Polemic

Sunday, September 13, 2015

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.

Friday, September 11, 2015

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.

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.

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.

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

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

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.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

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.

Friday, September 4, 2015

Polemic: Dam the award hungry media

Dam the award hungry media

THE DISTRESSING image of a dead three-year-old child washed up and laying face down on the shoreline was awful to look at. The image is on the front pages of the entire world's press; and the video is playing on every channel of every news broadcaster throughout the globe. Our politicians are coming under pressure from the liberal media, NGOs and the UN, to allow the great mass of humanity ready access into Europe.

This image will prove to be the tipping point (or so the liberal media hope) toward the European continent absorbing whosoever takes to an unseaworthy vessels from North Africa to cross the Mediterranean; or pile-up in Hungary. The image is the ball-changer as far as the media are concerned. I can remember the image of a naked child fleeing to safety on a road in Vietnam carrying the burns of napalm. This image probably did more to undermine the American cause in Vietnam than anything the NVA or Vietcong managed to do. That image also spread like a virus (even before the age of the internet): news broadcasters posted it, and the anti-war movement realised this was a tipping point for America's involvement in Vietnam.

In Gaza during Israel's attempt at closing down the tunnels which Hamas used to send terrorists into Israel; the media did its best to propagandise on behalf of the Palestinians. Hamas played them well, because the media wanted to be played by Hamas because of the Western media's sympathies for the Palestinians.

Journalists allowed themselves to be taken in by Hamas who were using their own people as human shields. Hamas used civilian buildings, including a hospital to hide their rockets that had been raining down on Israel by their hundreds weeks before Israel sent in their military to put a stop to it. Images of Palestinian civilians: distressed women and children were the focus of the camera lens; and Israel was targeted for blame by (to name but two news agencies) the BBC and Sky News, by their overall biased reporting at the time.

So images can affect the way Western politicians (fearful of any unpopularity) react to any crisis. There was that classic moment in the Channel 4 satirical series, Drop the Dead Donkey, when a news reporter was standing by a pile of rubble which a bomb had obviously been responsible for creating. The reporter had planted a teddy bear on top of the rubble and his cameraman zoomed in on it implying of course that children had been buried by the blast – the image is everything. What this particular fictitious journalist was hoping for was an award for his journalism; primarily for himself, but the fictitious broadcast company he worked for would also take some of kudos from employing him; and parade him or her as the case may be as a prize winning reporter.

IF WE DID NOT HAVE OPEN BORDERS; there would at least be an argument for taking in some of these people. But the already over burdening of our country by mass migration from Europe due to Schengen has ruled out any possibility of bringing further waves of migration into this country from Libya, Syria and parts of Africa.

We as humans tend to respond to the immediate plight of people emotionally with little consideration (in the case of migration) for the indigenous society itself; which is where the image becomes dangerous because emotion supersedes objective judgement, if only temporarily, but long enough to do something stupid. The politicians act like ferrets in a sack. They either, out of principle, encourage or discourage the deluge visited upon them; but even in this moment of humanitarian crises, party political game play continues. The reality of party politics within a democracy can at times appear disgusting; and we are at such a moment. Andy Burnham has called for a parliamentary debate on this issue – his own preference appears to be that we should take in these migrants; although he does not, unlike one of his fellow challengers for the leadership, wish to put a figure upon the amount of people we should take in. His wholly humanitarian impulses stop at the point where he is asked about numbers.

SOME European nations have demanded that Cameron takes in his fare share after the German Chancellor opened her borders to 800,000 migrants. Angela Merkle has led the charge on behalf of European imbecility in demanding that the UK, on threat of outright rejection of the Cameron proposed reforms; take a 'fare' share of these migrants/refugees.

She has pointed a gun at Cameron's head. But it was she who invited these 800,000 to Germany. There was no reason why she should. No one held a gun to her head to take them in. It was her decision to do so. Now she has the temerity to expect other nations, who thought her invitation a folly; now to follow her lead – no, she has made her bed, now let her lay in it; until a year from now when there will be further demands made on German residency from the next wave; which will continue, even if Europe found homes for this latest influx. Year after year the pressure will mount to deliver ever more migrants, until the whole EU edifice crumbles before tsunami after tsunami. Who believes after all that Syria will prosper again as nation whose boundaries like those of Iraq where creations of British/French imperialism? Those leaving it certainly do not.

For those of us who have insisted that our borders be reconnected throughout Europe to stop this advance is now being supported by some at least. European nations are finally smelling the coffee and are worried enough (as they should be) to believe in a return to Europe of its national boundaries –but it may be too late; Schengen released the genie from the bottle.

Earlier this year Cameron was chastised because he used the word 'swamped' to describe the burden on our society of people having the right to enter; particularly from Eastern Europe into our country. In the last ten years over five million people have been added to our population, putting pressure on our social, educational, and NHS services. Now Angela Merkle expects us to take even more, which will put further pressure on our welfare state; our education system and the NHS; demanding further expenditure that will either result in further taxation or borrowing; or as Corbyn suggest the printing of more money; the so call Quantative Easing; that fictitious assemblage that only socialists believe does not need in one form or other any kind of repayment.

I do not think that the state can continue to expect the taxpayer to pay for this haemorrhaging of resources from the indigenous people to all and sundry who turn up, however traumatic their arrival on our shores. Cameron should stand firm on this. He should even be prepared to tell his people to leave the EU after Merkle's threat.

That young child was delivered to its wretched death by its parents, not by Europe. The United Nations that now demands that the UK take what it and Angela Merkle deems our 'fair share' with little knowledge of our circumstances after Schengen; had better think again.

I have always opposed the construct of a super nation, but this is the EU's plan. The continent of Europe is to be reduced to a single nation like the USA. Which is why the EU opened our borders: and in this time of crises we are unable to close them now. So why does Cameron pay any kind of heed to it? It is because Cameron himself has bought into the EU project. But he has used the renegotiation of this country's relationship with the EU to save his party's membership and voters drifting toward Ukip – he will bend.