Racism be dammed

I KNOW I AM NOT A RACIST; but if called one by a liberal, I would wear the title with pride. If I had said what Michael Fallon, and now David Blunkett have said regarding their description of parts of the country being 'swamped' with immigrants, I would have been called racist, by even the most moderate of liberals: but on Sky's press preview last night, a young lady whose name happily escapes me, but who is a journalist on the Observer, suggested that Mr Fallon's reference to being 'swamped' was considered by her to be 'borderline racism'.

            

            If I had used the same language as Fallon, I would not be given the liberal soubriquet 'borderline' – but just an out and out racist; and bigot added for seasoning. So let us put it to the test. There are parts of the country being swamped by specifically, but not exclusively, European immigrants. The London elite live in a multicultural nirvana where, within their terms of a modest income, they can provide for themselves cheap servants (thanks to migration)  for the likes of the lady from the Observer, from Eastern European nations. They live cocooned lives from the rest of the country, and drop crumbs from the table of their liberal morality for the rest of us to accept on penalty of being exposed as racist.

            

            Night after night, day after day, week after week, and month after month: we who live outside the twilight zone of metropolitan London, have to live with a political agenda set in their terms, with their spin, and their own liberal prejudices … oh yes, liberals have prejudices too.

            

             London has deemed itself the capital of the nation's media, culture, politics, journalism, and multiculturalism; and as such sets what they believe to be the authentic voice of progressive politics and tolerance, that spew forth such terms as racist and bigot to the rest of the country if they violate the language of political correctness, and choose to express themselves in such a way that they deem as unfit to use.

             

             The decadent purveyors and architects of the liberal hegemony, are anchored primarily in London, from where they expect the rest of the country to kowtow to their 'progressive' standards of behaviour under penalty of the law… laws comprising the hate crime.

            

             Hate has been outlawed…an emotion as old as homo sapiens, and an intrinsic part of human nature, has now been made illegal in certain politically correct circumstances. We of course all hate, including those who legislated for such a facile addition to this country's legislatory system.

            

             But the law is now to be confined to liberal prejudices and restrictions. We must not hate any minority for instance. We can legally and freely hate David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg, and give expression to it, unless it of course carries a threat. But to hate someone from another culture who lives among us if we express such a hate in terms of language used; is now a violation of free speech.

            

             The terms nigger and Paki, for instance, cannot be used unless protected by a series of asterisks. To use such terms openly and freely constitutes a hate crime; unless, that is, the word nigger is used by a black man against another black 'bro'.

I LIVE IN one of the areas referred to by Michael Fallon. I live on the east coast and have seen many unwelcome changes to my town's demographic. I am 64, and as a lifelong supporter and voter  for of the Labour Party, but now a Ukip voter; I welcome both Michael Fallon's and David Blunkett's comments. They are both giving vent to the feelings of many millions of indigenous UK citizens that have been ignored by the liberalista from within all the main parties. We have been treated like rosette warring chimpanzees of whatever political colour, who's  politicians have been led to believe they can expect to be guaranteed our vote  -  in my case Labour; who have been told, the party could always rely upon their core vote, just as the Conservatives could have once relied upon their core vote.

            It is now time for this core vote within all the three main parties, to fragment. The core voters have been taken for granted by professional politicians for far too long. It is the core vote that has helped create the professional politician. These core votes are based primarily upon sentiment rather than intellect - the sentiment of family tradition; and this is particularly strong in Labour's case.

IMMIGRATION is out of hand. It has reached a point where we have added to our population some five million people since Tony Blair opened the floodgates to uncontrolled EU migration. Its impact on the NHS, welfare, schools and housing has proven detrimental to the indigenous population. Overpopulation caused by unlimited immigration has, and continues, to take its toll on the  NHS and other social services.

            

            Racism has nothing to do with what this country is facing; although there may be racists involved in seeking to divert through whatever means they think they can hope to advance the racist cause. But Ukip is no such party. If it was, I would not give it my support.

           

             Immigration has reached unacceptable lengths and depths within our society. Its growth is dangerous to our nation's social fabric. Over population incurred by opening the floodgates to millions of people in so short a time leaves society with the inability to accommodate it. In the UK, our social fabric is under the assault from the free movement of people's directive conjured up by the EU. We are now left not only facing up to the demise of the NHS, because of the free movement of peoples; but we are also not facing up to the demise of our education system due to the free movement of peoples. We are also now left not facing up to the housing shortage and increased prices due to the free movement of peoples.

            

             Under such conditions for the liberalista to insinuate racism ,borderline or not, to the likes of Fallon and Blunkett for speaking bluntly enough to fall foul of their London based hegemony; both Fallon and Blunkett should have treated them with two fingers pointed upwards in contemptible salutation .

           

           

             

           

           

Bits and piece 6

THE CHAIR OF the Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee John Whittingdale, has said the BBC licence fee is comparable to the poll tax – in which case do to it what was done to the poll tax.

            

            The licence fee, like the poll tax, is a tax, and not the genteel sounding fee that people with wealth associates with the private school fees they voluntarily hand over to pay for their children's tuition fees.

           

             Whittingdale speaks of the long term unsustainability of the tax, but suggests that for now the tax needs '…tweaking to sort out anomalies'. The trouble is the tax is one bloody great anomaly  and needs getting rid of in the fastest time possible. We are being forced by law to pay a tax in order to watch television[1], not only the BBC but Sky, ITV, Channel Four and the hundreds of other channels, many of which are pay to view, that are now available. For those millions who already have to pay monthly subscriptions, the £145 added tax is an outrage and should be done away with.

            

             The BBC should do what other broadcasters do; seek subscribers within the free market, from which the BBC has always been protected by government…including governments whose one and only reason for existence is supposed to be the promotion of capitalism and the free market. I speak of course of MR Whittingdales' party.

*                      *                      *                      *

IMMIGRATION HAUNTS today's front pages. Although the headlines refer to different aspects of the subject; the consensus seems to be that immigration of all kinds (legal and illegal) are out of control, and the government is powerless to act. Cameron's rhetoric on this subject, like almost every other subject he makes promises to the British people about, is now rightly distrusted by his people.

            

             Government promises for reducing immigration before the next election will not be met. When it comes to immigration[2] the government is dysfunctional: from the Home Office's  boarder control agency, and the absconding immigrants after being given bale; to returning illegal migrants to wherever they came, but whose return is obstructed by the European courts - it is, as the front page of today's Daily Mail announces - a mess.

            

            On top of which we have the legal European migrants whose legality was gifted to them by the previous Labour Government under Tony Blair, who signed up to Schengen and abandoned the transitional arrangement in the agreement which allowed for a seven year respite for members to adapt to the free movement of peoples.

            

            When it comes to immigration, the Labour Party are more culpable than the current coalition; and have no right to pretend that they would have fared any better if they had won in 2010.  The failure of immigration is the failure of the LibLabCon triumphret that has had the monopoly in one way or another of British politics since the founding of the name the Labour Party in 1906 - signalling the end of the Liberal-Conservative power duopoly that replaced the Tory-Whig duopoly.

           

             Immigration has indeed swamped this nation; and the politicians, who a decade ago were the first to speak out against those who spoke out against it and called them racist for even mentioning the subject; are now, thanks to the electoral success of Ukip, using the same kind of language on the subject, that would have been deemed racist a decade ago.

            

             The success of Ukip, and its party leader Nigel Farage, has transformed both the Conservative and latterly the Labour Party. Ukip speaks for the disenchanted indigenous English from all classes and social backgrounds; who have seen their politicians run rough-shod over them and taken them, in Labour's case for granted; while the modern Cameron 'Conservative' Party has described its own people who have deserted to Ukip as swivel-eyed little Englanders.

            

             I hope that both one-time traditional Labour supporters like myself, and traditional Tory supporters, can help secure a Ukip challenge next May to the LibLabCon triumphret. Only this will make the much needed changes to the country's immigration policies as well as our relationship with Europe, which should be a purely economic relationship within a free market.

*                      *                      *                      *

A DOSSIER provided by the Health Service Ombudsman, declares the NHS has failed every generation. The dossier compiled by Dame Julie Mellor paints a less than flattering picture of the NHS. According to the Daily Telegraph's Health Editor Laura Donnelly; she quotes Dame Julie as accusing the NHS of making 'devastating and shocking'  blunders.

            

            I can readily concur with Dame Julie. Although I have much to be grateful for regarding my treatment by the NHS, the Health Service Ombudsman is right. In one instance I was taken to accident and emergency by an ambulance in great pain. The ambulance turned up at my home, and they gradually manoeuvred me painfully from my bed, down my stairs and into an ambulance. I was quickly and professionally delivered to Accident and Emergency (AE).

           

            I had had a pulmonary embolism; but you would not have thought so by the way I was treated. In A&E I was placed upon a gurney bed.  I must have lain there for at least an hour in a great deal of pain before I came under the care a doctor who was foreign and required the expertise of an A&E sister. She, without seeing me, advised the doctor to prescribe the medication which, as a sufferer of Ankylosing Spondylitis[3], I was already on. It was then decided that I could return home, but as I tried to manoeuvre myself into the wheelchair provided, I screamed out in pain, and was allowed to stay the night on a ward presumably put aside for those, like the drunk I saw stagger onto bed near my own who awoke and left in the early hours.

            

            For the next 24 hours I saw neither sister, nurse, or a even doctor. I was supposed to have been sent home the next morning, but it was not until the early evening that an ambulance arrived to return me home. Once at home, I was no better than I was before I was taken to the hospital. In fact I felt worse, for my breathing was deteriorating. My lungs would not tolerate any kind of deep breathing, and would soon let me know it through the pain it caused to try.

            

            I had not had any kind of wash for over 24 hours and I went into my bathroom. But I blacked out; when I came round I called for my brother to ring for an ambulance. When it arrived, I blacked out once more; and according to my brother the ambulance people wanted to give my chest an electoral punch to bring me round. Thankfully my brother stopped them; and I came round again and was given oxygen.

            

            I was returned to the hospital, where I received the kind of treatment I should received in the first place. I was put on warfarin and sent to a ward where I spent the next four days, being treated for an embolism, which I have since learnt should have been treated within the first two hours of its occurrence. I did, when I eventually returned home consider engaging an ambulance chaser to file for compensation if only to deter further such abuses.

            

            But as I have said, the NHS has been my saviour as a sufferer of Ankylosing Spondylitis; and I felt I owed them one. It would have been an open and shut case; but even  if I had taken the NHS on and won. It would have been the tax payer who would have footed the bill… and I have had to rely upon them already for my welfare benefits.

THE NHS is living on borrowed time. It cannot continue in the way it is going. It faces a £30 billion black hole over the next five years. The population of the UK has been artificially increased by ill-thought through policies by Labour politicians, particularly by Tony Blair and those who served under him, like Ed Milliband, who conspired for political reasons, to deliberately open the floodgates to mass immigration.  

            

            The NHS cannot continue on such a footing and will have to, sooner or later, come to an accommodation with the private sector. We have a deficit of over a trillion pounds, and from last April to this September a further £58 billion has been borrowed by George Osborn, £5 billion more than last year. I can see the take-up of private health insurance soaring in the future. The NHS has sadly served out its original purpose.

            

            Very expensive medical technology, drugs, and salaries within the NHS are undermining its ethos of free health care. On top of which the institution has been plagued by scandal after scandal, causing thousands of patient deaths through neglect by medical staff. All of this undermines the boast that we have the best health service in the world. The NHS has to change; it is unaffordable in its present continuance with the pressure of medical advances. Its yearly budget now stands at between £100 and £113 billion. It must change or give way to the health insurance industry to have greater say in public healthcare.

            

             Our national deficit has grown under the Tories despite the boast of reforms to the welfare state. And it the people can trust Labour to out-austere the meagre advances of George Osborn on the deficit, then they deserve the fate that awaits them.

           

           

---

[1] I would like to know how many other broadcasters in the rest of the world demand a tax from their citizens just to watch television.

[2] Many would say, not only immigration

[3] Which at any stage they took the trouble to discover through any kind of questioning by a competent doctor 

Maureen – a true mensche

WELL SAID, WELL WRITTEN, and well observed. I have just finished reading Maureen Lipman's piece in Standpoint magazine. I had wondered what all the fuss was a about when her comments were mentioned on Sky's late night Press Preview. Then the reviewers gave the viewers a flavour of her views on Ed Milliband: views that were to encompass that infamous vote (on a three line whip no less) recognising the 'state' of Palestine; while also criticising Ed and his shitty little coterie, such as the likes of the; ' Chuka Harman Burnham Hunt Balls brigade…' Maureen refers to who are seeking to lead our nation once more into the socialist abyss.

            

            I hope, but doubt, Ed Milliband will read her words in Standpoint, along with those she accuses. But what I do hope is that this polemical tour de force will be read by every Labour Party member and voter…she is a wonderful lady.

            

            I myself, having once shared Ms Lipman's regard for socialism from, imprecisely, the age of 14, until poor old Michael Foot was set upon to become party leader and introduce when  Gerald Kaufman described the 1983 Labour Party election manifesto as being the longest suicide note in history. Yet I still clung on however even under Neil Kinnock's embarrassing leadership, which had promised so much after he overcame Derek Hatton and the Liverpool Militant Tendency during the 1985 Labour Party conference; when his speech electrified myself and the conference. But then, finally, came the awful performance he gave at the Labour Sheffield Rally on the eve of the 1992 general election, which put an end to any chance that Labour had of winning – leaving us with John Major.

            

            Looking back, like Ed Miliband today, Kinnock was an embarrassment. Celebrity-struck, accident prone, and verbally incontinent, the voters were right to reject the boyo at the ballot box. He then went on to become a European commissioner and a member of the House of Lords, having celebrated a life of living off the public tit.

            

            My hope was revived by Tony Blair and New Labour. I am sorry Maureen, but Tony Blair was no socialist, which by this time was part of my attraction for him and New Labour, and kept me voting for the party. He was a social democrat, and the reality was finally setting in. Socialism could never accommodate, but always acted against the grain of human nature.

            

             By 2010 I had long outlived my association with socialism; an association that had taken me from membership of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Labour Party; to voting for Ukip today (but only provisionally) during my 64 years.

I AM NOT JEWISH, but I was born and brought up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War and all that it meant. The Jews were the victims of that hell; six million were eviscerated in the most sadistic way; and on an industrial scale by the Nazis.

            

             To today's liberal generation, the state of Israel, that beacon of hope for those who may still be suffering within the Diaspora, has become the enemy. The Left has joined the traditional anti-Semitic far Right in attacking Zionism, while, in the case of the Left, many use the noun to shield themselves from accusations of anti-Semitism.

            

            That great promise of a Jewish homeland, realised in 1948, was immediately set upon by the Arab world shortly after; and has been preyed upon ever since whenever the opportunity arose of perceived Israeli weakness , as in 1948, 1967, and 1973.

            

             The parliamentary vote acknowledging the 'state' of Palestine, was a disgrace; an anti-Jewish act committed by a secular Jew leading Her Majesty's Official Opposition. If he could not have directed his party to oppose such a motion, he should not have used the whip for his secular Jewish political convenience. He should have at least allowed a free vote - but he refused.

MAUREEN LIPMAN has not realised fully why Ed ordered a whip on this vote; although she hinted at it when she wrote that the Jewish vote is so small to make a difference in this country, and so it is not needed by any party to win anything.

            

             But it is a different matter regarding the Muslim population - especially those populations in northern areas, where the demographics are changing in cities like Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham, Rochdale - all traditional Labour territories.

             

             Muslim sympathies are with the Palestinians; and the Labour Party especially, are becoming ever more dependent on the Muslim vote in the north, its once traditional indigenous working class heartland; and Ed and Labour will do what is needed to secure the northern constituents support even, if it may mean at sometime in the future, pushing through sharia law in parliament, if this is what is demanded by demography for their support.

            

             The traditional white indigenous Labour supporter that the party could once count upon are becoming a minority in many wards of such cities, and will sooner or later become the minority within such cities as a whole. Which is why the Labour Party are turning to Muslim communities to achieve and hold on to power.

THE LABOUR PARTY is not what it once was; and Maureen has to understand this. Today, the party's traditional demographic in the north is no longer wholly white and indigenous working class; although the party still takes for granted the traditional white working class demographic in these areas when it comes to electing a Labour government. And the party will continue to rely upon its core white vote until the multicultural demographic changes in such cities. Then the white indigenous working class will no longer matter to the Labour Party.

            When this unhappy situation arises, the Muslim communities will be effectively in control of large parts of our once white working class northern cities. It is then that Islam will finally impress itself upon our laws. Although other cultures, such as those representing India and Afro-Caribbean, may rightly take exception.

           

            Maureen Lipman, like myself, had been a 50 year supporter of the Labour Party. But I would press her not to believe in the return of David Milliband to the party to achieve any kind of sanity. We as a nation are too far gone down the road of multiculturalism to extradite the indigenous population from the swamp created by our politicians.

            

            Maureen, you and I, even if we hang about for the next 20 years, are on the way out, just as the country we once new is one the way out. But I think we should go down fighting, and not go lightly into that dark goodnight, by voting Ukip, it is, to put it crudely, for those traditional Labour supporters over 60…shit or bust time.

            

            For the next 20 years we are doomed to witness the follies of our politicians from whatever of the main three parties they represent. Labour, Conservative, as well as Liberal, have now become nothing more than vehicles fighting, not for a principled ideology, but power, and power alone. It will soon be power and power alone that will determine who will govern…traditional political ideology is now dead; and so I sincerely hope that Maureen Lipman's Standpoint piece will persuade other traditional party voters in our age bracket at least, to abandon the Labour Party; even if they cannot bring themselves to vote Ukip.

           

An EU conspiracy?

THE LAST TIME I believed in a conspiracy theory was following the death of President Kennedy, and I clung to it right up to the time I watched the film JFK; Oliver Stone's long winded attempt at trying to prove Lee Harvey Oswald to have been a patsy working for either the CIA or Cuba[1], and concluding that it was not Harvey's rifle that fired the fatal shot, but whoever was lurking on the 'grassy mound' as the president's cavalcade passed.

            

             American conspiracy theorists are, like Oliver Stone, of a usually Left-wing liberal bent who think the US government are up to all kinds of schemes to eliminate those who get in their way – especially liberals like himself, and JFK.

            

            From time to time governments of whatever ideological bent, try to keep information they do not wish the public to be made aware of, secret. In the UK, under the thirty-year rule (said to have been put in place for reason's of national security) documents are kept hidden until the rule has, like an insurance policy, matured and the actors in the proceedings are probably dead.

WHEN I HEARD THIS MORNING on Sky News that the UK has been asked to contribute a further £1.7 billion to the EU, while Germany and France get a rebate; I smelt a conspiratorial rat at work.

            

             I thought to myself, it must be a stitch-up. A conspiracy had been concocted between Downing Street and Brussels to spike Nigel Farage's' guns in the forthcoming Rochdale by-election where the latest poll puts his party 13 points clear of the Tories.

            

             It would go like this. Brussels would insist that the UK should have to pay this extra contribution because of the UK's economic success; and at the same time Germany and France should be given a rebate for the failure of their economies. Well…I ask you. What better foil could Cameron have, than to have himself and his party made even more unpopular -  but then there would follow a sudden victory over Brussels; a victory brought about by  'negotiations' which gave  Cameron his victory over the £1.7 billion taxpayer robbery? Well, we will all have to wait and see.

            

             But a fellow conspiracy theorist on this issue, insists that indeed a conspiracy is afoot; but it is not one of Cameron's making. My brother came up with the following. He suggested that Brussels wanted Cameron out, come the next election and a more pliable Miliband put in his place. Milliband would never allow, for instance, an In/Out referendum; and therefore represented  the EU's best hope for keeping the UK safely within the federalist concoction.

            

             Think about it. Cameron has offered an In/Out referendum if he wins next May after negotiating EU reforms – a process the EU is fearful of, if only because whatever reforms they agree to with the UK; other member states will demand the same changes, thus causing such a volcanic eruption within the EU that its very existence may be left in doubt - better therefore Milliband governing the UK than Cameron – or at the very least, not Cameron.

            

             As a conspiracy theory this makes far more sense than my own. Perhaps, instead of Cameron, the idea behind this demand for more funds is meant to help Milliband. After all, on Sky News this morning when Ed Balls was asked what he would do about this budget increase; Balls wittered on about Cameron alienating himself from the negotiating process with our European partners. He never once said that he stood full square behind challenging such an unfairness.

SO THERE ARE convincing and unconvincing conspiracy theories surrounding the  £1.7 billion demand from the UK. Between the two, I favour my brothers. In doing so I do not insinuate or even infer that Ed Milliband is part of the conspiracy, but a mere willing associate of anything pro-European. Brussels are the political puppet masters in all of this, which Cameron is finding to his cost, and Milliband, if elected will find to his own.

            

               Both Cameron and Milliband are being, in one way or another, used by Brussels to the EU's advantage. They are both instinctive supporters of the European Union and our membership of it; but are both trying to either hold on to or gain power within the UK, and Brussels is trying to manipulate it to their own advantage, and in doing so they have come out in Miliband's favour. Milliband is an innocent in all of this, for his natural EU impulses will willingly serve the interests of the social democratic European Union in any event.

             

               The EU wants Milliband. He has proven himself a creature of the trade unions; so perhaps he has strings that can be pulled by Brussels. Well I would not be surprised if Ed did Europe's bidding. After all, he disdains an In/Out referendum, even on Cameron's spurious grounds.

            

               So Ed is the perfect servant of Brussels, one who can be guaranteed to turn the UK under the much longed for Federal Union into a mere province of the greater European Union, where the nation state becomes a thing of the past; where it becomes a province, divided into regions instead of counties.

            

                This is the supposed nightmare scenario of European federalism. A dystopian vision concocted by Europhiles throughout the Union beginning after the Second World War in order to restrain further military conflict of the type that brought forth two World Wars on European soil within 40 years .

            

                So in order to avoid further such conflict in the future… so the theory goes: we have to, according to the EU, abandon our national sovereignty and nationhood, and be immersed into a federal union within Europe where national democracy has no place in the scheme of things. Is this the future the British people whish to be part of. A future bereft of nationhood, and the abandonment of ancient counties? I very much doubt it.

           

           

             

---

[1] Preferably, for Stones purpose, the CIA.

The swivel-eyed youth who wishes to be Mayor of London

THERE IS NOW speculation that L'Enfant terrible of right-on, politically correct comedy, is considering to challenge for London Mayor after what he may consider to have been a bravura performance on Newsnight earlier in the week – I speak of course, of Russell Brand.

            

            A self confessed economic ignoramus, but who also says he likes the sound of 'collectives', which he also has little knowledge of: Brand has also not denied (through his spokesman) his intent to stand for London Mayor after Boris Johnson. Brand reminds me of the erratic and dysfunctional and paranoid hippy Neil in the BBC 1980s sit-com The Young Ones. At least Neil had a pretext for his behaviour; after all, his brain had been addled by wacky-backy, and therefore excuses could be made.

           

             But Brand has no such excuse for his erratic behaviour, other than that he is about to publish a thesaurus decorated tomb. If all of the fuss and bother surrounding his Newsnight  interview was part of such a promotion, then the rumour that this muttonhead seeks elevation to our capitals most prestigious office must also be taken with a mouthful of salt.

            

            The man is ignorant. He has drip-fed the gullible in the media with outrageously uninformed views and an ill-mannered expression of them. He has been promoting his book, and the media have been snared into helping him. The controversial Newsnight interview was an attempt by the BBC to keep its programme on the air; and if helping Brand promote his latest contribution to Western literary endeavour served their purpose, then so be it. Both the BBC and Brand are feeding of the other.

            

            Newsnight, because it badly needs headlines to keep the programme afloat, and Brand who, after his failure to take on in America, needs to get all the publicity he can from his latest literary offering this side of the pond – ghost written, of course, by Roget.

            

            Russell Brand is part of the problem of the over-weaning might of celebrity culture within Western society. He is a dork, but whatever slips from his illiterate mouth is treated as being newsworthy because he has gained the title of being a celebrity. I do not blame him, but those in the newspaper  media who take him seriously enough to help add copies to their daily sales by publicising the Left's new Dave Spart.

            

            He is a chump of the second order who, in association with chumps of the first …the media; has managed to promote himself through his  vicarious and outrageous behaviour into earning another half a million or so.

BRAND'S BOOK SIGNINGS will be financially enriched by his behaviour. The book will not make the top of the Sunday Times best seller list   in any event, but it will have given him a generous publisher's fee before publication, and whatever the shortfall in sales, Brand will still be left in pocket. After all, a book with the title Revolution will appeal to the BBC, Channel Four, and the Guardianista everywhere.

            

            I am almost warming to this politically and commercially savvy reprobate. He is a bogus Lefty, who seeks wealth for himself, but needs the Leftwing brand to guarantee his pension. I would love him to stand for the London Mayoral office; and what is more, I would like him to win. London will then have as its Mayor, a court jester instead of a king. A jester in control of the court itself, with imbecilic, and self-admitted ignorance of economics and therefore any competence in economics.

           

            It  matters little to Brand that, if he puts his name forward for the race to become the Mayor of London, such an ambition would run contrary to his belief in not voting. Like any other politician, he can come up with the appropriate excuse, to encourage his most devoted to vote for him in such a contest. Brand, in other words will earn the opprobrium – hypocrite; but like all the politicians he so despises, his skin is thick enough, and his kerching moment loud enough to rejoice in the opprobrium of the right-wing press.

             

           

A new poster is unfurled by Ukip

REMEMBER LAST MAY? Remember the outcry when Ukip produced a poster of an image of the White Cliffs of Dover in the foreground with an escalator laddered against them; meant to depict how easy it was to enter the UK. The froth emanating from Tory mouths could have filled several baths. But the image captured the mood of the people, and its depiction registered with them and helped Ukip triumph in the European elections. The party had its hand on the pulse of the nation; whereas the London based Tories had only their politically correct sentiments to respond with.

            

            Ukip has now produced another poster. This time for the up and coming Rotherham election to select its new Police and Crime Commissioner after the resignation of its previous incumbent Shaun Wright, a Labour candidate for the position who refused to resign after the Rotherham child abuse scandal.

            

            The poster depicts a young girl with the message; "There are 1,400 reasons why you should not trust Labour;" a reference of course to those children raped and assaulted by Pakistanis whose atrocious behaviour went ignored by the Labour authority as well as the police and social services; and for the usual politically correct reasons of not wishing to offend the Pakistani (Muslim) community… and the Labour party's filthy hand was all over this subterfuge to keep the suffering of these children secret, as it was in other areas of the North where it needed the Muslim vote.

            

            So the poster tells a truth about Labour, one which it is their turn to froth about. Here we have the Labour response so far; first up Simon Danczuk the MP for Rochdale: "Ukip are clearly more interested in trying to use victims' suffering to win votes than in coming up with solutions. They have never contributed to discussions in terms of child sex abuse. They have decided to create a bandwagon which they are now jumping on."

            

            The shadow justice minister, Dan Jarvis, a South Yorkshire MP then weighs in: "The cynical and deliberate exploitation of victims by Ukip in this poster marks a new and unacceptable low in their recent campaign activity."

            

            These responses mimic those of the Tories in May; insincere and out of touch with the communities they were meant to serve. If the people of Rotherham are repelled by this poster, then they deserve to see the whole horrible episode repeated again. But I know that Ukip has got it right once more and the people of Rotherham will elect Jack Carson, the Ukip candidate.

THE TRUE CYNICS are not Ukip but Dan Jarvis who has the temerity to suggest Ukip has  been responsible for the, "… cynical and deliberate exploitation of victims." Where was Labour when these victims were being truly exploited through abuse? Ask the victims themselves if they feel Ukip are exploiting them. My guess is, and it is only a guess, that these young girls at the time who were abused and raped by Pakistanis, will tell you they had no one to turn to in Labour controlled Rotherham or Labour controlled Rochdale or Oxford.

            

             Mr Jarvis is a mountebank who froths at the mouth at every opportunity, like every other politician fighting for or to remain in office.  The two main parties have failed miserably the people of the UK, both on immigration and because of political correctness.

             

             But no single party has done more to add to the suffering of these 1400 children than the neglect of their situation by the Labour Party; as no doubt Mr Danczuk, being the MP for Rochdale would readily admit under different circumstances than wishing to impute Ukip with charges of opportunism – which, God forbid, Labour have never succumb too.

           

             Ukip have every right to highlight this tragedy. They are not exploiting anyone; but reminding those trusting Labour supporters in Rotherham of the responsibility for this carnage. The Labour Party helped keep secret, through their misplaced faith in political correctness as well as their betrayal of the white working class in Rotherham, what was happening to these children.

           

             The true outrage should be against the comments of Simon Danczuk and Dan Jarvis, whose party tapped its mouth shut through the insidious political witchcraft known as political correctness performed in Rochdale, Rotherham, and Oxford. Ukip have done a service to the people of Rotherham by the unfurling of their poster.

            

             The people of Rotherham will judge whether Ukip has shown any kind of disrespect for those 1400 abused young girls who, due to the multicultural sensitivities of the Labour Party, found themselves in dire straits without any form of protection…can the Ukip poster ever compare with this?

            

              One thing is for sure, the Ukip candidate Jack Carson will not allow the intrusion of political correctness into the decision making of the office of Police and Crime Commissioner, if he is elected. Political correctness is anathema to Ukip, as even their worst enemy would readily acknowledge; which is why Ukip should be given the position of Rotherham's Police and Crime Commissioner…and I hope the traditional Labour Rotherham  voter agrees. 

Chivalry has been long since dead

THERE IS A SAYING THAT the age of chivalry died with the invention of gunpowder. Today the West still lives in the age chivalry[1] and it could help bring it to its ultimate ruin. Unable to adapt to the age of gunpowder, because it represents having to kill men women and children in order to defeat an enemy whose ultimate purpose is to kill your own men, women, and children; the West now sinks even deeper into the moral abyss. Such is the power of gunpowder over the sword and lance, that it obliterates bystanders… who we, in the modern West, refer to as civilians.         

            

            The days when two armies confronted each other to indulge in mortal combat, in a field somewhere in Europe without any civilian involvement, have long gone. The age of lance, musket, fife and drum; and the squares at Waterloo have long since passed. Civilians have become as much part of war as the combatants themselves. Chivalry is dead. Weaponry and munitions have moved on, even if the modern liberal West are fearful of using them to their full potential because of guilt and the many sleepless nights feared by our politicians, who are unprepared to be classed as 'war criminals' and pre-dated upon by human rights lawyers.

            

            Churchill regretted but did not fear the bombing of the German cities during the Second World War; and he carried the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in order to advance the completion of the Second World War.   

            

             There were no Cameron or Obama-like uncertainties to undermine the great man. What had to be done was done. Churchill never became a Nazi or Communist for his exemplarily ruthlessness against German Nazism; or even through his alliance with Stalin's Soviet Communism, and neither did both the American and British nations.

            

              Churchill did what was needed to defeat Hitler; he was a patriot and a democrat and did what was required to salvage that cause…and so it should be the case today in planning the defeat of ISIS. If politicians fear sleepless nights, unpopularity, and human rights lawyers because of their actions; then they should not be leading a nation  -  especially one they tell us is under threat from ISIS. Because if this nation is under such a threat that those MPs who voted for action over the skies of Iraq believe; then when we release the dogs of war, they should be unleashed and not held back by politicians fearful of the next day's headline.

AS ANY CHILD knows or should know; war is an appalling business that should not be entered into flippantly, especially by career obsessed politicians of the calibre of Tony Blair. War is a bloody, cruel, and a sadistic enterprise to embark upon; which is why particularly Western nations in the modern era are loathe to engage in them.

            

            But a nation or nations can be propelled into conflict by the unfolding events of history. War cannot in many circumstances be resolved through negotiation. The Second World War sits as the template for such an axiom. A piece of paper signifying 'peace in our time' is a barren guarantee when you are up against an enemy in full ideological certainty that their cause is right, such as Nazism who cared little for such documents – as ISIS does today.

            

            As with the imperial nature of Nazism and their design for a Greater Germany; ISIS also believes in a Muslim imperialism; a caliphate spreading, in its infancy, throughout the Middle East. But its ultimate and ambitious reach spreads further still. They no doubt hope that their ambitions for their Muslim caliphate[2] will eventually traverse the European continent as earlier centuries old intrusions once attempted. But Islam no longer has to fight its way into  Europe, as it once tried. Today 15 million Muslims live throughout Europe and over two million of them live in the UK.

            

            As we are constantly told whenever an Islamist outrage is committed on our soil, the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by such an act. It is only a minority of Muslims that embark upon such acts of terrorism. The Muslim community as a whole deplores such acts.

           

            But how do we know this? I am sure that there are many hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who abhor such acts of terrorism. But the Muslim population represent a great demographic forest on UK soil. A forest among which Jihadists and ISIS members can hide at will when they return from Iraq and Syria. I am not saying the Muslim population of Britain are culpable; but only that they represent the foliage among which the Islamists can hide; and if discovered can seek protection under the European Court of Human Rights.

            

            We have, through our liberal progressiveness and liberal imperial guilt, allowed the intrusion of Muslims into our nation: as has also happened in other parts of Europe, and for the same reasons. The whole of Europe are now seethed with a Muslim population of some 15 million people. The demographics will dictate the future direction of Islam on the continent of Europe

            

            The point is that Islam has arrived in Europe, and has done so without bloodshed as it once suffered through combat in the past, when Europe stood in its way militarily, and were fully prepared, whatever the cost, to defeat its invasion. Today Islam is flourishing throughout Europe without a single shot being fired in opposition.

           

             

           

---

[1] A chivalry born o liberal guilt

[2] Islam is , like Christianity, a proselytising religion after all, if not one which cuts off people's heads.

Barroso tells it as it is

IT IS OFFICIAL. The retiring president of the EU, Jose Manuel Barroso, has poured a bucket of cold water over David Cameron's attempt at restricting the number of migrants from the EU from paying us a visit. The prime minister was set to announce various restrictions on the issuing of national insurance numbers and putting a time limit on their effectiveness.

            

            Mr Barroso has done a great service to Ukip, and in a statement after his interview on the Andrew Marr Show, Mr Barroso was warmly thanked by Nigel Farage for his contribution which included a reminder of the illegal nature of what the prime minister will propose if stories in this Sunday's press are to be taken seriously.

            

            It appears that the EU's apparatchiks are not prepared to help Cameron see off Ukip before the next election. Perhaps Cameron thinks that Angela Merkle will have the final say, and these things can be solved once he has her on board. For it is she who pulls the strings in Europe including those of the EU presidents - whomsoever they may be.

            

             Perhaps in the coming days the puppet master will say something to the effect that will, using diplomatic phraseology, redress the balance in Cameron's favour without any commitment to what the British prime minister proposes. The words will be warm and comforting, without any real purpose beyond mood music such as an insistence that the EU cannot afford to see the UK leave; leaving open the possibility of compromise. Or so it will be interpreted as such by the Tory press

            

              Such vagueness will set the pro-Tory papers bristling with talk of the possibility of an accommodation. They will try to argue that it is Merkle who is really in charge and her warms words, should be the real focus of attention rather than the ones used by the retired puppet or his replacement.

AS MR BARROSO  pointed out in his interview;  'The freedom of movement is a very important principle in the internal market, the movement of goods, of capital, of services and of people.' The free movement of peoples are the fulcrum upon which a federal internal market relies. If we are to have a federal Europe comprising political and economic union, then Mr Barroso's logic is sound, when it comes to the free movement of peoples. This is what the European Union has all been about for God's sake.

            

              The free movement of people within a federal union of 28 different nations, is as vital as the free movement of people within the 50 states within the United States of America. This is what a federal union means. The Americans fought a civil war to achieve this. Barroso is right in his federal logic. Cameron on the other hand is naive or politically opportunistic for pretending that he can exempt the UK from the free movement of peoples. He his leading this nation toward a situation where we may be compared to the American South during the American civil war.

CAMERON IS NOT naive. He is the opportunist par excellence who believes the British people are naive, and is counting on that naivety to once more trust him. His ambition is to stay in power as a Conservative prime minister. To this end he has had to offend his natural allies within the EU. He desires this country's incorporation into a European Federal Union, as did past Conservative prime ministers beginning with Ted Heath, but ending, temporarily, with Margaret Thatcher. But he knows many among his party's members and voters who do not share his fascination with the EU.

            

              Now enter Ukip, and its ever more threatening presence over the Conservative Party's ambition for government. Once treated with contempt as swivel-eyed loons by Cameron; but who, he thought, would always remain emotionally tied to the Conservative Party; if only because they had nowhere else to go: such people now have an alternative with Ukip.

 UKIP HAS transformed the electoral battlefield for both the Tories and Labour. The three party triumphret of ToryLabLib have been complacent and, like the ancient regime of the 18^th century French aristocracy, have taken their people for granted… let them eat bread; for who else do they have to turn to?

            

            The people know where their political masters wish to take their country – toward an eventual United States of Europe. This, the Grand Idea, promulgated in almost Napoleonic terms, shortly after the Second World War in the hope of avoiding further European conflict between European nations, has become a foetid proposition.

            

             Since the end of the Second World War, it has not been the creation of the EU that has prevented further conflict on the European continent; but the creation of NATO with its promise to stand by any member nation under attack from any none member nation.

           

NATO stood four square behind Europe during the Cold War when the might of the Soviet Union threatened Western Europe; but was successfully protected by a vastly superior American NATO contribution: an American 'interference' later objected to by many European members of the EU, as an Anglo Saxon intervention.

            

              Barroso has reminded Cameron of the realities of EU membership. He is right in doing so. For what Cameron proposes in order to see off Ukip is indeed illegal under laws we signed up to …still, perhaps Angela Merkle will play good cop and give Cameron enough of a political carrot to allow him some political credulity on Europe.