The public broadcasting Bourbons

THE BBC CARRIES an institutional liberal bias; an accusation they no longer take exception to when confronted by it: rather, the corporation's management from top to bottom behave like modern day bourbons; arrogant, haughty and overconfident in the belief that they rule by Divine Right. The fortress they call home is the nearest you will come to a liberal Lubyanka; where political correctness has drawn many of the teeth from free speech; and where social engineering effects the corporation's employment and programming.   

                

               There is a deliberately designed quota system in play regarding programming. For instance, if you scrutinise the BBC 24-hour news service day after day (which 90 percent of the few people who view it never do), you will come to the conclusion that minority placements, whether by colour, gender or disability; or a combination of all in a single individual, will be given priority and woven into the multicultural tapestry of the BBC. But I errantly conclude that even within those politically correct chosen from among the BBC's news readers, correspondents, and foreign correspondents, political and economic correspondents, there is a hierarchy – at the apex of which sits all shades of colour bar white; beneath this will sit women; and bringing up the rear, the disabled.

                

                The trouble with a quota system is that there is an ideological purpose to it based upon allocation and proportion, and not upon talent. The BBC whenever it sends an individual journalist on what used to be called in the 1950s an outside broadcast; it seems to me a deliberate policy by the BBC to include in such broadcasts whether it is at a school, in a shopping centre, or even a BNP coffee morning; there should be a quota of ethnic minorities put in front to the camera at every opportunity to show how politically correct the BBC now is.

                

                 Every broadcast, whether news or drama; all have to have their share of ethnic minorities, including the infirm – such a categorisation of people reminds one of the Nazi categorisation of separating Jews, gays, and gypsies. It is only this process of social engineered separation of identifiable minorities practised by the Nazis that I compare to BBC methodology. The BBC is not Fascist, but their liberal social engineering and liberal agenda has many of the impulses of the restrictions placed upon Europe by the Nazis.

                

                  I am not saying it should not be the case that the media needs to reflect the needs of multi-ethnicity, feminism, and the disabled. But this should not be as part of an ideology called multiculturalism, which the BBC has bound itself up with: it is only through a process of natural selection based only upon ability and not quotas that should be the template. Quotas breed resentment among those who do not fit into the favoured minority categories - which means the white indigenous population.

IF THE BBC was operating in the private sector none of the above would matter because people would have a choice of whether or not to buy through subscription into the BBC's agenda. But unfortunately such a choice does not exist.  Because of the licence tax which everybody under 75 but over 16 has to pay for just owning a television set on penalty of either a £1000 fine or imprisonment – I suppose this is to be regarded as liberal hard love at work.

               

                 No one should be made to pay for a television set above and beyond the cost of its acquisition on the open market. It is scandalous that, in order to pay for the BBC, the purchaser of a television set has to pay a further payment of £145 a year, just to own a television set: where else in the world outside of a Communist country does this practice still exist?

                

                 If, for instance, I do not like ITV One, Two, Three, or Four; or Channel Four; it does not matter because I am given a choice of what to watch. None of these channels demand from me any payment (they survive on advertising) except for the BBC. Why does the BBC; who regard themselves as a popular world-wide broadcaster need to rely upon the British taxpayer to keep the whole edifice of the BBC solvent?

                

                 In the very early years of television - which was what the licence fee was meant to subsidise; the BBC was the only channel available and therefore the institution merited a licence tax to own a television which would be used to provide the British people with this single channel of entertainment; and the BBC solicited the affable moniker of 'Auntie' in those early years and into the 1970s, from the licence payer.

                

                  But ITV, a channel, as in the American mould, funded by advertising proved effective competition to the BBC. In the late 1950s and early 1960's independent television attracted more and more viewers to their popular programming all for gratis - the BBC must go it alone; then they can be as politically correct as they like because the consumer will have a choice to watch the BBC, and have 145 quid a year to spend on some pay to view channel which meets their viewing needs, sport, movies, and news channels like Sky and Fox.

               

               

                

Realpolitik; a dying art that liberal convention despise

MY ENEMY'S ENEMY IS MY friend. I believe that in terms of Realpolitik this axiom has served Western democracies well. It proved its worth during the Second World War when we jumped into bed with Stalin, who's murderous  approach to power equalled (I would even say surpassed) that of Hitler's Germany. Stalin's record in peace time accounted for the deaths of millions of Kulaks as well as millions who died in the Gulag Archipelago; while further millions died during the Soviet Union's Great Famine in the 1930s; a decade when left-wing literary apologists such as George Bernard and Sidney and Beatrice Webb travelled to the Soviet Union declaring it everything they imagined a socialist paradise should be.

               

                During the Second World War and after the Nazi-Soviet Pact fell through; Hitler turned East after his failure to overcome the RAF in the Battle of Britain: the onetime soul mates now became the bitterest of enemies; and Stalin courted the Western democracies- and thus, rightfully so, began an unholy alliance brought together in the mutual self-interest of Western democracies and communist totalitarianism; both now united in the destruction of Nazism: needs must when the Devil calls.

                

                Bashar al-Assad the president of what is left of Syria as a functioning nation is also a tyrant as was his father. But neither of them could have compared with Stalin in their cruelties which were of course multiform in their patterns of wickedness. The West rightly deplored his rule, and even more so when the Arab Spring materialised: a spring which the West were intoxicated by because democracy was on the rise throughout the Arab world and old tyrants were overthrown and Bashar al-Assad was no different to Saddam Hussein, President Mubarak, or Gaddafi.    

                

                The old dictators one by one met with their comeuppance; and how we in the West celebrated the demise of these sadistic tormentors. The Arab world was 'coming home' to democracy. It was of course a fantasy and those cruel despots were there for a reason – to keep their different nation's tribalism's from overflowing into religious conflict.

                

                 We in the West who thought we knew better than the dictators who kept their nations united against internal religious conflict, between Shia and Sunni; and Shia and Sunni against Christian, all deeply antagonistic toward each other and ready to explode at any time into civil conflict were it not for the power of a dictator. Were it not for the rigidity of government they lived under, then civil war in these Arab countries would have erupted at any time; has happened in Egypt when Mubarak was driven from office only to be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

AS FAR AS THE West is concerned today; the Stalin figure we have to align ourselves with in order to defeat ISIS is Assad. As a supporter of Israel I have no more love for him than any other believer in democracy. But as Netanyahu said 'it is the better the devil you know', than what might come after. It is what comes after that should engage the West, not treating Assad as something you scrape off your shoes when taking you dog for a walk: a process which you may think appropriate – but needs must when Devil plays his hand.

                

                The Russian president, Vladimir Putin has said as much. As with the Second World War national self-interest determines that temporary alliances must be formed in order to destroy a common enemy. What comes next after the common enemy is no longer a thorn in the side of the West and Russia?  What will come will be Assad left in power and ISIS destroyed. Then comes the rebuilding of Syria, and the West, having hopefully learnt its lesson can play a significant part in its creation. But to do so a role must be found for Assad: until Sunni and Shia learn to live with each as protestant and catholic  have had to do since the Reformation, then in Syria's case a strongman at the helm is needed; and Assad must be that man, be it with a  'friendly' Western hand on his shoulder. Sometimes, if you put worthy moral principles above Realpolitik; then commendable liberal ethics, founded as they usually on a guilty conscience, will cause more death and destruction than a pragmatic and questionable toleration of the status quo.

                

                This is the lesson of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria - are the citizens of these nations better off today without Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad?  I think not. The great liberal interventionism piloted into existence by Tony Blair, and continued by David Cameron in Libya, was at the very least naive. Liberal interventionism was liberal arrogance, comparable to that displayed in the age of the British Empire.

                

                 Tony Blair went beyond ridding the Middle East of dictators; he saw the chance to create democratic societies in place of dictators. This narcissistic and deluded visionary truly believes that the people living under the likes of Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad would grasp the democratic straw Blair and Cameron gave them. They believed at the time and still no doubt do so today, that democracy cannot possibly be rejected, no matter what culture its seeds are sown within; the soil in which they are planted will always fertilise into democracy. This is the liberal arrogance that in its judgement is as colonial in its assumptions as the prejudices that accompanied the spread of Empire.

THERE IS no future for Syria unless, like Russia, the West comes to an accommodation with Assad. But present Western leaders like Cameron have vented so much of their spleen on Assad that they would see it as a defeat in domestic political terms to now turn round and tell his people that an accommodation now has to be acceded to, after being defeated by parliament in an attempt to intervene militarily in Syria.

                

                On top of which it was the West's current hate figure Vladimir Putin who now suggested an alliance to overthrow ISIS in Syria. The Putin that has rendered asunder the Ukraine, and who's ancient but visually impressive Bear bombers, torment our airspace almost daily to test our response, is also fearful of the influence of Islamism and what it could do to Russia

                

                 In today's world with the rise of Islamism, the West must procure for itself any solution it would under any other circumstance turn its nose up at. But the West, particularly in Europe, is now being assailed by the flotsam of the wreckage that the likes of Blair and Cameron created in Iraq and Libya, as well as Cameron's uncompromising attitude to Assad in Syria.  Migrants have crossed the Mediterranean from North Africa and landed on Italian and Greek shores and entered Turkey from Syria. A politician's first responsibly is to their own country and its citizens.

                

                 Our country has to be put before any other country by our serving politicians; and any policy they come up with that negates this principal is wrong both morally and empirically as far as the numbers are concerned and the damage the influx can do to the indigenous population in terms of housing, schooling and medical care – Realpolitik is the one way

                        

Disillusioned with Schengen

“It is clear the greatest tide of refugees and migrants is yet to come. So we need to correct our policy of open doors and windows. Now the focus should be on proper protection of our external borders.”Donald Tusk, head of the European Council

THE SCHENGEN open doors policy is finally being criticised by its creators. I can remember when conservative voices who opposed Schengen from its very beginning were labelled as racists and bigots, by the Labour party and the Left-wing of the Conservative Party. Since then we have learnt from the likes of Peter Mandelson that Blair signed us up to it as to embarrass and bait the Tories; thus keeping Labour in power for ever under what Blair hoped would prove to be a New Labour thousand year Reich where grateful Poles, Romanians, and Portuguese would replace a diminishing working class as Labour's new constituency.

                

                The danger to this country of such a cynical gesture was either brushed aside for party political advantage; or, in the romantically constructed belief in the need to turn Europe into a United States of Europe – a federal Europe.

                

                Tony's very own 'Blair Witch Project' has backfired spectacularly. Even before the latest avalanche of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and yes, even Pakistan and Bangladesh; the Right was gaining strength throughout Europe as European nations had to pull down their borders to allow the free movement of people throughout the EU. Now those borders have disappeared: the European people were never consulted let given a vote on such a desperately important issue         whose purpose was to end national sovereignty and nation state itself.

                

                 Now the unintended consequences of the EU's open border policy is allowing a great flood of humanity to enter the border-less continent and set down wherever they like, and if they are opposed by Eastern European countries like Hungary; the Hungarian government has faced great criticism, for her actions.

                

                 Germany appears to be the Emerald City to which they are drawn. Angela Merkle has told 800,000 of them to follow the yellow brick road with more expected to follow in the coming years; and they eagerly do so whatever nation between themselves and Germany tries to prevent them. The great German Wizard, they believe, will be their saviour. Armed with mobile phones, they send out invitations to their families to join them – Angela is welcoming us all. So they come, one and all via Turkey. The Great Wizard has offered them a sanctuary of a kind that would have been beyond their dreams, even if Syria had not descended into bloody self-immolation.

AT LEAST DONALD TUSK has finally got the message; although I fear it is too late. He should have had the courage to speak out sooner than he has. Now, I fear, because Europe could not take the hard decisions as Australia did; I believe Europe could now be overwhelmed. Tusk is calling for border controls to be reinstated; but once the horse has bolted – what is the point?

                

               Those arrogant self-preening, unelected EU commissioners, whose distaste for what they contemptuously refer to as 'popularism' allowed them to bypass the ballot box on every single occasion when they drew up new treaties (like Maastricht, and Lisbon) that effected the lives of the people of Europe who they believe themselves the overlords of. In a way it is like the 19^th century rotten boroughs in England: or a more prescient example; the Divine Right of Kings, where laws were concocted without any referent to the common herd; the magisterial European Commission disdains popularism (democracy) believing they, and only they, are competent to know what is in the best interests of the EU. These wretches are like the bourbons who thought that they and only they were blessed with the insight needed to govern a country - or a continent.

               
                In the light of concurrent events - the single currency fiasco and now mass migration; the EU is like the emperor with no clothes as some wit compared the events unfolding on European borders amounted to. The EU is indeed the Emperor with no clothes; because any such concoction of 28 nations with diverse interests would have done sooner or later – split between themselves and in self national interest, formed alliances as Europe had done for centuries. National interest will always sooner or later take precedence over a concocted, romantic, idealistic, and a wholly Enlightenment project that France in particular drew heavily to its breast after the Second World War.

EUROPE IS IMPERILLED by mass migration. But why Angela Merkle is responding so generously to this situation, is not out of compassion for the migrants she invited into Germany. I do not mean to insinuate any kind of a lack of compassion on the German chancellor's part in her decision – she is, after all, human. But as someone has already noted; Germany's response has more to do with what happened 70 years ago than what is happening today; and I think it is true. Germany should never forget its past, as no country should; but Germany has done much to redeem itself and has today nothing this generation has to blame itself for. But compassion should never be the auxiliary of guilt. Compassion should be for want of a better word, virginal without feelings of guilt, based upon the premise of simple humanitarian impulses unclouded by guilt; either individually or nationally.

                

               The German nation did terrible things in their recent past. But as the premier EU nation, Merkle should not have invited, through guilt, this mass migration into her country; which once established as citizens under Schengen, would be allowed to infiltrate the rest of Europe. I describe it as an infiltration because the citizens of the countries they will no doubt be allowed under Schengen to enter; never had any say in their arrival. It had already been decided by Schengen and the European Commission.

               

                Because of her generosity - who knows? Perhaps she will have, by her actions, summoned up similar monsters from her country's past in the coming decades, when a declining birth rate among the German people causes much resentment among them toward migrants – beware of unintended consequences to noble impulses.

               

               

                

Our generals should remain silent

A SERVING GENERAL has warned that the army would have to take 'direct action' if Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister. This 'direct action' implies a military coup to overthrow our dishevelled Lenin which would of course earn him a place in socialist mythology parallel to that of president Allende of Chile. This general: this later day Pinochet who threatens such an overthrow, is stupid beyond belief and makes one wonder how he became general in the first place: he clearly does not understand the martyrdom complex that the  Left all to easily falls prey to.

                

                The next time Corbyn makes a speech; he will have been pumped and primed by the disclosure of this general's remarks. I even bet that Corbyn will almost welcome this general's contribution. First of all because it elevates him into a position of socialist beatification if the general's wishes were ever to come about: secondly, it would confirm this dotty Marxist in his life-long prejudices against capitalism.  This general should face losing one his pips for providing the Corbynistas with such a weapon of propaganda.

                

                Thankfully his remarks have been quickly stamped upon by the MoD and none too soon. Generals are to be, I will not say… worshiped - although many of them throughout our nation's history have deserved such an honorific above those of politicians: but generals must nevertheless steer clear of politics, it is such a separation that has put this country above South American standards of government. It is the people who chose who to govern them, and if they chose someone who has declared his intension to dismantle our nuclear capability, our army, and our membership of NATO, and the British public wish to buy into such a madness at the ballot box; then it is such idiots who will have to pay the distasteful price for their naive actions.

                

                This does not mean that the military has no role to play in politics…they do; but only in extremis – such as Cromwell's New Model Army who were ready, when called upon to stop a tyranny from emerging that meant the end of parliament and democratic government and sought a return to the Divine Right of Kings. I believe that the end of democratic government is the ultimate ambition of all Marxists who see it as a bourgeois construct. Like the Nazis, they use democracy to attain power and then use totalitarianism to cling on to it. I would like to think that it was within this context, that the general alluded; but I doubt it.

GREAT BRITAIN does not do military coups, which is why our democracy has existed for so long. But any mention of 'direct action' by a nameless British general, sends the liberalista into a fit of the vapours such as those exercised by the Independent and Guardian whose journalists immediately fell into a swoon before dropping  onto the nearest chaise lounge in the editors office; mimicking  a character in an Austen or Trollope novel.

                

                 Corbyn must be given enough rope to hang himself; give him his chance to perform without tormenting him with his past imbecilities. It is those imbecilities that got him elected in the first place by imbeciles. He must not be forced to row back on any of them by the government and its sympathisers in the press – let him float them without challenge; let him explain them to the people; and above all treat him as a leader of Her Majesty's opposition: in other words do not turn him into a victim, for this will only accumulate pity for this innocent, among those liberals that never voted for him.

               

                This general - all generals, and those from the lower ranks must, like the rest of us who see this modern Mushkin as naivety exemplified; allow the public time to study and judge him for themselves. The public are disenchanted with modern politicians, and in a way, Corbyn and Farage are the polar opposites that have pulled the mat from under the feet of what is becoming the ancient regime of cynical politicians, orchestrated in the art spin and dissembling, who cannot bring themselves to deliver straight forward answers to questions that require only a Yes or No reply. Each interview given by a politician is not a search for the truth or even enlightenment, but an exhibition of the art of pussyfooting and stonewalling. An exhibition which the public have grown heartily sick of: which is why Corbyn is seen as an honest and principled politician whose dishevelled appearance  adds to the contrast between him and the immaculate who governs the country both Tory and Labour.

               

                The people are right in their scepticism of modern politicians but it is no reason to bring the whole democratic temple down upon themselves; which Corbyn, primed by his ideology, will be sure to do. I do not for one moment think that the majority of those hundreds of thousands, who voted for Corbyn in the Labour Party leadership elections, were doing so because they actually believed in Marxist socialism as Corbyn does. They, like those of us life-long Labour voters, also shared their cynicism – but Corbyn is not the answer unless you wish to destroy capitalism and alongside it democracy itself; for the two are twinned.

                

                 Finally I would say this to whomsoever the general was who threatened a putsch if a bearded, sandal-footed, and clenched fisted nincompoop flanked by public sector union bosses; to whom he was tethered like puppet, marched down Downing Street to oversee the socialist ritual of the destruction of UK capitalism.

                

                 Corbyn cannot win a general election without betraying his supporters. To do so would lead to him being presented with the black spot of betrayal by those he betrayed. He would become just like other Labour leaders such as Hugh Gaitskell, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, and Neil Kinnock; who the Left believed betrayed the Labour Party that eventually would lead to Tony Blair and New Labour, and the disbanding  of Clause IV: now we have the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn being added to the cast list of betrayal that the Labour Left will have jotted down in their little black book, that  excites the Lefts machinations of tortured perfidy that they believe has kept true socialism from power – Corbyn, even if he wished, could not compromise.          

               

               

                  

Solidarity – a much abused and cynical representation

THE WORD engraved on the heart of the European Union that is meant to sum it all up, is one taken from the socialist lexicon and used by liberals and conservatives alike throughout the EU. Solidarity trips from the tongues of Brussels politicians of every persuasion, apart from Ukip and other Right-wing parties within the EU parliament. Solidarity to such people is the very essence of the embryonic federal system now under construction within Europe. 

                

                Solidarity is the fusion by which Brussels seeks to achieve its great ideological end for the continent. The trouble is it is only the EU political elites and their winged monkey's (the bureaucrats) who take this term seriously. The people of Europe are not as infused as those who govern them in Brussels are with such sentimental appeals to solidarity.

              

                A case in question is the unfolding catastrophe on Europe's borders, where wave upon wave of Syrian, Iraqi and some Pakistani migrants are kicking in the doors to gain entry to northern Europe. But before they can reach their destiny they have to negotiate their way through Eastern Europe from Turkey. But rightly so, the Hungarians have closed their borders to the flood, and did so using EU law which state that refugees must claim sanctuary in the first country they arrive in; and Turkey drew the short straw.  

                

                Having had no success with Hungary the great flood of migrants/refugees is beginning to make tributaries by creating alternative routes through Serbia and Croatia. Hungary did what it had been expected to do under EU law. It was the EU not Hungary that imposed these restrictions on refugees.

                Apparently solidarity has broken down between Germany and Eastern Europe. Why should Hungary absorb such multitudes? It was Merkle who invited them in such numbers by her announcement that this year she expected 800,000 migrants/refugees to enter Germany. Like King Canute Angela Merkle, is left trying to stem the tide. Her siren voice of welcome was transmitted via cell phone by those already on the brink of a new life given them by Angela Merkle to their families  left behind; thus potentially starting a new wave from the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere.

                

                Solidarity breaks down when the nation state (which thankfully still exists in Europe) is put under such a pressure that it threatens the quality of life in terms of health and education of its own indigenous population.  Those elites who espouse such solidarity should be willing to absorb these people into their own homes and pay for their education and medical treatment instead of the European taxpayers: instead of making the indigenous populations of their countries pay, in silence, for these sacrifices.

                

                 The modern nation state is the equivalent of the medieval castle protected by a moat: in the UK's case it is the North Sea. National sovereignty is the hallmark stamped by history on our nation state. It is now under threat by the EU. We could have accepted, yes, even the vast numbers of Syrians that Angela Merkle has invited into her country if we so whished, had it not been for Schengen. Schengen has increased our island population by over five million people in the past decade because of Europe's open border policy.

                

                 The cry of solidarity from those vacuous unelected commissioners has little resonance among the indigenous peoples of Europe. By completely discarding human nature, these romantic and naive calls for solidarity may raise their own idealism to levels that make those who are its beneficiaries, feel transported into utopia. But they will not be made welcome for very long by the indigenous populations among whom they are been invited to settle by disconnected politicians and bureaucrats throughout Europe. Politicians like Angela Merkle who took it upon herself to invite Uncle Tom Cobly and all from throughout the Middle East is today regretting the invitation; now realising what such an invitation can cause to the social harmony of German society: today's (Saturday) Daily Mail quotes EU figures that tell us only one in five of those entering Europe between April and June of this year, were Syrian.

                

                Solidarity as a concept has been disgraced over and over again throughout the 20^th century when it was the calling-card of the clench fist Marxists, and was hideously abused by the whole panoply of small and insignificant Leftist Marxist parties who were permanently at each other's throats (vanity among, so it seems, the Left conquers all).

                

                Solidarity when orchestrated by political ideology or in support of the Great European Enterprise becomes very quickly a devalued currency, and in such a context it becomes just another word that invites public cynicism.

                

                What is happening now in Europe among its various indigenous peoples; who have had 'to suck it up' by which I refer to those ill-conceived invitations by Europe's political classes to open their Schengen borders… is resentment. Schengen poured millions of EU people into (in particular, Northern Europe): a part of Europe which had already been burdened with 10 million Muslims; which in part comprised outcasts from the various empires that Europe competed with each other to form in the great carve-up of what was once referred to as the Third World.

                

                Now we have a new influx of refugees/migrants adding further to the already ill-tempered, and up to now ill-concealed resentment of Europe's indigenous people. Out of such resentment National Socialism is born. Our European leaders treat the indigenous peoples of Europe as submissive and irrelevant to the wisdom they regard themselves as having the monopoly of; the European liberal political class rules OK?

                

                This is where the true solidarity is practiced, not among the ordinary indigenous peoples of the continent, which the EU seeks to bring together into a mulch of European Federalism; but among the liberal bourgeoisie, whose lives remain unchallenged by such a mass population increase in under decade. Indeed, to the European liberal bourgeoisie, such unregulated additions to their respective population provide for them with a possible a cheap source of labour when it comes to hiring servants or labourers. Servants which under any other circumstance; they would not have been wealthy enough to provide.

                

                Solidarity needs a breathing space to return to its original intent.

                 

               

                  

               

The curse of Schengen

HUNGARY HAS CLOSED ITS BORDER WITH SERBIA, in order to keep at bay the rising tide of people seeking entry to Hungary as part of their transit to Germany whose chancellor has invited all and sundry from Syria to settle in Germany. Hungary has been heavily criticised by the UN and the unelected leaders of the European Commission for so doing; and media images of Hungarian police using tear gas to keep the Syrian refugees at bay are expected (or so the media hopes) to bring about the same kind of support for the refugees, that the image of a pitiful three-year-old child laying face down and waiting for rigor mortis to set in on a Turkish shoreline has already done.

                

                 Hungary (so far) has little to feel ashamed of in the way it is acting to protect its dominion over its own borders. Tear gas was used reactively not wildly without cause and effect as the media seems to suggest; the Hungarian police were not just lashing out but responding and the media had better start reflecting the difference to their readers, listeners and viewers. The Hungarian police found themselves under fire from migrant/refugees who started throwing missiles at what the media will no doubt now try to portray as their 'tormentors'. It is disgraceful that Hungary should be treated in such a way – one thing I believe is for certain; at least the Ukrainians have more sympathy for the Hungarian government than they do for the European commission.

                

                 If Angela Merkle had not been so generous as to invite this human tsunami onto European soil, then at some point there may have been an end to it – but no longer. She has opened her borders under Schengen, and now expects the other nations of Europe to comply. First of all, the Schengen Agreement was meant to open European borders to Europeans. If refugees landed in Europe they were meant to register in the first European country they entered to seek asylum. This corrective to (presumably) the spread of external European migration has now been allowed to lapse. As the numbers mount so the EU's backbone turns ever more into jelly.

                

                Merkle has had to abandon Schengen (temporarily at least) and has closed her country's borders to further Syrian migration, while those 40,000 that were already allowed into Germany last week and who were cheered at the point of entry by German citizens, are processed and found somewhere to reside; for they, like those that follow them will become citizens of Germany for life. For Syria as a country with its present borders will never rise again.

                

                 It is strange; strange indeed; that Syrian Muslims seek their refuge in the West. Why not venture into Saudi Arabia or Kuwait; or even Iran? If this tsunami sought refuge among their Muslim kind would they have acted more compassionately than the Hungarians? It is no accident that these people have tried to find a retreat from Syria in the West. In the 15^th century Muslims gave Christians and Jews a choice in the European lands they conquered – convert to Islam or die. Islam has not moved very far from this position, and has gone beyond it in the case of ISIS. Although the liberals will accuse me of Islamaphobia (whatever this means; the Left creates new phobias almost on a daily basis).

ANGELA MERKLE'S invitation to Syrian migrant/refugees will carry with it the prospect of German citizenship, which under Schengen, would allow all those granted it full entrance into other parts of Europe. Merkle knows that any individual or ethnic community she anoints with German citizenship will be allowed free transit between all countries within the EU, and thus sharing the burden among other EU nations of the Syrian tsunami that she welcomed to live with her in Germany.

                

                 If the EU nations seek to avoid this outcome they must leave Schengen once and for all or face the consequences within their own communities. If Schengen had not happened then the sympathy for the tsunami of refugees would have been proven to be more favourable and, as we did in Uganda in the 1970's, the UK would have born a far greater share of migrants/refugees than we are able to do today because of European open borders.

                

                 No country should ever be allowed to contemplate putting such social pressure on its indigenous citizens which would inevitably devalue status (under multiculturalism) of its indigenous population into becoming third rate, and left without meaningful representation as all the main parties become attuned to Multiculturalism.

               

               

  

                

Hail Corbyn! Remember you are only human

TOMORROW THE Labour Party will put the crown on their party's court-jester's head. Jeremy Corbyn would be dangerous for the country in the unlikely event that he is allowed by the British to wave a stick with a pig's bladder attached, into number ten: if such an event were ever to occur we would need another Cromwell, and all that is implied by his name to be rid of him. But thankfully comrade Myshkin will never take that walk of victory down Downing to become the executioner of his own country.

                

                But that is not to say it could not happen. It may be farfetched but not all that farfetched: consider the state of the global economy in 2020 for instance. The slowdown in China; the deficit, and further cuts to welfare; plus a divided Conservative Party after the EU referendum whatever the outcome: neither Europhiles nor sceptics within the government benches will be satisfied with the result; and with such a small majority Cameron will face challenges to his leadership. So, although the Labour Party is in a perilous position today: the Conservative Party may be in a similar position just months before the next general election.

                

                My brother suggested months ago that we Kippers should rejoin the Labour Party to give Jeremy a helping hand to destroy the Labour Party. I resisted and convinced him to do the same. I told him to 'be careful what you wish for' if you go ahead. After all, the liberalista pooh-poohed Nigel Farage – need I say more. I also remember when the late John Smith died, a small collective of Tory's standing beside the Speaker's Chair in parliament were seen cheering the news (they were quite rightly reprimanded by their party leader for their inanities); but what followed? Tony Blair gave the Labour Party 13years of power.

                  

                The simple truth is that we live in interesting times. The Conservatives may, at the moment be looking for another victory in 2020; their ebullience at the state the Labour Party has got itself into, due in no short measure to ED Milliband, will be short lived. No political party, particularly in Europe, should ever be confident in their future as events unfold: we live in troubled times of a type that has not been with us since the Second World War and may, in the coming decades, destroy European Western civilisation; which I fear is far more likely to occur than Corbyn becoming prime minister.

                

                I have little enthusiasm for the destruction of progressive[1] Western civilisation which has advanced humanity at a far faster rate than those cultures of a medieval ilk like those of Islam; which now stands on the brink of a great renaissance and resurgence of the medievalism that prevented human progress in the past; but that allowed them to nearly conquer Europe – but from where? From the East of course.

                

                It is the kind of medievalism that comrade Myshkin would welcome if he was given the power to so do. His simple naivety, like Dostoyevsky's creation, attracts understanding, compassion, and kindness from those more familiar with the world and human nature. I have heard how wonderful Corbyn is in private. People warm to him. He has sat on the backbench's undermining his own party whenever they were in power? But this has only endeared him to a rightly cynical public who distrusts all politicians – a distrust they have brought upon themselves.

CORBYN IS THE next leader of the Labour Party and the Conservatives are rubbing their hands together at such a prospect of  'The Idiot' taken straight from a 19^th century novel, leading Her Majesties' opposition. A weak and terminally ill opposition leaves the nation exposed to the democratic dictatorship of the ruling party of whatever political persuasion it emanates.

                

                The Labour Party, if they wish ever again to see government, must be rid of Corbyn. It is dangerous for democracy to have one party government because the inanities of the opposition have made them un-electable. Corbyn can never present a convincing challenge to the Tories that would ever convince the British public to vote for him.

                

                In a democracy a one party government, brought about by the unpalatable policies of the opposition, can only leave the party of government ruling without challenge, or credible opposition for the electorate to vote for. This effectively gives the governing party the power of a dictator. Free of any credible opposition, and with a workable majority in parliament, can (admittedly theoretically) pass legislation to suit its own ideological prejudices.

                

                 In my 65-years I have never seen Western democracy on the brink of failure, since the Cuban crises: and no, it is not because of the elevation of Corbyn to the Labour Party. But I believe we as a Western culture within Europe are embarked upon a strategy that will lead to a perfect storm, and Corbyn's role will be negligible for Europe – but for the UK? We have to await, 'events dear boy'.

                 

                 The 24-hour media loves what has happened to the Labour Party: they will continue to pimp off Jeremy Corbyn and will do so to retrieve a headline that will sooner or later be wrapped up in a parcel of news print for the consumers of fish and chips.

                

                 Corbyn will destroy the Labour Party as a party of the Left; by this I mean a party of the traditional white working class; which had already been disposed of by political correctness mapped out under the Blair years, which is no doubt supported by Jeremy.

                

                  The Corbynistas that court his ideas are ignorant of the damage that his ideology has wrought in terms of human suffering. I at first did not understand why such ignorance of this pernicious ideology, was still prevalent. But I do now. As far as Corbyn's student constituency is concerned; they have been given a 'progressive' interpretation of history, as well as everything else, by teachers and lecturers who have in turn been instructed themselves in the same liberal vernacular form throughout their own pedagogical advancement ever since the 1960's to this present day - to this present day when throughout the whole of academia, from nursery to university; the Left have dominated the agenda.  

---

[1]By this I mean progressive in its most literal sense; and not in the comic sense that the Left uses it.

The Winter Palace has been stormed.

WELL IT WAS A HANDSOME VICTORY with nearly 60 per cent of the vote. The second preferences did not matter. Jeremy Corbyn, the dishevelled antidote to the plastic creations of media stylists, and coaches that all the three main parties employ to brush over their lack of substance, passes Corbyn by; his indifference is admirable and I hope infectious among other politicians. These Mandelsonian practices deserve an early burial: tarting-up before dissembling to the media and the public has been at the centre Peter Mandelson's Machiavellian art; and was the interior designer of New Labour during the Blair years and was taken up by New Conservatism under Cameron.

                

                 But this is as far as I will go in agreeing with Corbyn (except, that is, upon the small matter of our leaving the European Union; which he may yet prove to be more of a hindrance than a help to that noble cause): those who support this character repeat time after time that he represents what they refer to as the new politics. You can gain the nature of his support from the caravans of supporters who follow him about; the demographic appears to comprise of young, in the main students, or Lefty baby-boomer's like myself (only during the 1960s and 1970s) who have lived long enough, and know that there is nothing 'new' in the kind of politics Corbyn is preaching: while others are probably public sector workers.

                

                I do not support Corbyn but those of my age (I am 65) who do so are sad figures who after being shown throughout their lives the failure not only in terms of socialist economics; but in the suffering and deaths it unleashes upon the society it governs (which surpasses even those that have died under capitalism), they still persist in believing there to be fairies at the bottom of the garden; as will in time, those impressionable young and naive idealists who voted for Corbyn as the next Labour Party leader.

               

                It is only the young and naive idealistic students whose lack of awareness or knowledge of the history of Marxist and democratic socialism; and the ruin it wrought upon whatever society, usually through revolution it emerged; they are profoundly ignorant of. There is nothing 'new' about Corbyn's politics. Ideologically speaking, his socialism has a dark and brutal history. This Myshkin-like figure that has now been anointed is like all innocents ignorant of the ways of human nature, sure to add to the sum total of human misery. Corbyn is not a bad man. His intentions, he believes, will improve (like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela) the conditions of the common man (once known as the working class by socialists).

                

                We can always forgive the young for their ill-mapped views. They are, after all, young; and because of this we treat them with kid gloves. But I have lived long enough – long enough to have been a Marxist in my youth who was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain; who was emotionally, rather than intellectually driven by the idea of revolution – although I read copiously Marxist literature. Historical materialism and the dialectics of nature, described laughingly by Marx himself as 'scientific' socialism; I absorbed it like the romantic revolutionary I was. I read such Marxist directed novels as Sartre's three volumes, Age of Reason, Jack London's The Iron Heel, and of course that old Marxist working class favourite, The Ragged Trouser Philanthropist, with its simplistic antidote to Edwardian capitalism.

JEREMY CORBYN is artlessness writ large. His ingenuousness has caught the imagination of his supporters who believe, rightly, that he says what he thinks, and he thinks what he says. Well I would agree. Corbyn cannot believe where he is: from back-biting his own party leaders from his own back benches, whether in opposition or in power: he has now been promoted to a position that could make him prime minister.

                

                 Corbyn has always been the back-bench heckler in the game of politics: at 66 he now has to become the decision maker rather than the critic of decisions made. His life will change dramatically from the leisurely existence on the back benches as an occasional critic of his own party in government. He will now have to put in many exhaustive hours as leader of his party if he wishes to give his party any chance of winning the next election. He will become the enemy of 90 percent of the media whom he made continued critical references to in his victory speech. If he thinks he can win an election without the support of any part of the media he had better prepare his party for opposition after the next election. Even the Guardian refused to back him. He represents only the gilded 'children of the revolution'[1].

                

                 His speech today was Bennite and could have been presented on any university campus in the 1960's. There were no new politics; but an attempt by socialism, after Blair's New Labour, to reassert itself once more with the usual damage that will accompany it.

                

                  As far as politics are concerned I have never in my 65 years come across a young generation so ignorant of the nefarious practices of socialism. In its mildest form, which is within a competitive democracy, where it has to sublimate its socialist ambition to the will of the people, socialism has had to squander its social imperiousness to become a mere actor on the democratic stage - thus was born social democracy. Corbyn is no social democrat or he would have left his party to join the Social Democratic Party that resulted from the Labour schism in the 1980s.

                

                   Corbyn is no social-democrat. To him it would be like watering down the socialist beer; a flavour he believes unsurpassable in taste as far as a true socialist party is concerned. Corbyn has the true socialist grit – with him you get the real thing. Corbynomics is fantasy and can drag the country further into ruin (and at the moment, there is little further to drop).

                
                       Jeremy Corbyn, if he ever gains power in this country; then we will need a Cromwell to halt his digression of the UK into the arms of the third world. I do not think for one moment that he will govern this nation unless the Tories fowl up spectacularly. But if through some at first ill-perceived likelihood, he manages the task. Then the UK people will be at war with

---

[1] A reference to the lyrics of T-Rex who also knew little of what they were talking about.

Hail Corbyn! Remember you are human

TOMORROW THE Labour Party will put the crown on their party's court-jester's head. Jeremy Corbyn would be dangerous for the country in the unlikely event that he is allowed by the British public to wave a stick with a pig's bladder attached into number ten: if such an event were ever to occur we would need another Cromwell, and all that is implied by his name to be rid of him. But thankfully comrade Myshkin will never take that walk of victory down Downing to become the executioner of his own country.

                

                But that's not to say it could not happen. It may be far-fetched but not all that far-fetched: consider the state of the global economy in 2020 for instance. The slowdown in China; the deficit, and further cuts to welfare; plus a divided Conservative Party after the EU referendum whatever the outcome: neither Europhiles nor sceptics on the government benches will be satisfied with the result; and with such a small majority Cameron will face challenges to his leadership. So, although the Labour Party is in a perilous position today: the Conservative Party may be in a similar position just months before the next general election.

                

                My brother suggested months ago that we Kippers should rejoin the Labour Party to give Jeremy a helping hand to destroy the Labour Party. I resisted and convinced him to do the same. I told him to 'be careful what you wish for' if you go ahead. After all, the liberalista pooh-poohed Nigel Farage – need I say more. I also remember when the late John Smith died, a small collective of Tory's standing beside the Speaker's Chair in parliament were seen cheering the news (they were quite rightly reprimanded by their party leader for their inanities); but what followed? Tony Blair gave the Labour Party 13-years of power.

               

               The simple truth is that we live in interesting times. The Conservatives may, at the moment will be looking for another victory in 2020; their ebullience at the state the Labour Party has got itself into, due in no short measure to ED Milliband, will be short lived. No political party, particularly in Europe, should ever be confident in their future as events unfold: we live in troubled times of a type that has not been with us since the Second World War and may, in the coming decades, destroy European Western civilisation; which I fear is far more likely to occur than Corbyn becoming prime minister.

               

                I have little enthusiasm for the destruction of progressive[1] Western civilisation which has advanced humanity at a far faster rate than those cultures of a medieval ilk like those of Islam; which now stands on the brink of a great renaissance and resurgence of the mediaevalism that prevented human progress in the past; but that allowed them to nearly conquer Europe – but from where? From the East of course.

                

                It is the kind of mediaevalism that comrade Myshkin would welcome if he was given the power to so do. His simple naivety, like Dostoevsky's creation, attracts understanding, compassion, and kindness from those more familiar with the world and human nature. I have heard how wonderful Corbyn is in private. People warm to him. He has sat on the backbench's undermining his own party whenever they were in power? But this has only endeared him to a rightly cynical public who distrusts all politicians – a distrust they have brought upon themselves.

CORBYN IS THE next leader of the Labour Party and the Conservatives are rubbing their hands together at such a prospect of  'The Idiot' taken straight from a 19^th century novel, leading Her Majesties' opposition. A weak and terminally ill opposition leaves the nation exposed to the democratic dictatorship of the ruling party of whatever political persuasion it emanates.

                

                The Labour Party, if they wish ever again to see government, must be rid of Corbyn. It is dangerous for democracy to have one party government because the inanities of the opposition have t made them un-electable. Corbyn can never present a convincing challenge to the Tories that would ever convince the British public to vote for him.

                

                 In a democracy a one party government, brought about by the unpalatable policies of the opposition, can only leave the party of government ruling without challenge, or a credible opposition for the electorate to vote for. This gives the governing party the virtual power of a dictator. Free of any credible opposition, and with a workable majority in parliament, can (admittedly, theoretically) pass legislation to suit its own ideological prejudices.

                

                  In my 65-years I have never seen Western democracy on the brink of failure, since the Cuban crises: and no, it is not because of the elevation of Corbyn to the Labour Party. But I believe we as a Western culture within Europe are embarked upon a strategy that will lead to a perfect storm, and Corbyn's role will be negligible for Europe – but for the UK? We have to sit out and await 'events dear boy'.

---

[1]By this I mean progressive in its most literal sense; and not in the comic sense that the Left uses it.

British ISIS have mapped out their fate

THOSE NOW CHALLENGING (including a former chief of the armed forces, for God's sake) the government's decision to target ISIS over Syria with a RAF drone operated 3,000 miles away that killed one time Cardiff schoolboy Reyaad Khan, now 21; were not right to do so. He took his chances on the dark side and paid the ultimate price for doing so: do we know how many people he killed? Do we know how many women and children this nasty piece of work killed because they belong to the Syrian Christian community?

                

                 Would Lord Dannatt and the Guardianista have criticised the government, if, for instance, 'Jihadi' John suffered Khan's fate?  Would they be questioning the legality of such an act? If it was illegal under international law then so must all such drone activity. In which case how do we defend ourselves against ISIS? But drone activity in itself is of course not illegal. Apparently the argument against the RAF action revolves around two facts; the first that the drone should not have taken to the air in the first place without consulting parliament who had previously voted down such intervention over Syria. Secondly, Khan was a British citizen who was killed by his own country; this caused the numerous and multifarious human rights groups to suggest this was an 'extra-judicial killing'.

                

                Welcome to the insane asylum that is the modern UK. Any British citizen who takes up arms against his country (like William Joyce, in the Second World War) deserves the fate they have navigated themselves toward; and the drone has always been waiting for those 'British' jihadists who loathed their country (although, as a patriot, I agree, sadly, there is much to loath).

               

                 ISIS's ultimate aim is a world caliphate, as, during the Cold War, communism's ambition was also to produce a secularist world caliphate under control of the state. Kahn believed in this just as any other 'British' Muslim, who goes to Syria does – they have therefore no legal or emotional claim on the country they now despise – therefore they have ostracised themselves from the society they left and now hate – they have abandoned their nationality status just as Burgess, Phillby, and McLean did during the Cold War.

                

                 Human rights are important. But the human rights lobby of activists and lawyers who think that our actions over Syria are illegal - they are not. If they believe them to be un-parliamentary, then they may be right. But in which case it would remain a political not a judicial issue. We have every right to track down in times of war and conflict those whom, be they British, who wish to seek to undermine and change our democracy for something infinitely worse. In the past it was communism, when no doubt many an un-judicial killing took place against soviet spies working to advance the communist world atheist caliphate.

THE DRONES ARE the only defence left to the West, as the West's political leaders posture Uriah Heap-like in their sweaty hand wringing; for fear of any of their acts result in the image of a young child washed up on a shoreline, dead; thus compromising their liberal guilt … a personal guilt among our political class that will surely bring us down as a nation in the end; as well as a whole continent; because of such like-minded politicians on the continent.

                

                The West has the military technology to destroy even ISIS; but our politicians refuse their military to use its full capacity short of, that is, its nuclear might. A 'minor' example of this kind of approach to modern warfare occurred when in Afghanistan; a British sniper targeted the Taliban laying improvised explosives. Explosives that were meant to bring about the deaths of British or other allied troops: the sniper was required to check (probably ordered by Lord Dannatt at the time) with a senior officer before he could kill those intending to kill us. What on earth is happening to our military when our soldiers have to defer to an officer before shooting the enemy? It is the morally vacuous times in which the military live in. Tepid and fretful politicians have brought about the censorship of military activity; thus prolonging any conflict our country engages itself with; and in doing so, will kill ever more people on our own side.

                

                No such boundary's existed during the Second World War when Western civilisation was at stake. We did what had to be done; which had always been the preceding formula for much of our history when our nation was at stake. But the trouble is that by such half-hearted responses that the liberal conscience is only prepared to contemplate and enforce when in power; they drag us deeper into conflicts that will ultimately cause more deaths than needed to have occurred, if our politicians used to their full extent the military equipment their taxpayers have paid for.

                

                 Drones have proven to have been more effective at killing the enemy than either boots on the ground or bombing from the air that creates the much hated collateral damage that drives the liberalista into Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon, to listen to lefties like Corbyn calling for Blair to be sent to The Hague as a war criminal.

                

               Those who, like the wretched Gerald Kaufman, have condemned the killing of Reyaad Khan  as murder are naive: a psychological condition Kaufman has never displayed in the past. Most of us begin our early lives from say, arbitrarily speaking, our mid- teens to mid-twenties, as naive idealists - that is if we have a love of politics and believing in its power to make the world a better place than our ancestors bequeathed us. I am 65-years-old and have been engaged in politics since the age of 16. In all that time Kaufman has never been anything more than a realist. It was he, you may remember who described Labour's 1983 manifesto as 'the longest suicide not in history'.

                

                Now it seems that this realist, in walking the final few yards left to him before he has to pay the ferryman, has reverted to the same condition that I would have had in my teens and early twenties.

               

                Gerald; anyone, no matter what their ethnicity or religion who set themselves against the state that succoured them and gave them citizenship; has to take their chances: if a drone targets them and kills them it has everything to do with war; not human rights. What would you do? Ask ISIS to paint a union jack on any vehicle carrying British jihadists so that they can escape targeting by the drones? - Ridiculous.

                

                 The drones, whether used in Afghanistan or Syria, have proven their worth in terms of the killing of Taliban and ISIS VIPS. The drone technology may prove to be the pivotal means by which we can actually target and kill individuals without the collateral damage to citizens that manned aircraft cannot avoid – yet Kaufman, who should know better, and has seen and been part of the generation that lived through the Nazi era and the bombings of Dresden and other German cities with the hundreds of thousands of deaths this inflicted, can now call the killing of home grown jihadists who would have, given the chance, blown up, indiscriminately, parts of his own constituency of Manchester Gorton.

                

                 The drones are here to stay thank god. If they had had them in the Second World War to target individual Nazis, would Kaufman have described these as murders? We must pursue any British jihadist to their death and if Kaufman in his elderly retreat from his earlier reason, back into the naivety of youth in his 85^th year then he is more to be pitied and sympathised with.

  

                 

Are the 10,000, merely the first tranche?

DAVID CAMERON has succumbed, as I thought he would, to an appalling image. He has now announced that we will take in more Syrian refugees because of the pressure this image has put him under: but on the surface at least, his announcement seems a very odd way of going about things. Those refugees he has invited on our behalf to join us are to be harvested from Jordon, and not from those crossing the Mediterranean or trying to escape Hungary or even from those who land up in Calais.

                

                No doubt this option has been chosen because the refugees in these camps can be processed, and their backgrounds looked into before coming to the UK. They can be filtered out; they can be cherry picked so that we do not have ISIS fighters, criminals, and any other undesirables that will pose problems for our society. It is a wise move and an intelligent response to Angela Merkle who has criticised us for not doing our bit while she announces her intention to allow in willy-nilly 800,000 mainly Syrian migrants into Germany without carrying out background checks of each and every individual: well, good luck to her; she will need it.

                

                But what Cameron, Merkle; and the rest of the EU have not thought through; is what comes next? The winter months retard the deluge until next spring. Over the winter months Germany will allow in the 800,000 migrants that Merkle has announced: and other European nations fearful of German power will also, between them, take in - a further 800,000?

                

                 By such actions, the dam will have been broken; and come next spring and summer those 1.6 million will be replaced with a further 1.6 million asylum seekers. Word will get out by mobile phones to the extended families left behind in North Africa and Turkey that Europe is open to them if they can make it to the shores of Greece and Italy or into Turkey. It is like a leak; once you repair one pipe another leak opens up somewhere else and this will be I fear the pattern that our European leaders have set in motion - I cannot get out of my mind the expression used by the much despised Enoch Powell when a meagre 50,000 people from the Commonwealth had been allowed entry into the UK. In his famous, many would say infamous, 'River of Blood' speech; his voice resonated in the hall when he made the singular declamation, 'We must be mad. Literally mad'; and who among the white working class indigenous population today would disagree with him.

                

                 Our Island nation has suffered three such previous invasions: by the Romans, Saxons, and the Normans. These invasions were not just allowed in to Britain by an open border Schengen Agreement, but by forces that wished us ill and had to be repelled: they had to fight their way in, in each and every case. In the fifth century, Europe was told by Rome to look to your cantons. The Roman Empire was finished and was no longer in any position to defend its empire. There followed a new immigration (to use the current vernacular). This time the Saxon hoards landed on these Isles to establish their ascendency. As many of the indigenous population of men were killed as they could handle; and their wives and all other women were fare game for rape by the Saxons. There ambition was to establish a Saxon bloodline.

               

                 In 1066 the Norman conquest of Saxon Britain followed the same procedure; this time killing hundreds of thousands in their conquest. We are often told that the UK has always been 'open' to migration; and it is true that our nation's bloodline has been disfigured by invasion from the Romans onward…but in each and every case such migrations have been repelled by force, not welcomed in.

                

                This time we are not being invaded by armies, but by women and children – where one simply tragic picture of a two-year-olds corpse washed up on a shoreline, has effectively unlocked the gates to Europe for what will possibly become untold numbers from the world's trouble spots: the indigenous populations of Europe's nations have had to keep their lips zipped for fear of either being called racist or accused of lacking all compassion for the victims – when neither is the truth.

                

                There is compassion frenzy on at the moment, led by the media; but it is short sighted, with little or no regard for the future of Europe. As we have seen all too often historically, a single emotive image can lead to dire consequences; from Vietnam to Gaza. Emotion is now in the ascendant and reason has the taint of racism. Reason is being silenced, the stability of European civilisation is under threat – I say no more than that. But that we cannot focus our collective brains on such a possibility occurring says something about our plight.

               

                Two European countries Sweden and Holland are nearing the tipping point where the indigenous population is threatened with minority status. In Italy the birth rate among the indigenous population is in decline, at a time when immigrants are turning up on its shore by the thousands monthly. Other European nations will also succumb to such a prospect eventually.

                

                 Those pouring across European borders will continue once word gets out that all are welcome – not by the indigenous population, but by their political leaders. Angela Merkle has set the ball rolling by inviting 800,000 to suckle at Germany's bosom; and she now expects other European leaders (her winged monkeys) to follow suit and Cameron has now caved in because he has been warned by Merkle, that if he does not take his share of her problem, his European reforms will never be listened; on top of which I read that his wife has added to the pressure. It was Sam Cam; you may remember who travelled to Jordan to examine the Syrian refugee camps and returned to London to pester her husband into bombing Syria; which the British Parliament refused to do.

                

                 It now appears that she was partly behind his decision to allow in more Syrians; and once more her husband listened. This is no doubt why he insisted upon taking in his allotted number of Syrians from Jordanian camps rather than from those congesting the port of Calais; that are daily launching attempts to cross our moat and scale the cliffs of Dover.

SYRIA WILL no longer exist whenever the end comes. It will either come under the control of ISIS, and other equally repellent 'liberators' of the Assad tyranny; or it will be divided up into lots according to religious fervour.

                

               This means that whoever we take in from this poor benighted country will be permanent residents on whatever soil they settle. The burden will be ours; and added to the already burgeoning encumbrance of Schengen and its open borders policy; this latest influx will put even more pressure on our social fabric. Houses, education, the NHS will face further constraints – yet emotion demands that we allow such people into our country.

               

               If it had not been for Schengen and what it has brought about; then I would stand on Greek and Italian shores to welcome in a restricted number of Immigrants from Syria. I use the term 'restricted' because it cannot be unlimited. But this is the Pandora's box Merkle has opened up by openly allowing nearly one million refugees into her own country; and inviting the other nations of Europe to between them match it; and the German puppet master is being listened to.

EUROPE IS INVITING another Napoleon or Hitler to rise out of the ashes of European Western civilisation. Those Syrian immigrants are not attempting to be dispersed throughout Europe; but only northern Europe; the Nordic countries, Germany, France, and the UK are targeted by these immigrants. Mark my word, if any more than a small sample wishes to find their better life in southern or Eastern Europe; then they would have done so at their first ports of call - Italy, Greece, and Hungary. But they want to surmount Northern Europe - from where the cash and well paid jobs flows.

                None of this should have been allowed to happen; but it has. A single tragic image of the dead body of a two-year-old has sent European politicians into a fit of, 'something… anything …must be done'; and without thought or reason they have acted in fear and passion rather than rationale. European democracy is now in its third trimester of decline, brought about by ignorance and irrationality. But above all by the propagandist devices of the BBC and SKY News, both of whom believe that all people from all cultures can live in harmony – well they can not.