The war against the Muslim world must become an accepted fact.

EGYPT ARE CARRYING out bombing raids on northern Libya after the IS beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. The IS are expanding and recruiting as it advances toward its intended Islamist Caliphate. IS moved from Syria into Iraq, and now into Libya - at the same time  young Muslims are rallying to its cause throughout Europe; and Sunni Muslims are protecting IS in those areas under its authority (such Sunni civilians are not as innocent as the West would like its own citizens to believe - or wishfully think themselves into believing).

                

               Anyone with a nose for history must know at the very least, that something big is now afoot - even if the fog is yet to lift on what is actually occurring. We can however be forgiven for speculating. Those with a knowledge of the Crusades between 1095-1291; as well as the 16^th century European invasion by the Ottoman Turks under Suleiman, should be able to see a pattern emerging; if not in kind, then in ambition. IS has a mutual liking for their predecessors medieval forms of torture and blood-lust – now – here in  21^st century, IS uses beheading in the name of the Prophet – a form of execution that even the UK and France have long since done away with – which must say something.

                

               Yesterday 2,000 'Libyans' who had departed North Africa for our European shores made the comparatively short crossing of the Mediterranean. They were picked up by Italian coastguards and transported to safety in Italy. Such arrivals are threatening to swamp Europe: and how many among them may turn out to be IS sympathises planted to enact an atrocity in Europe? Sooner or later Italy will call for an amnesty, (if only because their sacrifices are not being taken seriously by the EU) which will give such arrivals under EU law automatic entry into every part of the European Union including of course the UK.

                

               We have in Europe a population of 15 million Muslims (Suleiman would have rejoiced at such a quantity before he attempted his assault on Europe). Two point five million of whom we have living among us in the UK. So let us look at the broader picture. IS are ruthless and capable of such a ruthlessness that terrifies Western politicians who want only to be popular and win elections; but also have to cater for ever larger Muslim constituents if they wish to succeed to political office.

WHAT DOES SUCH A  perspective conjure up? Very little it seems for our political class who prefer the nurturing approach toward Islam within a multicultural society. Islam is a genuine threat to the West. A threat the West sees only as an 'Islamist' threat. Meaning that in the UK and within European Islam, it is considered 99% on board with the UK and the West generally.               

                

                There is a decumbent mantra presented to us by our politicians and the Western media after a terrorist attack by members of the Muslim community that insists always that; 'The vast majority of Muslims living among us are peaceful and law abiding citizens'. This is the tune played out on such occasions, by our politicians who wish to pacify the white indigenous population whenever Islamists strike.

                It is all about the changing demographics. Muslim communities are reproducing, in percentage terms,  at a far higher rate of reproduction than are the indigenous white population comparatively speaking. This factor will eventually hand additional political power to the Islamic community within the cities of the UK where they are maximised – and give them a greater persuasive power on the political (in particularly Labour) parties that will eventually demand sharia law to sit beside English law, with the hope of one day replacing it – at least within their populated areas.

                And our politicians who wish to advance up the political mountain to greatness will  accommodate such an ambition, even if meant English law being replaced by religious law in many heavily populated areas of the country occupied by Muslims - so the problem is not only external but internal.

BUT GETTING BACK to the external nature of the IS threat: today's Daily Telegraph (18^th February) has the following headline on its web edition; " Islamic State 'planning to use Libya as gateway to Europe'".  According to the report the IS jihadists are using northern Libya as a possible entry point into Europe. Thousands of Muslims have made their way across the Mediterranean, in the full knowledge that if they make it to an Italian shore; they are virtually free to enter any other part of EU.

 

                Any generation other than the modern one would have turned such people away and returned them to North Africa. Modern Islam bears nothing but ill-will toward the West; yet the West does nothing to assail such an attitude; rather it seeks to appease it. The West is like ancient Troy, and the Muslim population that has been sieved  over decades to become citizens within Western culture, is the wooden horse that will eventually unleash Powell's river of blood.

 

                It is only the West's weakness that makes IS so powerful; just the same weakness has allowed 15 million Muslims to come and live among us in Europe through the guilt of empire torturing the minds of all European liberals; with little thought given to the social consequences on the indigenous cultures that have never been given any kind of consideration on whether such other cultures should be welcomed.

 

                Multiculturalism never faced any kind of public support through the ballot box at a general election; or through a referendum. Our political classes throughout Europe took it upon themselves to invite other cultures among the indigenous ones - and if the political classes were opposed? Well, then the clarion call of racism was heralded by liberal Europe to all those who resisted their intensions. So all opposition to Multiculturalism carried the black spot of racism.

 

EUROPE FACES an internal and external threat (a two-pronged attack that should never have been allowed to happen) from the Muslim world. Islam is a proselytising religion; but one which does not stop at recruitment through persuasion, but also through coercion and terrorism; and in extremis medieval barbarism - as we have seen practiced by IS. But before you think that IS is a kind of Frankensteinian creation unrepresentative of Islam. Then think back to 9/11 and al-Queada, believed to be behind the Twin Tower attacks in New York where 3,000 people died.

 

                We are at war with Islam because Islam is at war with us – we never threw down any gauntlet. But It has become a war the West must win if its values are to survive intact – values which Islam despises, even among those who the politicians and the media tells us are perfectly safe and supportive of democracy. Islam is a fossilised faith; attached to barbarism, and unable to comprehend (even in the 21^st century) any kind of rationality in their thinking; blinded as they are by their religious faith.

 

                The Christian faith was once no better in terms of torture and cruelty hundreds of years ago. But I place my emphasis on once. Today the Christian church has retreated to the other extreme within (especially, but not exclusively) Europe. Today the modern Christian Church, whether Catholic (under today's Pope) or Protestant have become as liberal as the continents politicians; and supports multi-faithism throughout the continent.

 

ISLAM IS THE MODERN THREAT to the West; and the longer we chose not accept it through a kind of liberal dementia, then the harder it will be to save democracy. Modern Islam gets its strength through liberal tolerance with its Western guilt built in – Islam preys upon such liberal weakness of the type that refuse to bomb Islamists if they use civilians as human shields

 

                I fear that (not thankfully in my life-time - I am soon to be 65) the Muslim world will take full advantage of the liberal nature of modern Europe's political class to subvert democracy (both internally and externally) and once more set its sights on the conquest of Europe. It will be, I regret, far more easily achievable than in the past because modern Europe lacks the same kind of ruthlessness it appreciated in the past to keep the Muslim advance at bay both externally and internally – the liberalism that plagues modern Europe may prove to be the nail in the coffin of European democracy – liberalism will bring about the death of tolerance it represents; because of liberalism and its adherence to any and all forms of tolerance ; it will eventually lead to its destruction.

 

               

               

 

               

               

A price that had to be paid because it was one demanded of us by the Nazis – no apology needed

JUSTIN WELBY, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has apologised for the bombing of Dresden on this its  70^th anniversary. Why he felt he had to do so I do not know; but it fits neatly into the Anglican Zeitgeist of liberal guilt that now grips the church's liberal ethos and makes the  Church of England  ever more irrelevant.

                

                The Archbishop could have just found words of sympathy for the civilian deaths without handing Bomber Command the black spot of an apology, when those pilots who flew those Wellington's and Lancaster's lost 57,000 of their own in helping to destroy Hitler's Germany. 

                'Bomber' Harris,  head of Bomber Command, retired ignominiously to South Africa after the war and Bomber Command was never given a campaign medal to honour its work; unlike every other service in the war.

                

                 Instead, those in power who were delighted to support Bomber Command's efforts during the war's duration, suddenly found themselves pinching and turning up their collective noses after the war; as if they had been present at a dinner party where the release of a particularly smelly fart had caused much embarrassment among these synthetic social arbitrators of moral standards.

                

                  'Bomber' Harris went ignored. The establishment feared (rightly so, as it now turns out) that history would in time, see allied bombings as war crimes. This fear has been given credence by Welby's apology to the German people. What I cannot understand is, on whose behalf he thought he was speaking?

                

                  In the next decade or so, I predict, 'Bomber' Harris will be up there with Himmler and the whole regiment of Nazi war criminals: it would of course be a mockery of the truth. Harris believed that Nazi Germany could be brought down by bombing its cities. It may have been a presumption; but one which worked in the interest of the allies at the time

                 

                 The Nazis  during their blitzkrieg throughout Europe, killed thousands upon thousands of civilians. The Nazis were never regretful, but insisted upon such bombings, to wear down the civilian populations of the countries they invaded, engendering fear and bringing a quick victory,  and it worked throughout much of Europe during Nazi Germany's Blitzkrieg years before the UK entered the war.

                

                  I fear that, in the future, our broad-minded, free-thinking, tolerant, and  noninterventionist liberal hegemony will bow to German resentment of what happened to them; and like Welby; some future British prime minister will also apologise for what will be seen by them as a British and American war crime within Europe – such a liberal preferment will indeed come to pass; especially within the EU, which has a mutual dislike for perfidious Albion and the USA..

THE BOMBING RAIDS on German cities like Dresden, had to be done. It mattered little whether all such raids were meant to bring about a quick end to the war or not. The German people and their leaders had to face their punishment for what their leader Adolf Hitler had unleashed on their behalf – a supportive behalf remember by millions of German citizens – even at the end.

                

                I remain 64 years old until the tenth of next month. In my 64 years  I have seen the civilian killings from that Dresden raid reduced from 150,000 to 100,00, then to 50,000 –  and now the latest total disclosed by the BBC is 25,000.

                

                 Ask many of those surviving citizens of the Dresden raid in 1945 who they blame. They, unlike our modern liberals, do not blame Harris, the British or the Americans for what brought about their city's devastation. They blame Hitler for their plight at the time.

                

                I once oversaw (I think, but am not certain, that the channel was Movies for Men)  a documentary on the Second World War which incorporated the bombing of Dresden. A Jewish resident of a labour camp transported to a factory just outside of Dresden to help manufacture munitions, was a witness to the Dresden bombing on that night in 1945.

                

                He described how he jumped up and down, and cheered the allies on as the sky over Dresden lit up and burnt the city to a pulp. He cared little for the German citizens, either young or old. As a Jew, he cheered the allies on. As a Jew he knew what suffering under the Nazis meant, and any death the allies inflicted during this or any other raid bared little resemblance to what the Jews suffered in the labour and concentration camps during the Holocaust.

               

                Ask any Jew whether they think 'bomber' Harris was a war criminal in what he unleashed on Nazi Germany. He was not, and can never be seriously considered to be, unless, that is, there is political agenda in operation – not even the post-war German people would blame Arthur Harris for what happened over the skies of Nazi Germany.

               

                Nazism brought everything that happened to their people upon itself. And as for the 25,000 German citizens consumed by the allied bombing over Dresden. Then a price must be paid for the victory of freedom over either a Nazi or Communist dictatorship – and the price will always have to be counted in human lives, because ruthless dictatorships such as those engineered by Hitler and Stalin will always use their citizens as pawns.

AIR MARSHALL ARTHUR 'BOMBER' HARRIS met like with like; and this attitude did not turn the UK into a nation of Nazis following the war – we did not become like them. Because such strategies for the defeat of Nazism were not formulated from a dictatorial perspective, but from one which sought to end (by 1945) the persecution of the Jews by Nazism. The Nazis were to be defeated at all cost including the bombing of German cities. The Germans, like the European people they held in captivity, were made to pay a price for their captivity.

                

                The price was dear indeed. But it was the price they had to pay. The allies demanded such a cost from those who served within the Western coalition against Germany; and the cost for the Nazis was the demolition of the city of Dresden in 1945. The activities of the Nazis, and their attitude toward those they considered their enemies wherever they came in contact with them, was merciless, pitiful, and wholly contemptible: and the allies response must have had to be equally brusque.

               

                 Today Europe is ripe for plucking, and any determined dictator (probably from the East) could sweep westward and meet with little resistance from modern Europe: a Europe who has yet again come to rely upon America for 70% of its NATO defence – and the Europeans do not even like the Americans.     

               

Hammond knows nothing of Russia and its history

THE FOREIGN SECRETARY Philip Hammond has expressed the view that the Russian President Vladimir Putin is behaving like a "mid 20^th century tyrant" over the Ukraine. While the German Chancellor Angela Merkle and the French president Hollande have paid a visit to Kiev for talks with the Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, in order to help secure a peace deal with Putin. The duo then proceeded to Moscow for talks with Putin; before finally returning to Germany for a conference -  on the other hand America is considering arming the Ukrainians.

                What this tells me is that the Merkle/ Hollande travelling circus has persuaded Putin that the EU, at least, has finally blinked. The Americans however are not very happy with the Merkle and Hollande approaches towards Kiev and Putin: and Merkle is now on her way to Washington to consult with Obama (perhaps the weakest American president since Carter) whom she hopes to convince that a compromise (in Euro- speak, a synonym for fudge)  is possible. One, no doubt, that will, at the very least, leave the Crimea in Putin's hands.

                The one thing both Merkle and Putin are in agreement with, is that President Obama is like a ball of plasticine – easily moulded to whatever shape you wish to mould it to. Both Russia and the West, including Republican America have little faith in the stringency of Obama's backbone; and no doubt Merkle goes to America with this same observation in the hope that she can compromise with Putin and persuade Obama to put off arming the Ukrainians.

                Obama cuts a pitiful figure. His red lines have been tested and his bluff called. Now he is being treated, even by America's so-called allies, as a weak and easily manipulated president. A president who (like all politicians) seek for himself a place in history. Obama now cares only for one thing from his presidency; that history will give him a favourable report as the first black American president. Every pitiful decision he has taken in foreign affairs has been taken based upon his own place in American history.

THIS WHOLE UKRAINIAN business began when the European Union (EU) decided to make additions to its social democratic empire by making approaches to Ukraine to become part of it. The EU made overtures for the Ukraine to develop into a full member of the EU, thus, providing it with another addition to its empire. The Ukrainians could not have proven more eager. Their economy was battered and down trodden by decades exposed to the Soviet hegemony over their lives; and they were eager to become, so to speak, a barnacle attached to the EU hull at any cost - well the cost is becoming  greater and more bloody as the weeks and months unfold.

                However, the EU still presses on with its almost Napoleonic ambition. They are the future and nothing can stand in the way of a  United States of Europe. The EU, with their customary arrogance, supposed that Russia would shrug its shoulders when they saw the Ukraine becoming part of their empire. Well perhaps any Russian leader other than Putin, would have indifferently shrugged it off - but not Putin.

                Putin is a typical Russian nationalist, but with the charisma, strength, and the power he is willing to use. Mother Russia is his standard bearer, along with the support of the Russian people. Russian nationalism under Putin will not be intimidated by Western economic sanctions. The Russian people have a long history of tradition and sacrifice on behalf of the motherland. Nothing the West can do through economic sanctions will turn the Russian people against Putin. Even if, as the West hopes, Russia's oligarchies will disengage themselves from him; it will not happen because in the likely event that the West will cave in; the oligarchs will be far richer: and a cave-in seems ever more likely with the fraught behaviour of Merkle and Hollande; as well as the recumbent nature of our American president.

THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY Phillip Hammond has the temerity to accuse Putin of being a 20^th century tyrant. But what of the EU who remain intent upon what can be likened to their Napoleonic advance throughout Europe? He has nothing to say about the EU's attempt to draw into their European Empire the Ukraine. Putin is indeed a monster, but no more so than have often been found throughout Russian history before, during, and now after the demise of the Soviet Union.

                

               At least the Russian people voted for Putin. But who voted for the European Commission that now holds onto the reins of power within the EU? The great unelected who have, first of all, managed to almost ruin the economies of the Southern European nations through the idiocy of promoting a single currency without the political foundations to make it successful. They then make an enemy of Moscow and impose sanctions on the country. This causes a  response which is having, if not an equitable effect, has certainly, at a time when a dim light was perceived at the end of the tunnel for the European wide recession, caused problems for the German economy which has a heavy dependence on Russia for her trade – which is why of course Merkle, whose country drives the European economy, wishes to seek a compromise with Putin.

                

                 Putin holds all the cards; and name-calling by Phillip Hammond only goes to show how weak Europe is in its response to the events unfolding in the Ukraine. Russia and its people will hold out against all economic threats. The Russian people are not like those in the West who would be driven to tears by any shortage of petrol, food, makeup, or the latest technological gadget.

                

                 The Russians have historically been used to rationing in all its cruel and many forms, and they have put up with it - first under Lenin and Stalin; then under the Nazi threat. Russian nationalism (which was always far more engrained in the Russian character than Communist ideology) responds well to the kind of threat the West have made by imposing economic sanctions. When it comes to their country the Russians are a bloody-minded lot; and such bloody mindedness escapes the comprehension of the effete and decadent West.

               

                 Putin holds all the cards. Economic sanctions will only strengthen his popularity. Russian people have always lived (economically speaking) on the brink; and it will be the West that blinks first when it comes to the Ukraine.

               

The Socialist entrapment

THERE IS A FARE chance that with the help of the SNP, the Labour Party will have enough support to govern the country come next May's general election if the polls remain consistent over the next two months. Both the SNP and Labour will be ideologically coupled. Both Salmond and Milliband will promote socialism when and if they are given the opportunity to work together in government.

                

                 So socialism, not for the first time in the West's political history, could be about to rear its ugly and disfigured ideology once more. Tony  Blair sought to tame if not slay the beast that almost bowed this country toward third world status in the 1970s. There has never been a more pernicious political ideology than socialism: it has failed in the cruellest experiment in social engineering that has ever taken place within society.

                

                 Wherever it has been tried it has singularly failed at great human and economic cost to the country that has tested it, either through revolution or occupancy (as in Eastern Europe after World War Two). From its early 'achievement' in Russia, it quickly turned into a kind Frankensteinian[1] monster that brought only suffering to its people: suffering on a majestic, multi-million death scale;  only matched in its brutality by the Nazis.

                

                There is an excuse for someone who, for the first time deliberately bangs his or her head against a brick wall and seeks to avoid such stupidity in the future – a lesson would have been learnt; however asinine  the act was to begin with. As long as such individuals learns from their experience they will have improved their awareness of one of the stupidities of life.

               

                 But with socialism it seems we never learn – especially angry and idealistic young men and women; as well as those who cling on to their idyllic vision well into middle age - who then pass on their ideology like a virus  down through the generations via our educational establishment. Our schools and universities, under the premise of a  liberal education which indoctrinates on behalf of a Left-Wing liberal 'progressive' agenda for the country.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE  attractiveness of socialism, for I once believed in it myself. But it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The sheep's clothing is the credo of Socialism – equality = collectivism, and the supremacy of the state. Human beings are not equal, we all have different abilities, both physically and intellectually. We are individuals first and foremost, and by definition we are each different from the other.

                

                 Freedom allows individual talents to prosper without any kind of state constriction on what is or what is not allowed to be spoken of. Freedom allows individuals to prosper- to attain wealth as reward; for instance for inventing the computer, and all kinds of software, and the social media which, it seems we are becoming more and more dependent upon – socialism could never have discovered or even manufactured such technology as the social media (partly because under such a system of socialism, the autocracy of state power would never have allowed it). Socialism would have been, for instance, the drag anchor on technological progress.

YET SOCIALISM IS STILL BELIEVED IN. Particularly by Ed Milliband, who no doubt serves as an example of a type of Oedipus complex; but targeted more toward the father than the mother.  

                

                Ed is a senior sibling  who, it seems, could not bear the elevation of his younger brother David to the leadership of the Labour Party in his place – daddy would not have approved. So he placated the unions in order to  become leader of the Labour Party in his brother's place. It was a soiled and grubby gesture, but one which has proved successful; and considering Ed's attachment to his parents, one which they would no doubt be proud of –  this, no doubt, is what Ed thinks and aided him in his decision to undermine his brother.

               

                Ed  sees himself as his parents only Marxist hope for the UK. Ed is determined to hold the banner of Marxism that his father once held and carried to his grave beside Karl Marx in Highgate cemetery.

                

                 He has personal issues which have nothing to do with the governance of a country, but more to do with his relationship with not only his father Ralph, but his brother David. David, on the other hand, had no such personnel issues, being the spare to the heir - so to speak. But he did deserve the support his party and parliament gave him. But it was not enough.

                

                 The Labour Party had after all introduced the electoral college comprising three constituents -  the  MPs,  the membership,  and the unions. The membership had voted for David Milliband, as had the MPs. It was the Union block vote that heralded Ed's success. It was the anti-democratic face of the trade unions that promoted Ed Milliband: and come any victory next May these unions will hold Ed to account.

THE ENTRAPMENT OF SOCIALISM, has fed itself into the psyche of our youth and has done so since the 1960s. From the age of 16 (1966) I was fascinated by the romance of revolution – which is why today I cannot be too hard on those young British Muslims who take themselves off to the Middle East to become jihadists under the adoption of IS.

                

                To me capitalism was cruelty personified (in my terms, personified by the dark satanic mills of the 19^th century). I joined the Labour Party, but it was not radical enough; I then joined the Communist Party of Great Britain – once again not radical enough; in fact socially it was more conservative than the Conservatives.

                

                In the end I found myself attracted to the Socialist Workers Party, but I never joined. But throughout all of this up until the last election, I voted Labour- but never again!

                

                Socialism can only boast of failure wherever it is applied.  Having done more harm than the little good the Labour Party achieved with the foundation of NHS; this minor jewel set within a gold plated band to be worn and handed down by generations of Labour politicians to remind the public that the NHS is only safe in their hands. The NHS is all that Labour has had to offer the country before and after Clause V was silenced by Tony Blair.

               

                Socialism took a firm grip upon naiveté; that most fundamental trait in human nature (especially among the young) which clouds the brain with idealism and make matters far worse than they were.

SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY has wrought much misery in its wake. Rather than tolerating the continued impact of human nature on society; our nature is still deemed to be reformable by socialists who failed in every attempt to reform it at great cost in human lives – yet the voodoo magic still persists and will no doubt continue until ever more victims are to be accounted for by history.

               

                Socialism is the curse upon human technological development. The trail of misery and failure accompanies its application wherever it is tested. Never was there a more seductive but cruel political ideology ever to come among us, than Socialism.

                

                 Humans are not born equal - it is true. But the opportunities must be equal. Equal opportunity to advance educationally from whatever background from which you emerge  should be the one and only equality – THE END.

               

---

[1] In this case the part of Dr Frankenstein was to be played by Karl Marx.

Dear God no! Ed Milliband may actually become prime minister.

IT IS NO LONGER ANY use Labour pretending they are business friendly – they are not. The wrong Milliband is in charge; and he is haunted by the presence of his father Ralf every time he closes his eyes at night. He is determined to bring back those dark dank years of the 1970's when the Labour Party set about turning this nation into what they would consider a socialist utopia; but ended up steering it toward third world status.

                 

                Ed is his father's chosen son, as Ed sees it; a blue ribboned Marxist born to turn back the tide of history, and once more imperil ambition, freedom of choice and the market economy that has benefited civilisation by innovation of all sorts; whether in philosophy, medicine, the arts or science, through free market capitalism.

                

                 Ed's brother David would have been the right choice for Labour; but as we now know the unions thought differently and so the party is left with a multi-cobwebbed Mr Havisham Marxist at the helm of the Labour Party, who still clings on to the beliefs of his father's generation. Beliefs that we are all idealistic at heart and readily succumb to Marxist egalitarian nostrums that predict, under Communism, the final stage of humanity leading to human perfection – an egalitarian stateless society where selfish human nature is transformed into a utopian paradise where mankind can live in  eternal peace and happiness free from competition and living collectively. This almost bucolic utopia is unattainable. It dehumanises humanity and will not succeed because of what we are.

               

                Humans have survived the past 250,000 years or so, because of their nature. Human nature is our blue print for survival and whether political ideology or religious faith tries to suffocate it, and try to perfect a new kind of human born from any kind of intellectual philosophy or political ideology… it will not work.

                

                It was proved during the age of Marxism in Eastern Europe in the 20^th century, and any other part of the world where socialism tried to take root. Marxism died a death the minute it seized control of Russia in 1917; and its follies against human nature have attended its demise ever since - wherever it sought to bloom in any part of the world.

                

                Immediately human nature seized control in the form of Bolshevism in opposition to the persecution of the Romanov's: from then on the Marxist experiment failed the test of human nature. Human nature is ambitious as well as sympathetic. Humans want to attain success, not only for themselves, but for their families. Therefore determination and go-getting are all part of human nature. Humans want advancement; they want a better future for themselves and their families; and capitalism gives them the opportunity; while under social democracy the state lets them sit on their arses earning more in some benefits than many who are working to pay for them are receiving in wages.

                

                Humans are by nature creative, and it is only through the free market that such creative talent can help the progress of humanity in every field of human endeavour; whether through politics, economics, science, literature, or the fine arts. Only the free market capitalism can lay claim to such freedom.

COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM are the adversaries of human nature, as was once Nazism. They all seek to try and perfect human nature into a mould they find agreeable only to their own prejudicial ideologies, that have, during the course of 20^th century history, resulted in many hundreds of millions of deaths, far more, in fact, than capitalism has managed to accrue.

                

                Today's Labour Party under the leadership of Ed Milliband, seeks to replicate such a disaster once more. Communism, Socialism, Nazism; all are creeds which in one way or another seeks to either persecute the wealthy or minorities such as Jews and gypsies. Both political extremes are unacceptable within a democracy. But they cannot be outlawed; they have every right to present their manifestos to the people, and it is up to them through the ballot box to persuade the people.

ED MILLIBAND, it seems, remains loyal to his father and mother's Marxist blue print for the UK. The Milliband family exiled themselves to the UK; a deeply small 'c' conservative country; but immediately  sought to impregnate the Marxist virus into, first of all, our educational establishment and then throughout the UK through passing down the socialist message to our teachers.

                

                The Miliband's were as much of an enemy to the UK as was Oswald Mosley. But at least te wretched Mosley was a UK citizen. I found Ralf Miliband's pursuit of the Marxist construct for the UK deeply offensive in later life. I say this because in my earlier life I was attracted to his pose as a young intellectual man of the Marxist Left and  idealistically driven by Karl himself. However the Soviet Union proved how a Marxist utopian vision very quickly translates into a dystopian one.

               

                Socialism and Communism have proved themselves dangerous; and if they ever attain power once more they will only replicate their history once more. Socialism, Communism, and Nazism; the ideological triplets that set the 20^th century ablaze in terms of human suffering are still supported to this day. It seems we never learn, but only replicate our past mistakes at an even greater cost to humanity – my advice; vote for any party rather than Labour in this May's coming general election.

               

                

Nature unbound

“…we know already that even fiddling with the mitochondria may make a massive difference to what happens to the nuclear DNA.  It’s still not clear.  And it’s worth bearing in mind that abnormal children have been born as a result of mitochondrial transfer. This has been completely unpredictable.”’ Lord Winston.

PARLIAMENT HAS DECIDED TO allow the three-parent HIV process to go ahead. We are the only country so far to allow such a development and once more  another advancement in medical science has brought with it great moral challenges for society that should have been debated thoroughly before being allowed to proceed. Such a debate has by-passed 80% of the population. If we carried  out a vox-pop of ordinary people in any street in any city, town, or village; nine out of ten would not know of, let alone understand the three-parent process. I myself only understood it recently, and it disturbs me greatly .

                

                As I understand it, it  involves replacing the mitochondria of a mutated form with the 'healthy' mitochondria from a donor -  the third person in the scenario.

                

                Mitochondria is found in all human cells and is only inherited from the mother. It is the chemical power house of the human cell and a mutant form can seriously harm and bring about the early deaths for those who inherit the flawed DNA of such mitochondria.

                

                What the three-parent procedure does is remove the nucleus from a cell containing the mutated mitochondria, and, via a third person, insert this nucleus into a cell containing healthy mitochondria from the  donor (the third parent), by removing its nucleus and replacing it with the nucleus from the mutated mitochondria. This procedure of course is done during the very early stage of a forming embryo.

                

                This replacement will then hopefully allow the birth of a healthy child who will then lead a normal life, and pass down through its germ line this genetic fix, for want of a better word. The perfect solution in fact to one of nature's many imperfections. But man is as equally imperfect as nature and no consideration has been given to this fact.

                

                All the various genetic changes we will be competent to make in  the future for the right and proper reasons will sooner or later result in unintended consequences – I do not see as many do, geneticists (or scientists generally) as Frankensteinian. Their immediate solutions may temporarily solve the immediate needs of the inherited forms of suffering shown on the media. There will always be good reason for such genetic alchemy, but what will the long term effects for humanity be?

                 

                When you alter the germ line, as will happen with third-parent gene therapy you open up a new genetic stream with the same genetic propensity to mutate. At the very least it will conjure up new problems – and possibly new inherited diseases over time directly attributed to such therapy.

GENETICISTS  RIGHTLY concentrate upon ways of combating the many inherited diseases that mankind faces. The whole of genetics and of medicine is rightly focused on this; and therefore immediacy rather than the long term is their primary focus.

                

                 The technicalities of all forms of genetic modification is driven by human suffering; which of course is no bad thing. But what of the history of genes and their multi-billion possible adaptations over time that produced homo-sapiens and modern man?

                

                 This same process will be orchestrated by human attempts at genetic modification. The third-parent development is another attempt at overcoming the cruelties of nature. But any so-called genetic solution will only add to the appearance over time of further genetic diseases attributable to such procedures – evolution remains unconquerable by science.

SCIENCE BRINGS SOLUTIONS, but society must be the final arbiter of any new procedure that creates a moral dilemma for humanity. For instance, this latest innovation could lead somewhere down the line to designer babies, where mere fashion replaces inherited diseases and medical need. We are governed by our genes. The gene is the unit of selection according to Richard Dawkins; and we now know that genetic engineering (or to use the more comfortable phrase 'gene therapy') can be used to alter human characteristics as well as dispose of inherited diseases.

                

                We humans are narcissistic by nature. We care about the shape of our bodies, all inherited: we want to be beautiful, have the (fashionably speaking) right colour eyes, hair, and the right shaped nose, and if we cannot advance these desires for ourselves, then we will do it through our embryonic children. In the future any minor inherited imperfections treatable by gene therapy will make a fool of science and its one intended purpose of eliminating life-threatening genetic diseases.

                

                Parents will seek for their embryonic offspring the physical ideal they have for themselves whether a girl or boy, from gender to minor traits that they feel are out of fashion and belief they themselves have been 'cursed' with.

I HAVE AN INHERITED CONDITION that might be eliminated through a third parent genetic procedure; but it leaves a nasty taste. For me two parents are quite sufficient and have stood the test of many a millennia.

                

Genes are the blue print of our existence. The vast majority of mutations that occur benefit mankind; indeed have created mankind. Mutations are the stuff of evolution usually forced by adaptation. Today the popular media sees mutated genes as somehow life threatening, but they have often been our saviours.

                

                In parts of East Africa a genetic adaptation has resulted in delivering protection against malaria (we see the same process with Ebola in West Africa were some remain immune to the disease). But it also proves that mutations are, like many humans, not very good strategists. For the malaria mutation to be successful it has to be inherited by from just one parent.

                

                If both parents pass the same mutated gene on to their child then cycle cell anaemia  is almost guaranteed, and is quite common among  Afro- Caribbean's. Cycle cell anaemia is a very painful condition. Cycle cell refers to the red blood cells which carry oxygen throughout the body and into the brain. Healthy red blood cells should abound. The cycle cell ones however, are as the name suggests, shaped in the form cycle, thus limiting the amount of oxygen being transported throughout the body, thus causing cycle cell anaemia. 

               

               

                 

               

                 

The art of the sniper

IN TODAY'S SUN, they report the kill rate by a British sniper that is  higher  than that of the American  navy SEAL Bradley Cooper, whose story has just been made into the film, American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood. Cooper made 160 confirmed kills; while the Sun claims that a nameless British Royal Marine had 173 confirmed kills (including 90 in one day).

                

                American Sniper has proven a phenomenal success at the box office; but has been criticised by Hollywood liberals including Michael Moore, whose uncle was sadly killed by a Japanese sniper. I have sympathy for Moore; my father fought and survived the war in Burma against the same enemy as Moore's uncle. Those who fought in the jungles of Burma against the Japanese where perhaps better acquainted with the snipers art than those on many other war fronts (apart from Stalingrad). In fact it was not uncommon for the British to deploy a tank to dislodge and kill a Japanese snipers who tied themselves in position within the foliage of a tree.

                

                That Michael Moore's uncle and his comrades thought that the  sniper merited being described as a  coward is perfectly understandable. They lay in wait unseen ready to kill whoever drifted into their cross-hairs. Even snipers who were fighting for the allies were regarded as cowards by their supposed comrades.

                

                The age of chivalry died with the discovery (and its practical use in warfare) of gunpowder. In ancient and medieval times, the knights regarded the archer in the same way as Mr Moore's uncle and his thousands of  comrades regarded the sniper. Then archers were seen as dastardly recreants by all sides: but all sides used them. The archer (especially the longbow man) were specialists; specialists that turned the tide at Agincourt.

                

                 So it is with the modern sniper. Historically, snipers plied their trade  behind enemy lines, and were often more exposed to the enemy than were the ordinary infantryman. They were never then and to this day cowards. Snipers, like ancient archers, can determine the direction of a battle. The sniper usually targets the most valuable mark in their cross hairs – an officer for instance whose loss can change the direction of a battle. British snipers, for example, must have begged that they would find Rommel in their sights in North Africa… as would have Monty.

THOSE 160 KILLS BY Bradley Cooper and the 173 kills by his British associate in the art may  have saved countless of hundreds of civilian, British and American lives. Today the modern infantryman looks far more deferentially upon the sniper than did Moore's uncle and his comrades during the Second World War. Today's infantrymen are thankful that between them Bradley Cooper and his British associate made 333 confirmed kills between them, any one of which, if they had been left alive, could have killed them.

                

                The sniper is just another weapon of war just as once the archer and crossbowmen were. What if for instance Michael Moore's uncle, without knowing it, had had his own life saved by an American sniper? Would this have changed Michael Moore's opinion? I very much doubt it.

               

                Michael Moore is a febrile liberal who seeks every opportunity to undermine his country; even under the Democratic Presidency of Obama.  While the president's wife Michele Obama praised the courage of  the American sniper in the film: Moore traduces it. He is even out of place within the US Democrat community within America – apart, no doubt, from the Hollywood liberals from whom he draws his strength.

               

                These two snipers: one we know the name of because of his tragic death; but the other chooses to remain in incognito for obvious reasons. Both of them have served their respective countries with skill and honour. They both aided not only their respective nations but the democratic West as a whole by their deeds on all our behalf. But you would not have thought it if you listened to Moore, or tried to understand the Hollywood liberal elite.

              

                 From what I have read about American Sniper, it is critically  a first class film proven to be such at the box office meriting at least one academy award. But the liberal elite have posted their grievance, led by Michael Moore, as to its merit. The sniper as a coward seems to be the Hollywood liberals riposte to Clint Eastwood's film; and it will no doubt fail as a nomination for an Oscar – let alone being put in the frame for winning one.