Author Archives: admin

About admin

I am a writer, blogger, political activist and infant reformer.

Communist goals for America, 1963 style

This is worth looking at just to help see exactly where we are. I may have referred to this before but it states the 45 communist goals to take over America back in 1963. It is interesting to see just how many of these goals have been accomplished in the States at this present time. America is a different country of course, but we share a common heritage in many areas here in the UK. And you could argue the same strategies have been used in UK culture. There are geo-political items mentioned such as the reference to ‘Red China’ that may seem somewhat outdated now, and certain things that may seem irrelevant. However there are other items that should make people think, especially if you have been educated in this politically correct age. Sometimes it’s best just to sit back and let documentation speak for itself, rather than repeat our own viewpoint. So have a look at the list and see how many of these ‘communist goals’ have been reached here. Food for thought indeed!

Here is the link:

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

 

Calais

In the Observer newspaper this last Sunday we see the headline ‘Church attacks David Cameron’s lack of compassion over the asylum crisis.’ Well as a member of the church myself I beg to differ. Unfortunately I believe the church here has a misplaced sense of compassion. Thank god that they don’t run the government. Now I’m not saying there is no room for compassion, of course there is, but when it comes to policing international borders, there should be a very high barrier to entry for any potential immigrant to any country worth its salt. Given that we haven’t a clue as to who these people are in Calais without rigorous checks, and the propensity of people to lie through their teeth to get what they want, hearing that the UK is ‘El Dorado,’ we have to be very careful about accepting any stories about asylum seekers.

Always and ever time the government’s first responsibility is to protect its own people, otherwise what is the point of having a nation state? The Calais crisis exposes the continental open borders policy that we have opened the door to through being members of the EU and by listening to people like Peter Sutherland, special representative of the UN Secretary- General for international migration and development, whose views on people migration should quite honestly be consigned to the dustbin of ideological nonsense.

The present crisis in Calais is concentrating the minds somewhat of the the British people. As yet there seems to be no adequate response to the migrant situation that has plagued this area for years and is now escalating to dangerous levels. However it is a very loud trumpet sound to the British people about the glories or otherwise of the EU, and as Matthew D’Ancona points out, a potent illustration of just why being a member of the EU might not be a good idea according to the euro sceptic mob.

There is no way any of these people should be let into the UK under the present regime. The very fact that some of them are pushing objects in front of lorries, threatening lorry drivers, brazenly resisting legitimate authority and wielding weapons should bring us to the swift conclusion that no such person should be allowed to enter the UK. The fact that some of them are also causing criminal damage by destroying fencing, breaking into lorries and trains, as well as indirectly disrupting the south east of England is even more reason for them not to come.

It seems that the incredibly enlightened policy of EU open borders is now proving to be a chocolate teapot in dealing with the flow of migrants across Europe. As far as economic migrants are concerned, British is under no obligation to take anyone as we have already taken hundreds of thousands of immigrants in a very short time period. As far as asylum seekers are concerned, they should be claiming asylum in the first country they reach, not travelling the length and breadth of Europe to go where they want. It seems that they are far too easily being allowed to transport themselves across the continent to their own favoured destination. If you were of a cynical disposition of course you would think that certain countries in Europe just don’t want to be bothered about processing people entering their countries, why not just wave them on to a country that will take them? Or if you were even more cynical you might believe that there is a policy at a very high level to make the UK the plug hole of Europe!

David Davies of the Conservative party echoed calls for the army to be sent to Calais and proposed camps in place like North Africa where migrants can be properly processed. Genuine asylum seekers can then be filtered out. Under no circumstances would anyone be allowed to travel without proper documentation. Any propensity to destroy your documents on your travels to ease your passage i.e. bare faced lawlessness, should be robustly dealt with. Back to the camp to get new documents! This is only one of the least worse solutions that could be discussed.

The most worrying thing about Calais to me is the potential invasion that it represents. Many of the migrants in Calais appear to be young men from Africa and the Middle or Far East. We have no idea how many of them are on assignment to cause mayhem in the UK. How many are militant Islamists who have been given their instructions. ‘Get to London at all costs where you will be given further instructions?’ We are beyond naive in our attitude to this issue.

We are now facing a vicious and utterly ruthless foe in the Middle East in the form of ISIS who have a plan to establish a caliphate. That caliphate no doubt has visions to be worldwide, for of course if you are a committed Islamist, the whole world is a mosque yet is divided into two, the house of war and the house of peace. If you are a good Moslem you are in the house of ‘peace’ but if you are in the house of war you are the kuffar or infidel, to be dhimmified, taxed and discriminated against until you bow the knee to Allah. How many ISIS fighters have smuggled themselves into every west European state and also into the U.S. through their southern border on the pretext of ‘asylum seeker’ or ‘economic migrant,’ but are now about to try to unleash terror and bloodshed on an unprecedented scale. This year has been full of warning signs, Paris, Copenhagen, Brussels, and of course Tunisia.

And then here he is again, the one man globalisation phenomenon, yes none other than Peter Sutherland, giving us the benefit of his all knowing wisdom on the subject. You can predict what is going to come out of his mouth. Now let me see, surely as day meets night, he will use the word ‘xenophobia’ at some point; his is the sort of trumpet herald we get from on high these days in the UK, making us of course ‘racist xenophobic little Englanders.’ I’d say that’s a flowery euphemism for ‘absolutely normal common sense thinking.’

Here is the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11773836/Britain-xenophobic-to-demand-economic-migrants-kept-out-says-UN.html

If it is the first responsibility of any government to protect its own people, that means you discriminate in favour of your own people every time bar none. It goes without saying that you have to know exactly who is coming into your country so that you know they will not present any threat to your own nation.

I feel sorry for countries in mainland Europe that are much more at the sharp edge of what is going on. Imagine a country like Germany which is mostly landlocked and is taking massive numbers at present, or France which has a lengthy border with other European countries. You might count it as in the providence of God that we are an island, otherwise we would surely be finished as a nation by now. It should be far easier to police our own borders.

Having said this, we are coming to the end of an age. This is a new paradigm when the British people will have to contemplate doing things and taking the type of action that we thought was no longer needed, things that we perhaps deemed unacceptable in an ‘enlightened’ society based on human rights and tolerance. We live in a world which includes extreme wickedness which if it poses a threat to our heritage and culture must be dealt with very robustly and it will necessitate tough love and ruthlessness. Being nice won’t work any more. Instead we must do what is right for the sake of survival and for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Trouble is, have we forgotten how to fight? Interesting times!

Equality in the workplace

‘Not the Conservative party’ as Peter Hitchens calls it continues its left wing agenda. It is difficult to regret leaving them. Whoever thought David Cameron was a Conservative surely must have been jolted into reality again recently by his espousal of ‘equality’ in the workplace. Now firms with more than 250 employees must pubIish their rates of pay for men and women to deal with the gender pay gap! As Peter Hitchens himself hinted the other day on ‘Any Questions,’ some of David Cameron’s utterances these days would be quite at home in a Trotskyite pamphlet. It is ironic that the Conservatives refused to bring in this legislation in the coalition years under pressure from the Liberal Democrats, but now they have a majority government they bring it in!

Exactly what business has the government in forcing employers to publish such information? What happened to freedom? Freedom is messy, it allows for extremes which should only be interfered with for a very good reason. Is that reason that everyone has to know what everybody else is being paid so that no ‘unfairness’ is taking place? Every law made takes away a little bit more freedom. My understanding of business is that an employer is free to pay people what he wants at a rate that suits his requirements. Why should the government force him to tell everybody private details of how he runs his company?

Now there is of course an issue if men are consistently paid more than women for exactly the same job with the same responsibilities. There is balance here, so some worker protections are called for. But to over legislate like this? To force companies to make pay details public? How much extra onerous costs will this impose on firms? Balance is often the key. Extremes are wrong, so absolutely no legislation is wrong, but so is over legislating. Trouble is, the country has moved so far to the left that what was considered extreme before has now become ‘normal.’ We have become accepting of a culture of excessive external control on our activities.

Now if a firm wants to indulge in such a practice then let them. If everyone is happy to see how everybody else is being paid, including the managers and executives, then go for it. On the Money Programme on Radio 4 this last month was a firm indulging in this very practice and it seemed to work quite well in that company. But to mandate such policies from Prime Ministerial level?

The government would have a bit of a problem with that parable in the New Testament where the landowner goes out in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard, although admittedly it wasn’t a gender pay gap issue. However it does touch a few current equality/anti discrimination nerves!

In the parable the employer takes on workers at the beginning of the day who work for him throughout the day for an accepted and agreed wage rate. He takes on further workers later in the morning and agrees to pay them ‘whatever is right.’ Then at noon and again at three in the afternoon the employer finds further workers. And again at 5pm in the afternoon. Then at the end of the day these guys who are hired at nearly the end of the working day are paid by the employer the same money as the guys who have worked for him all day – one denarius! Well how is that fair?

Some government equality duty would force that pesky employer to be a good boy and pay a fair wage for hours worked. Everyone’s wage would be publicised by the firm under government edict so that people could see just how unfair that employer was in paying the same wage to everybody regardless of the number of hours. No doubt the workers hired for the whole day would take the employer to a tribunal for ‘underpaying’ them.

Well it might sound unfair but doesn’t an employer have the right to spend his money in the way he desires? It’s his money. Everyone agreed to be paid a specific wage rate. It is no business of government to tell a businessman/woman how he/she spends his/her money. It is very telling what the landowner tells the complainers, ‘Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

Of course this parable has a spiritual interpretation, and a theologian would tell you it illustrates Gods grace towards everyone, no matter how bad or sinful they are. There is another way of looking at this. How many of those guys who got work later had been waiting around all day looking for job security? They would be worried, anxious, afraid about how they would provide for their families, spending the day not knowing whether or not anyone would take them on, perhaps waiting through the heat of the day for potential work. Then an employer comes along and gives them job security for the day so they don’t have to worry about meeting their needs. A generous spirit will be glad that this poor worker has had his needs met for the whole day by being paid a generous wage.

We are so fixated by notions of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ that we have lost sight of what freedom means. If a person is unhappy with their working conditions then in a free society you can still make representation and bargain for a better deal or go somewhere else. Words such as equality and fairness should be our servants and not our masters.

Back to the gender issue. There are all sorts of reasons why women generally earn less money than men, and one is reality. In other words that’s how the world works. There are all sorts of arguments here. Women are out of the labour market on average for longer than men as they bear children and invest time in their early years. That doesn’t make them less valuable than men. In fact you could argue that they are doing a more important job than any man in nurturing the next generation.

Stuck on the front of the New Statesman last week was a headline alluding to this very subject. Helen Lewis points out in her article that ‘remarkably high proportions of the most successful women in politics are childless.’ Say no more! If you value women as mothers and to be esteemed as such this is no surprise. But if you value women according to their ability to climb the career ladder and to earn as much money as men then you are going to have a problem.

The EU vote – date with destiny

Soon the UK will have to decide which way it wishes to go, to become a proud sovereign nation again substantially in charge of its own affairs or to carry on with the same old same old in the EU. This whole sorry affair has been going on since 1973 when the UK took a wrong turn and joined the then Common Market. The battle raged between implausible allies such as Enoch Powell and Tony Benn on the one side and Edward Heath and his supporters on the other. It was all made out to be a trade deal and the British people were hoodwinked into a fledgling political union. At the root of our relationship with the EU is deception.

Our relationship with the now EU started with a deception, for the British people were never, and deliberately never, told the truth about what they were getting into, for otherwise how would they have gone along with it? Therefore our relationship with the EU is built on a deception, the gate was opened when we threw our hat into the ring with the European juggernaut to a spirit of deception that has taken a grip on Westminster and hoodwinked the most battle hardened and experienced politicians in parliament. When we joined the Common Market a gateway was opened for a spirit of deception to come and reside in Westminster and to feed both the political elite and thence the British people with continuing deception of the highest order. This is why the British relationship with the EU will never prosper because it is built on a false foundation. The governing spirit over this nation is continually struggling with the spirit of control that emanates from Brussels and seeks to squeeze the UK into its mould.

The nature and character of that spirit is to be a bully, and in the next year or two that bully will try everything possible to keep the UK to its bosom and to prevent Brexit. Question is, will the British people see finally what is going on and say enough! There is always a spirit at work in Europe to control and subjugate. Down through history you can see that spirit at work through the Roman Empire, then through papal Christendom, then through Napoleon and more recently through Hitler and the Nazis. ‘ That spirit has morphed into something altogether different on this occasion, but it is the same spirit of control, and is particularly pertinent to the UK. That spirit is an ancient force that just changes its colours like a chameleon to suit the age. If it can use a religious guise, as in the days of papal dominion, then it will. The old papal hierarchy considered England to be ‘Mary’s dowry.’ If it can use military power, then it will, as with Napoleon or the Nazis. The forces at work to unite Europe and destroy the remaining liberty that England has enjoyed for so long are working overtime to subjugate the UK to that spirit of control that now works through economic and political strategies rather than military conquest. You could argue that Hitler is the indirect cause of the EU, what he failed to do by military power is being done in the name of trade and economics in a much more subtle way.

At this time the UK needs leadership of the highest quality that knows how to face down a bully head on. This is literally a David and Goliath battle but we are still looking for David. It is possible for present political leadership to find the wherewithal, people can change their tune. Every trick in the book will be used to scare the British people into voting to stay in this latent totalitarian state, and a steady nerve is called for. Some of the most insidious arguments will be to do with jobs and economics. Firms will threaten to pull out of the UK, the media will trumpet the potential loss of jobs and the effect on our bank balances, but this must be resisted. The British people must call their bluff. We have only been in the European project for 42 odd years, a mere pinprick in the incredible history of these islands. Time to break loose and control our own destiny again!

Thoughts on the UK General Election

Whatever the impressions of the international audience on the 2015 UK general election this was perhaps quite a neat result for the future of the UK given the possibilities. The Conservative party back in power but with a slim majority is a better result than having the Lib Dems in coalition and preventing the Conservatives from doing slightly more conservative things.

However if you think that this government is a truly Conservative government then think again. There are conservatives in Mr Cameron’s government but it has essentially become another ‘modernising progressive’ force in British politics subject to the same worldview possessed by the Labour and Liberal  Democrat parties. If you are not familiar with the last five years, Mr Cameron embarked on a modernising strategy to take the Conservative party in his eyes into the twenty first century by introducing gay marriage and embedding equality legislation brought in by Harriet Harman, one of the high priestesses of the 1997 to 2010 New Labour project. He has continued the project and his attitude is ‘get with the programme,’ with all its concomitant ghastly political correctness. At the same time and to be positive the Conservatives are business friendly and prefer a lower tax regime and a smaller state, so in effect they are economically conservative and socially liberal. He does not quite appear that euro sceptic and has presided over continuing astronomical levels of immigration into this country. Meanwhile the attitude of his previous coalition government to militant Islam has been pusillanimous to say the least. The one redeeming feature of the new political map is that the leftist tendencies of the Liberal  Democrats will not be there any more to hold him back from what some of the more robust of his backbenchers want him to do.

Many decent and principled British people would have opted for Cameron rather than UKIP for one reason and one reason alone. To prevent Ed Milliband of the Labour Party from inflicting more radical socialism on these islands and consequently bankrupting the country in the meantime, but in addition to prevent Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Nationalists with its statist tendencies from holding the country to ransom through undue influence on the Labour Party.

The Lib Dems have been virtually wiped out and left with a rump of eight MPs who you could squeeze into a telephone box for their next national conference. Perhaps this is the price they have paid for being in coalition with the Conservatives for the last five years. So many of their former supporters could not stomach it and moved to the Labour Party or even one of the other newer parties. Also their obsession with being wedded to the EU and consequent rather blasé attitude on mass immigration may have lost them votes. Again the unpalatable option of a London centric Labour government and the spectre of the SNP was too much for them, and former Liberal Democrat strongholds for example in the south west of England went over to the Conservatives.

UKIP have performed impressively despite only getting one seat and thereby highlighting the anomalies of the British electoral system. They gained nearly four million votes, more than the SNP and Liberal Democrats put together, but where the SNP got 56 seats out of one and a half million votes, UKIP get one seat from more than twice as many votes because they can’t win an overall majority in any one constituency apart from Clacton. Again this may seem strange to an international audience but that is how our system works. However, UKIP did get a lot of second places which bodes well for them for the next election. This also stopped Labour from winning seats, so UKIP is decidedly not a threat to just the Tories. This was probably underestimated by Labour. UKIP would have done even better if the voters had not been so worried about a UKIP vote letting a Labour government in by the back door. They would not approve particularly of Cameron’s brand of conservatism but hated the thought of ‘Red Ed’ taxing them until the pips squeak.

Because of the success of smaller parties the clamour for electoral reform will be louder in this parliament. The present system favours and suits the two main parties, but it is possible for a third party to gain success as we have seen with the Liberal Democrats in the past who have built up local support by getting entrenched in local government and then moving out from this to win parliamentary seats in those areas. So it can be done but is very much a long term strategy. Anyway, the rise of UKIP is a very encouraging sign that the stifling hold that the legacy parties have had on the UK is finally and slowly being destroyed.

A reform of the system on the other hand might bring in an element of proportional representation where to a greater extent the number of seats won reflects the number of votes cast. It would perhaps be more motivating for people to vote as they would know their vote counted, rather than in the present system where people are often tempted to vote tactically and against the party they do not want in.

David Cameron should be magnanimous in victory for after all only 37% of the voters voted for him, the other 63% should be cut some slack in the interests of governing the nation, especially when he has such a vibrant pro independence Scottish SNP breathing down his neck and nearly four million  ukippers to hold his feet to the fire.

Overall this result is a least worst scenario for the UK. It is good from the point of view of the EU referendum as now the Conservatives can go full steam ahead in organising the referendum on our continuing membership of the EU. If Labour or anyone else had got in there would have been no referendum, so from a geo-political point of view perhaps the main reason for the Conservatives getting a majority is to finally deal with the tortuous relationship the UK has had with the EU and its former manifestations. It needs to be dealt with. There were all sorts of possible outcomes in this election but a majority Conservative government is best placed to provide the British people with the EU promised referendum. And the result of that referendum if a UK exit will have an effect worldwide, I do not think I understate this.

Ed Milliband – most dangerous man in Britain?

We have just had the proof that under no circumstance should anyone who calls themselves British, English or any sort of patriot vote for this man! He has just aligned himself with the most lethal enemy known to what is left of western civilisation, namely the alliance between the hard left and militant Islam. The Daily Mail reported Nicola Sturgeon as the most dangerous woman in Britain, but Ed Milliband could be called the most dangerous man in Britain. Here he is proposing to make ‘Islamophobia’ a crime. Of course what he means by ‘Islamophobia’ may need a little clarification. However it is extremely disturbing to say the least.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/25/miliband-labour-would-outlaw-islamophobia/

Hmm. Let’s see, perhaps we will get into trouble for drawing attention to the sharia advocated rather robust policy of dealing with male apostates in Islam i.e. to kill them. Then there’s the second class status of women. Or the fact that most of the world’s worst persecutors of Christians are Islamic countries. What about if we point out that mosques are not just, ahem, ‘places of worship.’ I could go on, but too many readers are too switched on now.

Unbelievable! Perhaps he would like to go and live in Pakistan where infamous blasphemy laws cause no end of problems particularly for Christians. As he sticks his head in the crocodile’s mouth you can kiss goodbye to any remaining liberty in these islands.

Perhaps if you abandon extreme identity politics for good and treat absolutely everyone on an equal footing regardless of ethnicity, religion, background, race or shoe size people might consider voting for you a little more, decisively, shall we say, Ed. How about stopping the insidious politics of victimhood and instead, start telling people they are entirely responsible for their own lives and to take advantage of all the great opportunities life in the UK can give them, regardless of so called ‘disadvantage?’ Dream on, Labour are hoisting themselves by their own petard.

It’s not just Labour. The Conservatives are so compromised now that they are up to the same tricks. We have Theresa May saying that attacks on Moslems will become a specific hate crime if the Tories win the election according to the Daily Mail. Now hold on Mrs May, shouldn’t everyone be treated exactly the same? An attack on a white, brown, black, Moslem, Christian, Sikh, heterosexual or homosexual or however else you describe yourself person is equally bad whoever the victim is, period.

For these two proposals alone, the two main parties deserve electoral annihilation. Unfortunately it wouldn’t take a genius to guess that the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP would take the same line on this matter. Sadly Ed and Theresa’s proposals won’t get much airtime compared with the usual mantras on the NHS and tax, but it’s these ‘little foxes that spoil the vines’ that will inject more poison capsules into the body politic than another rearranging of the deckchairs on the NHS Titanic will do. There comes a point in a nation’s life when there is just too much poison in its lifeblood and it dies.

The least worst option for the UK on Thursday is to vote for UKIP.

Houdini moment for the UK?

Majoring on the minors!

I said to a work colleague of mine recently that the whole political class in the UK needs to be swept away. That’s not to say that there are not some good people in all the parties, absolutely, but the whole mindset and ideology that has a grip on the main legacy parties needs to be utterly destroyed. That ideology is like a capsule of poison that has been inserted Into the heart of the nation that will stifle any remaining freedoms. We need a new leadership in the nation.

The thing with this election is that the traditional parties will say little or nothing that matters to the long term future of this country and plenty that is by far not as important to that long term future. Yet again the main parties will be telling us how they are going to sweeten us to vote for them. They will be looking at the next five years rather than the next 100 years, a fatal mistake because the issues facing the UK now need a patriotic leader who can look 100 years ahead at a critical juncture in our history.

However what makes the average voter tick? Perhaps they will be thinking, how will this government benefit me financially, will I get a bigger tax allowance, lower taxes, more benefits, a housing subsidy? And so it goes on. But somebody has to pay, and that somebody is us. It is a very powerful temptation for a voter to seek financial advantage, who could blame them, especially when so many people are struggling to make ends meet. Yet how many of us have got into financial difficulties entirely through our own poor decision making which has got nothing to do with whether the government follows this policy or that policy? Governments say they are going to benefit us financially, but how many voters will vote in the interests of the long term future of this nation, how many will be thinking of their children and grandchildren?

Precious few I suspect. Those who do not have children or grandchildren, and never will, and that is a substantial proportion of the adult population, a sad indictment of our society I might say, will be even less inclined to think of our long term future as their lives are more likely to revolve around just them.

The parties will give the usual noises about health and education, that these merit goods will be safe in their hands. Are they important you bet they are, but are they the most important issues? The NHS should be seriously looked at anyway as to whether it is the best model of health service. We could do a lot worse than look at some of the other perhaps more successful models of health care around the world. There are big questions arising over how it should be run and who it should help. There should be a debate on exactly what treatments should and should not be allowed at the taxpayers expense. How much emphasis should be put on preventative as opposed to corrective medicine? To what extent should the NHS be a world health service?

A huge issue for the UK to deal with is who governs us, will it be Brussels or Westminster? This is an issue that is increasingly being taken out of our hands, and 800 years after Magna Carta in 2015 we may be about to see the freedoms we have enjoyed for so long finally being snuffed out with virtually a whimper. If the Labour Party gets in again with some sort of covert confidence and supply arrangement with the SNP, enough damage may be done to finish off the UK for good and deliver the country like a filleted haddock to the EU on a plate. No true patriot could vote for the Labour Party as they are not giving a referendum on the EU, the very least any party can do to placate the British people. At least David Cameron is giving us the long promised referendum, although some might say he will be a bit slippery. The problem with the legacy parties are that they are wedded to the EU Project, it is burned into their thinking and many of them will not have known anything else, let alone be aware of the bullying spirit behind the EU forcing conformity on individual nations.

And you will not hear a word about militant Islam, an issue which is bubbling away under the surface but would put a firestorm into the election campaign if truths came out in the open. This is an issue that has to be dealt with now but the legacy parties will be desperate to maintain the status quo, ‘nothing to see here, look away now.’ There is such delusion at a high level that Ed Milliband is reported as saying that ‘Islamophobia’ would be made a criminal offence in the UK if he becomes Prime Minister. Meanwhile the demographic time bomb is ticking away as indigenous Brits do not have many children and immigrants do, happily so if the largesse of the State helps them. While the news tells us recently that by 2051 ethnic minorities are predicted to make up a quarter of the British population. This will fundamentally and irreversibly change the nation for ever and not for the good on present projections.

Furthermore the legacy parties are all wedded to anti discrimination and equality legislation which will continue to chip away at our freedoms until someone says, ‘enough of this madness!’ A parable of our present sorry state is the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland taking a baker to court for refusing to put a slogan on a cake supporting gay marriage (and gay marriage is not even legal in Northern Ireland). You have to wonder who these cold hearted bureaucrats are who are willing to trample on the consciences of ordinary people. And so these stories make Great Britain a basket case in the eyes of the world.

So, you will not hear a thing about these matters in the General Election campaign, rather what would happen to the NHS if the other party got hold of it, or what will happen to zero hours contracts, or perhaps those cuts won’t be so bad under X compared with Y. All short term and less consequential whilst the really big matters will prance around like an elephant in the room while the politicians try to mouth their platitudes. Still no statesman in the house!

Despite all this, is the worm turning in the UK? Too many people can now see what is going on and in this most unpredictable of elections the fruitcakes and loonies are not coming home to the Tories, neither are the SNP voters returning to Labour. People must have the courage of their convictions and vote for who they consider best represents them and must not be bullied into thinking that they will somehow let in some highly dangerous coalition if they fail to vote for one of the big parties. 2015 could prove to be a watershed year. There is always hope. First it’s impossible, then it’s difficult, then it’s done! Will the UK, on its last legs, at the bottom of the ocean, in a coffin, and chained up to boot, perform a Houdini for the world to see?

David Starkey

‘I don’t see anybody around with any prime ministerial qualifications at all.’

It was a joyous experience to read the musings of the waspish David Starkey in the Daily Telegraph the other Saturday. The Daily Telegraph was bombed with a hefty dose of common sense when David Starkey the well known historian gave a wide ranging interview on various topical subjects. His views are very conservative, in fact he would be better voting for UKIP than he would the Conservatives. They need him more. He is a blast of fresh politically incorrect air who is not spellbound by the evil magician that has cast a fog of deception upon the minds of many British people.

He is not intimidated by the ‘racist’ narrative that has run through political discourse for so long. He is not afraid to argue that there is what he believes a black propensity to violence in this country, saying that the figures support this, seeing one of the reasons as cultural. He has got it on victim hood. He helped himself up by his bootstraps besides the evident past disadvantages of being gay and born seriously disabled, saying you must be master of your own life and not look to government to institutionalise you as a victim. Amen to that!

This is one of the most important things he said, the catastrophic culture of victimhood that the political classes have foisted on the UK population. He understands better than most this poison that has entered the body politic and threatens to crush the life out of the nation. Just how many groups in society are we going to class as victims before we start treating people as grown ups responsible for their own lives regardless of disadvantage?

His thoughts about gender are mind bogglingly revolutionary, ‘the genders are different. And the whole thing is not just the result of wicked gender grooming. It’s not simply societal. It is the result of biology.’ Obviously.’ He is just stating reality. However I am not quite on his wavelength when he says that as far as intelligence is concerned women tend to cluster more around the mean, whereas men are either very, very bright or very thick.’ But what do I know?

Referring to his partner he says, ‘I see no reason apart from tax considerations – which we haven’t dealt with – why a gay relationship should be the subject of public rules.’ There we have it, you certainly cannot class all gays as having the same mindset on these issues. Too right for any conservative position where state sanctioned homosexuality just does not float their boat.

He waxes eloquent on Magna Carta, ‘we have the oldest functioning political system in Europe and it goes back directly to Magna Carta. There is a continuous line of constitutional and political development from Magna Carta.’ By the time it had been nipped and tucked, it had become a brilliant piece of political compromise.

He is pretty scathing about the present political class, implying that Ed Milliband if not the devil in disguise is not far off in his demeanour and intent, saying that Milliband is ‘poison.’ His line is damning, that we do not have a statesman or leader to deal with the issues. He sees the forthcoming general election with a degree of modified despair. He understands that inciting a politics of envy is just not where it’s at, the rich against the poor, rather than recognising the immense contribution of the rich, the talented and the entrepreneurs towards all the material things we enjoy. ‘A welfare state of necessity imposes high levels of taxes on ordinary folk.’ So don’t just take money off the rich to pay for it.

This just supports the argument that you get out of the system what you pay in, you certainly don’t expect something for nothing. And so we end up with one of the highest peacetime debts we have ever had. Starkey thinks the deficit should have been reduced much more with a radical reappraisal of what the state does. Precisely!

He is scathing about cutting defence and the police being scaled back when the threat of terrorism is so high. Starkey is all for leaving the EU, saying we don’t fundamentally depend on their markets, although they depend on us. We do however have a decent trade balance with the rest of the world.

You gotta hand it to him. Davis Starkey is a true Brit! I agree with him on almost everything!

EU perspective

The EU gets a lot of bad advertising here in the UK especially from the so called right wing press.Sometimes the message can be exaggerated or amplified to create the EU bogeyman continually trying to bleed the UK dry. I am no fan of the EU but there may be an argument for a little perspective when it comes to our EU contribution, which often comes up in the media.

It might be argued that the EU is another conduit for redistributing income and wealth across the continent. Not surprising given the socialist tendencies of so many of its top officials. The net contributors are like those at the top of the tree in any progressive tax system such as exists in the UK whilst the net recipients are like the benefit claimants at the other end of the scale. You don’t really have to think much about who the net contributors are.

Yes, Germany is one, but that is no surprise given that it is the economic powerhouse of Europe and the second really large economy in the world after the U.S. in the HDI index, a pretty impressive performance. The HDI index is a measure of economic development of any given nation. Small and prosperous nations like Norway and Switzerland dominate the upper reaches of this index, so it is no small feat for Germany. All the bigger and richer member states are net contributors, countries such as the UK, Sweden, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Belgium.

What percentage of UK public spending goes to the EU? If you take the net figure for 2015, the percentage is actually very small, about 1.18 percent, although in absolute terms a figure of £8.6B. In this sense it is perhaps possible to overstate on the euro sceptic side the direct financial inroads the EU makes into the UK economy. On the other hand, it is still a very big number. To put this in context, that figure comfortably covers the two new aircraft carriers being built for the UK navy. Alternatively you could buy sixteen new hospitals in approximate terms or dozens of new schools (the Thomas Deacon Academy in Peterborough, one of the most expensive schools in Britain, cost close to £50m to build). That’s still quite a lot of extra money that we would be free to spend if the money was still in our pockets. So there is some point in the UKIP argument.

Pro EU supporters would of course note the small net contribution of the UK to the EU although it is a small percentage of a very large figure. Fair enough, but it also disguises the fact that we pay about £20B gross to the EU in contributions from UK government and households, the equivalent figure was £17.2B in 2013, giving a figure of about 2% of total public expenditure. This is expenditure that is taken out of our hands and given to an external authority to decide how to spend. Some people would argue of course that it would be far better for us to spend our own money rather than give it away to a supranational authority to make such decisions. The EU spends lots of that money on the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) which is a strong vested interest on the continent. We pay more in than we get out, but EU supporters might argue that we have access to EU markets and contracts as a result of our contribution. But is such a contribution worth it? If we were out of the EU we would still be trading with one another. Trade is trade and politics is politics.

17th March 2015 A Good Day for the World

The Guardian reported on Wednesday the 18th March that Binyamin Netanyahu scored a dramatic victory after a late surge in support in the Israeli election, after the highest voter turnout in recent memory (72.3%). Netanyahu was trailing in the last opinion polls before the election.

Congratulations to Binyamin Netanyahu for winning the Israeli election this month. The world is safer for him being back in power. It seems that the worldwide socialists and their buddies in the media such as the New York Times and the Guardian were all hoping that he would be knocked out and that one of their own would be voted in, but the Israelis have spoken and they know a lot more than your armchair pundits around the world. Everything the leftist ‘progressives’ could do to take him out failed and he won a remarkable victory.

Survival is the name of the game in Israel, literally. If you had armed thugs outside ready to beat down the door of your house and attack your family your mind would be concentrated in nano seconds and at the very least you’d have the baseball bat ready. So Israel continues to be the canary in the mine, the first line of defence against Islamic fundamentalism trying to take over the land that the original ancient Israel settled thousands of years ago. That’s the reason why an eminent professor from the London School of Economics, yes, that prestigious British educational institution, said recently on Radio 5 Live that western governments should unequivocally support Israel. He knows a thing or two about reality.

As for friction with Israeli Arabs in the election, well, elections could get pretty nasty in any western democracy in the slurs, counter slurs, accusations and downright lies and deception, exactly what happens when you have humans around. Yet Arabs are well represented in the 20th Knesset, 17 of them (14% of the total seats), almost the proportion of Arabs in the population. Now that’s an interesting point. What percentage can the Mother of Parliaments boast for minorities like blacks?

I am no expert on Netanyahu, but I see him as a warrior, and Israel needs a warrior to lead it, just as the UK and the U.S. need a warrior, but do not have. You only have to look at him to see he has a certain air of confidence and decisiveness. Amazingly we had our own warrior here in the UK, when Winston Churchill, flawed though he was, was raised up to deal with the prevailing evil. Under Netanyahu there will be no Palestinian state in the present climate as he understands the mortal danger that Israel would come under if they allowed a so called Palestinian state to be established up against its borders. Do you really beIieve that a Palestinian state snuggling to Israel’s borders would not be a conduit for immense evil, as Islamic fundamentalists pour in to ‘drive Israel into the sea?’

‘I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuates territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel,’ Netanyahu said. ‘The left has buried its head in the sand time after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand.’

However, Netanyahu has been criticised for his stance and has taken a more conciliatory tone since the election, hinting that if circumstances change, there might be room for a two state solution. Well, I guess that’s politics for you. It seems that he would be open to a demilitarised Palestinian state if conditions are satisfactory and Mr President Abbas recognises Israel as a Jewish state. However, it is difficult to see how circumstances would change, given an insurgent radical Islam and an intransigent Israeli position. As Netanyahu has already observed, Islamist forces have taken every territory vacated in the Middle East.

Obama was probably hoping and praying that Netanyahu would fail and be replaced by one of his own, someone of a liberal left appeasement mentality would fit the bill I am sure, a centrist, a social democrat or suchlike. It was even said that Obama had backed a bunch of activists ‘bussed in’ from the States to try and influence the election against Netanyahu. This campaign was run by Jeremy Bird, of the Chicago school of politics, doing consulting work for the group V15, an Israeli group campaigning to replace the Israeli government. Reminds me of when the Guardianistas in the UK tried to influence the Bush election and got short shrift from our US cousins ‘How dare you limeys with your filthy yellow teeth try to tell us who to vote for,’ was the gist of one rebuke issued back across the pond.

When you are facing great evil that threatens the annihilation of your nation you need a leader who can recognise that evil, state what it is and face it down head on without flinching. That leader will have flaws, offend people and get some things very wrong, but they will have the courage and authority to deal with overwhelming wickedness. Sadly, we live in a world where you have to fight for your freedom and liberty, that there are lots of nasty people out there who will take you out if you are not armed to the teeth. It was ever the way, to keep your liberty you have to fight for it. If you want peace, prepare for war as some very wise man said!