something which Barroso does not understand and should have understood before his interview with Germany’s Bild magazine.

            The UK’s route to securing a mere county council within a Federal Europe, was bound to be  tortuous because of the UK’s history. But Europe and Mr Barroso can be assured that whomsoever takes control of the UK, they will willingly lead their once proud nation into the ignominy of cantonization.

            There are millions of our nation’s citizens who would and should oppose such a deliberate diminution and eventual disappearance of our nationhood - to be replaced by a meagre rubberstamping system of local government.

            We are an anti- federal nation still proud of its past. For how much longer this will remain the case depends upon future generations who are soon to be given pro-European lessons in the classroom. This latest wheeze, I read, is now under consideration - to paraphrase the Jesuits; give me a child of seven, and I will give you a catholic for life.

            Barroso and federalists like him seek to compound the folly of the euro, by speeding toward a United States of Europe. This man once governed a country that is today not far behind Greece in terms of her sovereign debt. Portugal’s economy, like Greece’s should never have been given entry to such a project as the euro. Like almost every region in southern Europe, Portugal is still a decade or more away from the wealthy northern nations; but even this would depend the  level of competency her future politicians are able to bring to her development.

            Barroso tried and failed. So what happened? He became the EU commission’s president; who now spouts federalism as if it were a variant of his earlier Marxism. Indeed, he now pursues his own  version of Historical Materialism, in terms of the historical inevitability of full political and monetary union. Barroso has, as with his earlier, ideological proclivities, once more bet on the wrong horse.    

           

           

              

           

NO DIFFERENCE!

MAX HASTINGS has written that David Cameron’s speech at the Tory Party Conference could have been made by Tony Blair. Having only dipped into parts of the prime minister’s speech, it was enough to convince me that Max Hastings was of course right.

            I say “of course”, because all the main political parties have been singing from the same hymn sheet ever since Tony Blair gave birth to New Labour - a delivery that was supervised in retirement by the Iron Lady herself (to whom a grateful Blair himself often paid tribute).

            Both the Left and the Right within all of the main parties have been driven to the fringes, while what passes for ideology has become a spin-doctor’s prescription, and an image-maker’s creation. Shallowness has undermined intellectual endeavour, while presentation has tried to distract us from such superficiality. The sound-bite has diminished the speechwriter’s art by seeking only to procure the headline.

            It is only the favourable headline that the coterie of advisers surrounding our leaders are seeking. Their skill comes in finding ways by which the party they work for can put “blue water” between themselves and their opponents; and it is becoming ever more difficult to do so. So such people do indeed earn their corn, despite their parasitic reputation among journalists and cynics.

            Fighting over the occupancy of the centre ground leaves one with only the sound-bite for ammunition, and so it is the only weapon that can be brought to bear by such equally matched contestants. The great ideological divisions are no longer there…everyone now dances the same dance, but with subtle differences of movement magnified into great ideological partitions.

            Let us take, for instance, the current debt crises. When the Coalition was created, it was determined that serious cuts in public expenditure needed to be made in order to convince the markets and the IMF that we were serious about, ultimately relinquishing our debt. It was decided that 20 per cent cuts across the public sector were needed to help bring this about…which means that, even today we have managed to hang on to our triple A debt rating.

            The newly defeated Labour Party, which had played a significant part in procuring us our debt while in power, set about challenging the newly formed Coalition. They did so, not by making demands that ran counter to the proposed cuts, but only challenging the pace of such cuts. It was not about the need for such cuts, but merely about the speed at which such sacrifices should be made..

            It was almost like the Lilliputians and the people of Blefusco fighting a war over which end of a boiled egg should be cracked open. This is what modern politics has come to mean. Any real differences are to be found on the fringes of politics, for this is where Conservatism has been driven by Cameron. New Conservatism may be new but it is not Conservatism as many of the empty seats in Manchester testified during the prime minister’s speech.

AT A TIME WHEN the West is in economic turmoil, we are bereft of leaders worthy of the title and the challenge. The political elite of Europe are ever more obsessed with saving the single currency; and, it seems are even prepared to bring their Federal European Super State down around them in order to try and save it… despite what this would mean to the people of Europe.

            Like all of the modern generation of politicians, those within Europe are as vacuous as those across the pond. The West is, sadly, impoverished by the quality of its political leaders. In this country they have, since the Blairite age, spent their time dancing on the head of a pin to find sufficient differences between them in order to grab power.

            The whole of main-stream British politics and their journalistic camp followers, are trapped within the Londonistan bubble. It is incredible to think that from such a warped perspective that we are to be governed and expected to trust the word of those who govern us.

            We are today ill-served by our politicians. They cater only for their ambitions instead of that of their country; they see themselves as being contestants in a race for personal significance on the world stage. David Cameron, as with Tony Blair, seeks personal enhancement; and if, in some way he manages to eliminate our country’s deficit, then no one will begrudge him his importance and whatever financial remuneration he accrues for himself as a consequence.

            But our politicians are a frail example of that which history has set before them in the past. Our current intake are, to say the least, a mediocre bunch. In terms of the Labour Party: being a women or from an ethnic minority was the only requirement of preferment to being accepted as a candidate… while the same now applies to Cameron’s “Conservatives”.

            When colour and ethnicity transcends ability, as, it seems, it now does, then is it little wonder that our politics and our politicians are becoming perceived by the public as being of such a lowly caste in what remains of our culture.

             

           

           

              

THE GREAT BARROSO

JOSÉ MANUEL DURÃO BARROSO, the President of the European Commission, believes that the current debt crises in Europe, is a wonderful opportunity to quicken the pace of reform toward full political and monetary union. He believes that the current fiasco of the single currency has only come about  because the association between European states was too loose in the first place. Only by creating what he has described as a European “none imperial Empire” could we have avoided the impending chaos of the euro debt crises.

            What he probably meant was that all the nations of the EU should have been made to limply forfeit their national sovereignty from the beginning of their membership; instead of pretending, as our politician’s did in the UK to pacify a sceptical people, that the sole European ambition was only to be one built upon cooperation between trading nation states. If this had happened then Barroso’s “Empire Napoleon” would have already been thriving and challenging the USA, Russia, China and India -  however, the euro debacle still gives us a wonderful opportunity once and for all to seal the fate of European nationhood.

            If I were a conspiracy nut, I would be  wondering whether this whole European debt crises was not deliberately engineered by Barroso  and his 27 commissioners. For I can imagine such ill-fitting logic as Barroso uses, appealing to his fellow Europhiles, and, by using their president’s logic, continuing to pursue political and monetary union as a panacea for such crises ever happening again.

            Ever closer union and not a rethink of the whole adventure, will, I fear, be the terms of the debate following this crisis. Barroso will convince the Europhiles within the different nations that the experiment of subtly steering each of the nation’s people into the net of federalism; like children being teased into the dentist’s chair with the promise of a painless examination, will no longer suffice. Such a strategy has been undermined by the debt crisis, and has proven the federalist’s case.

            Such topsy-turvy thinking by Barroso and his entourage of commissioners may indeed panic some national politicians into speeding up the process to a United States of Europe – the wet dream of Europhiles since the idea of continental sovereignty first made its claim after the Second World War.

JOSÉ BARROSO is now the rallying point for all the traumatized Europhiles that have suffered doubt about the great experiment since the euro was challenged by the markets. It is true that the single currency should have been  less ambitious when it was brought in. As many commentators have already concluded; the different stages of evolution of the various European economies (including Barroso’s Portugal) should have led to a two- tier system for the single currency.

            To put it crudely, it was like promoting a League Two side to the Premiership in football, without that side ever earning its promotion – it could never survive.

            But this is exactly what happened when it was agreed that those economies that were below premiership standard were given automatic entrance.

            Those nations that were given immediate acceptance to what should have been an exclusive club, are now paying  the consequences; and those who earned their admittance are now forced to bear the cost of those that should never have been admitted in the first place.

            Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, all should have had to earn their promotion to Europe’s economic premiership. These economies were and still are, in some cases one or two decades behind their northern European partners in terms economic prosperity.

            Greece, because she lacks much of an industrial sector to speak of, and because so many of her nation’s people work for the state…a factor which is causing Greece so much trouble today. Such  a meagre contribution hardly entitles Greece to become part of any single currency that involves globally competitive nations such as France and Germany. But, it seems, the European ideal overrode commonsense and not only allowed Greece, but also Spain and Italy to join. As for Ireland; with a population of barely seven million; is it little wonder that today, she has registered the largest growth forecast of even the UK, France and Germany for this year.

JOSÉ MANUEL DURÃO BARROSO; to give him once more his full title, is a reconstructed Marxist; indeed, not only a Marxist, but one of the Maoist variety . Of course José has moved on since his student days supporting the Portuguese Carnation Revolution in the 1970’s, when our future EC Commissioner in Chief, (like his many student associates at the time) probably dropped a carnation down the barrel of a rifle of a Portuguese soldier. 

            A full European union requires much more than an idealistic imperative. It requires a grounding in its practicability; something which the architects, either barely considered, or did so and, with a puzzled shrug, still went ahead anyway, believing, like so many idealists have done in the past, that all will come right in the end.

            Barroso is dangerous on two levels. First of all; I wonder how much of his Marxist past he still believes in. I can remember the Carnation Revolution of the 70s when the country’s dictator’s were sent packing. In Greece, during the same decade we also witnessed the dismissal of the Greek Junta. Indeed I would have supported Mr Barroso at the time: as a Marxist myself.  Like him, joined the equivalent of the social democrats in this country – the Labour Party; and I joined for ideological reasons.

            Mr Barroso was of course academically trained and pursued a career in politics. As with most ambitious politicians who seek power, I believe that, in Barroso’s case, he took his leave of Marxism for social democracy because it was the only Left of centre party that stood a chance to govern Portugal. He was duly elected as Portugal’s Prime Minister in April 2002 and remained so until July 2004; when, in November of that year, he became President of the European Commission.

            What makes me question Barroso’s disinfection of Marxism, is that he has hung on to a somewhat Marxian concept of historical inevitability and Ideological expansionism. To him, with talk of a “none imperial Empire”, he shows a Marxist desire for expansionism, but of the European “Ideal”, instead of the communist one of world infection.

            Empire building, imperial or not, shows to me that Barroso retains a collectivist outlook. All of Europe must act collectively, and the only means by which this can be done, is by political and monetary union. A vast European Empire governed centrally by…well… José Manuel Durão Barroso?

            It remains to be seen whether Barroso’s arm can extend its reach . But, if it does, and he still young enough to see it happen; President Barroso, of a United States of Europe, could be the climax to his career.

 I SAID BARROSO WAS DANGEROUS on two levels, the first regarding his innate inner collectivism and his once appreciated Marxist historical dialectic. I am not saying that Barroso is still a Marxist; merely that he has an outlook that accommodates itself with Marxist thinking. In the arena of Europe, the historical process that will ultimately lead to its Union, is seen as being inevitable. If not exactly in conformity to Marx’s dialectical process; Barros’s historical certainty certainly is.

            The other ingredient of Barros’s personality that makes him a danger to Europe; is that he once governed one of the countries that should have been excluded from joining the euro.

            Barroso is not an illiterate peasant but someone who has enjoyed a flourishing academic career. He should have known that Portugal should never have joined the euro in the first place. Yet we heard no opposition from him. He once governed a country that could never have hoped to succeed in the premier division, yet he kept quiet. Like Greece, Portugal is now one of Europe’s debtor nations, and  as Portugal’s prime minister, Barroso should have know his country would sooner or later become one.

            Nations like Portugal and Greece took full advantage of the cheap lending that being part of the euro zone would unleash. It was, at the very least, irresponsible of Barroso not to advise his people against joining the euro, when Portugal’s economy was never strong enough to become a member. If the Portuguese people never understood…Barroso certainly did.

            Today Barroso is President of the European commissioners and advising, not repentance, but a one more push solution to the euro crises.

            This man should not be listened to when it comes to what will hopefully become a euro post-mortem. But I think it unlikely because Barroso still champions the European Ideal; and their are many more of our continents political elites who still subscribe to such an ambition; and will herald Barroso’s championing of a  “none imperial Empire” within Europe.

           

            

IT’S DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN…

…BUT THIS TIME it has the feel of a once successful 1960s pop group reprising an earlier success, by taking to the stage once more for one more payday.

            The unions have been kept from any influence since Margaret Thatcher limited their power in the 1980s through the use of the law. Now, with a debt crises and a need  to take a scythe to public spending, the unions scent an opportunity for what they hope will surpass the chaos of the 1970’s when the streets stank and rats were given free range; and bodies were being left unburied; and, periodically, the lights went out.

            It was a time when the country became known as the sick man of Europe, and all the main political parties were made complicit by their feebleness in keeping the enemy from the gate. The unions at the time were encouraged to walk into Downing Street whenever they felt like it, and, over “beer and sandwiches” would tell the politicians what they must do to avoid the next strike; and the politicians invariably did it – or at least met them more than half-way.

            Why Margaret Thatcher is loathed today by the Left, and in particular the union bosses, is because she turned the country around. Cars were no longer being built where the door could become unhinged at any moment (including the prime minister’s[1]). Privatisation was fostered by the then Conservative government, and because of the much needed union reform, private investors had confidence in buying and investing in all the old nationalised industries that the unions had held sway over and managers had abandoned.

            It was a drab decade where candles, for a while, replaced light bulbs. The country was in a mess of the union’s making, as well as of the politician’s frailty to act. No Labour government dared confront the “union Barons” for fear of losing much needed revenue. No Labour politician who had the ambition to lead his party, dared cross the brothers if he or she wished to realise their ambition – and this, sadly, remains the case today.

            There are no dark satanic mills; there are no children being sent up chimneys or being lowered into the dank abyss of a 19^th century coal mine; there are no Dickensian justifications for having unions. Most, if not all, employers are realising that their workforce are their greatest asset. In the private sector our major companies are appreciating their employees worth; and even where this falls short, the law, in terms of the minimum wage, intervenes.

            It is not perfect but we have moved on from the 1970s; and working conditions in the private sector are far better than they were then. As for the public sector, the terms and conditions of those employed have, if anything, outstripped those of the private sector. If ever the term “job for life” meant anything, it applied to the public sector. While the private sector paid their wages, the public sector made hay with those taxes. Pension schemes that today the average private sector worker could only dream about were contracted to public service employees.

            When the Blair government came to power they poured billions into the NHS, in a final attempt to harbour reform, but only a third went on patient care. The rest was divvied up among the health professionals – consultants, doctors, nurses and every other NHS functionary found themselves financially better off due to the private sector.

            The private sector has been, what in the acting profession is described as a “white angel”. Every day people go to work for companies that, if they help make them a success, will receive a wage increase, as well as seeing the company they work for employ more people, which will increase the tax intake.

            The private sector is the wealth creating sector. The public sector provides the country with, not the wealth from which taxes are taken, but the services needed. These services are determined by politicians either at the national or local level: and in times of hardship for the nation such services must be scrutinised for savings; just as happens within a private company.

FROM THIS NOVEMBER the unions are threatening to reprise the 1970s. Their leaders,  among whom are Dave Prentice, Bob Crow, Mark Serwotka, Steve Gillian; are all vying with each other to succeed where Arthur Scargill failed. They all believe that they now have the opportunity to avenge the unions humiliation suffered under Margaret Thatcher; and once more dominate the political culture of this country.

            Whatever grievances the public sector workers believe they have; their union leaders are only using those grievances as a means to a political end. In other words a repeat of the old Marxist mantra of, the means justifying the end.

            That end is the restoration of union power which no government can afford to accommodate, including a Labour one. The unions, like the CBI, are just another pressure group, reduced to such a status by the Thatcher years.

            This November will be the last hurrah of British trade unionism. We thought that such a nemeses had occurred when the Thatcher era arrived and departed. But resentment within the labour movement can last centuries; and yet the apathy among union members still continue to promote Neanderthals into every vacant office of leadership within every union.

            Come late November, the public sector will have voted for various days of action; which, in effect, means whatever the union leadership has managed to conjure up to disrupted the lives of ordinary people will take place.

            There is a strategy  afoot to cause the maximum disruption to our country. I do not believe that the vast majority of the British people welcomes such a prospect and will make their feelings plain to the union leaders come November.

           

---

  See: Bernard Donoughue Downing Street Diary Vol. 2

JOHN CLEESE IS RIGHT

'London is not the city I knew as a child and it saddens me that many of the unwelcome developments have largely been the result of mass and rapid migration.'

John Cleese

I HAVE NOT SET FOOT in our capital city for over 30 years and so I will have to take John Cleese’s word for it that London is no longer an English city. Although, to be honest, when the “bleedin’ obvious” stares you in the face daily from your television screens, it makes one wonder whether EastEnders is overrepresented by white faces.

            Mr Cleese says that it is impossible to find an Englishman in certain parts of London and I find it wholly believable that this is the case. For London has become a foreign land speaking multiple foreign tongues (estimated at 300). Our nation’s capital has become a Multicultural soup of different cultures; each regarded of equal value by the white liberal politically correct overseers; but abjured by the multiple cultures that compose its make-up. For, quite rightly, no culture, if it is worth the name, can so easily, as Multiculturalism demands, regard itself in any other way than superior to any other. Cultural egalitarianism is like matter forming an alliance with anti-matter – it cannot exist, and should not exist.

            Immigration into this country has caused great harm to the English speaking people. Resentment abounds among the English at the proliferation of foreign tongues and customs that our politicians have allowed to take seed and flourish. Is it really racist to want to keep alive and superior, our homogeneous culture?

            If our culture held sovereignty over all others, then perhaps other cultures would find themselves tolerated. But nothing less than the equality of all cultures including the host culture will suffice for the Multiculturalists.

JOHN CLEESE, like Professor Starkey before him; will no doubt immediately be brought under suspicion. As a Liberal Democrat, Mr Cleese is more vulnerable to his party’s judgement than the maverick professor of history.

            But I hope Mr Cleese stands his ground and embellishes, rather than retreat from his original comments. He is right with his comments made to Australian television about the proliferation of “unfamiliar” cultures that seeks to overpower and replace the English culture he was brought up with; English culture in London is now under the severest of pressure. Even London’s mayor, Boris Johnson has, as a means of being re-elected sought also to embrace multicultural London.

            London is a city apart. A city separated from the rest of the country by its un-prohibited acceptance of other cultures. The rest of the country has indeed many pockets of multicultural communal activity; but such activity is resented in every community in which it manifests itself.

            London, like most Western capital cities, has its various quarters where ethnic minorities congregate and lead completely separate lives from the host culture amongst whom they chose to live … separately: and the host culture has encouraged this separatism as a wholly good thing. The word used is diversity: another, more appropriate term would be multicultural apartheid.

            If we are to have a multi-ethnic arrangement, then there has to be a pecking order, with the host culture dominant. This alpha culture is superior to all others, and if other cultures take up residence they must realise that the host culture must dominate and all others must accept this as a condition of residency. The secular laws of the host culture are superior to any religiously based laws, which must stand to one side in abeyance to the secular law; and if this proves impossible for any particular ethnic group; then they should be invited to leave and seek residency in a country where their culture has a better fit: for not all cultures are compatible and, in a fit of liberal idealism should not pretend that they are.

            London (or, as it is known on the continent, Londonistan) would indeed be unrecognisable, to myself if I were to visit it. For instance, hundreds of thousands of white working class Londoners were packed off to the Essex new towns in the 1960s and 1970s; leaving their council houses and flats to be occupied by the influx of immigrants that started to change so drastically John Cleese’s childhood memories of the great city.

            Since those early influxes, the country has become (to use a Thatcherite expression) “swamped” by immigrants from all corners of the world, and, from 1997 onwards, deliberately so. For it was under Tony Blair that the great Multicultural experiment took off. 

JOHN CLEESE BEMONES the state of his beloved London and risks Lefty vilification for his troubles. But next week a report is to be published proposing that more green field sites should be opened up to development by relaxing the planning laws.

            Rural Britain is quite rightly up in arms; but what has caused this need for more of rural Britain to be covered in concrete and asphalt in the first place?

            According to Migration Watch; by the middle of this century this country’s populous will increase to nearly 70 million people due mainly to both the influx of further immigrants and the birth rate among immigrants. The birth rate among the indigenous culture, however, is set to fall. Indeed the yearly rate of abortions carried out among women has reached 250,000. The vast majority of which comprise white British females who have, in the majority of cases, used the procedure as another form of birth control or life style choice. For I cannot believe that 250,000 women every year  suffer dark nights of the soul before aborting a human life. If so our psychiatric nurses, doctors and specialists would, in terms of their numbers, run into countless hundreds of thousands - which of course they do not.

            The mess this country is in today is due to “progressive” politicians at every level of social and economic policy. So strong became their grip with the election of Tony Blair, and the further electoral success that lay in wait; that the Conservative Party under David Cameron sought to realign his once great party (the party of history and tradition) behind the New Labour phenomenon and seek to imitate the Blair vacuity; which, it seems, has been Cameron’s greatest accomplishment. Or was it? For Coalition government suggests a failure of Cameron strategy.

IMMIGRATION WILL, in the future, occupy the concerns of the voter…even the ethnic voter. The sheer weight of numbers allowed onto our shores will cause great damage to this island nation and cause resentment within the indigenous culture. It has gone far beyond expressions of racism: such words have lost their ability to scar or scare the accused. It no longer matters because events have become so frustrating for the indigenous culture that such name calling is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant, because, in a Multicultural society, racism’s boundaries go well beyond the purely white and black set-up. For racism is not only a white man’s  ailment, but also an Indians, West Indians, Pakistanis, and black Africans.

            White Britain does not hold a monopoly of racist language, but it is preferred to acknowledging the racism that exists between all cultures. For humanity share, if nothing else, the same nature and with it the same prejudices against cultures other than their own. Which is why Multiculturalism cannot and should not work.

            For the Multiculturalists do not understand that all cultures claim superiority over all others. A nation’s culture is the hall-mark of its nationhood and civilisation; and is deeply personal to the member. To reduce British culture, as the Multiculturalists seek to do in this country, to a mere equality between it and all other cultures, is both treasonable and will lead sooner or later to social conflict.

            London, I believe, is becoming alienated from the rest of the nation. The title “Londonistan” has a serious point to it. The name was given us by the French after home grown terrorist, educated by imams in various mosques such as Finsbury Park, took themselves off to Pakistan for military training before being sent to kill British soldiers in Afghanistan: while at the same time our rulers in Westminster sat back and deliberately allowed it to happen, for fear, if you please, of antagonising the two million Muslims living among us.

            John Cleese was brave to say the things he did and should continue in the same vein. Multiculturalism has been, wisely, rejected by both David Cameron and Angela Merkle as a divisive force that creates apartheid between cultures instead if integration into the host culture.

            The mass migration deliberately orchestrated by the last government as policy, has caused much resentment among the indigenous people; and only when liberals like John Cleese speak up and point to the elephant in the room, will immigration become, what it has failed to become in the past – a proper subject for debate.

           

           

            

JOHN GALLIANO, A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF A PSEUDO OSCAR WILDE

WHEN WE GET DRUNK, we tend to say and do things that would either embarrass us when sober, or conflict with the laws of the land. But usually, when we spew out the vilest of racist slurs in public, the judge would not make allowances for our condition. For when it comes to prejudice of one form or another, it is quite rightly assumed by the court that the alcohol only acts as a catalyst for the racist/homophobe etcetera, to loosen his or her tongue and express their true feelings; feelings that would normally be kept under lock and key in the subconscious.

            Celebrities have to be particularly careful about expressing their opinions publicly when inebriated. Mel Gibson began the anti-Semite trend that the 50 year old British fashion designer John Galliano continued. Galliano was videoed in a bar telling two Italian women that their forbears  should have been “gassed” and that he loved Hitler. He went on trial in June, when he attacked 35 year-old museum curator, Geraldine Bloch on 24^th  February in La Perle, a Parisian bar. Among the tributes he paid Ms Bloch was that she had a “dirty Jewish face”. Her partner Philippe Virgitti, 42, was referred to by Galliano as a “dirty Asian shit” and an “illegal immigrant”.

            Fatiha Oumeddour, 47 also suffered from Galliano’s drunken outburst in the same bar last October. She was called a “fucking ugly Jewish bastard”.

            It was not the drugs or alcohol that spoke these words, but they were the sincerely held racist beliefs of the imbiber, whose defences were undermined by the drugs and alcohol he consumed.

NATURALLY FOR SUCH a serious outburst, criminal proceedings were inevitable. The judge who gave the pitiful sentence was Judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud, who justified the £2.60 fine on the grounds that Galliano had no previous convictions. Perhaps Judge Sauteraud shopped at Dior and had a particular likening for the degenerate Gallianos’ bizarre sense of what accounted for suitable clothing for humans.

            I have heard the argument that had Galliano used “nigger” instead of “Jew”, judge Sauteraud would have not dared to deliver such a judgement. I believe there is truth in this argument that being black is the gold standard for being a racist, and anything that falls short of that criterion, like anti-Semitism, will meet with little resistance within European courts.

            This pampered popping- jay is untouchable. He holds court in La Perle, and other Parisian bars, where, particularly women, are drawn into his orbit to later tell their friends of the experience, and rub their noses in their newly found familiarity with the great Galliano.

            Perhaps those he insulted hoped to brag about their encounter with him, had he not given vent to his repugnant infantilism. Galliano, whatever is merit as a fashion designer, was no great wit. He held court knowing that his every word would be listened to as if,  like his fashion designs, they represented originality.

            Not being an Oscar Wilde, but a bigot wrapped in courtier clothing, Galliano spoke his true feelings. He is an anti-Semite, just as Mel Gibson, who also sought to blame alcohol  for his rants, is also an anti-Semite.

            Such prejudices go well beyond various chemical substances. They exist and are real, and will not go away because they are truly believed in by those celebrities who have the misfortune of  giving public vent to them.

            Both Mel Gibson and John Galliano may put themselves into rehab over their remarks, believing that all the various forms of substance abuse they have sought to find the measure of, have been solely responsible for engraving racism into their consciousness: but the finest of wines or the purest of chemical substances, do not turn a person into a racist.

GALLIANO TOLD THE COURT that, “They’re not views I hold or believe in. In the video I see someone who needs help.” I would respect this man far more than I do, if he would stand by his remarks, rather than pretend they were spoken by someone else, as he seems to be suggesting. Galliano’s priority it seems, is to salvage his reputation. His profitable association with Dior has been cancelled and he now awaits the judgement of  the wives and mistresses of the rich and famous. Will they be as kind as judge Anne-Marie Sauteraud has been. Only time will tell.

            If John Galliano survives this escapade, it will be because a European judge sat in judgement of his racist comments and trivialised them with her verdict. In which case the female bourgeoisie of Europe can go on with their infatuation with the Galliano product and continue to pay court to this pitiful excuse for a human being.

            Galliano is an anti-Semite who woke up congratulating himself after a drunken night spent in a Parisian bar abusing his “guests”. It was not until the video recordings of his evening’s  shenanigans were exposed, that he courted victimhood in the form of  alcohol and chemical abuse.

            John Galliano is but one representative of the kind of decadence that the West has fallen victim to. A decadence that has often been accompanied by, in the past, the ending of empire.

            

SIR STUART BELL – BED BLOCKER EXTRAORDINAIRE

SIR STUART BELL’S MIDDLESBROUGH CONSTITUENCY is a prime example of a safe seat where Labour voters would vote for a chimpanzee to represent them if it wore a red rosette. Therefore they have little to complain about if their ennobled representative abuses the dispensation  given him by dyed in the wool Labour voters who’s votes are nothing more than barnacles, permanently attached to the Labour hull.

            As for Sir Stuart, he can afford to ride out any controversy, knowing that his position can only be placed under threat by his constituency party or Labour’s NEC. Both these options seem unlikely, unless the Labour voters of Middlesbrough decide at the ballot box to end their MP’s 28 year reign.

            He is being criticised for having never held a constituency surgery in 14 years - but is, however, available by phone: although his local newspaper, the Middlesbrough Gazette had called his office 100 times over the summer without reply. At least after claiming £85,000 in “staff costs” according to the Daily Mail – part of which, £35,000, goes every year to his wife who manages his “office”, you would have thought an exchange of a few pleasantries with the editor of his local newspaper would be the least he might be prepared to do.

            Sir Stuart Bell received his knighthood in 2004, followed in 2006 by being appointed a Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur; France’s highest honour; which was presented to him by President Chirac - who is now, by the way, under investigation for corruption while mayor of Paris.

            Sir Stuart also seemed to play the part of parliamentary shop steward during the expenses scandal that degraded even further the popular reputation of our political class. He did much to diminish his own reputation by appearing to blame the parliamentary overseers for the many noses dipped deeply in the trough.

            For his reputation was formidable. For instance, after being promoted by Neil Kinnock in 1984 to the frontbench as a spokesman on Northern Ireland; he resigned after the Cleveland child abuse scandal broke. For the next two years he took on Cleveland’s social services in support of Cleveland’s children; and this, if nothing else, earned him is knighthood. He thus became one of the few to receive the honour who can proudly boast that it was well merited; and not a political reward for services rendered.

BUT WHAT THE CASE OF Sir Stuart Bell, and now, it seems, the former MP for Luton South, Margaret Moran proves; is that the “safe seat” is the modern equivalence of the old Rotten Boroughs. For whoever stands in such seats need never fear the electorate, but need only to pay close attention and fawn over, like Dickens’s Uriah Heap, their constituency parties; who will remain loyal long after the cell doors have been slammed shut.

            There should be no safe constituency in this country. Each and every member of our parliament should feel insecure. They should not  be allowed to countenance the good life at the tax payer’s expense; they should not feel that they are in an invulnerable position freed from the electorate’s will. If the electorate will not change their ways, then, demographically speaking, the ways must be changed for them if they wish to see their confidence in our political class restored. It is no use complaining about the likes of Sir Stuart Bell or Margaret Moran, if you are not prepared, voluntarily, as voters, to put an end to it yourselves.

            We are still, in many areas, a class bound country with class loyalties that will not be shaken by any one individual’s behaviour, providing that individual represents the party they have, for generations, given their loyalty too.

            It is the people of Middlesbrough that need to change. Their loyalty is to a party and not an individual. As long as Labour returns an MP for Middlesbrough, it matters little about character or criminality short of murder; and it matters little to the party unless they detect a backlash among loyal Labour voters in Middlesbrough. Then, and only then, will the party they have been pre-programmed genetically to support change its ways.

            A safe-seat can become an excuse for laziness, as it appears Sir Stuart Bell’s has become. In such circumstance it neither befits the current representative, or his party. He has become sluggish and languorous, about his duties to the people of Middlesbrough.  

            To have never consulted with his constituents in 14 years, can have only been accomplished by a politician who knows that he sits, democratically at least, almost immovable from his position as an MP: an MP who knows that when he is eventually driven out of office; it will be to the House of Lords, and given further opportunity for making money.

TODAY OUR POLITICIANS, AS A CLASS, are venal and third rate. They seek out rewards for their families quite legitimately under Green Book rules, and have little or no serious background for being politicians.

            Their minds are third rate; they have little knowledge of this island’s history other than what they were taught at school; and as far as the Left is concerned, the ordure of every page presented to them to study naturally finds only the utmost contempt.

            There must be an overhaul of this country’s voting demographics. In America party allegiances are not so profound as they are in this country. If a political leader in America, fighting for his party’s acceptance as a presidential candidate cannot garner enough support, he or she is quickly disposed of; because power is the first need of any party.

            Sir Stuart Bell is not alone within the political parties. All of the parties have safe-constituencies which face little opposition at election times. The House of Commons needs reform. It needs a reduction in the numbers of its members by a third, and as a result, a redrawing of constituency boundaries.

            Sir Stuart Bell will be offered the Lords by Ed Milliband before the next election, and the offer will be gratefully accepted by this latter day Rip Van Winkle.

            There he will sit out his remaining days, dining well; until he passes away on the red benches, and is carried finally from the mother of all parliaments by several bewigged parliamentary officers wearing black tights. At last the noble Lord will be free from his persecutors and the spite of an ungrateful nation.