Now we must add Somalia to Pakistan in the great child rape scandal

WE MUST NOW make an addition to the roll-call of debasement that many of our nation's finest cities have joined. Bristol has now joined Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, and Oxford, in the pantheon of ignominy that these cities have been brought to by multiculturalism's cultural diversity. We now have the conviction of 14 members of the Somalian community who ran an inner city sex ring involving British girls as young as 13; who were abused and raped and, according to the Daily Mail, "Some were persuaded to have sex with their 'boyfriend's' friends as it was Somali 'culture and tradition' and 'men always have sex with each other's girlfriends'".

            Whatever their sentence the same liberal behemoth that inveigles itself upon every aspect of our culture, and allowed these awful events to be facilitated through multiculturalism; will now treat these wretches as victims, who will, whatever the sentence, be released having served a fragment of their pitiful punishment. When released they should of course, if justice means anything to their victims, be deported as part of the sentence to the country from which they came. But this would fall foul of European human rights law and would send human rights lobbyists like Liberty into a real old paddy.

            As for the victims. Well, they came from what the Daily Mail calls "good families". One can only conclude from this that the girls who were raped and abused were not drawn into the so-called "care system" as were those in the Rochdale case, along with the other cities whose authorities allowed such practices to go ignored because of upsetting multicultural sensitivities within their ethnic communities…where they no doubt feared the kind of reaction we have seen in Ferguson surrounding Michael Brown's killing over past 48 hours

WHEN OUR liberals (here I mean the so-called baby boomers -  of which I am one) gave themselves up to multiculturalism in the late 1950s 1960s, like so many an inadequate drawn to a religious cult; they did so because they had a guilt complex about British colonialism; and so they took the ideology of multiculturalism at face value. Instead of what they believed to be the persecuting of what was once known as the Third World; liberals wanted to assuage their colonial guilt by helping our one time colonies; and they replaced what they saw as colonial oppression with liberal patronage; of which multiculturalism is the ultimate ideological expression.

            

            How many liberals in the early days or even today, would have truly understood the cultures that were now, and then, being unleashed into a white Western country with a 2,000 year history of fashioning our own indigenous culture to meet the needs of our own people? Only to now see other cultures being allowed to impregnate their own cultures within our own in the name of diversity?

            

            Did those liberals understand that, under the title multiculturalism, other cultures would continue to be allowed to practice their own culture, including genital mutilation, arranged marriages, honour killings, homophobia, misogyny and sexism generally, child exorcism, and racism of the kind used by the Islamic community when treating young white women as mere vassals for their lust.

WHY ARE NOT OUR feminists angered by the events in the above named towns and cities? These feminists seem to have mutilated their own tongues in the same way that their "sisters" have had their genitals mutilated.

            

            I can tell you why. It is because they are PC multiculturalists. They have bought into the liberal paradigm of multiculturalism and will only take to the streets in protest if, for instance, a Canadian police commander suggest that women who wear what he considers sexually provocative clothing deserves, according to the feminist lobby, to be raped.

            

            When however, women of the ethnic communities suffer a far greater torment at the hands of multiculturalism such as genital mutilation, slavery and sexual abuse from within a particular ethnic centre of the population; our UK feminists remain silent; and the placards remain blank and unpainted: until, that is, what they perceive to be a white indigenous male misogynist, either speaks out openly, or falls foul of the feminist agenda. Only then will the sisters take to the street en-mass.

            

             Multiculturalism began on my generation's watch. I am a baby boomer, and have seen the rise of the liberal hegemony - a fantasy I indulged in, in my youth through colonial guilt as disciple of the Left. I am now 64 and immune to such idiocy.

            

             This, the latest political ism, serves no better purpose than those that have historically anticipated its creation, such as colonialism, fascism or communism. Multiculturalism is just another occupant of the ideological market place like fascism, communism, and now, a European Federalism. It seeks to smother the country in a web of alien cultures and expect the indigenous culture to comply freely on pain of being regarded as racists by the governing class if they protest.

            

             The advance of multiculturalism has been constructed upon the charge of bigotry and racism if anyone took exception to its progress. The indigenous population has been cowered by such an indictment by the liberal hegemony. It should no longer remain the case. Bigotry and racism are concrete terms. But they have been abused and have been deliberately understated by liberals who take easy exception to any remark they deem unfit to conform too, or ill-conforms to their own prejudices.

THE UNFETTERED ABUSE of children in towns and cities like Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby and Oxford, were a bi-product of multiculturalism. Children suffered needlessly because of an ideology; the ideology of diversity; the ideology of multiculturalism; a liberal concept that brought about silence through fear; and allowed children to be abused in its name.

            

            But the liberal classes, that through the decades, conjured up this creation and imposed it on the white indigenous people, will go unpunished, not unlike the ideologues of earlier dystopian visions such as Marxists, socialists, and fascists. Like the poor, sadly these ideologies (now including multiculturalism) will always be with us.

           

           

  

God bless the Kippers

UKIP HAVE GAINED ANOTHER MP at the Tories expense in Rochester and Strood: and now comes next May's general election - and no one knows what the makeup of the next parliament will be in terms of the occupancy of the green benches. Commentators, various scribblers, and the party alchemists … none of whom have any idea what the governance of this country will look like come the 8^th May next year, are still calling the shots.

                 

            Will Ukip have sufficient MPs to have an influence on the governance of the country? Will Labour, as the polls in Scotland predict after its referendum lose a potential 42 Scottish seats to the SNP?  Both the main parties are currently polling in the low thirties. They are at their core vote level of support (apart from the poor old Lib Dems who are just fading away) …in other words the two main parties are at the rosette wearing chimpanzee level; where if any of the three main party leaders were to assassinate the Queen, they would still retain their core vote.

            

            But even here, because of the impact of Ukip; the core vote within the two main parties is becoming more pliable and less rigid to the overtures of Ukip; and this should concern the party leaders. No longer can the likes of Milliband and Cameron take their core voters for granted. In Cameron's case, he has already driven many of them into the arms of Ukip, through insulting and despising them as ancients who he believes represent Old conservatism, in the Blairite sense[1] - swivelled eye loonies who the Conservative party are better off without.

            

            In Miliband's case; his core vote still comprises a few million (if no longer in the many millions) of the traditional working class; whose parents and grandparents voted Labour and their progeny have continued on with the family tradition – and have been taken for granted by the party; and are still being considered part of the chimpanzee vote by the Red Ed Labour party as they were under Tony Blair. The Labour Party hierarchy now comprises of, and has become the primary architects of ,the liberal Metropolitan elite. Their horizon encompasses less and less the traditional white working class, and more the interests of multiculturalism.

            

            Multicultural London is their new, post-socialist utopia, which they see as an example of diversity at work and they want it for the rest of the country. Which is why they sought the replacement of the white working class with the votes of second and third generation immigrants from India and Pakistan. These are the modern Labour Party's 'new' core voter to be won over, and its old core voters are being used simply to make the transference.

            

            Blair tried to add to it by allowing millions of Poles and Portuguese to be, prematurely, given free entry to this country. Immigrants were now Labour's new 'working class', and the sooner their old working class realises they are no longer the Labour Party's patrons the better for themselves, as well as the Anglo-Caribbean working class – each of whom share the same historical values.

 IT IS AN EXCITING TIME in British politics. No longer can the two main parties rely upon their traditional supporters. The Tories, because they have ridiculed and have shown an arrogant attitude to their party's traditional core vote; while the Labour Party has abandoned the white working class who they see from their metropolitan sanctuary in London as bigots, racists and being, at the very least, politically incorrect.

THE PEOPLE OF Rochester and Strood have voted, and the Kippers have won; and I hope the Kippers will have a significant presence and influence on this nation's history. For British parliamentary history, thanks to Nigel Farage, is being invigorated and perhaps transformed, by himself and his party's presence. Cameron would never even have considered any kind of In/Out referendum on Europe if it had not been for the rise of Ukip and Nigel Farage. Any questioning of immigration, or apology for its deluge under Labour, by Labour, would not have been considered, if not for the advances by Ukip into Labour territory.

            

             The fact that any reference to immigration which was once considered to be racist by both Labour and the Cameron Tories (both part of the Leftist hegemony), has now, thanks to the Kippers, been forced, through their electoral threat to the two main parties, on to the political agenda – where, we all remember, any reference to it was once considered racist by the very two parties that now consider it open for discussion.

           

            Ukip has made its mark on the traditional comfort zone of  political correctness. But throughout the country beyond London, Nigel Farage represents to millions of people the voice they never heard from their traditional party leaders. It took Farage and Ukip to force the LabLibCon hegemony to sit up and listen. Cameron has offered us a dubious In/Out referendum, something which when he came to power in 2010 would never have entered his mind to ever adopt as a Europhile.

            

             Even the Labour party has been forced into making an apology for their lifting of the floodgates to immigration. Any talk of immigration, once anathema to the two main parties, has suddenly resonated within them because of Ukip and the threat this party poses to their core vote

            Only those on the liberal left such as the BBC, and the Guardian whose journalists such as Polly Toynbee, see Ukip as a racist party. These views are the real extremity of the current debate on immigration and Europe, and such views coalesce within the London liberal elite, whose auto de fe sets the standard for what is allowable to be spoken of in a once free society. The liberal auto de fe is among us, and has been among us since the 1960s. But only now, with the rise of multiculturalism, has the liberal auto de fe's despotism become dominant.

GOD BLESS THE KIPPERS. Nigel Farage liberated the voice of opposition to the EU, and this body's insistence that we have to let all and sundry from the rest of Europe to freely cross our borders; and by doing so our public services have been greatly undermined by the influx. This is probably the reason why Labour voters are deserting to Ukip, and may it long continue. The NHS is being wrecked by such an influx, housing is being undermined; and education placement is also being put under strain by the impact of immigration; either through the impact of free movement of European peoples or through immigration from without the EU, including  Africa. 

THE KIPPERS are here to stay whatever the outcome of the next general election. Nigel Farage has managed to massage the clitoris of the traditional Tory and working classes, whose innate patriotism they all share. This is the link between those traditional Tories and traditional Labour defectors who have joined Ukip.              
           
               Both the traditional working class and the traditional Tory supporter once shared the same social values, if not the political and economic ones. The traditional Labour working class always shared, even if not realising it, the same family values as the Tories. They may have deferred on political and economic issues. But when it came to the family and family values, the British working class, as a whole, shared the same impulses as the middle and ruling classes, and in this respect, all classes were alike until the rise of liberalism, that began at the start of the late 1950s and continued throughout the 1960s until today.         
           

---

           

                         

           

[1] Cameron suckled at Blair's teat and tried to replicate his transformation of the Labour Party by creating a similar one in the Tory Party.

Crossing a threshold

THE PALESTINIANS have crossed a threshold. Described as the deadliest attack in Jerusalem for five years; two Palestinian cousins managed to infiltrate a Jerusalem synagogue  killing five people including a British citizen Avraham Shmuel Goldberg, a rabbi, killed at the age of 68, who came from Golders Green in North London, who leaves behind a wife and six children along with grandchildren . He was a publisher in London before emigrating to Israel in the early 1990s. Another victim was an American Jew, also a rabbi.

            

            This attack will probably prove the final straw for Israel. The attack was celebrated among the Palestinian communities in Gaza and on the West Bank – as was the case with the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon; the ordinary Palestinian people either celebrated openly or within their hearts for the actions undertaken by the two cousins who committed this atrocity; leaving many to wonder how innocent Palestinian civilians really are. Are any Palestinian civilians innocent when it comes to the destruction of Israel and the Jewish state? I think not.

            

             Israel has always gone out of its way at the behest of the West (particularly the USA), and its own humanist impulses to attack the PLO in the past and Hamas today, as agencies separate from the people they represent…in other words, Palestinian civilians. But if those civilians nurture to their breast the same desire as Hamas does, to rid the Middle East of the Jews and are prepared to use themselves as 'innocent' civilians in Gaza as human shields; then what is the conscience ridden liberal West to make of it?

THE PALESTINIANS have always been, what we in the UK would describe as  'a travelling community': called by the West's various politically incorrect as, gypsies; but within a Middle East context; they have no statehood to attach themselves to, except probably Jordan. In the 1980s they effectively, under Yasser Arafat's leadership, brought about Lebanon's bloody civil war between Muslim and Christian; soon to be blamed, yet again, on the state of Israel.

            

            They also, while being given sanctuary in Jordon, fought to make the kingdom a Palestinian state. In the following conflict that erupted between the Palestinians and the Jordanian army to make Jordon their natural state, some 20,000 Palestinians lost their lives -  more Palestinians have been killed by their own kind than have been killed by the Israelis.

           

            The Palestinians are the Western Left's modern black slaves. Victims not of slavery, but of Israel's refusal to hand over their country to them. Israel is the Jewish state, which over a thousand years spent within the Diaspora, they paid a heavy price to return to.

           

             Israel belongs to the Jews, and have been so for over two thousand years. Years of long entitlement. Entitlement that goes beyond any grip the Palestinians lay claim to. The land occupying the State of Israel represents the boundaries of the Jewish state. The state where the Jews can safely harbour themselves from the everyday anti-Semitism of today's world.

            

            The Israeli state is the Jewish fortress protected from bigotry and prejudice that for nearly two millennia they have had to suffer culminating in the Holocaust – that seminal event in world history which spurred the Jews of Europe to seek their ancient homeland once more and create the state of Israel.

IN RESPONSE TO the latest Palestinian atrocities; president Netanyahu has ordered the destruction of the houses belonging to the families of those who launched their bloody assault on the Jerusalem synagogue. Such retaliation was deemed counter-productive in 2007 and was stopped, simply because Middle East tyrants such Saddam Hussein paid the Palestinian families for their loss. Now Saddam has gone, and so has the source of such compensation; which Israel believes will make Palestinians think again before committing such terrorist acts in the future…we wait and see.

            

             Fairness does not come into it when the lives of your people and the continuance of the very state you live in are concerned. This practice will upset many Western liberals who like nothing more than a soothing night's sleep that does not disturb their delicate conscience. But the criteria should be the deterrent value of the policy as far as the average Israeli citizen is concerned, and nothing else – if it works fine; if it does not, then back to the drawing board. But in the war against Palestinian terrorism which has designs upon your country, such practices must be implemented for their possible deterrent value.

THE SLAUGHTER of the Rabbis could not go ignored by the West, unlike Hamas' missiles launched on Israel; until that is, the state of Israel had had enough and launched its response against them by initiating an assault on the Gaza Strip to try and stop the missiles  -  as well as Hamas' tunnel digging that was being used to attack civilian targets in Israel. Then, and only then, the Western media sat up and took notice - but only to attack Israel for its 'disproportionate' response.

           

             In the case of the massacre of the Rabbi's, the Western media and politicians professed outrage and indignation. But as soon as Israel retaliates; the Western media skewers their reporting back toward sympathy for the Palestinians, as happened during the Gaza conflict when Israel responded to the thousands of rockets landing in Israel that went ignored by the Western media.

            

             The Jewish state has every right to exist. The UN has codified this right, and therefore, like every other free nation on this planet, Israel has the right to defend itself from enemies that seek to conquer them, and, in the case of the Palestinians - to eliminate all Jews from the Middle East; which is their intended purpose if you read their websites which presumably few liberals do - unless, that is, they do indeed read them and concur with their sentiments… as would the BNP.

           

           

            

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…' who 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 17, until poor old Michael Foot was set upon to become party leader. Gerald Kaufman described Foot's  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 itself with, 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 once traditional Labour territories.

             

              Muslim sympathies are with the Palestinians; and the Labour Party are becoming ever more dependent on the Muslim vote in the north; its once traditional indigenous white working class heartland; and Ed and Labour will do what is needed to secure the northern  ethnic 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 the changing demography of ethnicity.

            

               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, which is why they are starting to turn to Ukip.

            

            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 are as a nation too far gone down the road of multiculturalism

            

            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 on 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 –it would be better to abstain than vote Multicultural Labour or Conservative under Milliband and Cameron.

           

The odour of celebrity mixed with charity is toxic

BOB GELDOF AND BONO are to take to the stage once more; this time on behalf of the victims of Ebola. In a reprise of the 1984 Band Aid concert, Bob and his mates are going to help source millions of pounds (none of it their own by the way) from taxpayers worldwide to help the victims of this disease – payment in advance is required, apparently.

            

           Well, I hope the public are cynical enough this time round not to bite, and give to charities such as the British Red Cross instead of, what? "Ebola Aid?" These celebrities enjoy free publicity enough whenever they take to a red carpet without giving them millions of pounds more  -  no doubt accompanied by a shoal of honours of varying quality up to and including knighthoods.

           

            Bono is a tax avoider. I do not criticise him for this. What he is doing is neither illegal or immoral (despite what the croakers on the Left believe). But if he came forth with his own personal multi-million pound contribution (like Bill Gates) to the cause he represents, then he deserves as much publicity as the event will surely provide.

            

            The same goes for Geldof and anyone else invited to this 'gig'. In fact, I would suggest that there should be a performer's entrance fee limit of £1 million before they could perform at the event; all proceeds going to the victims of Ebola. If not they should keep away and the invitation list should be published to see who kept their cheque books closed.

            

            Since the 1984 gig, there have been many a multi-billion pound entrepreneur gifting parts or the whole of their wealth to various causes, both human and animal; unlike the fraternity of celebrities, who consider their time a sufficient contribution. Well, in 1984 this would have sufficed, as far as a more naive public were then concerned.  If they buy it this time round, they deserve to be treated with derision.

           CELEBRITIES love charity work; Jimmy Savile kept himself out of prison by building on his popularity (and power) through his charity work. The culture of celebrity, if it were taught as an academic subject at a university (after all, it is not so farfetched - they teach media studies after all)  would direct its students who wished to pursue celebrity status, to the importance of charity work…which costs nothing to them financially – but only their time.

            

           Charity is the celebrities great pay-off. But when entrepreneurs rich beyond their dreams give hundreds of millions in aid through their foundations to the suffering of the world; they do not do it for publicity. Bill Gates does not need the publicity. Microsoft does not need the publicity. People buy Microsoft 8.1 because either Microsoft or Apple Mac are intrinsic to their lives regarding the Web. Their lives are made easier by innovation; not charity work.

            

            Entrepreneurs, are not like celebrities whose agents tell them of the rewards that they can accrue through publicity. When you become a multi-billionaire (which very few, if any celebrities do), then using your time means little. The foundations set up by the likes of Bill Gates is genuinely trusted, free of cynicism; and making a life changing contribution to the suffering in the world. To such people the amount of their wealth that transcends the need for publicity.

            

            Billionaires do not need the publicity – they have it in buckets because of their financial status as GEO's in such companies like Microsoft, Apple Mac, Google, Twitter and Facebook, that they run. They do not need to tout for personal publicity in such a tawdry fashion as the celebrities.

THE 'EBOLA CONCERT', if this is what it is to be called, will no doubt prove successful; purely because of the media hype that will promote it. Bob Geldof will once more rise to the challenge, accompanied by Bono, and festooned with dozens of modern celebrities, which I at 64, have little knowledge of…or wish to garner knowledge of.

            

            This concert if it ever happens, will not, hopefully, go the way of Band Aid in terms of its global success. It deserves failure, if only because of the ignominy it will bring to the disease's victims. For far too long celebrities have courted popularity through self-promotion. It is  about time that they were disabused of this cheap-skate way of adding to their wealth. This concert needs to fail, and fail abysmally, to restore sincerity back into giving for charity by the simple method of dropping coins into a collection tin or writing out a cheque , whether lean or fat, and sending it to the charity of your choice - I will listen to Bill Gates on this subject,­ but not the likes of Geldof or Bono

                         

           

             

            

“Jean-Claude Juncker Needs to Go”

SO RAN THE HEADLINE on the Bloomberg newswire. The President of the European Commission has been accused of allowing some of the world's biggest corporations to indulge in tax avoidance schemes while prime minister of Luxembourg.

            
            According to Georgia Graham, the Daily Telegraph's political correspondent, President Junker allowed multinational companies: "…to create complicated structures to avoid billions of pounds of tax when he was Prime Minister of the country." Apparently there are thousands of documents in existence to substantiate Bloomberg's demand that this alcoholic federalist helped orchestrate these tax avoidance schemes. 

            
            For those who will now chorus that David Cameron is vindicated by his opposition to Junker's appointment, had better stop and think for a moment. If Ukip had not pressured Cameron and his party in the way it had, would Cameron have ever bothered to question Junker's appointment in the first place? His party is under threat from Ukip; his promise of a referendum in 2017 after negotiating EU reform… was due to Ukip. Everything he says about Europe from here on in is done with one eye turned toward the Ukip threat to his party.

            
             So let us salute Nigel Farage for stiffening Cameron's spine in the first place; and  using the rhetoric of the rightly Eurosceptic British public, in his opposition to Junker's undemocratic elevation to the presidency of the EU. A presidency that the European Parliament with its pitiful rubber stamping ordinance, approved this wretched dipsomaniac to parade on the world stage on Europe's behalf.

            
             But let us be fair to the EU president. He has his supporters in the UK, and within Cameron's own party. I bring you Kenneth Clarke, now once more divested of ministerial office and reduced to the mere status of an MP. But in his time he was the holder of many important offices of state from Education, to Chancellor of the Exchequer, and finally, to Justice Secretary under David Cameron. I am sure there were other offices, but I cannot take the trouble to look them up on Wikipedia.

               

             Clarke, by his own admission, never read the Lisbon Treaty as besotted as he is with the European Union. Being an infantile Europhile romantic, it is the mere idea that matters to him, and takes precedence over all criticism, as well as whatever the EU sees fit to impose upon his countrymen. So when it was announced that that Jean Claude Juncker was to be made president, Clarke stepped forward: “I am one of a handful of British politicians who knows Jean-Claude Juncker and has known him for many years." The great ci-devant continued in a similar haughty and pretentious fashion.“I am perfectly happy that he's president of the European Commission [memento sis homo] and, more to the point, my prime minister has rung him up and agreed to work with him." It was also Clarke, you may remember who was similarly unequivocal about his support for the euro – and I believe that he has even admitted to still wanting this country to join it eventually.

JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER was a president never ever fit for purpose – even of a chain of brothels. Farage even called him to his face a drunkard in the European parliament. But the Brussels bureaucrats, orchestrated by Germany and France, made sure that this reprobate became president of the EU. If only to cock a snoop at the anti-EU parties that had come to the fore within the European parliament after last May's European elections.

            Cameron was also part of the same EU rebuke, when they defiantly elevated this piss-artist to the throne of the European Union presidency. But once he was appointed, Junker, was immediately phoned by Cameron to be congratulated on his appointment. So before you consider Cameron the hero of the hour – think again.

            
            The feeble Clarke is an EU groupie who is blinded by his obsession; he kow-tows to all and sundry within the EU, and all it comes up with. He lacks any kind of objective judgement on the EU because he has none – he is besotted by the whole EU arrangement.

WE AWAIT CAMERON'S support for Junker's dismissal as EU president, considering his opposition to his appointment in the first place. Perhaps in the days to come when Junker's position becomes ever more untenable to be almost lost - even for the EU commissioners to support; Cameron may eventually decide to join in the call for his resignation. But he waits to see whether Junker can survive; and if he cannot he will spring forth to tell the people he was right all along – when in fact it was Ukip and Nigel Farage who were right all along; because  Farage spoke out long before Cameron did about this appointment in the bluntest of terms. Terms which Cameron refused to replicate.

            
           Cameron is a Europhile, in charge of a party whose many voters are not. He has been drawn into a position whereby he has to walk a tightrope between his party's Europhiles and its sceptics, many of whom have crossed over to Ukip. Every step he takes, including that of challenging  Jean-Claude Juncker, is based upon keeping as many Tory voters out of Ukip's pockets as possible. He has no sympathy for an anti-EU cause, because he himself believes in a pro-EU cause. Which leads to his disingenuousness when making promises about having an In/Out referendum after trying to reform the EU.

            Cameron's promises have never been worth the paper they are printed on. Cameron it was, that promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty…but only if it had not been signed up to by the time the Tory's came to power. All this promise represented was a wink and a nod to Gordon Brown to cross the Channel and sign up to it; which he eventually did before the 2010 general election.

            
           Jean-Claude Juncker does indeed need to go …but Jean-Claude Juncker should never have been appointed in the first place; this man knew it was his turn to become El-president; just another unelected insignificant eurocrat that usually qualifies for this role in an institution that is barren of democracy.

 

Ed Milliband; the purveyor of Marxism in the age of democracy

LET US ASSUME that it is the Friday after polling day next May, and Ed Milliband is walking into Number 10 with his arm round his wife squeezing her to him; after giving the traditional photo opportunity before the media; and as the door of Number 10 closes behind them; what can we expect from his administration? How different will it be from the previous Labour governments that sent the country into economic turmoil?

            

            Well, both the new prime minister and his chancellor were, as we know, part of that government. Indeed Ed Balls was Gordon Brown's number two and stood by in the treasury as his master set about ruining the country's finances – while Ed Miliband, on the other hand, owed his preferment to office to Gordon Brown after Brown became prime minister in June 2007.

           

             Brown (like Ed), was an instinctive spend, tax and borrow Old Labour, and Old Testament kind of socialist apostle[1]; who could see a fellow believer in the son of a Marxist intellectual whom, he no doubt felt, he could sharpen those socialist dull edges in him which his father died too soon to accomplish.

            

             So Ed Miliband's rise began. Under Gordon Brown's preferment , Ed rose swiftly in the government firmament. The very day after Brown became prime minister, Ed was sworn to the Privy Council, appointed to the Cabinet Office and became Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, thus being promoted to the Cabinet.

           

             In 2008, Ed Milliband was promoted to Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, after a Cabinet reshuffle. His rise now resembled that of his brother David's under Tony Blair; which leaves one to speculate on the possibility that Ed's advancement was not only ideologically driven. For Gordon Brown loathed Blair and the loathing spread virally to those he perceived as Blairites after he rose to the ultimate office of state. I can imagine a personality such as Gordon Brown's enjoying Ed's advance as much as Ed himself did - but for different reasons.

NOW, BACK TO A MILIBAND government; and the question of its nature which is meant to be the main purpose of this piece. There have been attempts by Miliband to apologise for the last Labour government's policies on such issues as immigration: "Labour got it wrong on immigration", he once opportuned. It was an important issue among many traditional Labour voters…yet no kind of apology has been forthcoming for the economic insanities that have led to this nation's financial deficit. After all, Labour were in power between 1997-2010; and as much as they would have liked to do, Labour cannot blame the Tories for their own reckless oversight of the economy.

            

            But, if we are to believe the newly focused Ed Miliband; the past has now adequately been apologised for[2] and that is that; the party has changed. It is now, as far as the Labour Party is concerned, represents a return to what the Cambodian dictator Pol-Pot described as Year Zero, when he seized control of his country with such a monstrous outcome. If Labour wins next May, it will become Labour's year zero, where its own disastrous philosophy will emulate its party's past .

            

            We are supposed to forget the mess the last Labour government left us in; and give them another chance, by eviscerating our collective memory of their inanities regarding immigration, and the national debt. Sorry is supposed to be enough, and we are supposed to be seduced by Labour's year zero appeal.

            

            The next Labour government, if it comes about, has given the British people no cast iron case that they have changed their ways. Indeed, a survey by ComRes for the BBC's Sunday Politics, and conducted among Labour candidates for the next general election, has uncovered the following percentages. Just 4% of the candidates thought the last Labour government spent too much money while 85% thought Gordon Brown's spending was just about right; and only one in twenty-five felt he had spent too much; while 85% thought unrestricted immigration was a good thing.

            

            These people, representing as they do the next compliment of Labour backbenchers if elected; should surely act as a warning to what can be expected from the next Labour government if they are elected once more to government. I would sooner see traditional Labour working class voters, vote for a chimpanzee with a red rosette than what the party has chosen as their candidates for the forthcoming general election.

IT IS TRULY incredible that, of the selected Labour candidates, only 4% thought the last Labour government spent extravagantly. What the result of this poll tells us is that the next Labour government will continue bankrupting this nation in the same old way, through finding creative ways of class-based taxation: e.g. mansion and wealth taxes.

            

            What the stats tell us is that this intellectual; whose scholarly capacity should be allowed sole jurisdiction over and beyond the shallow Mr Bean image; that his physical presence typifies among the press and much of the voting public; should be ignored.

           

             But why should this be the case? Being any kind of brilliant academic, does not mean any inbuilt stupidity has been erased as a consequence of intellectual prominence. And in Ed's case it seems to have been significant. In his case it is not the bacon sandwich incident; but his readiness to further the cause of socialism – that demonic perversion of a civilised society – that has acted as a toxin to further progress.

           

---

[1] After all, he was a son of the Manse.

[2] Or be it a selective apology on immigration.

At last! An Englishman speaks for the English

"The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied... If [the Scots] really do feel the English are so toxic for them, there is nothing left to say except: clear off, good riddance and tell us where to send the bill for more than 300 years of subsidy." Simon Heffer.

SINCE THE POLLS have narrowed to favour the Yes vote on Scottish independence, our politicians and commentators south of the boarder are becoming more and more alarmed with the prospect of Scotland going it alone. They have become stricken with the nail biting habit, caused through utter confusion; and gives one the impression of suffering en-mass from panic attacks (brown paper bags appear to be in plentiful supply to relive the symptoms). Talk of devo max, which gives Scotland independence in all but name, are now being shamefully used in one final desperate attempt to keep Scotland part of the Union.

           

             It is embarrassing to watch our nation's leaders plead on our behalf, when we never asked them to. I support the Union but would not humiliate myself or my people, were I a politician travelling north, as our contemporary 'Three Stooges' intend doing in one last supplication to the people of Scotland.

            

             I have always disliked the social democratic triumphret that now oversees this nation's destiny, long before Scottish independence became an issue – but I now despise them. The three mediocrities are about to shamefully promise the Scots devo max; the Danegeld of the  modern era.

            

            On the day when the saltier flies over Downing Street our three party leaders are taking themselves north, with as much contrition as their various attendees could persuade them into showing before the Scottish people.

 SIMON HEFFER is a much needed counter- weight to the establishment, who is prepared to do whatever is needed to keep the Union safe. He writes with the same passion and anger many English people feel, but are without representation within the media when it comes to Scottish independence, and are without a voice as Heffer himself points out in his Daily Mail piece.

            

           When earlier in this campaign, the No vote were some 20 points ahead, the establishment carried on as usual. Complacency set in (as is often the case among various entrenched establishments at national, local or even club level). Our leaders attended to their summer holidays without any thought for the Union; the preservation of which, they believed was already safely in the bag.

            

            I will agree with the Scottish Yes voters on one thing; the heads of the London based political class, which has Cameron, Milliband, and (oh dear) Clegg at their head, are to be despised as they are throughout much of England, which is why Ukip are slowly making their advance into more and more English constituencies. More and more of the English people are becoming ever more dissatisfied (like the Scots) with our Metropolitan elite hunkered down and cut off from the rest of the country in London.

            

            The time may have now come for Scotland to go it alone, and as a result, the time has come for the English establishment, from the monarchy down, to accept their fate. Even if Wales and Northern Ireland chose to follow suit in the years to come; we in England must adapt and not lose our confidence; for it would prove fatal to our nation and its unconquerable history.

            

            We as an English people must never go begging cap in hand to cling to any form of alliance, however many centuries it has been in existence. If it is meant to be, then let it go; forget about it: it is the past; it has been written that the past is a foreign country - they do things differently there.

WE MUST ALWAYS welcome the best from Scotland to south of the border if they wish to come. But If they need a passport, visa, and work permit to do so, then it will be the fault of the architect of Scottish independence, and not the English for once, who are to blame.

            

             The English taxpayer, as Simon Heffer has pointed out, has bent over backwards to keep the Union solvent. According to Heffer, who has sourced his figures from the Treasury; Scotland currently receives £17.6 billion a year in subsides from the English exchequer.

            

             Working on the assumption that this figure is correct; then Scotland needs us more than we need them. Just think what such an amount would do over time to our English deficit as well as what it can provide for our nation's defences and our boarder controls. And what if we were to abandoned our Ministry for Overseas Aid, which costs us a further £10 billion a year? We, the English must look to ourselves, and as far as overseas aid is concerned, act upon an ad hock basis whereby taxpayers money should only be forthcoming when natural disasters occur.

            

            If the UK is to be splintered off without any power to prevent it by the English; then England will stand alone, prosperous in the knowledge that, as a nation firmly believing in the kind of fully functioning free market economy with  minimal state interference, that history has long since proven to be the only means to bring prosperity to a nation; then let us go it alone.

            

            Let, if she wishes, Scotland determine her own destiny. Simon Heffer is right: "Now that humiliation appears less certain, and the arrogant dishonesty is so overwhelming, it is time to tell him[Salmond] what some of us [English] really think." There now follows an extended quote from Heffer's piece in today's Daily Mail which we are informed the Mail is in disagreement with: "The sight of English politicians — and Scottish Unionist ones — bending over backwards to encourage the Scots to stay in the UK is as pitiful as it is outrageous. And it has inevitably proven counter-productive.

            The Scots absurdly misrepresent us as oppressors and leeches who have taken ‘their’ oil money since the 1970s, when the opposite is largely true.

Scotland has boomed under the Union, Scots have thrived in the land of opportunity that is England, and much of the North Sea’s oil was extracted only because of English investment."

             

            Scotland must either remain part of the union or divest itself from it. I, as an Englishman, is fed up with Scotland's perpetual rebuke to us south of the boarder. Let them go it alone; let them survive in accordance with their whish for independence. I am fed up, as an Englishman, having to bow-down to the needs of the Scots who hate us English in any event, whether they remain part of the Union or not.