Vote 'remain' at your nation's peril

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

                

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

                

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

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

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

               

                 

                

A seasonal homily

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

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

                

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

               

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

                

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

               

                 

Bits and pieces (9)

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

               

*                             *                             *                             *

'Safe Space'

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

Oriel College

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

                

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

               

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

                

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

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

*                             *                             *                             *

 

The front line

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

               

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

                

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

               

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

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

               

                

The "Crunch Talks" mirage!

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

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

                

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

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

               

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

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

                

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

                

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

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

               

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

                

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

                

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

               

               

                 

                   

               

               

               

---

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

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

Red Ken resurfaces – be afraid; be very afraid

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

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

                

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

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

                

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

                

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

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

                

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

                

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

                

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

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

                

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

               

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

                

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

               

                 

               

               

               

---

[1] Ken included

[2] As history has already proven

Emoting only spurs on the terrorist

Part one - Saturday

THE LAST I HEARD THE DEATH TOLL stood at 129[1] with even more casualties - 99 of whose injuries are described as critical; which could, and in some cases, will prove fatal. Paris is locked down and President Hollande has closed France's borders. World leaders have expressed their well-rehearsed outrage; and if angry rhetoric could slay the West's enemies, then our presidents and prime ministers would have destroyed ISIS globally within hours of the tragedy in Paris last night. I referred to presidents and prime ministers; but I did not deliberately include - Chancellor.

                

                 It is now 13:14 on Saturday after the terrorist attacks in Paris which began about seven o'clock London time yesterday evening; and now, some 17 hours later, the German chancellor has yet to speak on the subject of the Paris outrage - not even, at this time of writing, a twitter expressing her sorrow for the Parisians, and people of other nations (possibility including Germans) who died or are near to death.

                

                 Chancellor Merkle is facing a revolt from within her own party over her invitation to 800,000 migrants from Syria to come live in Germany. This invitation was madness; not only because of the locus-like quantities of humanity invited; and not because there would be more to follow in the coming months. What was never considered by Merkle was that her invite would allow ISIS supporters to infiltrate the great migrations crossing the Mediterranean to Italy and Greece; while others entered Europe's eastern borders via Turkey.

               

                 But Chancellor Merkle is not the only blameworthy politician that is responsible for this mess Europe finds itself in. For it is one of Europe's own making, which began in the post-colonial era when liberal middle-class guilt paved the way for mass migration from former colonies - this, however, is a separate issue alluded to only because our current crises was seeded in the post-colonial era - which is an argument for another day.

IT WAS SCHENGEN THAT tore down Europe's borders to make way for the free movement of peoples within the EU: well intended as part of a grand vision for a United States of Europe where nation states had become (so the thinking went from the Europhile authors) nothing more than a curse on Europe's past and needed to be done away with; and the first impulse of this enlightened federalism was to open Europe's borders. But the opening of these borders was already causing consternation within the indigenous populations of, in particular, northern Europe. Now this free movement has been added to by the mass migrations from Syria (including Afghanistan, North Africa; and even Pakistan).

               

               Today European navies are searching the Mediterranean for migrants in dire need of rescue from their frail inflatable boats which in many cases lack any sufficiency for conquering the Mediterranean. And when the migrants are found and picked up; do they deliver them back to whence they came? Of course not: they transport them to the nearest European coast line. It is absurd that our own armed forces are adding to the kind of problem that was last night visited upon the centre of Paris[2]. It is idiocy of the first kind: an idiocy that well-meaning EU liberal statesmen could only come up with – it is not the fault of the various navies indulging in this trawling; but the European politicians who order them to do what they are doing.

               

               ISIS is inviting themselves into Europe on the backs of genuine migrants into Europe; but in particular, Germany is welcoming them to European shores after which they can travel wherever they like because of Schengen throughout the rest of Europe including the UK despite us not being a signatory to Schengen. It remains to be seen whether or not (or even if it is possible to discover) those who terrorised Paris last night, were either home grown; or were part of the summer migrations into Europe that will continue. But the non-existent state of Europe's national borders must cause much vocal emissions from the mouths of ISIS of Allah Akbar![3]

Part two – Sunday 15^th

AFTER THE FIRST night of horror now into its third day; Herr Merkle has still to respond. But now comes the mourning and the blame game presented in its mawkish aspects by the media. The pattern of mourning is the same; whether it is the horrific numbers killed in Paris on Friday night; or the single death of a murdered child somewhere in England unrelated to terrorism – flowers and candles permeate a hastily created shrine at the places where the horrors were committed. People in tears for the loss of a loved one are focused in upon by media lenses; the more stressful the image of human mourning, the longer the lenses remains focused.

                

                 We are now in the period of worldwide post-terrorist emoting. In London, the London Eye has been digitally draped in the French tri-colour out of respect; and the same digital drapes are reproduced in every Western capital over their own particular iconic building recognised throughout the rest of the world. But what does it all mean to ISIS? It means little – in fact all such images of lighted candles and weeping are so degenerate to them that their passivity enforces the view within ISIS and other parts of Islam that the West is slipping into effete disintegration – and who can blame them for so believing?

                

                  The West's response to the horrors of last Friday must be coolly contemplated before we act. But in our response we must be as ruthless as our enemy: we must not shy away from the possibility of civilian deaths (or as it is popularly known, 'collateral damage'); as ISIS expects us to do, thus greatly limiting the West's ability to destroy them. No longer must a human flown aircraft or unmanned drone be turned away from a target for fear of civilian casualties; because our enemies will take advantage of what they perceive to be a Western weakness that will ultimately lead to a European Caliphate.

                

                   If the West cannot use their full military might (short, you will be glad to know, of the nuclear option) to destroy ISIS and Islamism, then Islamism, in its various forms, will conquer and create a European caliphate. They will do so because the liberal West will have allowed such a possibility to come about; and if we lack the ruthlessness of our enemies: which we do lack under our own liberal caliphate that oversees the whole of Western and Southern Europe: a caliphate that has opened Europe's borders to all and sundry and among whom Islam now provides the greatest input into Europe.

Final part

Merkle still yet to appear.

                 

---

[1] The latest figure is 137.

[2] Since writing this, it has been disclosed by the Greeks that a Syrian passport was found on one of the terrorists killed in Paris –so it reasonable to contemplate the possibility that one of those Paris terrorists may have been plucked from the Mediterranean by a British naval vessel and delivered to Greece.

[3] God is great!

Nationalism will recover its strength or Europe will die.

ANGELA MERKLE'S come one come all welcome to Syrian migrants, does not seem (as anyone she was prepared to listen to could have told her at the time) to have been a very good idea. But Herr Merkle was insistent that Germany could find a home for 800,000 refugees, with more to follow. Which poses the question – where to put them? Well the small town of Sumte in what was once former East Germany; a town of just102 people has the answer. German officials have sent 750 migrants to live among them with little or no concern for the town's residents or their feelings. Like it or lump it seems to be the authority's silent response. Angela Merkle (just voted the second most powerful person on the planet) has spoken; and she who must be obeyed, will be obeyed. All she now has to do is await the announcement from Sweden that she has secured the Nobel Peace Prize; thus continuing the tawdry tastelessness of many of its previous recipients going back to Henry Kissinger.

                

                There is the belief in Germany that the counterfeiting of Syrian passports amounting to tens of thousands is taking place, according to a German police forensic expert interviewed by Mail Online. The unnamed individual is convinced it is happening, the Mail quotes him as saying; 'I know their documents are false but I cannot prove it.' So the Mail Online reporter Nick Fagge set about trying to counterfeit a Syrian passport, ID card and driving licence under the name of a dead Syrian by paying $2,000 via the black market in southern Turkey – he was successful. With finances large enough to pay the people traffickers; the migrants have also managed to pay $2000 sums for such counterfeiting if they needed it - it would have been cheap at double the price to gain access to Germany.  

                

                Germany has made a mistake of historical proportions that may not only cause social unrest in Germany; but also throughout the mainland of Europe. There is growing resentment in country after country from west and east Europe to this open door policy of mass immigration from outside the continent of Europe that Merkle has unleashed. I now understand how, after the Treaty of Versailles following the end to the First World War, the German people turned to the Right after the call for reparations by the victors brought Germany to its knees. The same may…just may…be happening now because of Angela Merkle's ill thought through invitation not only to the free movement of peoples throughout Europe; but now extended to external cultures that have little or no understanding of Western culture and values – many of whom even despise our culture and values.

                

                 If in the coming months we will see throughout, particularly in northern Europe, the advance of the Right: this will be because of the supine and indolent tolerance of all things multicultural by Western liberalism to the point where in Europe, national cultures are relegated to equanimity with whatever multi-cultures are invited to become resident among us; even those that have only recently been exposed to democracy and use it opportunistically rather than principally - such as the arrivals from Syria.

IS IT LITTLE WONDER THAT David Cameron chooses a more studied approach to allowing Syrian migrants into the UK than the more emotional and, I would suggest, the more guilty (because of her country's past) German chancellor's  unrestricted invitation to those migrants to live among her people. By deluging her country with migrants; she is stirring up the very past she seeks to bury, as all Germans do. But she has gone far too far. The German people have tolerated through Schengen, people from all four corners of the EU. Germany has also tolerated 3.5 million Muslims (more than the UK) to live among them. Now Angela Merkle has opened her country's borders to over a million more Muslims from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and Pakistan.

                

               The small town of Sumte is a measure of the problems that Angela Merkle has unleashed on Germany: by reliance no doubt on her countrymen's guilt for the past; she is using it to serve her own purpose by waving through this vast addition to her country's population. 

DAVID CAMERON'S more measured and judicious response to the potential dangers was the correct policy. Cameron said the UK would be prepared to allow 20,000 Syrians into this country over a five-year period. But he said such a compilation would be drawn from the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. In this way those 20,000 who wished to come to the UK would be allowed to; but only after their backgrounds were checked thoroughly – thus the five years. It is cherry-picking in order to limit any potential jihadists from entering the UK; and it is right to cherry-pick.

                

                This is the way to approach this issue. Emoting, like Merkle, only creates further problems over and above the ones of free movement of peoples. The weight of numbers over the coming decade to enter Europe from the Middle East and from as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan; will only torment and frustrate the indigenous populations from within Europe in the countries the migrants are given residency in.

                

                I feel that the whole of Europe in the coming decades will be transformed into a vast bedlam where social fissures will grow; tensions will rise; hatred will fester on all sides; and where the laws on hate crimes will be ignored and eventually have to be annulled.

                

                Very few people believe that those migrants from Syria will ever see, or want ever to see their country again. Nobody sees Syria as it once was geographically, when eventually the fighting stops and the country is divided up in accordance with the land occupied by the various assailants.

                

                The Syrian migrants (or, I suggest, the vast majority of them), will remain as citizens of the EU and their numbers will grow, as has the other 15 million Muslims on the European continent; as the demographics change the balance of power will shift; the fissures I mentioned above will begin to appear and a democratic Europe with its indigenous cultures will be left fighting (literally) for their survival.