Major Judith Webb tells it as it is.

WOMEN ARE BEING ALLOWED to serve in the infantry from 2016. This is what the MoD has decided: and in this age of political correctness no male dare question the wisdom of such a manoeuvre. Sexist is the cousin of racist in the liberal lexicon, and it will be spat out against any male who disagrees with the MoD.

            

            So any such doubt must be expressed by a woman; and one has stepped forward. Major Judith Webb has raised doubts about the effectiveness of women in front line combat.

           

            Major Webb is the first woman to command an all male squadron. Although the major believes in equality, she insists that women are 'physically different'. If women are to proceed in training on the same basis as men then it has been predicted that just '34 women' will be tough enough to meet front line action: unless, that is, standards in training are lowered to accommodate the PC agenda. In which case it will weaken our fighting strength and effectiveness and make it more likely that we will lose engagements with the enemy.

            

            Their will come a time as there always is in armed conflict, when man to man fighting takes place – often dirty fighting, that has little in common with training but with street fighting.  It is fighting where physical strength  applies and the Queensbury rules have little place. When struggling to keep yourself alive in such an arena of combat physical strength and stamina counts; and once in man on woman fighting follows; under such gruelling conditions - I am afraid that testosterone will out.

FRONT LINE combat is the one arena where women must continue to remain homeless. All other disciplines, whether in the army, navy, or air force; should be open to women and should they should be welcomed. Women make good pilots, whether they fly helicopters, transports, or fighters on the front line of aerial combat.

            

            In the modern navy, women can in many instances outperform men. The modern Navy is technology dependent , and women can compete and even better men on this level of expertise – but the front line is different, it is flesh against flesh. Sooner or later on the battle field, as we found during the Second World War, or latterly in the Falklands; dirty fighting man to man can decide the outcome of a battle, and even the war.

            

            So you can understand why Major Webb and many MoD officers baulk at this latest PC (for this is all it is) confection. The front line belongs to the men with a few female exceptions that will succeed in matching the training of men.

           

            My guess is that the  politicians will eventually lower the training standards to accommodate women onto the front line. It goes, after all, with the grain of feminism and political correctness; the two ideologies that know little about armed conflict and the nature of war; but to whom the modern liberal political culture are held in thrall.

            

            On the BBC's Today programme, Major Webb s who retired in 1986 said: 'We had a maximum of four women in my squadron and it was perfectly natural and normal for the guys would do all the heavy jobs and those jobs that were physically demanding while women would do the slightly less physical it was just the normal course of events.

When we are talking about an infantry section of eight guys and you've got one person who is not actually as physically strong or as physically capable as the other seven over possibly an extended period of time, which is what has not been tested, that could create an effect on our combat effectiveness,’ added major Webb, who was the first woman to command an all-male field force squadron in the British Army."

            The woman's role in the armed forces has nothing to do with equality but ability, and usually physical. It is ability under the stresses of combat that has to be taken into consideration. This is the only criteria when faced with an enemy. A kind of enemy that poses a real threat to our country, as was the case during the First and Second World Wars.

            Women, on the front line combat role up against an enemy comprising solely of

 men will lose out when it comes to men and women dirty fighting. If I could be convinced by any example that British women could be as ruthless and equally so as the men in combat; as well as equally proficient in man to man combat, then I would willingly admit that I was wrong. But in such an engagement the UK would be put at a disadvantage if the contribution of women to front line combat proved a failure under flesh to flesh combat with an enemy who does not believe in women soldiers.

            As far as the army is concerned, it still comprises male on male combat. This is not to say this situation will remain, but while it does, for the sake of our country, it must continue. As far as individual man to man combat is concerned, the place of women must remain insolvent.

WOMEN HAVE MADE great advances in all fields of front-line combat within the RAF and the Royal Navy, doing front line jobs of killing the enemy. But such advances in women's front line ability have never extended to the infantry  -  where the Glasgow handshake may save a life when combating an enemy.

            Men should be left in charge of man to man combat, where all sorts of primitive devices are used to keep themselves alive. Women had no place on the beaches of Normandy; and for those feminists who think the contrary…let them see the first 40 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

            Major Judith Webb has brought to the debate a female council of sense to the MoD's wish to allow women to fight in the infantry on the front line. She should be listened to. If not our armed forces will be compromised on the battlefield, and as such this must be considered sedition. Sedition brought about by political correctness. Any deliberate weakness in a combat situation will always be exploited by an enemy; and such a weakness qualifies, in this case, as being deliberate. Feminist equality will, when it comes to the battlefield and hand to hand combat, prove facile and dangerous to the outcome of any military engagement. It is not about being anti-feminist, but about winning a military engagement or a war, which has little bearing on feminism.

           

           

           

                       

           

           

The four in five story that compares the NHS to like Lidl and Aldi

LIBERALS tell us that without the foreign doctors and nurses the NHS would implode. I have never believed this, but it makes a good story to tell when arguing against those who dispute the benefits of mass migration.

            

            The other day we were told that four in five new nurses recruited by the NHS are foreign. After reading this I thought; what on earth is happening to our state education system when we have to import Poles to make sandwiches (a 'skill' we no longer, it seems, posses), or work in department stores – and now we cannot even produce home grown nurses? These stories may have added grist to the liberal mill; but if they are true then the state of our liberal comprehensive educational system is more wretched than I first believed.

            

             But we now learn the "four in five" story can be explained by unscrupulous tailoring of the truth to benefit the pro-mass migrant cause; and it throws the ball back into the liberal court and demolishes the NHS foreign worker dependency argument. It is a canard and a deliberately created one. The idea that the one state provisioned institution that the British people have any great affection for would collapse if foreign workers did not become its rampart, was no doubt ment to persuade into a more welcoming frame of mind regarding mass-migration, the British people.

WE NOW LEARN that the NHS receives 100,000 training applications for 20,000 training places each year. We also learn that its costs £70,000 to train a nurse for three years – for the same amount the NHS can recruit three trained foreigners; 6,000 of whom were recruited last year.

            

            Nurses in their 40s who left to start families cannot find jobs to return to; on top of which the government has cut the number of nursing places from 20,829 in 2009/10 to 17,219 in 2012/13 – although it rose last year to 19,206[1]

            

            What this seems to be telling me is that the NHS is looking abroad, not because they cannot recruit at home, but because it is cheaper to recruit abroad …cutting out the need to train home grown candidates for the nursing profession. It has nothing to do with supply as our liberals believed it to be from the "four in five" story.

            

            This tells us that the NHS are recruiting nurses (as well as doctors directly from countries like Pakistan, and India), where they are desperately needed within their own countries. What do the liberal's feel about this? When the liberals get the wrong end of an argument, silence usually descends until provoked, by a new set of circumstances surrounding a new topic.

THIS COUNTRY can adequately supply its own nurses without the need to look abroad. We look abroad for economic reasons, and not for any perceived shortage. It is cheaper to buy abroad than it is to teach home grown nursing talent – just as it is to pick sprouts in a field in Lincolnshire.

WHEN IT COMES to mass migration and the liberal middle classes living in the better class of London residency; it is to their benefit that such migration occurs.

           

            In India during the years of the British Empire; those civil servants sent from the UK to help govern it on our monarchs behalf, left a country where their lower middle class status bought very little in terms of the employment of servants service their needs. But once in India servants were literally two a penny. Despite being minor civil servants comparable to a worker in today's benefits agency – once in India they were ranked well above what they would have been in the UK.

            

            So it is with mass-migration. The London liberal middle classes can now afford to employ servants from Europe, under the free movement of people's directive; as well as from other parts of the world. Oversees servants who could barely eke out a living, for instance in parts of Asia (the Philippines) came to London and received free board and lodging and a minimum wage, not a national one of course, but their employers concept of one.

            

             Mass migration has served the London Metropolitan elite very well, and they see no reason to halt its progress throughout the rest of the country; and anyone who opposes such an entrenchment within our culture is crowned a racist. It seems to me that it is not from the Right that Orwell's dystopian vision embedded in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four will sprout; but from the Left, with their apocalyptic vision of a continental super state built upon multicultural foundations  -  foundations built not upon inclusion but diversity. For multiculturalism is all about diversity.

THE METROPOLITAN liberals love the importation of cheap labour. To them, it is like shopping at Aldi. Human labour has been cheapened by the free movement of peoples and globalisation. The London liberal elite opposes any attempt to stop mass-migration because it serves their needs. They of course will dress up any opposition in the rhetoric of racism.

            

            Liberals are the archetypical hypocrites when it comes their own self-interest. They will campaign and protest, and author letters to the press on behalf of the poor, or any other liberal cause. But when their individual needs conflict with their high minded liberal principles; it is their personal needs which will always overrule their 'idealism'.

            

            Mass immigration has no conceivable benefit to the country  -  only to employers and the middle class liberalista. Since the time of Enoch Powell when a mere 50,000 migrants entered the country annually;  we now have 500,000 entering, not including the illegals: and to pretend as do the liberals, that such numbers will have little impact on the NHS, education, housing, or the welfare state, contradicts the mathematics of volume on the  people of any society from such a large intake of migrants. The liberalista are living in the twilight zone from where they carry their back- pack of a liberal conscience. They believe themselves to be welcoming in employing immigrants (especially as cheap servants). In doing so they care little for the impact their "welcome" has on the indigenous population.

            

             The liberal conscience only concerns itself with immigration and not the white indigenous people whose lives are being disorientated and even laid low by the influx. The white working class are despised by the social liberals within the two main political parties in parliament. We are seen as plebs by the Tories and proles by Labour: we have no purpose to serve in their modern "democracy"; a term which is anyway facing extinction within the European Union.

            

              But neither pleb or prole is considered as insulting in this politically correct society as being comparable in any way to Nigger, Taffy, Jock, Paki, or Paddy. We are living in a nightmare of political correctness which allows and prohibits the use of inoffensive and offensive terms according to the liberal lexicon. Freedom of expression including using insulting use of language is part and parcel of a free form of elucidation within a democracy.

           

              Democracy should, and have in the past, tolerated (at least from the 1960s) all forms of argument and expression. By using the law to prohibit such forms of expression that the liberalista finds objectionable, they are conjuring up Orwell's  dark vision.

           

                       

           

           

---

[1] All figures are taken from the Daily Mail, a paper which is not on many liberals reading list, but let them contest them instead of sneering at the newspaper.

CIA torture will not turn the West into Nazis

I GO TO BED EARLY and usually wake up at about midnight, and stay awake until 3.30 in the morning, before dropping off again: then waking once more at 6 am to begin my day. During those early three and half hours, I usually watch a film on the horror channel as well as tune into Sky News. I always follow their press preview every hour from 10.30 pm onwards; and if you want to know what the metropolitan elite's spin on the news is, you should listen in because it is very educational for those of us who live outside of London.

            

            CIA torture has made the news this week, in particular the publication of the US Senate's Intelligence Committee's rebuke to the CIA: and the Sky press reviewers, comprising liberal journalists, editors, ex-editors, and those describing themselves as writer/film makers, or PR consultants and historians - in other words those who garner themselves with all sorts of titles respected only by the Metropolitan elite among whom they belong and whirl among, who are the sole participants of the press reviews either by Sky or the BBC -  the latter of whom I cannot bring myself any longer to watch.

            

            They disagree with each other more often than not, on the level of the scale of a particular disagreement, rather than outright opposition to each other. This is because, as liberals, their political views are similar. So they are like Jonathan Swift's Lilliputians and Blefuscudians who went to war over which end of a boiled egg should be cracked open – their disagreements are of little more significance than that. They are liberals discussing the right liberal stance to take.

            

             This week they all acted in harmony like bleeding the heart liberals they are. When it came to torture and rendition; no-one was prepared to stand up for the CIA – except that is the Sky viewers, who apparently thought those tortured deserved their fate. This is because Sky's viewers are in the main, set apart from London and no doubt share the view of one time vice president Dick Cheney, who said: "We asked the agency [CIA] to takes steps to catch the bastards who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 and that is exactly what they did. They deserve a lot of credit." Indeed they do .

            

             The torture methods used by the CIA to gain intelligence, however horrific, are part of the price the West must pay to defeat Islamism. Members of ISIS, including the hundreds of "British citizens" who have gone to join them, must understand that we in the West can be as ruthless as themselves in the pursuance of their defeat. ISIS sees the West as effete, weak, and degenerate; and are therefore exposed to their ruthless ambition to assimilate the West into their caliphate.

OUR LIBERAL ELITE will surely bring about the final demise of the West within Europe. Those press previewers who abhor the CIA for their actions; had better be ready for the consequences of their liberal loathing of such methods.

            

             The liberalista have their own moral boundaries that fall far short of their enemies ruthless ambitions. If we present ourselves to our enemies as decent, and almost Jesus- like[1], as our liberals seek to do – then our enemies will rightly laugh in our face and use whatever methods they need to use from the ISIS catalogue of brutality and vindictiveness .They will pounce upon us in the knowledge that we in the West obey a moral code that they despise; and are right to do so when it comes to trying to defeat them.

IT WAS WINSTON CHURCHILL who advocated total war against Germany, which led to the bombing of German civilians, resulting in many hundreds of thousands deaths. Where for instance, should this act be measured on the scale of war criminality?

            

           What the CIA did in terms of the torture they indulged in, comes nowhere close to what the allies did during the Second World War, when they bombed cities like Dresden killing between 50-100 thousand civilians in Dresden alone: Dresden was just one city we bombed. Does this make us war criminals or Nazis for adopting their ways…we did what was needed had to be done to defeat our enemy and preserve democracy: but there is no doubt that by today's standards, such bombing will eventually be considered a war crime, if the Sky's press reviewers have their way in the coming years, if, that is, such a review will remain in existence.

            

             In both cases: the bombing of German cities and the torture meted out by the CIA, have both helped preserve Western democracies. This and this alone should be our bottom line as it has always been. The sole criteria should be the survival of democracy and do whatever is needed to keep it alive. Applying the methods of our enemies does not turn us into them. We found this out during the Second World War…we never became Nazis for adopting their method of bombing civilians.

            

            Churchill never became another Hitler and the British people were just relieved to have seen yet another trespasser on British soil defeated and the war brought to an end; whatever it took to so do.

           

            CIA torture, however horrific, could not match the Japanese and Nazis efforts during the Second World War… or, for that matter that of Islamism, and in particular ISIS, who readily behead women and children and slaughter men of the Shia faith.

WE IN THE WEST must do, as we did between 1939 and 1945, all that is required of us to do to defeat our enemies: and this is what, after 9/11 the CIA have sought to do and should continue in their work to so do. The West is under attack from Islamism. It first struck against the Twin Towers in New York  killing just over 3,000 New York citizens.

            

            How could the Senate's Intelligence Committee (SIC) have set this ball rolling? They have opened a Pandora's Box that will only advantage the West's enemies in ISIS. We in the West must retain secrecy, but are now left to once more pick at our scabs because of SIC (sic). This includes torture to seek out our Islamic enemies; who are quite prepared to undermine the West's defences, in order to kill innocent people.

            

             Let SIC ponder upon this. The committee has done great harm to the interests of the West by their presentation. This is a bag of worms that will not go ignored by the Western media; resulting in the West's inability to out-flank and reduce its IS enemies will be at least made questionable by these disclosures.

           

           

                       

---

[1] I refer here to Christ's final words on  the cross; "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

Lennon and McCartney were rendered artistically sterile by their split

THERE SHOULD BE a reappraisal of John Lennon. He has a stature which was warranted when he partnered Paul, now Sir Paul McCartney; as part of the creative duo that made the Beatles. But when the group split, neither produced any work of merit. The Lennon and McCartney partnership was comparable to the great American song writers and musical composers of the past; nothing they touched could go wrong; they were truly blessed with a creative vigour that, used as a duo, produced the greatest popular music of modern times from the 1960's to 1970. They produced the great lyrics and musical accompaniment to those lyrics that were unsurpassed in popular music during that decade and any other that followed.

                  

            Tell me, did anything they contrived as individuals come even close to what were on the wing albums? Please Please Me (1963), With the Beatles (1963), A Hard Day's Night (1964) Beatles for Sale (1964), Help! (1965), Rubber Soul (1965), Revolver (1966), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), The Beatles ("The White Album", 1968), Yellow Submarine (1969), Abbey Road (1969),   and Let It Be (1970).

            To pretend their individual talent outlived their partnership (as many of those of my generation seek to do) are just falling victim to sentiment .The Beatles produced the most popular music and the most literate of lyrics. Their lyrics often pre-empted and summed up those years when you look back on your life.

            

            The Beatles were the very best. Better than the Stones or Elvis Presley – although the Kinks did run them a close second. But when they split; the music died. Although neither McCartney or Lennon could accept this; having believed themselves artistically supreme in their own right, they sustained each other by believing themselves individually gifted; so they continued alone, but to produce only the banal in terms of musical and lyrical composition: which the critics and the media went along with mainly because they were part of the same 1960s generation as myself; and so continued the Lennon and McCartney myth under the mediocrity they undoubtedly were, as individuals.

            

             McCartney formed the group Wings, with little success and even attempted a classical theme with his Liverpool Oratorio; a pretentious ambition born from an overweening sense of his own self-importance. As for Lennon, all he could come up with was a commercially proclaimed anthem called Imagine. A rebuke to the modern world replaced only by nihilism. Both gifted artists lost their way when they separated. Neither could function without the other. Which was well understood by the other two members of the group.

JOHN LENNON DIED on the 8^th of December 1980 at the age of 40. He was assassinated by Mark Chapmen outside of the Dakota Apartment building in New York. With his death his legend was meant to, and did indeed prosper; like many another American pop entertainer from Buddy Holly onward. Yet Lennon was a pedestrian presence once freed from Paul McCartney's contribution;  as was Paul McCartney once freed of Lennon's. Their individual talents complimented each other; and they were the Beatles – as both Ringo Starr and George Harrison would acknowledge.

            

          When they separated from each other, their work was reduced to the everyday and commonplace. Lennon and McCartney were the creative geniuses of the 1960s and early 1970s. In combination they produced single after single, and LP after LP. They lit up a generation and embedded their lyrics into future generations. The Beatles were exemplary in the way they captured a generation without ever knowing it; until they absorbed what was written about them.

RAY DAVIS AND THE KINKS were second only to the Beatles and better than the Stones. But unlike the Beatle's,  Ray Davis new when the group's time was up and left the music scene. In doing so they left the music world a portfolio, like the Beatles, of music that will continue to transcend the generations. Albums such as  Face to Face, Something Else, The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround and Muswell Hillbillies, on top of their singles.

JOHN LENNON, when he took up with the avant-gardes 'artist' Yoko Ono, was pussy whipped by her. Her influence absorbed him more than his talent. The ridiculous Plastic Ono Band that they set up was even more unremarkable than McCartney's Wings. There was the so-called 'sleep in' and 'give peace a chance' pantomime that finally made me give up on any hope that Lennon could work, like McCartney… alone. Both were tolerated for their earlier combined work after the breakup, as artists.

            

             John Lennon's reputation has grown since the tragic circumstances of his death. There is nothing more appetising to modern youth of any generation than the early demise of a pop icon, and John Lennon did himself and his reputation a great deal of good by dying so young.

            

            The Beatles, as a group, should be separated from its two foremost creative talents who separated themselves from the group. The Beatles died when the group split up; and the contribution made by its two premier artists should not be judged only on what they created as partners motivating the Beatles, but also as separate individuals, separate from their period as partners, which was not a lot, and third rate.

            

             It is about time that Lennon and McCartney were appreciated solely for their musical partnership. It is upon this, that the true talent of both should be judged. What they both did individually, after the split, merits little: in terms of creativity of the equal worth that they achieved when in tandem. Their individual efforts after the split amounted to the mediocre. Lennon and McCartney were meant for each other, and nothing greater.

The BBC is bias; but George Osborne should have given detail.

I DO NOT LIKE THE BBC. It is an institution with an in-built liberal bias, and I resent having, by law, to pay to even own a television - a situation unheard of outside North Korea. But the BBC's biased (sic) reportage of the chancellor's autumn statement especially by Norman Smith, the corporations political editor; with his comparing the effect of the chancellor's autumn statement to Orwell's Wigan Pier; and describing the planned spending cuts as "utterly terrifying"; not only shows a bias, but a factually silly one. His language was, to say the least hyperbolic. It was a disgraceful episode among many other examples of the corporation's liberal bias.

            

            But having said that, the chancellor did himself no favours for not announcing where the cuts would come from to help level the deficit. In other words there was no blue print, only an ambition intended no doubt to put the Labour Party on the wrong foot. The Tory party may be upset by the BBC's approach; but they allowed such an approach to be summoned up by the lack of detail in where the spending cuts needed to meet their economic outcome would come from. They could have at least tried with the use of well crafted statistics.  

            

             As usual the political party in power used the occasion to try and write the next day's headlines, after which; and after further detailed examination, it all starts to unwind in the media. But the BBC was never going to offer a kindly appraisal of a Tory pronouncement; let alone an autumn statement – but a Cameron liberal led Tory Party might have expected more from the BBC.

            

THE WIGAN PIER EFFECT could never arise in this country again. It does not mean that poverty and unemployment has disappeared; but merely that such a state of impoverished venality described by George Orwell, could never be contemplated again; and no modern politician, including Osborne, would ever contemplate such a 'solution' to our national debt.

            

             To this extent the BBC's political editor overreached himself in his loathing of the Tory Party; and even George Orwell would have disowned his rhetoric. Orwell may have been part of the Left; but he was never of the Left. He was not the Left's captive as many at the BBC are today. His iconic novel 1984 was, after all, inspired by his time at the BBC.

            

             What is needed from George Osborne, as a serving chancellor is detail. It is no good blaming any media institution for misinterpreting his solutions for the deficit. He has to tell the people of the sacrifices they have to make to put this country back on the rails. This government has singularly failed in this purpose after promises made before the 2010 general election. The British people need to be served up honesty; not the rhetoric of clinging to power for power's sake. This is a cul-de-sac down which only further cynicism can flourish, leading to social unrest of the kind (and even beyond the kind) we have already witnessed in Greece.

            

            Our politicians may lack the qualities of their previous exemplars of the type that led this country through the war against Germany. But if we are to emulate such temperament once more, then our leaders must be honest with the people they are supposed to serve.          

           

            Osborne must spell out the ruthless task needed to be undertaken to bring our deficit under control: and his party leader, the prime minister, David Cameron must collaborate with him in such a task: and if the people reject the sacrifices required from them, and chose to elect a Labour government; then at least the British public would have been given a chance to vote into what is needed to vote on as the only way out of such a desperate situation.

           

            The Conservatives must spend the time before now and May to educate the public into the economic realities of the country's financial state; they must not pull their punches in doing so, as they have often found it politically expedient to do in the past; and must tell the people of the sacrifices they must make to engineer the defeat of our  deficit's grip on the nation.

            

           But will they? Enmeshed as they are in the twilight zone of spin doctoring and political advisers; will the Conservative Party take the gamble? Will they ignore political injunctions from the opposition? No they will not; and so the game goes on and the country's deficit will no doubt continue to increases beyond what the markets deem manageable and unable to finance.

           

           The UK politicians, at such a point, will find themselves in a comparison with modern Greece. National debt is not only as important as household debt – but far more important. The principles are the same, but the magnitude is far greater for the nation than the household.

THE BBC IS A LIBERAL CONSTRUCT. This would be fair enough if they lived off the proceeds of voluntarily given monthly payments such as SKY seeks -  but they do not. All the channels, apart from the BBC, earn their profits from subscription and advertising . I am not a liberal. I do not support the BBC bias toward this wretched so-called 'progressive' idiom; and I resent having to have my licence fee deducted monthly from my bank account.

            

            The BBC presents itself as the world's foremost broadcaster, yet are afraid to cut themselves free from the licence fee and spread their wings within the global media market place. They would sooner remain handcuffed to the public tit and continue disingenuously to profess "objectivity"; rather than setting out on their own within the globalising market they worship. If the BBC is as confident as they wish us to believe, the corporation would have no problem surviving without the licence fee.

            

             BBC bias is real. It is of a liberal disposition, unlike the disposition of many of the millions of those who are forced to subscribe to it through the licence fee. Set the BBC free to go their own way without taxpayer's money to keep it solvent. Let the people chose what to watch within the modern media. The BBC is no better than a scrounger living off the state and protected by the proceeds from people in their millions who do not subscribe to the corporation's liberal ethos – let the consumer decide what to watch. Give the consumer back their entitlement to own a television set without having to pay a tax on its ownership. George is right about the bias; but many Liberal conservatives support this stance including Chris Pattern - Osborne has come late to such bias, ignoring it until he is affected personally by it.

            

A socialist hypocrite, no less.

THE  MULTIMILLIONAIRE champagne socialist, Michael Meacher, has taken to the Marxist tabloid, the Morning Star, to berate Ian Duncan Smith (IDF) for his austerity welfare measures. He quite rightly rebukes Andrew Mitchell for his appalling treatment of police officers, and David Mellor for his drunken tirade against a taxi driver; "…over the best route home to his £8 million pad near Tower Bridge." It is a pity that Ms Thornberry and Gordon Brown did not receive a similar reprimand for their own previous indiscretions – but then, hey, the is the Morning Star… right? No need for balance hear.

            

            The Morning Star is probably the only daily that would have published such a load of Meacher rot. Even sympathetic lefty papers like the Guardian and the Independent would have baulked at publishing such an analysis – at least these two publications have an understanding of the dangers of the nation's ballooning deficit to the continuance of a wholly publically funded institution's such as the NHS…as well as for future generations.

            

            The conclusion Meacher seems to come to from his tirade is that those whom he refers to as being deprived, through what he terms "petty infringements" from claiming job seekers allowance should steal to make ends meet. The five minute rule for attending an interview is harsh, and the penalty even harsher, and it is often unfair on people such as my friend who worked continuously for 22 years; who paid his taxes and never had a day off through sickness - who was laid off due to the recession.

            

            Living in a seaside town he sought and gained work throughout the holiday season, but was laid off in late September each year. But instead of having to put up with the weekly interview in order to claim job seekers allowance; he, like many others, signed off ; and now he keeps himself throughout the winter on what he saves during the summer. It is far from ideal but it is a far better alternative than stealing; for he keeps his dignity, self-respect and most important to all, his honour; and would never reduce himself to the same level that Mr Meacher suggests others do in a similar position.

            

            In the 1930s my father had to work, not for money but food tokens. He literally "got on his bike" to ride several miles each day to dig holes for the placement of telegraph poles, and when the job ended he was told he had to sell his bike before he became entitled to national assistance – he never once considered stealing for his or his families' food.

            

            What Meacher describes as the "treadmill of impoverishment" is no such thing. Such an expression only belittles the sacrifices of the kind my father had to endure in the past. There is not a treadmill of impoverishment for healthy young and middle-aged men and women who wish to work, what they may lack is a sense of ambition; after being let down by the Comprehensive school system that the likes of Mr Meacher supported.

            

            Many claimants turn their noses up to lowly paid jobs because they see themselves as being better off on welfare: and this is why IDF is finally doing what previous Labour governments refused to acknowledge and chose merely to spend more and more of taxpayers' money on keeping such recidivists in benefit, and supplied with cans of cheap larger.

MICHAEL MEACHER has socialist instincts that leads him to believe in the equality of man -  even if his own personal fortune negates such an instinct. But do not get me wrong: if Mr Meacher has accrued wealth, then good luck to him. Wealth creation is, after all, the bedrock of the capitalist system; a system I believe in. A system which Michael Meacher has, however benefited from, despite his antipathy toward it.

            

            If Mr Meacher seeks to evangelise against wealth; then let him redistribute his own in a truly egalitarian fashion, instead of passing it on to his relatives. I am sure many of those he regards as being on the "treadmill of poverty" would be eternally grateful for his contribution.

           

             Let him follow the example of Bill Gates, the multi-billionaire capitalist who is using his billions to placate the suffering of millions who suffer from diseases such a malaria throughout the world. He has poured nearly a billion of pounds of his personal wealth into trying to eradicate malaria; and through his trust will pour further millions. How many of Michael Meacher's millions are being used to meet the same kind of need?

            

             Socialists such as Meacher are hypocrites, and so is the Morning Star for printing his piece. Socialism is the anchor chain preventing human political and social development; and those who subscribe to it are intellectually vacuous. There is a whole history of socialist failure to draw upon as evidence of the failure of socialism itself: involving the deaths of many thousands of millions of people drawn to its cause in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam; as well as Mozambique and Angola; and, latterly, Venezuela.  But the ism still continues a-pace to attract new converts of idiocrats of a certain age to socialisms cause; for the idiom of equality among humans still meets a need – especially among the young and certain academics promoting a puerile socialist dissertation.

           

              Socialism is the new political idiocracy. It has recreated untold misery since its emergence. Yet it still survives among the Left in modern Britain. Socialism is a naive attraction for the young, and will therefore torment the political process within the West for future generations. Socialism is the naivety of youth, clung to until maturity hopefully emerges to undermine the romanticism of youth.

SOCIALISM IS the handbrake on social progress. It attracts the naive to its cause. Youth, in other words the youth beholding to the likes of George Bernard Shaw, Karl Marx, and Leon Trotsky. Youth beholding to all forms of egalitarianism, dreamed up by minds of a utopian disposition -  only to be overcome by a dystopian reality.

            

           Michael Meacher has no credible role to play regarding this government's attitude toward the much needed reduction in the welfare budget. Meacher has no purpose whatsoever  to serve; unless, that is, he makes his own financial provision toward those injustices he seeks to illuminate.

            

           Meacher seeks only to blame others rather than make a financial contribution himself to the cause he seeks to uphold. I will gladly write him a letter of apology if he has contributed at least half of his wealth to the causes he feels himself angered by as a socialist.

          

           There are throughout the world many millionaires who give generously to various charities and if Mr Meacher is among them, then I will take him more seriously as a socialist. But until his egalitarian spirit emerges in the form of genuine contributions to the less fortunate from all parts of the world, then Mr Meacher remains to my mind, a socialist hypocrite.

           

           

            

The Midwitch Cuckoos

ALL OVER THE United Kingdom students attending our finest universities are in thrall and captivated by the idea of censorship… the very negation of what a university education within a democracy is meant to promote. University is an intellectual institution that is supposed to comprise of a dialectic between opposing ideas going back to the ancient Greeks; where those that do not meet with the approval of the general consensus should be allowed to speak, and be challenged intellectually; through debate of the kind the University of Oxford and other such institutions have historically promoted.

            

            This is no longer the case. In today's Daily Telegraph, Tim Stanley reports of Ukip being stopped from debating at the University of East Anglia (UEA). While he was himself  invited to propose a motion at a University of Oxford debate, was refused due to a feminist student protest.

            

             The debate was on abortion and it was threatened by student protest if it went ahead. Oxford succumb. Brendan O'Neill was to have taken part in the debate with Timothy Stanley. Brendan was to put forward the pro-choice argument against Timothy Stanley who is pro-life. But both met with student opposition that lead to the debate being cancelled.

            

            But why? Both sides of the argument were represented. The trouble was that the debate was being orchestrated by men. Apparently, and according to those students opposing the debate, any male should have no contribution to make, either for or against abortion. Abortion is the monopoly of women, and no man should have, either way, any part to play in such a debate.

            

            On the issue of abortion it is reprehensible that the best of our country's young minds, who are in attendance at our premier university, can censor debate. It is a blasphemy that such ignorance can manifest itself without opposition from the university authorities…but it has happened.

IF THE SUBJECT of blocking an anti-abortion debate were the only liberal-Leftist intellectual sin it would be a one off. But it is not. The National Union of Students (NUS) have pressed their members into censoring other areas of university debate covering the censorship of Israeli academics on campus: or any criticism of gay marriage; as well as global warming: or for that matter any other anti-liberal so-called 'progressive' politically correct doctrine, which the students cannot face being challenged on.

            

             It is the NUS that has been given the power to restrict or even censor debate on university campuses. The university authorities seem to kow-tow to the NUS. No doubt, not because they fear their power (for they have none); but because they sympathise with their views.

            

             Our universities of whatever calibre, are being run by the descendents of the same liberal conquistadores who began their thrust into English culture in the early 1960s. Which is why they tolerate the infantilism of their students.

STUDENT NAIVETY is part and parcel of growing into maturity. But never has such gullibility been so seriously entertained by the academics who are meant to mould them. I can only conclude that liberal political correctness is being sourced by liberal university academics, who breed generation after generation of induced liberally minded students who arrive at university already prepared by their parents and teacher's own liberal influences, garnered during the 1960s and passed on to them by their parents and grandparents.

            

            These so-called student academics are going to (judging from the subjects from which they opine as students)  will find themselves teaching the next generation's children; either that or finding a bolt hole in some part or other of the public sector where they can still find a job for life. Those opposing a debate on abortion purely on grounds of gender; or on the issue of gay marriage, as well as even denying the mere presence of academics from Israel on campus; tells me that these students on the whole, are studying the barren wastelands of social science, or the humanities, from whose womb they will emerge to become, not only social scientists but social workers and civil servants…or if the chosen path is a humanities degree of some sort or other, they will probably find work at the BBC or within some other part of the Left-leaning media.

            

             Our universities seem to be manufacturing generation after generation of a liberal mentality to take their place among the liberal Borg-collective that now stifles liberty and, as  with communism constrains free speech. It is this future that such censorship will unleash on future generations. This liberal auto-da-fé were careers can be destroyed because of a politically incorrect comment on race, sexuality, or gender, by a public figure – or an arrest authored by the tenets of multiculturalism on individuals who are daily brought to book by the police for similar, 'hate crimes'.

 

THE MIDWITCH CUCKOOS have a liberal pallor to their faces. These students are intellectually anaemic. They cannot withstand any intellectual challenge to their pre-conceived  politically correct assumptions. They are weak of argument and will not tolerate a view that they believe undermines their own liberal certainties. Debate is off bounds; and what is even worse, their masters who oversee their education appear to be in coalition with them. Both Brendan O'Neill and Timothy Stanley are seen as beyond the pale of these student's rigid and foolish notions they regard as certainties, and therefore need not be given a voice on the campus.

           

             Here we see liberalism taken to such extremes that it becomes the negation of the tolerance that is supposed to be at the centre of the liberal cause. Such extreme liberalism evolves into totalitarianism…as it did in the past with its flirtations with  Marxism.

            

             To close down all opposing argument is not a liberal concept but a totalitarian one; and it seems that the Midwitch Cuckoos who trample upon the rights of those who oppose them in debate, should never have been at university in the first place - despite their grades.