THE LADY SPEAKS FOR EUROPE

AT LAST A WESTERN LEADER OF SIGNIFICANCE has dared to tread on a few egg shells in order to say what millions of people throughout Europe have been waiting for one of their leaders to say.

            Of course Angela Merkle was addressing the Christian Democrat (CDU) youth, when she spoke of the failure of Multiculturalism; and many of her colleagues throughout the continent hoped that she said what she did in order to rally her party, whose members have demanded a stronger line to be taken by the party on immigration: an issue that every government in the EU has avoided and allowed to fester until a more vigorous Right-wing politics is emerging as part of  the centre ground.

            If it is the case that Chancellor Merkle is playing politics with this issue by making all of the right noises in order to keep her party with her, then she will be found out and the disillusionment this causes will drive people to ever greater extremes on both the Left as well as the Right.

            Chancellor Merkle has said, “This (multicultural) approach has failed, utterly failed”. At a time when, to criticise this ideology of multiculturalism, amounts to racism, then the German Chancellor has been very brave for saying the things she has on the subject.

            Doubly so because, being a German, she faces, unfairly, the taunt of  history. If  she is genuine, such sneering will only come from the Left, and the Left do not represent the German people any more than they do in this country.

            I hope in the coming days Chancellor Merkle will not seek in any way or form, to either bluntly or diplomatically renege upon her views on multiculturalism. She has said what every other conservative voice throughout the rest of Europe has feared saying including our Prime Minister, David Cameron.

            Because of this pernicious ideology and its Witch-Finder General, “political correctness”, the ordinary people have effectively been gagged from protesting its creation and its spread.

THERE IS NOTHING ORGANIC OR NATURAL about Multiculturalism. It is a creation of a well-meaning, but innocent mind. It is a philosophy, creed; and now a dogma. In this country, or so I have read, its principle proponent was Roy Jenkins who, just before it was too late to do so, had second thoughts as to its wisdom.

            Multiculturalism is the antitheses of integration - the very concept we are told, it set out to accomplish. By creating a tapestry of  different cultures separated from each other but all of equal worth to each other, including the host culture, was bound to be a recipe for failure. Such a system could have only flowered from an idealistic and well meaning, but ultimately, disastrous, mind.

            I believe that the creed of multiculturalism was erected as a by-product of Liberal guilt for our colonial past. My use of the word liberal is meant to encompass, in this respect, every aspect of the Left-wing diatribe, encompassing all of the main parties.

            Liberalism has created a monster. Multiculturalism wherever it has been practiced has led only to conflict. It has done so because different people of different cultures want only their own country to defend and prosper. When India became independent, over 100,000 people died in the ensuing conflict which lead to the creation of Pakistan: and thousands more were killed when Bangladesh was given birth to.

            Those conflicts mean as much to India and Pakistan nationalism as British history means to our own indigenous culture. We have, as a nation, ever since the invasion of the Anglo Saxons after the retreat of the Romans in the 5^th century AD, and the eventual rise of the Anglo Saxon King, Alfred the Great 849-899, became master of our culture, and any other that sought conquest of these isles were at least challenged and fought against.            Any intruders were and had always been defied since the arrival of the Romans and were at least fought with. If not in the end defeated, then at least contained; and this continued until 1066 and the arrival of William the Conqueror whose forces committed the nearest thing to genocide in the medieval world that has landed upon our shores. Yet even William, as we all know from the Battle of Hastings had a less than peaceful conquest.

            On these Isles at least, we have all, in one way or another over the centuries fought for our culture. Much bloodshed has been split between the English and the Scots for instance, as well as the ancient British and Roman, and the Romo-British and Saxon. We also ventured our opposition to Viking and Norman over the centuries. Even today there is a love-hate relationship between England and Scotland, but it is also one of mutual respect.

MULTICULTURALISM will fail because it seeks to equalise all cultures including the host culture. Thus emerges separatism instead of uniformity. Uniformity would entail the acceptance of the host culture as the primary culture under which all others must live according to the laws and traditions of the culture. But if those traditions have been tampered with in order to create a Multicultural society then British culture will be put in the blender and be reduced to the contents of a mere slop pail.

            It is my position not to prohibit other cultures, but only to demand from them that if they chose to live in a host culture , then their own cultural mores must be placed second to those of the host culture: and if this proves impossible then they must return to the country that better suits their own culture.

            The only way that different cultures can live with each other is for the host culture to set the ground rules and if other cultures find themselves in disagreement with them, then they must return to the culture they came from and defend it with as much vigour as the culture they were dislodged from.

            If Germany, like any other country in Europe, wishes to maintain their own cultural identity, they must insist that any minority that wishes to achieve citizenship among them has to put German culture (including the language) before their own; which also includes all lawmaking.

            This is all Chancellor Merkle requires. She is not a racist but a protector of her culture, if, that is, she remains serious about her claims.

            Multiculturalism always diminishes the host culture and its history and cultural traditions. History and tradition comprise that which carves out a nation, and glues its people together. It is only history that creates a nation; and a nation with as proud a history as  should not have diminished by multiculturalism.

           

            

NOAM CHUMPSKY ACCUSES EUROPE OF 'RACISM'

ACCORDING TO THE JERUSALEM POST, Noam Chomsky the world renowned academic, polymath and martyr of Left-wing causes has attacked Europe for its delay in admitting Turkey into the European Union; believing such a delay is based upon racist attitudes rather than any objective assessment of its entitlement to membership.

            As someone who left school at fifteen without any kind of academic qualification, I have always felt inferior to and been wary of any kind of scholarly professional: and now, at the age of 60, while I feel the greatest admiration for academic success, and truly envy such accomplishment; I have however lived long enough to have experienced life for myself which many an academic has been protected from.

            From my late teens to my late twenties I was convinced that the future belonged to Communism. To me Marx’s dialectic was as sane and as logical as Darwin’s theory of Evolution, which I also accepted, and still do accept as reality.

            The point I am making is that no matter how brilliant a mind, its possessor can be as stupid and naive as the rest of us less gifted mortals. The world of academia can be as stifling as it is liberating, and its apostles just as wrong as the rest of us. I may respect an academics’ knowledge, but I no longer feel inferior to it.

            Which is why I take issue with Noam Chomsky and his charge of racism against Europe. I am no lover of the European Union, it seeks to reduce nations to mere cantons and seek to remove from them their sovereignty. The overlordship of this enterprise comprise the European Commissioners…unelected bureaucrats who virtually govern nation states by having the legal right to override the elected wishes of the people of Europe. Which in practice means that the governments the people elect are ultimately answerable to appointed bureaucrats who can override a nation’s law in favour of one concocted by the European Commissioners

            So as someone who is no friend of the European project, I must however take issue with Chomsky’s slander.

BEING AS HE HAS, the compass of the Left, Noam Chomsky no doubt felt that he had to give backbone to Europe’s Left as they challenge their various ‘racist’ government’s exclusion of Turkey from the European brotherhood… if I were the elected president of Turkey I would have welcomed, if not demanded, my exclusion from such an enterprise.

            But if Mr Chomsky insists, as his comments reported in the Jerusalem Post suggest, that Turkey should be admitted to the European Union immediately, then who are we to oppose such a request from such a academically gifted intruder. I am sure he has many followers among the idealistic youth of Europe who are prepared to take to the streets on behalf  of Mr Chomsky .

            Mr Chomsky has to understand, as a ‘Marxist/anarchist/socialist’, the titles he has been variously described as holding, that the working classes of Europe stand four square with Angela Merkle, the German president, when she insisted, according to Chomsky, “ that Muslims in the country must accept that Germany's culture is based on Christian and Jewish values - was a pretty extreme and racist statement from a major political figure in Europe.”

            Chomsky declares that this is a racist comment. It is no such thing, and this much adored  prince of academia has finally hit the buffer. The reason that Europe does not wish to entertain  this medieval religion, and to add further to its numbers in Europe, is because we already have living among us some 15 million Muslims. We do not require the admittance of a further 80 million from Turkey; and if Europe agreed to such an avalanche, I for one hope that the people of Europe would finally rebel over something so significant.

            The continent of Europe has always been a continent of nations. It has often been a struggle to meet the requirement of nationhood; but once reached through great sacrifice the instinct was always to hang on to it. This continent has values in conflict with a medieval religion; a religion that has never fostered a Reformation or been part of a great age of Enlightenment.

            For all of its  faults, and they are many and varied, Europe is right to keep its distance from Turkey, until such a time when the Islamic world starts to believe in the democratic values that the West has spilt buckets of blood creating and defending. I have no doubt that the Islamic world wishes total religious hegemony over the planet.

            If this is paranoia, it is no more so than when it was Communism and Fascism seeking the same objective. Christianity during the 15^th, 16^th and 17^th centuries also sought the same intent as does present day Islam.

            Chomsky has had his day. Remember, he chooses his current battle in light of the failures of his earlier ones; just as today’s Marxists, socialists and anarchists also conspire, in ever fewer numbers, for the overthrow of capitalism.

            Like petulant children who have had their toys taken from them, Chomsky and his merry band of radical chic would rather give their support to a medieval religion and its followers than ever countenance any rapprochement  with the evil that is capitalism.

TO CHOMSKY, NO ACT undertaken by Western leaders bodes particularly well for  the rest of mankind. It seems to an uneducated mind like my own that Chomsky would sooner sip from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's table than President Obama’s. He would sooner give his allegiance to medievalism than ever admit that his precious dialectic had been unhinged by history; the very force that Marx determined would change mankind forever and bring them into equilibrium with each other.

            The so called ‘progressive’ Left have been made barren by historical developments. Their ideas of how society should be orchestrated, are insane simply because no society can be orchestrated, especially by the state. In a democracy the people speak and the politician’s listen. In the kind of society the Left has mapped out for us, the people’s mouths are gagged tightly shut on penalty of imprisonment.

            I suppose, for the likes of Chomsky, today’s Islamists are comparable to those who stormed the Winter Palace. They stand full square against the West and capitalism. To Chomsky and his like, it matters little what they would replace the West with as long as the machinery of capitalism was destroyed.

            For, in a way, socialism no longer matters to the Left. All what matters is that the wretched itch of capitalism should be relieved. 

THESE JELLEBIES ARE BEYOND BELIEF

CHARITIES WORKING IN PAKISTAN are seeking to have the stars and stripes removed from the sacks of grain given by America in response to the needs of Pakistan’s flood victims.

            In a letter signed by 11 charities including Oxfam, Save the Children and Care International, the signatories believe that their aid workers will be targeted by the Taliban for distributing American aid. They apparently have no evidence for this fear, only prejudice.

            The USA receives very little credit for the aid she gives to the unfortunate of the world. So if she stamps the stars and stripes on a sack of grain, then she is perfectly entitled to do so. The charities prefer the world to remain ignorant of America’s contribution, as they blame the superpower for all of the world’s ills.

            If America removed her flag from the sacks of aid, it would not make the slightest difference to how the Taliban would react. For the Taliban knows that the primary source of such aid is the West as a whole; and to them the West is the Great Satan, and would consider any attack on aid worker justified, not because of an American flag, but because they know that all such aid originated from the West.

            If these charities believe what they are saying, then let them remove their aid workers from Pakistan, and let another solution be found to aid distribution. But America must not succumb to such infantilism by the charities.

            All that should matter is that such aid should get to the flood’s victims, and if the charities feel they cannot do this, then let them leave the field; they are not, as they may think, irreplaceable. Some way or another help will get through to those wretched victims of nature.

            If the charities feel the need to hit out, then why not hit out at the likes of France and the EU generally. America has given more than the whole of Europe put together, which is probably why so many American flags are in evidence on the sacks of aid.

AMERICA HAS GIVEN aid despite the corruption in Pakistan, which has deterred other countries from giving as generously as they would usually do considering the magnitude of the disaster.

            All that this intervention from the amalgam of the Great and Good does, is to convince the cynical that charity does indeed begin at home. These charities have become an industry, replacing coal and steel among our nation’s best employers.

            I do not believe for one moment that any aid worker that is targeted by the Taliban for distributing sacks of aid stamped with the flag of America, would have not been targeted had the flag been removed.

            I think this whole episode has more to do with the various charities’ antipathy toward America than it has to do with concern for their aid worker’s welfare. As far as the charities are concerned the world would be a better place without America’s role in it; and this is the bottom line.

I AM SURE THAT  SUCH A COMMENT, if read, would cause a fit of the vapours amongst the charity’s directors. They would protest that their only concern was for the well being of those who need their help – and if that help is financed and provided by America, what then?

            The charity industry in this country has become a player whose currency is exploiting the genuine concerns of the British public. But they must be careful when counting on such good will, not to expose their bigotry against the USA. For there are millions of people in this country who give much support to the nation that gave thousands of its young men’s lives to help us defeat Nazism in Europe.

            The charity industry is a vacuous entity reliant upon pure sentiment …that standard bearer of the modern age. All the charities’ rely upon, is nothing less than raw emotion which they bombard  frightened politicians with, afraid as they are of popular disapproval.

            If America agrees to the signatories wishes, and removes their flag, then  I hope the current government will be driven from office by the American electorate come the next presidential election.

            This American government has nothing to apologise for and should not kow-tow the  wishes of the charity industry, whose only leverage is emotion. They should stand fast and continue to provide the assistance needed by any country that, through a natural disaster, needs it.

            It is the charities that have become political, not the aid contributors. It is they, the charities, who are showing  where their antipathies’ lay, and they lay in Washington. It is not that they fear Taliban reprisals against their workers, but rather they themselves feel uncomfortable with the sympathetic response that the Great Satan may glean from the product placement on the sacks of grain.

           

           

            

NICK AND TG AT THE NT (OH, AND NOT FORGETTING MT AT THE BBC)

SIR NICHOLAS HYTNER, the  luvvie superior at the National Theatre has refused to apologise for a reference in the theatre’s  current production of  Blood and Gifts by T G Rogers, to his wished for sodomy of Mrs Thatcher for the spending cuts she made whilst in power. If you remember the Great Lady did indeed show much disfavour, particularly to the arts, believing as she did, that if an artist, writer, or musician were worth their salt then the market place would decide their true importance. For, despite resenting the fact, an artist’s true worth is a commercial one; and if financed by the taxpayer through the likes of the Arts Council then the artist’s worth is judged by a committee who are ordained by, presumably, the politicians, to spend other people’s money, to finance what they deem Great Art.

            Hytner need not apologise however for the author of a play he has allowed to be performed. But the charge of being inherently Left-wing is another case. According to the Daily Telegraph, it was Libby Purvis who took Hytner to task over the reference to Margaret Thatcher. She asked Hytner if he felt such a reference fashioned a view that his theatre was “Leftie”.

            Hytner gave a press conference at which he addressed Ms Purvis’s enquiry with the following comment, “The days when the arts were run by monolithically Leftist individuals have long gone.”

            The great man’s repost reminded me of another tribune  for the arts. The head of the BBC, who also admitted to liberal bias, but also put it in the past tense. Perhaps Sir Nicholas Hytner took his cue from Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, who recently admitted of a liberal bias at the BBC, but like Hytner, said it was all in the past.

           

THE ARTS, HISTORICALLY speaking, flourished  and found their true worth without state i.e. tax payers intervention. We live today in a society where the arts, of all varieties, have become in some way dependent upon the state. This does not mean that those practicing readily succumb. There are many who manage to survive without aid from the taxpayer.

            In the past artists, whether of  a literary, musical or an artistic bent, had to take their given ability seriously. For their day to day living depended upon it. Thus in every field of the arts was the very best created.

            In such times the state was replaced by a patron . People’s taxes today have replaced the  patron .

            Sir Nick is quite right in refusing an apology. If such a request is demanded then it must come from the author T G Rogers, who it seems thinks a lot of himself. However, if I judge my modern authors correctly, TG will only seek further acclaim from any such criticism. He (I presume he is a he) will see his work as a success because of the criticism he has attracted and will seek to take advantage of such a controversy in his future writings.

THE NATIONAL THEATRE  has itself  (if I am not mistaken) lived off the public tit, and like all other such benefactors of the taxpayer’s generosity, they have come to believe that they have a natural entitlement to extractions from the public purse, bequeathed them by whatever of the Muses they seek their inspiration from.

            Mrs Thatcher could not understand why the Arts needed encouragement from the taxpayer at all. All any of the arts need in order to flourish is the freedom in which to prosper;  to question without fear of imprisonment; to speak freely and to condemn, criticise, and yes, to offend if needs be in the name free expression. All of these democratic entitlements are, Mrs Thatcher’ believed, worth far more to the artist than any kind of financial handout from the state.

            Democracy was to her the only handout that any artist should need in order to create. Where there was need for financial help, then the backbone for such aid would be the private sector. If there is a need for state expenditure on the arts then it should be used for the upkeep of our great galleries and museums built from private capital. For instance, the Tate Gallery was built by the finances of capitalism in the form of Tate and Lyle, the producers of a substance that today is regarded almost as sinful as tobacco – sugar.

            Once these great cultural institutions have been set in motion by private wealth, then indeed the state does have an obligation to be the insurers of last resort if they face desperate financial straits that may result in closure. This is why our major galleries and museums were told by a Tory government to charge an entrance fee; for such a fee would  make them less reliant on the taxpayer while, if not making them wholly self-sufficient, would relieve the tax burden on, not the patrons of the arts, but the ordinary man in the street whose main focus outside of work is the football stadium. For them Old Trafford, Stanford Bridge and (in my case) Carrow Road, are the complimentary cultural equivalences to the National, Tate, or Tate Modern galleries.

DESPITE WHAT THE LIKES OF Sir Nicholas Hytner or Mark Thompson say, the Liberal-Left is still well and truly in charge of  all political and cultural activity in this country, and have  been since the 1960s.

            To pretend otherwise, as I believe both representatives of their particular cultural fields are doing in order to appease what they regard as the dreaded Tory dominated Coalition, as well as to avoid cuts in funding to the Arts and the BBC, is merely a ruse which they hope will be believed, and stands a very good chance of so being believed, because both  parties representing the Coalition are themselves of a liberal persuasion.

            Liberalism has been the sole occupier of our culture, beginning in the late 1950s. It has, during its period, managed to capture and nurture every aspect of our cultural life and has managed to do so by deriding its ‘antiquated reactionary’ predecessor.  By deriding what it perceived as its reactionary past, modern liberalism accomplished the relativist mess we live with today.

            The world of the Arts has grown ever larger and ever more dependent upon the taxpayer; but why should they need the taxes of (for instance) a dustman in order to continue  with their latest ‘project’?

            Why should the arts be exempt from market forces when all other industries are not?

                        

BLAIR SPEAKS OUT

‘Look at the funds it receives. Examine the education systems that succour it. And then measure, over the years, the paucity of our counter-attack in the name of peaceful co-existence. We have been outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised'.

TONY BLAIR, speaking to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,

IN A SPEECH DELIVERED IN NEW YORK to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Tony Blair delivered an original appraisal of the current conflict between the West and Islamism. His thesis is that the liberal West should challenge the ‘narrative’ that we in the West have encouraged extremism because of our ‘oppression’ of  Muslims.

            There are, for instance, many sane Western citizens who actually believe that the CIA, or some other Western agency, was behind the 9/11 atrocity in New York. Of course such people follow a liberal agenda, but this does not make them (despite behaviour to the contrary) crackpots.

            The narrative Blair speaks of  is the one that insist that the West’s actions have spawned Islamic extremism and we, and we alone, are to blame. For a liberal society of the likes of which we live in today, it is a seductive and wholly believable concept.

            Within such a society still suffering the hangover from our colonial past, political correctness, if nothing else, is sympathetic to such a narrative. We have become, after all, a nation whose liberals’ self-flagellate whenever a particular minority brings up imperialism, colonialism, and racism. So when Muslims blame us for their extremism the old guilt-ridden formula works a charm.

            We even have something called a ‘hate crime’ to silence those who wish to speak freely in the language they feel comfortable with. But then it was none other than Tony Blair himself who oversaw the promotion of such an expression to a point where the minimal of objections to the numbers of Muslims allowed to live among us faced criminal prosecution.

            It has been the parrot call of liberal politicians from all parties, that those supporting Islamism comprise a small minority of the 1.5 million Muslims living among us; and Tony Blair has always been agreeable to such an observation. But this has been the standard reply by our politicians to every atrocity committed by Islamic terrorists on our soil.

            So frightened have our politicians been of offending any minority in our multicultural society that we have become nervous Nellie’s of any criticism of any minority; and Tony Blair himself is as much to blame for this sorry state of affairs as the people he points a finger at in his lecture.

WHAT THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT DID from 1997 onwards, was too use all minorities as a cosh to bludgeon the Tories with and accuse them of racism if they dared criticise Labour’s immigration policy, which was to more or less open up our borders.

            Tony Blair’s speech was a good speech, but needed to be delivered by someone other than himself. For the speech will be read and ignored because of the author, who is deeply unpopular in this country.

            This country and the whole of  Europe have sought to integrate the West with Islam via Turkey. But it has failed. For every overture made to Islam by the West is seen as weakness by the Muslim world – and why?

            Because the Muslim world seeks to do what Christianity once sought to do, which is to bring its religion to the whole world. Like Christianity, Islam is also a proselytising religion, but one that, in the 21^st  century, is prepared to use  16^th century methods of proselytising  to secure its religious hegemony in the modern world.

            Yet our liberals still seek compromise with this faith. I almost wish that Islam would become the victor and destroy the weak-willed liberal enemy.

            However, such a conquest would also endanger the traditional majority in England who knew what was afoot but were silenced by political correctness backed up by the law of the land through its discovery of the concept of ‘hate crimes’.

WE WERE ONCE A NATION that only harboured white skinned people, whether they were Romans, Saxons, Vikings or Normans. But all such intruders faced an enemy prepared to fight, and much blood was spilt before they conquered. In other words, at every level we resisted their conquest.

            Yet we have allowed to live among us freely (without any kind of military resistance of the type shown throughout our history) , minorities galore, despite the quiet resistance of the majority of the British people. But, as on other issues, the wishes of the majority of the British people, are held in abeyance to the wishes of the liberal consensus.

            Tony Blair’s reasoning is sound, but he did little to remove islamists from London mosques. Indeed, the French referred to our capital city as Londonistan, because of the Islamic militants it harboured: Tony Blair has shown very little fortitude of the type he now challenges the West to show toward militant Islam.

THE TEACHING OF LIBERAL HISTORY

‘We have a situation where standards have been so dumbed down that even the children know it.

‘When I give them past exam papers to do from 1998, they groan and beg for a 2005 or 6 paper, because they know it’ll be easier.’

KATHARINE BIRBALSINGH (a deputy Head Teacher and ex-Marxist)

PERHAPS THE GREATEST GIFT A NATION CAN give its children is a sound and academically challenging education, where teachers command respect from parents and

pupils alike, and are able to enforce classroom discipline.

            All of the above, one would have thought, needed no clarification. After all, such sentiments have been the backbone of any system of education for hundreds of years. Even today you would be hard pressed to find any member of the education profession who could find any measure of disagreement with such a credo.

            Yet none of it seems to apply any longer in our state education sector, and has not done so for several decades. Slippage has been allowed to occur in our schools through well intended, but destructive new methods of teaching and learning.

            There is no doubt that there was much that was unfair in the old eleven-plus system, but it did allow the gifted working class pupil a chance at higher education through the system of grammar schools. These schools provided and still do, on a smaller scale, opportunities for those pupils whose parents could not afford a private education for their children and whose talents would have otherwise gone to waste. A wastage the country could not afford.

            It was a Labour government, many of whose leaders benefited from such a system, who eventually condemned it in favour of comprehensives. It was the beginning of the downward slide that still continues today.

KATHARINE BIRBALSINGH is a deputy headmistress and ex-Marxist who voted Tory for the first time in this year’s General Election. She gave a speech at this week’s Tory conference in which she tore into the state of modern state education, blaming in part the power of the teaching unions in the educational remit of our children. A remit often endorsed by Labour governments.

            It is the job of the teaching unions to look after the interests of their member’s pay and conditions. They should have no authority over the way our children are taught. The voters decide this by electing governments. If, for instance, this Coalition wished to increase the number of grammar schools, it is none of the teaching union’s business. If it were, there would be no point in people voting for any kind of government if a particular union overrides the democratic decision making.

            Since the system of comprehensive education was first introduced by the then Education Secretary Shirley Williams, the unions have been allowed, by the politicians, to intrude upon the standards and methods of teaching, as well as what is taught. The unions have invaded the terrain of educational standards; a topography that should be free from the union’s political prejudices.

            The unions object to ‘ability’ teaching and are supported by the academic educationalists who taught them the practices of the comprehensive system.

            According to Ms Birbalsingh, children today, ‘live in darkness, without any idea of how they compare to those around them, let alone to those who are educated in the private sector’.       Is this what Shirley Williams intended? Of course not, but only under a comprehensive (egalitarian) system could such a folly achieve such grandeur.

            But it is not only the basic standards of education that is at fault, but also what is taught to our children. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove  mentioned in his speech at the Tory Party conference, the teaching of history which has been traduced by liberalism in compliance with European identity.

            British history had been put on the back burner throughout the last government’s tenure, as if it had been something the people of this nation has to feel ashamed of. So much so that Mr Gove said that children were given, ‘‘a cursory run through Henry VIII, and Hitler at secondary’ before giving up the subject at 14.’

            He has now invited the historian Simon Shama to advise him into once more putting history back on the curriculum: but I fail to see why Mr Gove needs such a presence to encourage what was once for centuries, second nature to any teacher of history.

THE TEACHING OF OUR HISTORY in schools has fallen fowl, like every other aspect of our culture, to Europe. The last government diminished the place of history in the curriculum, not only because of our colonial past, but also because of our historical conflicts with Europe.

            British history, to the last government, became the great embarrassment and was therefore pared to its absolute minimum culminating in the teaching of the war against racist Nazism, which exemplified the profile they wished to teach the next generation in a multicultural society. Thus was the historical emphasis in our schools of the Second World War.

            Ms Birbalsingh is right when she says, ‘League tables tell you nothing about how good a school really is, just how good the school is at playing the system and picking the easier exams,’ The League tables introduced by the last government allowed for exactly this.

            Nothing of any educational significance is measured by such a system except the creative ability of teachers to ‘play the system’.

WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED IN EDUCATION  since the middle of the 1960s has been the gradual dumbing down of standards in order to prove the comprehensive theory. Even One Nation Conservatism went along with the experiment despite the many reservations held by their own backbenchers at the time .

            The more one reads and learns about the last government, the more one realises the extent of the damage they have inflicted on this nation. In every sphere of economic and social activity they have meddled in, they have botched it up and left the country in a poorer state than they found it in 1997 – but they will be back again in five years time (or before) to seek power once more, without so much as blush on their thick-skinned faces.

            

Geert Wilders is no Nazi

THE ANTI - ISLAMIST DUTCH MP, GEERT WILDERS has gone on trial for inciting hatred against Muslims. He has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and faces up to a year in jail, or a 7,600 euro fine. His presence in court is the result of an appeal against an earlier judicial ruling that found he had committed no crime that he had to answer for under Dutch or, presumably, European law.

            Mr Wilders is popular in Holland (and, no doubt, throughout the rest of Europe), having been described by almost all other parties and most of the media as being an extreme Right-winger; a nickname that would no doubt find sympathy in this country among our own political elite from all parties as well as all of the written and visual media; just as it has done in Holland - such is the fear of our political elites, of Islam.

            Geert Wilders has spoken up for the ordinary European citizen who still see themselves belonging to a nation state rather a mere canton of Europe.

            Mr Wilders is not a Nazi as his many liberal detractors seek to label him. If he were he would be demanding that all racial minorities should face eviction from Holland.

            In France, for instance, they are currently, and rightly, seeking to send the Roma community back to Romania. Why therefore is President Sarkozy not standing where Mr Wilders’ is, in some courtroom somewhere in Europe.

            The fact is, is that both politicians are in touch with their people’s concerns, unlike the EU commissioners who are a bureaucratic entity devoid of democratic legitimacy.

GEERT WILDERS has struck a chord with his people and he, despite his somewhat comical Aryan physical appearance, is right. Islamism is the West’s enemy. It is more potent an enemy than Communism ever was because the West has allowed itself to be flooded with followers of Islam by guilt ridden liberals, who to this day feel some kind of culpability for the colonial past their ancestors unleashed upon the world.

            We in the West have tortured ourselves with guilt about our imperial past. In so doing we  have sought an ideal that would hopefully accommodate all cultures. This we, in Great Britain, introduced as multiculturalism, and through its ideology we allowed a multiple of other cultures to live among us as cultural equals, leaving the indigenous culture as a mere equivalent to other cultures, in a land that for thousands of years we called our own.

            If ever there was a concept that would cause, at its mildest, disharmony, then it was the wretched and destructive concept of multiculturalism. Different cultures mean different ways of life. Ways of life that have much significance to those who live the way of life that, in the case of this country, we have fought over for centuries to hold on to.

            Mr Wilders is not the Nazi that the liberal Left wants us to believe he is. What he is against has nothing to do with the colour of a person’s skin, but the person’s culture.

WE LIVE IN A WESTERN CULTURE, and any other citizen of any other culture must accommodate themselves with it if they wish to be part of it. This is Wilder’s message. A message which will hopefully lead to some kind of harmony within, not a multicultural society, but a Western society. Multiculturalism delivers only disdain for the indigenous culture and its colonial past and leads to social conflict.

            Multiculturalism is, like all other liberal creations, well intended and idealistic, but runs dangerously against the tide of public opinion.

            What Geert Wilders seeks to accomplish is the continuance of a mono-cultural Holland, irrespective of the colour of the skins of those who seek admittance to Dutch citizenship. Mr Wilders seeks only the hegemony of Dutch culture. As such he believes that he is anti-multicultural, just as I hope  most British citizens are.

            We had the opportunity of making a multiracial society work; a society I believed could have worked but was displaced in this country by multiculturalism. Multiracialism could have united the different ethnic minorities with the indigenous white majority if those minorities accepted that the indigenous culture that they chose to live within, was to be the dominant one. It would have meant that all minorities had to obey our laws customs and traditions…our culture, and our culture alone, would have been the preeminent one that stood above all others; and if this was not acceptable to any particular minority then they were free to return to their own preeminent cultures in whatever part of the world they were practised.

            Under such conditions we could have moulded a multiracial society in which minorities were free to come and go, and where the indigenous population could hold on to their own culture, putting it before all others.

            But our politicians, both here and throughout Europe decided to downgrade their indigenous cultures and make them equal to whatever other culture came to live among them; leaving a feeling of bitterness among their peoples. A bitterness that was the outcome of European politicians’ promotion of multiculturalism. Is it any wonder that the ordinary European citizens seek policies further to the Right than any mainstream party or politician is prepared to go?

GEERT WILDERS should not be on trial, but rather our own politicians. Fortunately stupidity is not a crime, if it were most if not all European politicians would be where Mr Wilders is today.

            His attack on Islamism is fully justified, and has been since the events of 9/11. The Islamic faith still lives in the medieval world - a world Christianity escaped from via the Reformation and Enlightenment. Today Islamism is the enemy of the West, as Islam was in the past. Today Islamism recruits from the West, from countries like France, Britain and Germany. It is able to do so because of the 15 million Muslims they can chose from now living in Europe.

            Our politicians are frozen by fear of the numbers of Muslims they have allowed to live among us. Decisions are being made by politicians on basis of not upsetting the Muslim community.

            In Britain, for instance, this has taken the form of not disclosing the numbers of Taliban dead in Afghanistan, for fear of unsettling the I.5 million Muslims living among us.

            I can only assume that what our politicians hoped for with multiculturalism was that (in an inverted form of snobbery) that those other cultures, once having been introduced to the Western ideal, would quickly vacate their own centuries of culture in favour of ours. Is this what multiculturalism hoped would happen?

            Mr Wilders will have his day in court, and probably his year in prison. For I do not think that he will miss the opportunity of martyrdom. The ineptitude of European politicians, elected and unelected, knows no bounds.

            This whole continent including that part of which my country belongs, has never been so ill served by the politicians that govern them today. They have all gambled on a throw of the dice called multiculturalism, and have lost.