130 of the 192

THIS SEPTEMBER, 130 OF THE 192[i] member states of the United Nations are expected to vote to support the establishment of a Palestinian state; although any such tactic will be vetoed by the UN Security Council, it will be interesting to see which countries vote for and against the creation of a state of Palestine.

            Israel has said that such a vote, even if it were not vetoed by the Security Council, would be ignored. For such an arrangement would not bring the desired peace to the region, and would not stop Israel from defending her boarders as they are currently established; which of course would also included West Bank settlements, which would fall under the direct control of  the Palestinian Authority.

            Any kind of arrangement that excludes the state of Israel is just pissing into the wind, and speaks volumes about the infirmity and negligibleness of the United Nations. It is just gesture politics born from frustration without any practical outcome for peace in the Middle East. All it will do if  such a vote were successful, is make the Israeli government and her people even more determined to resist Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

            Who knows, such an issue could even divide the UN itself if a Palestinian state was given the nod. Indeed, something I believe should have happened decades ago might just happen under such a circumstance. The events that would unfold from such a decision might even cause the UN to generate its own Avignon Popes.

            But of course, come next September, the United States, if no other member of the Security Council obliges, will use her veto.

            This would be a pity because, as an international body, the UN (like all international bodies) is corrupt and mortifying. Its ideals have long been imprisoned by such divisions as (capitalism and communism), or, today, by secular democracy and Islam.

            The United Nations was a Western creation, a liberal wet-dream that originally went under the name of the League of Nations. Its purpose was to bring together nations in peace and settle disputes before they moved irretrievably into armed conflict.

IT MAY HAVE BEGUN WELL as a much respected institution which, after the Second World War and its millions of dead, was essential in order to prevent the same horrors reoccurring in the future. But today it is a shadow of its former self. Countries that adjourn or even reject democracy and prefer authoritarianism have found places for themselves on, for instance, the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee; i.e. Libya.

            Israel, so far the only functioning democracy in the Middle East is having its behaviour  judged by such a body as this. Is it little wonder that the state of Israel chooses to stand firm against such a body?

            The former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton (August 2005-December 2006),  knows all too well how this international diplomatic parliament works. But being a President Bush appointee, his acuminous oratory on the floor of the UN, caused many a liberal in the West to flourish a scented handkerchief and cover their noses whenever he attended to his rhetoric at the UN. Known for his bluntness, he made many enemies at the UN, including many representing the West.

            But John Bolton hit home on many occasions while representing his country at the UN. One suspects that he did indeed despise this body, not so much as a much needed institution, in theory; but despised it in its approach to those members that fell within the scope of dictatorship, yet enjoyed equal status to the democratic nations operating within its ambit.  After all, did not the United Nations tolerate Mubarak’s Egypt and Gadaffi’s Libya as well as Tunisia and Syria.

WHY SHOULD A DEMOCRATIC ISRAEL fall foul of this wretched institution? The Palestinians should have a homeland, but one that has been negotiated, and not one that has been given authority by such a body that no longer commands the respect its originators that joyfully received it at its inception.

            Israel stands surrounded with little sympathy from the United Nations. Her enemies lie in wait until she either shows, or becomes reduced to a level of weakness that will allow her enemies to do what they have always wanted to do - despite the United Nations.

            The Unite Nations, like for instance, FIFA and the Olympic Committee, as well as the European Union, are all international bodies whose members have, on more than one occasion been tempted into some form of corruption. All such types of  imperium; whether within a political or any other international body will always manage to forfeit the integrity which was the basis of their creation.

            Israel should ignore the UN, even if the United States turned against her. The state of Israel exists. If it were faced with the inevitability that it could no longer exist; then, if the Jewish state were left to confront the circumstance that no Israeli citizen can envisage, then the Palestinian state will also never exist.

            This is the prospect confronting the UN next September. Israel can only feel safe within boundaries she gained in 1967. If the UN decrees that Israel should forfeit these boundaries, then they must go against the UN for the safety of their own people.

           

           

           

---

[i] According to Haaretz

ISRAEL SURROUNDED BY THE ARAB SPRING

HOW WILL THE STILL UNFOLDING EVENTS in North Africa and Syria affect the state of Israel?

            As the many thousands of followers of my blog know, I am a supporter of , and a believer in the existence of the state of Israel; and when it comes to writing about Israel I do so as a partisan source adding my humble perspective on the unfolding events of the Arab Spring.

            In answer to my question at the beginning of this piece; well it seems that the American President chooses to think that out of the unfolding chaos of the Arab Spring will emerge a tapestry sympathetic to friendly relations with Israel.

            This I very much doubt. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is edging its way toward power by declaring its intention to stand for election to a democratically elected Egyptian parliament. The Brotherhood will no doubt use the previous president, Mubarak’s friendly relations with Israel to their own advantage in so doing.

            The Egyptian people do not support the state of Israel and resented their previous president’s relationship with it. They will however support a moderate party to govern them, providing the terms of such moderation include an unreceptive attitude toward the Jewish state. Which means that all the parties contesting Egypt’s future election, will have to accommodate themselves with such a popular will.

            This of course need not prove fatal to the chances of  secular  parties eager to continue with an accommodation with Israel; providing they master the subtleties of political rhetoric, most useful at election time, as we in the West know all too well.

            I am as ignorant of the current situation regarding the political parties in Egypt as I am about the workings of a tsunami; but both may come to the same arrangement regarding their destructive potential when it comes to Egypt. So I am not as sanguine as the American president appears to be regarding the unfolding dramas in the Arab world and their impact on Israel.

IN SYRIA, THE events currently unfolding may presage an outcome even more dangerous to the Jewish state’s existence than those being enacted in Egypt. Even President Netanyahu has proffered the adage - better the devil you know, when it comes to overthrowing Syria’s present incumbent,  Bashar al-Assad.

            Israel is surrounded by enemies, and since 1967 with their victory in the Six Day War, as well as their victory in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Egypt in particular, has sought closer ties with Israel to their mutual advantage. But the Egyptian people resented their leaders association with the state of Israel. To the Egyptian people both the Six Day War and Yom Kippur were humiliations that had to be avenged.

            Of course, the Arab Spring has cast its net far wider than Egypt and Syria. But as far as Israel is concerned, it is how the dice will fall in these two Arab countries that will concern them the most.

            President Obama’s observation of concordance seems over optimistic and somewhat premature. I say this because, if they so manage to take advantage , the Muslim world will have no better opportunity than they have now in trespassing upon not only Israel but the infidel West.

           

IN THE MUSLIM WORLD today, the rising power is Iran. It is Iran that will lead any future attack upon Israel under the flag of Islam.

            Iran has, through Hezbollah, made Lebanon her satellite. Israel’s northern border is now endangered by Iran. Hezbollah’s weaponry is supplied by Iran. According to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah has some 50,000 rockets hidden within civilian areas of  southern Lebanon ready for use.  Iran is also perfecting nuclear weapons and the missiles capable of carrying them into Israel.

            The West knows this is happening. It is not some kind of misinformation dispersed by Israel. But the West lack the will to act against Iran; and will not consent to an Israeli attack upon Iran’s nuclear capability.

            So Israel has to do what she has had to do since the first intifada and, sponge-like, soak up the animosity of the West’s elites.

BUT WHAT IF IRAN can convince the people of the Arab Spring that they have the means of destroying the Jewish state and returning the Palestinians to what will undoubtedly become once more, over time, what they consider their sand ridden homeland?

            Could the people of Egypt and Syria join what would become a Muslim triumphrate with Iran and do what their ancestors could not do, and rid the Middle East of Jewry once and for all. Such an appeal, given Iran’s military power, might just appeal to enough Egyptians and, if they prove successful against Bashar al-Assad, enough Syrians.

            This scenario hopefully may not come about, but it is a possibility that, if not the American president, then hopefully the Israeli president is considering. There will come a time when the West will come to regret preventing Israel from destroying Iran’s nuclear programme in its infancy, as Israel once did with Syria’s.

                         

THE EURO AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE CONTAGION GATHERS APACE. The stock markets are falling on the prospect of both Italy and Spain succumbing to the debt crises. At the time of writing (14:23 London time) London’s FTSE is down 5% and the markets are, shall we say, less than confident that these two countries who are, after all, the third and fourth largest economies in the Euro zone, will not be targeted at some stage for a bail-out of Irish, Greek, and Portuguese proportions.

            The question is, is that if the inevitable happens will Europe and the IMF be able to provide the finances to bail out these economies, and more importantly, should they?  Of course if needs be… but most of Europe’s citizens would say enough is enough and the euro is just not worth it. To date billions of euros of taxpayers’ money have been poured into Ireland and Greece at exorbitant rates of interest which neither country can afford to re-pay. Even the UK, who never joined the euro is having to contribute to keep it solvent.

            The German people have, most of all,  had to cough up the greatest share of their taxpayers money to keep the idea of the euro afloat – and still Baruooser, the EU president, insists all will eventually come good.

THE EURO WAS the brainchild of European romanticism; an affliction that has determined the fate and destiny of continental Europe for centuries. When it came to grand political designs, the continent has always let its heart rule its head; whether it was a Napoleonic EU led from France , Fascism in Italy, or a Nazi EU led from Germany.

            The nations of Europe have a history of conflict, and what began as a Common Market and became a European Union, has proved to be yet another strain of the same idealism that produced Europe’s many varieties of idealistic ideologies that turned to tyranny.

            The euro was never clearly thought about. In Europe we had a whole host of nations at different levels of economic progress. But the European ideal overrode (indeed saw no problem) with combining such a diverse arrangement of economies into a single whole, via political and monetary union. It was a grand gesture of idealism that only Europe could come up with. Its impracticalities would be made to work, by the sheer will of the optimism behind the whole enterprise.

            But now the idiocy of such an arrangement and its cost to, in particular, to the German taxpayer, is only now being appreciated. Yet we still have the European President, speaking to his fellow countrymen in Portugal pleading the euros case.

RATHER THAN A CURRENCY that was set to match the mighty dollar; the euro has become a virus that threatens the world economic order by its contagion. For even in countries outside off the euro (including our own) the infection has penetrated the banking system. If for instance the Italian economy collapses it will cost the British economy £43 billion. Our banks have been exposed, in particular Barclays, who have an exposure to Italy as well as the Iberian peninsula.

            It may turn out to be a fact that this country’s refusal to join the euro will not have proved propitious after all. That it was the right decision there is no doubt. But it may prove to be nothing more than a pyrrhic victory.

            The EU should abandon, if not the euro, then at least those economies within Europe that should never have been encouraged to join in the first place. In this country at the time of the euro’s implementation when we were debating this folly. Many of those who were thoughtfully opposed, but not prejudiced against such an arrangement , suggested a two speed economic union, comprising a different time scale of entry between Northern and Southern Europe.

            As an empirical solution, this was of course ignored on the continent and would have been seen as perfidious Albion once more working its magic; that is, if such a debate was ever known about in the first place within Europe: and so we are where we are today. It is has not been, to say the least, a success.

           

A SINGLE CURRENCY between such economically and culturally diverse nations on the continent of Europe, could only have been conceived of by the European intelligentsia with little thought given to any impracticalities of the sort debated in the UK at the time.

            But even in the UK, the euro had its many supporters. Those on the Left of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats as well as many on the Right of the Labour Party; all of whom were ready to embraced this concept for idealistic reasons, and wished it well, despite our nation’s disapproval of its creation.

            The whole structure of the European Union was originally based upon eliminating the continent’s history of national conflict; and in attempting to prevent such a continuance into the future.

            After the Second World War Europe’s politicians sought to prevent such conflicts ever recurring in the future. Which was a wholly admirable outlook, but, as we are seeing today, hardly practicable within the arrangements of the EU’s leaders.

IF THE EURO is to continue in some form it had better jettison those of its members that cannot keep up. Which means allowing the likes of Greece to abandon their membership of the euro. This may also apply to Ireland, and, in the coming months, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

            The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and Europe’s statesmen and women, did indeed have good intentions when they set the continent’s compass on a uniform path within a decade of the war’s end. They believed that their zeal for the project would prove all that that was needed to overcome the concerns of the many sceptics.

            Unintended consequences were dismissed as heresy and the statesmen of Europe ploughed on with the fulfilment of their ambitions. But  monetary union was a step too far.  As if seeking to unify such diverse economies into a single currency was not enough; it was attempted before political union made it at all practicable. Putting the cart before the horse comes to mind.

            But despite all of this the project will continue. Too much intellectual prestige; not say political self-importance, has been nourished upon the mission for our European politicians and their bureaucratic brethren to simply admit defeat  by steering the ship away from the iceberg before it is too late – here is another aphorism; pride comes before a fall.

                                   

           

             

            

GIVE ME THAT OLD TIME RELIGION

I AM 61 YEARS-OLD and when I was eight or nine, I committed some nefarious act at my junior school that caused my teacher to haul me out in front of my class for punishment. I do not know whether today’s children are familiar with a board ruler, but in 1958 British schoolchildren definitely were.

            It was some three feet long and three inches in width. I was told to bend over and received three rather mild taps on my bottom. I sat down, humiliated by the experience in front of my classmates; which was the very point my teacher intended to make. It was the spectacle rather than any pain induced by the board ruler, that hurt the most.

            Today, such a circumstance would leave the teacher facing a possible jail sentence and dismissal from his or her profession. Such are the times we now live in, that the child has almost total clout over the teacher, and the children know this and behave accordingly.

            In the 1950s and 1960s, from junior school upward, the ultimate physical deterrent was the cane; although, once at secondary modern, the slipper was a favoured intermediary between detention and the ultimate deterrent.

            Today all forms of physical correction are no longer tolerated. Today, the good kids are forced to live side by side with the bad. The teachers cannot lay a hand on their pupils for fear of legal retribution. So, in many, but by no means all of our classrooms, anarchy has replaced any kind of pedagogic activity.

            Children require discipline. Yes it is an old concept. But the modern one of progressive teaching, that has been the model since the birth of comprehensive education in the 1970s is now far more old fashioned and has been proven worthless to the education of our children.

            Yet our teachers still support it despite the fact that in many schools the bullies are not in the playground but the classroom; and their victims are the teachers themselves.

IN TODAY’S DAILY MAIL, the true scale of the problems facing our teachers is disclosed.

1,000 pupils, some as young as five, are excluded every day for abusing and assaulting teachers, who have become nothing more than the punch bags for whatever the child feels he or she has to do to vent their anger.

            Last year 45 teachers were taken to hospital due to such treatment administered by their pupils; while one in four teachers were the victims of false allegations by their pupils, which ranged from verbal to sexual abuse. One in six teachers has had a false allegation made against them by a member of a child’s family; while in one incident a teacher was raped by a 15 year-old: while another primary teacher suffered a stabbing in the chest with a pencil during her class.

            Teachers from South Wales have compiled a dossier in which they lists the unteachables, including a 14 year-old who attacked a teacher and indecently assaulted an assistant.

            So, do the old values seem so archaic after this? The progressives that have steered and controlled our educational system since the late 1960s seem to me to be those that are outmoded and out of touch with reality.

            These people will no doubt do what they always do; they will ignore these statistics unless they are printed in the Guardian. They most certainly will not heed the columns of the Daily Mail.

THIS COUNTRY has a system of state education that falls well short of what is required to produce an educated population, able to meet the requirements needed by the business community in the 21^st century. Over the decades criticism after criticism has followed the August exam figures… not for their failure, but for their somewhat overgenerous rates of success in terms of results: and if cynics dared mention lowering standards, they were and still are immediately shot down by the politicians, or the parents who would not tolerate such an accusation, insisting upon their children’s comprehensive and exhaustive use of the laptop.

            Standards have been allowed to drop in order to boost the A-level results which the government sees as a marker determining the success of their educational policies.

            In this sense, our children have been let down by the politicians who have used them to influence the way in which their parents vote – it being dependent upon the success of their children’s achievement at exam time.

            All the while our business community complains about the educational quality of pupil’s leaving school or university. But to be fair with our universities, they themselves, like our employers, have had cause to deplore the level of academic competence of (especially in the subject of maths) the students sent to them via the state system.

A NATION’S WEALTH, and its ability to create it, depends upon the quality of skills, whether academic or technical, of its people.

            When I was at school, the 11-plus was the one exam that probably secured the tenure of its successful applicants amongst the middle classes. It was at the time an unfair system and remained so until the introduction of the comprehensive system by a Labour government under the guidance of Shirley Williams.

            Today such a system would not only be fair, but would also meet the requirements of both our employers and our universities.

            But, from the late 1960s onwards, the spirit of egalitarianism was afoot in the land; and this meant that not only a new system of state education was to be introduced; but also a new way of teaching that forbade the laying of hands on any pupil.

            As this rolling credo gathered more moss the deeper this country’s educational set-up fell into the arms of the progressives.  

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IS IN A MESS. So much so that our business people are complaining to David Cameron that if he further restricts immigration into this country, they will not be able to find those best qualified to do the job from within this country’s educational system.

            It may not seem obvious to a liberal but the behaviour of our pupils in the classroom is tied to the failure of our exam system. This is because both elements have been established by liberalism which discounts competition and any kind of physical punishment. So it is little wonder that our state education system falls well short of the requirements of our nation.

            Our teachers are treated appallingly in many cases, by their pupils. But those teachers have themselves been indoctrinated at university into the niceties of a progressive education, and, despite their deprived authority among their pupils; will nevertheless remain true to the progressive educational creed, whatever they may face personally in the future.

            

ANOTHER BELATED RECOGNITION BY THE BBC

‘The Guardian is their bible and political correctness their creed.’

Michael Buerk

SO WE FINALLY HAVE A KIND OF ADMISSION from the BBC’s director-general, Mark Thompson, that before 2010 the BBC shied away from the subject of immigration, in case they either upset the then Labour government or lived in fear of helping with the BNP recruitment drive.

            To try and blame the previous government for the silence, and for feeling intimidated by charges of association with the BNP, just will not wash. The culture of political correctness was indeed launched in 1997, and it has been all pervasive within  our culture ever since: and yes, the previous government could be intimidating; especially if they controlled your purse strings. But as Jenny McCartney, writing in today’s Telegraph says :

            “…it also seems reasonable that if there is going to be a very sharp rise in immigration in a very short time – as there was under Labour, when just over three million legal immigrants arrived in 13 years – there should at least be an open discussion about how many can be welcomed without flooding the job market and putting an unsustainable strain on health and education systems. Immigrants don’t tend to compete for the jobs of BBC executives…”

            Ms McCarthy makes the point wonderfully. Legal immigrants, because of the last Labour government, flooded into this country. In doing so they burdened our system of welfare, education and health. Our population is due to reach 70 million before the middle of this century. It is now being doubted that the NHS will exist in the near future… on top of the numbers of immigrants, we have human longevity and expensive advances in medicine to cope with.

            The last government was allowed to plan, oversee and implement this catastrophe because our media balked at being called racist, and so kept its silence while New Labour planned this influx of their working class (by now being called chavs) replacements; hoping they would be rewarded for their efforts come the next election and the one after that, ad-infinitum.

            It may be true that the whole media were in hock to such a fear as Mark Thompson describes. But as far as the BBC are concerned no such fear ever existed at the time. It never existed because the vast majority of the BBC’s employees were sympathetic to the cause of political correctness and Multiculturalism.

            The BBC has a liberal establishment, and remained so throughout the Labour years in government. I find it incredulous that Mark Thompson should align himself and his institution with other media outlets when coming up with a reason for the BBC’s silence.

            I can remember an ex-employee of the BBC (whose name I cannot remember) describing the many copies of the Guardian that lay around the corporation belonging to various  employees. I can however, remember when Grieg Dyke, the pioneer of BBC Multiculturalism, left the corporation. His staff turned out for him, many in tears at his departure.

            Last April Michael Buerk, the veteran news broadcaster and correspondent for the BBC attacked the corporations political correctness. He was, at the time, reviewing a memoir by his former colleague Peter Sissons who had written that the BBC is warped by the prejudices of its staff.

IF ANYTHING, the BBC did the last government’s bidding willingly and without complaint when it came to the promotion of liberal causes such as Multiculturalism and its concomitant –immigration. To try and suggest, as Mark Thompson does, that his institution was the unwilling victims of political correctness, when most of his staff were true believers, is beyond belief.

            The BBC is paid for by every citizen whether taxpayer or not on penalty of imprisonment. There is no other democratic country in the world that demands such a tax. But, despite collecting from the whole population, the BBC does not reflect the opinions of the whole nation; rather it represents a liberal minority who set the corporation’s as well as the nation’s agenda.

            This minority are not acting as party politicians (although they do favour Labour and the Liberal Democrats as well as modern ‘Conservatism’). What they represent is the embodiment of ‘progressive’ political liberal values; and every director general now serves this particular master - including Mark Thompson.

            The BBC has been up to its neck in the kind of social engineering that the last government introduced. The employees working at the BBC fully supported such an agenda. Grieg Dyke, their favourite, did after all begin the BBC’s programme of social engineering, by insisting that positive discrimination should take place; and it continues today under Mark Thompson’s oversight of the corporation.

            Minorities have been fast tracked to celebrity within the BBC. No matter what the outlet; whether it be News or Soaps; Multiculturalism must have its full representation, even if, as with soaps, it bears little semblance to reality. This is because, like the old Soviet state broadcasters, an ideology is being driven home under the disguise of popular entertainment.

            Mark Thompson is an out and out fraud if he blames the previous government for the corporations silence on immigration, or its own nervousness regarding the BNP. The institution he oversees is as culpable as the last government – no ifs or buts.

EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT is his corporation’s paymaster, should not Mark Thompson’s first duty have been toward the tax payer who provides him with his annual £3 billion funding?

             But as we now know, the culture at the BBC supports the liberal agenda in every political or cultural department, and Mark Thompson, like his predecessors, also supports such an agenda. By blaming the previous government for the BBC’s lack of coverage of immigration is feeble in the extreme.

            The BBC is not like other media outlets, who may have genuine fears about the immigration agenda. But those fears, whether grounded in reality or not, are genuine and not put forward as an excuse for the liberal attachments of their workforce.

            I have no problem with a politically biased media outlet, whether from the Right or the Left; providing they do not use general taxation for the purpose of promoting their ideology and establishing it in the minds of their viewers or listeners; as the Soviet Union spent 70 years trying to do.

            If the BBC were a small ‘c’ conservative body, then they could at least boast that their programmes were in tune with the small ‘c’ conservatism of the nation as a whole. But instead the BBC has become the cultural mouthpiece of that great minority known as liberal Britain.

            I have no intrinsic abhorance of the BBC as an organisation, providing they pay their own way like most other media outlets. Then they can represent whomsoever they like. But if such an organisation draws its income through general taxation, then they had better represent the majority view of its taxpayers, instead of the politically correct views of its staff as well as the rest of liberal Britain, whose numbers fall well short of any kind of majority in this country.

            Mark Thompson is trying to separate his own personal oversight of the BBC from its involvement with the previous Labour government’s agenda. By playing the innocent victim on behalf of the BBC, as he seems to have done if one reads Jenny McCartney’s piece; then it will not wash. He diminishes whatever talent he has by such a strategy of self-preservation.

            The BBC has become the creature of a minority point of view and has arranged its whole programming on the basis of such a view. Its many thousands of employees, whose job applications, no doubt provided advertising income for the Guardian, share the agenda that Mark Thompson now dismisses as the agenda of the previous government.

I GENUENLY BELIEVE AND HOPE THAT the BBC’s days are numbered. In the modern world ‘public broadcasting’, if it is to exist at all, should not persecute the general taxpayer in order to guarantee its existence. But like all other broadcasters it should survive in the market place. The market place decides the worthiness of a project by making it profitable.

            If the BBC, in its current form, were to abandon its privileged existence and decide to go it alone without the taxpayer being made, by law, to oversee its subsistence; then the BBC would have to rely upon the financial resources it could garner, as a liberal institution, from living within the market place.

            So if liberal Britain supported such a channel; then they would no doubt be prepared to pay for it. But the channel they would be left with would be a mere miniature of the current setup. In other words the liberal elite who hold total sway over every feature and characteristic of this nation, would be reduced somewhat by the BBC’s only option of joining the market place.

           

           

           

           

           

           

The genetics of Multiculturalism

“Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.”

Professor Steve Jones of University College London

PROF. STEVE JONES, the eminent and popularist geneticist has put the cat among the pigeons at the Hay Festival by focusing our attention on the problems of incestuous relationships within the Pakistani community in this country. He speaks as a scientist, without political baggage, in giving warning of a situation which most politicians would rather wish away than having to confront head on.

            Channel IV recently put out a programme on the same subject, but used an ethnic British Pakistani journalist to oversee and report upon the problem in places like Birmingham and Bradford. I believe that had Channel IV been approached by the likes of Prof. Jones to make a similar programme, he would not have been considered unless he had been a Pakistani Muslim, or even - just a Muslim.

            As Prof. Jones is none of these, he now faces the wrath of several of the numerous and dubious Islamic groups who profess to speak on behalf of the Islamic community.

            Of course incest has gone on for centuries among the host culture, but, outside of Royalty, has either been frowned upon or been made illegal, depending upon the familial proximity to each other of the participants and the nature of the relationship.

            According to Prof. Jones, “It is common in the Islamic world to marry your brother’s daughter, which is actually closer than marrying your cousin…” Such an observation would be considered naive and self-destructive for a politician to have made. But such a well regarded scientist speaking as a geneticist  - the study of which he has given his life too – cannot be so easily challenged as a politician speaking on the same subject would have been.

            As the professor says, “We should be concerned about that as there can be a lot of hidden genetic damage. Children are much more likely to get two copies of a damaged gene.” This is the rub. Incest is not only a moral and legal issue, but also a health issue of great significance for the children of such consummations – as was shown in the Channel IV programme.

            According to Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, “Research in Bradford has found that babies born to Pakistani women are twice as likely to die in their first year as babies born to white mothers, with genetic problems linked to inbreeding identified as a “significant” cause.

            Studies have found that within the city, more than 70 per cent of marriages are between relations, with more than half involving first cousins”.

           

PROF. JONES, I predict, will not cause the kind of tsunami effect that would have followed such pronouncements if made by a politician. Indeed, I believe there is even much embarrassment among middle-class Pakistanis regarding such incestuous attachments – but such a liberal approach does not appear to extend to marriages made between different cultures. Which means integration is as far away as ever and made ever more distant by the ideology of Multiculturalism that actively  encourages cultural apartheid.

            Arranged marriages are common within many Asian communities, and is not confined to Pakistan. But this once more leads to health problems – notably death by murder if a refusal to go along with the practice is forthcoming. Yet once again Multiculturalism, by its very nature, allows such criminality to continue, if not unpunished, then as an unintended consequence of the ideology.

            Our liberals still remain silent when it comes to talking about incest among Pakistani Muslims. They fear, as always, having to live with their conscience if they overstep the politically correct mark and voice any disapproval of the practices highlighted at the Hay Festival by Prof. Jones.

            As with the subject of arranged marriages; if such behaviour is to be highlighted then it is better done by a liberal member of the Pakistani community, as seemed to be the case with the Channel IV documentary mentioned earlier.

            The Coalition, like their predecessors going back over 40 years have actively encouraged a Multicultural society to replace the much regarded and parochial England that I have treasured since my childhood in the 1950s.

            If we had to have a mixed ethnic culture then such an experiment would have proved more fruitful if all ethnic groups invited to live among us had been told to live their lives in accordance with the culture they chose to come and live amongst. But instead such aspirants were told that their culture had equal merit with the indigenous one: and as such had equal merit. Such was and still is the message of Multiculturalism.

THE QUESTION OF incest within the Pakistani Islamic community, and the way it has been ignored by governments of all colours, only goes to show how Multiculturalism retains its influence on the national culture, while eating away at its legitimacy.

            Prof. Jones speaks as a  concerned scientist who sees much human suffering with the present arrangement. But we have known for many years about the dangers of births through incest: yet some of the Islamic community’s ‘representatives’ still ask for proof regarding the various claims made against such inbreeding.

            I believe that such practices described by Prof. Jones at the Hay Festival should be outlawed. Until now such laws would have been regarded as being unnecessary and illiberal; but we now have living among us some two million people who find the practice vital to their culture irrespective of Prof. Jones’ warnings - and our politicians who have created and allowed this dangerous procedure to continue in the hope that the general public remain unenlightened of its presence, should be held to account.

            With regards to the practice of incest within our Pakistani community: that community must be told that it must be stopped for the sake of many disabled children that such practices would bring about - there should be no other criteria than this.

            If the Islamic community find such an obligation to the citizenship of this country too much to accept; then they must return to whatever country their culture directs them.

             Since the foundations of Multiculturalism  were laid down by Roy Jenkins over forty- years ago, our politicians have either willingly complied with the full remit demanded of the ideology, or have remained silent for fear of transgressing the new liberalism by finding themselves tainted with racism.

            But as I have said in other blogs and will no doubt continue to say in the future, whenever I write on this subject: Roy Jenkins, one of the founding fathers of Multiculturalism, began to have doubts about the ideology toward the end. Yet those politicians who today still lay claim to the success of this wretched creed, do so, not for any principled reason, but purely for the hope of political advancement – the most spurious consideration of all.

            

THE WILD DOGS OF LIBERALISM ARE ON THE HUNT

NATURES’ CARNIVORES  are usually thorough  when they make a kill. Although the spectacle is not very pleasant, many, if not all the big cats, are skilful enough to bring their prey to a quick end. Usually it is the throat area which concentrates the efforts of the hunter; by locking the prey’s oesophagus between it jaws, suffocation is not far off.

            There is however one kind of predator that roams the continent of Africa that hunts in packs; whose methodology has brought upon it much ignominy from, particularly the farming community in Africa.

            The African wild dog  has pointed needle-like teeth. They hunt in packs of  twenty and beyond. When they target their quarry, they pursue it and, rather than bring it quickly onto its haunches; the wild dogs use their superbly designed teeth to take it in turns to leap at their prey and remove bits of  its flesh. This is a slow painful death, and the wild dogs are relentless in their pursuit; they have incredible stamina and use it mercilessly to exhaust  their prey. Where a lion may take seconds to kill its next meal – the wild dogs enjoy theirs on the hoof at great pain and distress to their prey.

I WAS REMINDED OF THE African wild dog and its behaviour when all hell broke loose this week at News International, the media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch – perhaps the most reviled human being of the Left since Margaret Thatcher.  

            Like Margaret Thatcher, Murdoch changed forever (hopefully) the working practices that, in his case, almost ruined the Newspaper printing industry. It was he who stood up to the unions and their Spanish practices in what was then Fleet Street;

while other industrialists and their managers kow-towed to union oligarchs within every other industry, notably the car industry (Dagenham rings a bell) during the 1970s.

            All other newspaper owners in this country owe Murdoch a great debt, as do their journalists who are today part of the wild dog pack trying to tear pieces of flesh of off News International. Where was Northcliff and Rothermere; where was Harmsworth and Maxwell; or the spirit of Beaverbrook during the 1970s-80s? It was left to an entrepreneur of Australian origin to take on the vested interests of the print unions and effectively keep all of his competitors in business.

            Murdoch, along with Thatcher, managed to drag this country up from its slippery slope to third world status, and reignite a new spirit in the land. I was then, like many on the Left are today, the bitterest of enemy to these two. I hated all that they represented and, like that small band of ill-wishers protesting outside of  Murdoch’s Sun-News of the World stable in London yesterday, I would have gladly seen both these heretics put to the torch.

            The free press in this country today owes Rupert Murdoch a great deal. But of all his competitors, the one that has hounded him most over this hacking issue, probably also owes him the most.

THE GUARDIAN has been the alpha-male of the pack that has been stripping its pound of flesh from News International. This organ is part of the Scott Trust and was described by C. P. Scott’s son Ted as, "a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last". According to Wikipedia: ‘The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters; according to another MORI poll taken in 2005, 48% of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 34% Liberal Democrat voters. [thus enhancing]The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing’

            When, last week, the hacking scandal began to involve ordinary people instead of  celebrities; Rupert Murdoch’s many enemies on these shores saw their chance to strike. They knew that News Corp had overreached itself. After months (and in many cases decades) of sniping from the sidelines at Murdoch’s empire; the liberal Left had finally struck gold.

            Now the wild dogs will not let go of their prey until, not just a newspaper, but a whole corporation is brought down. Railed against Murdoch are the following: his competitors in the print media who lacked, at the time, the courage to once and for all put the all powerful print unions in their place; as well as the unions who still today bare their predecessors’ grievances. Next comes the liberal press – the Guardian and its sister paper, the Observer, whose editors continually stick pins into Rupert’s effigy: the BBC, that overfed, flatulent, publicly (on penalty of imprisonment) taxed institution, that also, like Uriah Heap, pleads both humility and poverty to, in the BBC’s case, the licence fee payer each year when demanding their annual increase from the politicians - when did Rupert Murdoch last demand that his empire be subsidised through taxation?

           

NEWS INTERNATIONAL IS surrounded on all sides. As if the rest of the print media as well as the BBC were not enough; now the politicians are all too willing to weigh in against News International. For did not Murdoch arrange for his two mass selling newspapers (the Sun and the News of the World) to come out and support one of the main parties at election times? And did not all the political parties seek such support from News International? Indeed, David Cameron, like many of his predecessors from all the main parties, sought to court the support of News International.

            Margaret Thatcher did it as well as Tony Blair; and Murdoch supported both; and both can count themselves grateful for such support. Murdoch believes in capitalism. To him it not only means the accumulation of personal wealth. If it meant only this, then he could have retired years ago. What I think motivates Murdoch is ambition pure and simple. To him it is his main driving force; and wealth, once accumulated, matters little. He is always prepared (given his undoubted power) to support any political party that supports fully the free market system

            What I despise about this whole business is how lesser people are able to bring down such a giant. The Daily Telegraph, for instance (my favourite newspaper as it happens) is, and has always been, hell bent upon stopping Murdoch’s ownership of BSkyB. But the Telegraph, perhaps more than any other newspaper, should be grateful to Murdoch

            So you see, the whole panoply of British culture, whether from the liberal Left or the centre Right; all have their grievances against Rupert Murdoch and News International and all are willing to go to any lengths short of Rupert’s murder, to see his empire flounder, and hopefully succumb to its death.

            All Murdoch’s enemies have been waiting, hoping, and even praying for the great man’s demise along with his media empire. Murdoch has had railed against him in this country a combination of old grievances combined with new fears for his continuance as a media mogul.