Author Archives: admin

About admin

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

Immigration 2015 style

‘ A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.’ Ronald Reagan

A staggering statistic came out this week that should be marked up as a massive reality check before the coming elections. The Guardian reports that the migrant population of England increased by 565,000 in three years between 2011 and 2014, with about two thirds of the arrivals born in other EU countries. This represents nearly 1% of the UK population of an estimated 63,489,234 in July 2015 (0.89% to be precise). The numbers are estimates of course, but anyone with half a brain can see what is going on. We are to celebrate this of course. The natural bedfellow of mass immigration is government sanctioned diversity. Celebrating diversity has got to be the UK’s greatest achievement of the last 50 years, up there with the 2012 London Olympics.

We are told that the greatest increase in the amount of foreign born residents has been in the capital, with an estimated 200,000 more foreign residents living in London between 2011 and 2014. I have just been reading the comments on this article in the Guardian blog and there are plenty of them not quite sure of if not downright against this mass immigration idea.

The project is almost complete some might argue, and some people in high places must be rubbing their hands with glee. Soon the UK could be no more, utterly demolished by a mixture of misplaced white guilt, bowing down to other cultures, rubbishing our own culture and religion, and using the word racist to brand anyone who ever dared to question the wisdom of opening the floodgates to the world. Again I am reminded of the meeting I went to all those years ago when it was proposed that New Labour had instituted a deliberate policy of mass immigration to destroy the culture of the nation, and this was well before Andrew Nether, the New Labour speech writer let the cat out of the bag when he told the UK that New Labour wanted to rub the right’s nose in diversity.

When I voted for David Cameron in 2010 I was not particularly voting for him as a leader as I have never been a big fan, but I was hoping that the Conservative party was actually going to do something Conservative about immigration when they took power after 13 years of direct assault on the soul of this nation by the apparatchiks of New Labour. Dave assured us that those immigration figures would be brought down but hardly a thing has been done. The sad thing is that the policies of successive governments in this area could make the English people racist. There has been warning after warning about the consequences of all this but the government appears to have a death wish, especially when it comes to dangerous Islamists being allowed to settle in this country.

Institutionalised ‘diversity’ must be one of the greatest deceptions foisted on the world ever, and it has been very successful because the purveyors of this policy have forced it into the public sector, the universities, the schools, and even into the corporate world, where you will be a heretic if you dare to stand agains the prevailing orthodoxy.

Will the British people wake up before the next election as they realise there might be a plan? Is what is being done to their nation part of a plan that has been carefully prepared and used to infiltrate every nation of the old Anglosphere. At the moment UKIP is the only hope to call some sort of halt.

I watched Newsnight the other night and there was a big piece about the housing crisis in the UK. Not enough homes, not enough new homes being built, young people not able to afford a house, escalating rents and so on. House prices are set by supply and demand, which in turn are influenced by many factors such as desirability of area, quality of schools, job market, family break up, interest rates, availability of loans, price of land and so on. The piece said barely a word about immigration, but it should be pretty obvious that over half a million people entering the nation in three years could be a pretty significant driver on the demand side of housing shortages as well as house prices and rent levels.

Remembering Churchill

The 24^th January 2015 saw the fiftieth anniversary of the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill, arguably the greatest Prime Minister Britain ever had. So there has been a raft of programmes both on TV and radio commemorating this great event. I have made a point of trying to listen to or watch some of these programmes as I am a very limited student of Churchill as many are. I have various quotes of his attached to my fridge freezer, I have read at least one biography and have recently bought another to read on some future holiday or long winter night. I have also made a number of visits to Chartwell, I have visited the Cabinet War Rooms, Blenheim Palace and have also visited the Churchill family grave at Blaydon.

As we all know Churchill was not your average ordinary man by any stretch of the imagination. Born of aristocratic stock at Blenheim Palace, the son of a very talented British politician and vivavious American mother, the path of his life was already set to be on a certain privileged plane. Not a great scholar as a schoolboy, he proved that low academic achievement at a young age is no barrier to greatness.

Because he was an aristocrat, there were a lot of things that he never did that were the stuff of ordinary life. For instance it was reported on one of the recent radio programmes that he never travelled on the London underground bar one occasion when he got lost going round and round on the Circle line. One radio report said he never went into a shop. A bizarre state of affairs you might think, but people of his ilk had everything done for them. There were armies of servants to do the bidding of their Lords and masters at places like Blenheim and Chartwell. On the other hand, he could identify with the common man in such areas as his experience as a soldier and as a skilled bricklayer, a member of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers.

Of course his aristocratic background may be one reason why Churchill was such a polymath, because he had the time to be. He was a renowned politician and leader, a soldier, a great orator, a world class writer, a painter of significant talent, a builder and bricklayer, in other words he had in the words of Dennis Healey, a hinterland.

An outstanding feature of Churchill’s war leadership was his speechmaking ability. He was able to use the power of the English language and that gravelly voice of his to rally the British nation at its most perilous hour. His Battle of Britain speech on ‘never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few,’ and the ‘some chicken, some neck’ speech have entered folklore.

But most of all we remember him as the man who led Great Britain when we stood alone against Hitler in 1940, when most of Europe had been subjugated by the Nazi war machine, and this key time in our history is quite remarkable especially when you think that some thought appeasement of Hitler was the thing to do. What Churchill brought to the table was an ability to see clearly and with prophetic foresight just how evil and dangerous Hitler’s regime was, and that it had to be stopped by force, not appeasement. He understood that sometimes you cannot talk to or negotiate with a fearsome bully, instead you have to face it down head on. If Churchill had not actually been there would we have come to some sort of accommodation with Herr Hitler, perhaps we would have agreed not to stop his relentless takeover of the European continent as long as he left us alone? But then what guarantee was there that Hitler’s lust for power would not have brought his force across the channel anyway?

This heightens the importance of a nation producing a leader of outstanding determination when faced with overwhelming evil. Perhaps his experience as a soldier both in Africa and the First World War, and internment in a POW camp helped give him the extra mettle needed. Perhaps the greatest difference between him and the current generation of political leaders is that he understood the nature of evil and the threat it posed to freedom, and that you have to take strong and decisive action against such evil, whereas I am not sure that today’s leaders have the quality of ruthlessness needed for extraordinary challenges. I hope I am proved wrong.

Churchill also puts paid to the idea of the cult of youth that afflicts our society, the idea that if you are young you somehow have more to contribute and more qualification to hold high office than someone much older. Churchill was 63 years old when the war started and was yet to attain the height that would earn him the ‘greatest Briton’ tag years after his death. Qualification for leadership of a nation should profoundly not have anything to do with having to be under a certain age such as fifty otherwise you are too old!

It has been conjectured whether Churchill would have successful in today’s political environment. He was a man of great gifts yet serious flaws, suffering from black dog depression and having a significant taste for alcohol. He would undoubtedly have been caught by the net of political correctness that prevents anyone of a more independent mode of thought from getting anywhere in much of the present political culture. He would have been proudly pro-British and for probably maintaining the relative homogeneity of this island race so would have been seen as zenophobic. He would not have approved of homosexuality so would have been branded homophobic. Evidence is that he would have had a low opinion of Islam so would have been an ‘islamophobe.’ No doubt the term ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ may have been thrown into the mix as well given his British Empire worldview at the time! But all these labels fall away given the character and personality of the man. He was a man for his time, who had the vision to see the mortal peril faced by Great Britain and realised that manifest evil had to be dealt with. Yes he was a flawed human being who made big mistakes and was remembered for disasters such as Galipolli. He had his years in the wilderness and his judgement was brought into question at times. But his life path squeezed him into the mould that had been prepared for him for a relatively short phase in his life, to oppose a demonically inspired evil dictator. We can thank God for him.

The Middle East is different

Today’s news reports tell us that ISIS have now established a bridgehead in Libya and their next target is Europe. Meanwhile the southern border of the U.S. is under the same threat from ISIS if they do not tighten up border control. Don’t believe that ISIS only have designs on Europe. Given Obama’s political colours tightening borders could be a tricky task.

There is a lesson here for all of us, especially politicians, and if there are any around at the moment, statesmen, that you meddle in regime change in the Middle East at your peril. One thing I have observed in my limited reading of the situation is that strongmen in power in the Middle East, even with their associated levels of nastiness, are often far better than the alternatives.

This does not mean I would always advocate keeping the strongman in power while holding your nose. I think there was an arguable case for removIng Sadaam Hussein from power by force. That was the only word he understood, and who knows what was in his heart. He certainly wanted to attack Israel and could have caused no end of mayhem in the region, especially as he had expansionary ambitions as we saw with Kuwait. But this does not nullify the extreme caution we should exercise when advocating regime change in the Middle East.

Look at the whole ‘Arab Spring’ episode, when the West was duly trumpeting the dawn of democracy in the region. One regime after another fell and mayhem has followed in many places.

Egypt was ruled by Mubarak who was overthrown to be replaced by Morsi, who proved to be a front for a militantly Islamic regime that steamed immediately into its totalitarian instincts. And this regime change was all supported by the West. When Morsi was opposed by the Egyptian people out on the streets en masse (all credit to them) there was tut tutting from the West about trying to get rid of a legitimate government. But again the liberal West has little grasp of the nuances of Egyptian politics, Islamist threats and the fear of the Moslem Brotherhood. Egypt has faced enormous upheaval since Mubarak went, something supported by the U.S. and European governments, yet would it not have been better to have tried to keep Mubarak where he was? A strong leader is what Middle Eastern nations need to keep the extreme Islamists in their place. Such leaders understand exactly what medicine is needed to keep these people in line, and that means utter ruthlessness, something we in the West left behind a long time ago.

It’s the same in Syria. The West bleats about the terrible tyrant Assad and the way he goes on. Yes, we would have issues with such a man, but under Assad Christians had more freedom than virtually anywhere else in the Middle East apart from perhaps Israel. Now that Syria is in chaos and various Islamic extremists try to gain control, Christians are the ones caught in the ensuing bloodbath. In the Middle East Christians are in danger of being extinguished as militant Islam shows its true colours, adhering to their mantra, ‘First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people’ (Jews and Christians). Thank God David Cameron’s idea of going into Syria was defeated in the Commons vote. We could have been complicit in aiding some of the nastiest radicals In the region gaining power, perhaps ISIS themselves.

And then there is Libya of course. Granted, Colonel Gaddafi was a deeply unpleasant dictatorial leaders, but perhaps he was a bulwark against something far nastier. Perhaps we should have taken the post Gaddafi vacuum far more seriously. We went in with our RAF jets to help get rid of him, and now Libya is in turmoil and ISIS are at the gates of the European continent. What did Gaddafi himself say? When he was still alive in his Bedouin tent he said, ‘If, instead of a stable government that guarantees security, these militias linked to Bin Laden take control, the Africans will move en masse towards Europe,’ adding that ‘the Mediterranean will become a sea of chaos.’

So it’s the same story in Egypt, Syria and Libya. Former tyrants have been ousted, only to open the way to something far worse. I remember a friend of mine telling me how years ago he had prophesied that if the Shah of Persia was ousted something far worse would replace him. How right he was as the Ayatollah Khomeini filled the vacuum with a hard line Islamic state imposed upon the people of Iran. When will we ever learn. Unfortunately the way it works in some of these countries is that you need someone very, very strong to keep the crazies in order. It has even been said of a country like Russia that they are an aggressive people and need a strong leader to keep them in order.

We now have to face the possibility that because of the policies of our governments aiding and abetting the downfall of admittedly unpleasant dictatorships we have opened the way for ISIS to now become a mortal threat to Europe itself, to old settled liberal societies that at present show little stomach for a fight.

The mentality of the globalists

‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.’ If you want to know the measure of a man, what makes him tick, what lies in his very core, all you have to do is listen to what he says. that reveals what is in the heart. There will be those that scoff at the idea that globalists exist, people out to control the planet and remake it in their image. Maybe paying attention to what Mr Peter Sutherland has to say will enlighten us.

Just listen to his expert views on the subject of mass immigration, that the people of the UK ‘still nurse a sense of homogeneity and difference from others.’ He said later, ‘and that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.’ He has also said that ‘there should be a shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states.’

Who is Peter Sutherland? KCMG, SC, UN Special Representative on Migration, former Attorney General of Ireland, ex Chairman of the Allied Irish Bank and European Commissioner, ex Chairman of BP, now non-executive director of Goldman Sachs International, in fact a whole string of titles that make him the grand panjandrum of this particular brand. He is now Head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development. Michael Kantor called him the ‘father of globalisation. In his view opposition to globalisation is ‘morally indefensible.’ Mr Peter Sutherland is a very big shot in the relentless drive by the so called global elite to weld the nations together into one big melting pot, convinced of the rightness of their cause.

In his view migration is a ‘crucial dynamic for economic growth’ in some European countries, ‘however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens. In his view declining populations of certain EU countries means multiculturalism is not only inevitable but deeply desirable – It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them.

Well that’s at least in his opinion. So he’ll be rejoicing in the fact that the border of the UK will be fully open to the latest potential influx from Rumania and Bulgaria. No doubt he will be knocking back a few celebratory drinks at the thought of the UK’s sense of homogeneity being further weakened by a good further dose of eastern Europeans, whose numbers aiming to get to these shores no one has any idea of.

Here’s the link to the BBC article on this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

I have little doubt that another well known globalist, George Soros, will be jointly rejoicing.

Pre-election goodies

It’s coming up to election time so the legacy parties are broadcasting their wares for the punters. Money talks, so if the politicians can convince us through pecuniary means that we should vote for them then surely they are doing what comes naturally. Thing is, of course the government has no money. First it has to get it off the taxpayer and then it can use it to encourage as many people as possible to vote for it. This is reality and as long as the sun shines by day and the moon by night you cannot stop a degree of offering financial benefits to the electors to win their vote. These days that’s a very high degree. The degree to which any government tries to buy peoples’ votes will be in inverse proportion to the spiritual and moral integrity of that government. But then the government also reflects who we are as a people and the type of society we have built, so as George Osborne said, we are all in it together.

Two articles in the Times this last week illustrate the pre-election courting of the voters is cooking on gas as George and Ed fall over themselves to persuade us to vote for them.

So we have George Osborne aiming his sights fair and square at the silver surfers, the older members of the population who make up a substantial proportion of the voter base. No doubt Dave and George are terrified of the purple peril looming at their shoulders that has quite a lot of appeal for a lot of older voters who quite frankly resent being patronised by politicians over their ‘outdated’ views on things like the EU and gay marriage. The silver surfers comprise a substantial proportion of the electorate and so are a lucrative target for the main parties. They also tend to take their voting responsibilities seriously. Uncomfortably for the left, this vast swathe of people often tend to be more conservative in their thinking and so it will significantly be a fight between the Tories and UKIP for this section of the electorate.

What is George proposing? Nothing less than a multimillion pound bonds windfall for the over 65s, with pensioner bonds being given market leading savings rates. He has extended the 65 plus pensioner bonds scheme for another three months, until just after the election, after huge demand. It looks like about 1 in 10 of all pensioners will take part in the scheme. Thing is, this is all going to cost taxpayers rather a lot of money at a time of as we all know of necessary austerity, an estimated £500 million over 5 years. Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs states that ‘borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working age population.’

On the other hand, with eye wateringly low interest rates in recent times it has been tough for savers, many of whom are older people, so this helps to redress the balance some might argue. Borrowers such as those with tracker mortgages have had a whale of a time with lower repayments, whilst savers have had to put up with chicken feed. Bonds represent a fair rebalancing? However, there is one rule George appears to have broken and that is to borrow on the best terms for taxpayers. As Patrick Hosking, Financial Editor for the Times says, he could have borrowed the money at 0.3 per cent in the gilts market, instead he has borrowed at nine times that rate from pensioners.

Meanwhile David Cameron strongly hints he would protect universal pensioner benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free TV licence. So the Conservatives are desperate for those silver votes.

Ed Milliband meanwhile is targeting new parents and working families with children with goodies from his gift bag. He was set to announce plans to give new fathers four weeks off work after a baby’s birth and to increase their statutory pay by £100 to at least £260 a week if he wins in May. This won’t be very popular with business groups, especially smaller companies. In addition of course Ed is planning to extend free childcare from 15 to 25 hours per week for working parents with three and four year olds. This would reduce spending on tax credits or benefits payments for low income families. Which is better, state subsidised work or state subsidised childcare?

So the parties line up to tell us how they are going to spend the money they have previously taken off us in tax. Trouble is, how well or badly the main parties intend to redistribute our money is not the main issue facing the UK. If people vote mainly on how much extra finance they will enjoy, or how much better off they could be financially, they could be voting for the increasingly swift demolition of our nation. It takes far sighted and perceptive voters to see through the short term financial gains being dangled in front of the electorate by the different parties, you might argue this is hoping for a bit too much from the average British voter. But there we are. There are far more salient issues to do with our survival as a cohesive nation than how much extra money we enjoy per year, and It’s going to be an interesting few months! The mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ does have its limits.

Militant Islam rears its ugly head

It would be odd for me not to say something about the events of this New Year when the blogosphere has probably been cooking on gas over the issue, so I will throw in my two-penny worth.

This is one area where the west suffers from a terrifying level of institutionalised foolishness in its handling of and attitude towards Islam. Hopefully the events in France will focus a few minds. Have a look at this quote from a man who has been in the Middle East cauldron and has witnessed Islamist wickedness first hand:

‘Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. But my community is still alive. Try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider our reality in the Middle East because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true. Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your homes.’

Amel Nona, Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, 2014.

Yes, this is the exiled Chaldean Archeparch of Mosul, where Christians have been settled for 1700 years. They are now being driven out or killed by the new Islamic State. Here speaks a man from first-hand experience and immense wisdom. He understands the deception being foisted on the west on a vast scale and David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Milliband could do a lot worse than spending an hour with this man so he could give them all some much needed counsel.

No prominent western leader seems to understand the issue, neither Barak Obama, David Cameron, Angela Merkel or Francois Hollande who recently just came up with the same old line that the recent atrocities in France had ‘nothing to do with Islam.’ Do they really believe that their populations are all such fools?

What we are facing in the west is an extremely powerful spirit that inspires militant Islam, and its goal is control. It is a controlling spirit of the highest order that wants to control everything you say and everything you do. It starts with nice sounding words and clever speech, hijacking western concepts of democracy and individual rights by using the language of equality and human rights, but ends in the ‘concentration camp’ when it gets its way. Because the west is spiritually and morally bankrupt its defences are weak. Mr Obama and Mr Cameron believe that it is our economic strength that will help pull us through. At the White House in January it was a case of ‘we reaffirm our belief that our ability to defend our freedoms is rooted in our economic strength and the values that we cherish – freedom of expression, the rule of law and strong democratic institutions.’ This is only part of the picture, because essentially it is our spiritual and moral strength that will defeat the enemy, and those assets are at an all-time low. It would take a leader of incredible bravery and character to take on the institutionalised foolishness in this area because you would have the full force of the MSM plus the political elite screaming at you in ‘how can you be so offensive?’ mode. Nigel Farage began to do this in the last few days when he said that multiculturalism and mass immigration has been a massive failure and we need to acknowledge that, that we now have a Moslem fifth column in this country and that we need to stand up for our Christian heritage. That just attracted the usual ‘outrage’ from people like Cameron and Clegg who still just do not get it.

Churchill faced the same issues in the 30s when he prophetically saw what was happening in Germany with the Nazis and wanted to warn his countrymen. From 1933 to the beginning of World War 2 Churchill was not allowed to talk on British radio which was a government monopoly administered by the BBC. And he was an MP and former cabinet minister! Not allowed to use the radio to warn the British people because his views were too ‘controversial.’ Exactly the same now with the government taking the view that it is too ‘controversial’ to state the problem, and that is militant Islam, which is in Islam, wrapped up in it like a Russian doll within a Russian doll.

We are now reaching a tipping point in western society over the place of Islam in our cultures. After the outrages carried out in France by Islamist gunmen western governments and security services will be on high alert to thwart any other terrorist attacks. Let me say this quite clearly. Moslems who have no agenda to change the west into an Islamic caliphate and indeed want to get away from oppression pushed by political Islam are not the problem and must not be vilified in any way. But the problem is not such individual Moslems, it is Islam itself, because Islam has two faces, and within Islam hides militant Islam. You are dealing with the highest level of deception.

I am not quite sure about some of the recent demonstrating along the ‘Je suis Charlie’ lines. Charlie Hebdo was a publication which as far as I can see went out of its way to insult not just Islam but also Jews and Christians. I think very few of those demonstrating people would have actually published what Charlie Hebdo published on Islam. So it all seems a bit false. How many would want to stand with a publication that went out of its way to wind up the adherents of those faiths? It was certainly a case of freedom of expression although some would argue it was not very responsible use of that freedom. Having said that, you have to defend the right of people to express their viewpoints. If you want freedom of speech you have to accept people at the edge saying extremely edgy and insulting things, it’s the price of freedom. Nothing is off limits even if you wouldn’t say some things yourself. A mature society can handle it. There should be an incredibly high barrier. Only obvious incitement to violence should arguably be caught by the law.

This is a defining moment because we have heard enough now about double standards. You can say what you want about Christianity or Judaism but you cannot say certain things about Islam. You can burn a Bible in the UK and the police would do nothing but if you burn a copy of the Koran the authorities will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Double standards! That’s Islamic jurisdiction and sharia law which should have no sway at all in the UK. Institutionalised foolishness! Well that is the way it is in Islamic countries but it should not be the way of things in the UK. There is no reason at all why western society should stipulate that cartoons of Mohammad are beyond the pale. To restrict speech on Islam means you are causing the islamisation of your society. We are far down that road and as it has been said before the UK is on the way to becoming the first western nation to come under the heel of militant Islam because of our foolishness. If you want to know who controls you, just consider who you are not allowed to criticise. ‘Nuff said!’

I said a number of years ago words to the effect that Britain would show the world how to deal with Islam and I still tentatively stick with that although many would stand aghast and probably laugh like a drain at such a statement because they think we have reached a comatose level of dhimmitude. However one reason this might be the case is that the UK has gone further down the path of islamisation than most western nations and therefore a tipping point may be reached here before most other nations. I also believe there is a warrior spirit in the UK which has been fast asleep but once stirred into action is quite capable of doing what’s needed. It is grossly simplistic to see the UK as just a nation of unthinking apathetic individuals, blinded by reality TV and stuck in armchairs. The picture is far more nuanced than that. You only have to read the blogs and talk to people day by day to know they are very aware of the problem. Also the politicians do not represent the man in the street in their views on this issue. I am just waiting to see which western nation will see sense first and change the whole paradigm. This will provide leadership for the whole world.
A resolution needs to come between the UK and militant Islam sooner rather than later simply because the situation will deteriorate very quickly in favour of militant Islam if the can keeps getting kicked down the road. An imminent clash will be that much easier to handle than one ten years down the road. So 2015 could prove to be a pivotal year. This involves our governing authorities admitting very quickly that we have made serious mistakes by being nice to everyone and treating all cultures as equal.

The level of deception in this particular area is so great that very, very clever people have swallowed the lies hook, line and sinker. Hence we have the British PM, David Cameron, stating that Islam is a religion of peace and that the murder of Lee Rigby had nothing to do with Islam. Possibly the most dangerous deception in world politics today lies behind these viewpoints and is represented by an alliance cooked up in hell itself, between the hard left and militant Islam, which both have the same goals, the destruction of Judeo Christian civilisation. Strange bedfellows indeed, especially when it comes to things like homosexuality, but such is their hatred for what they want to destroy, that this hatred is more powerful than the unpalatable truth that later on Islam will swallow up the pink mafia. The LGBT contingent is much safer any day of the week in a Judeo Christian culture than an Islamic one. So the lies are spewed forth in the media that Islam is a peaceful religion, that immigration is not really the problem, that the people who commit these outrages are just marginalised, mentally ill or oppressed. This mind-set has such a hold over peoples’ thinking that if you stand firm against it you will face a sneering mocking spirit that flows out of the mouths of those who think that with all our fundamental differences we can just be one big happy family. They think they know best.

I know not what will happen but one thing I am very clear on is that the UK needs a leader like perhaps no time in its history every before. That person will have to step outside the box and discern the decisions that have to be made. They will have to be utterly courageous and have a face like flint. Such people do not hang like ripe fruit on an overladen apple tree. It is very difficult to see where such a leader could come from. Nigel Farage is speaking the most sense at present out of all the UK politicians as he hits the nail on the head by saying that we have a Moslem fifth column now in Britain that seeks to overthrow everything we hold dear and speaks strongly in defence of preserving our Christian heritage. He has more clue in his little finger than all the other soft left leaders we have at the moment.

For a leader, it is time to act confidently in what they believe and to speak with great resolve, intent, strength and authority. People will respect that and knuckle down. ‘You must take strong and courageous decisions even at the cost of contradicting your principles,’ says the Archeparch of Mosul. Quite! Serious changes have to be made. For one thing the authorities must recognise who the enemy is. That involves admitting that the problem is militant Islam, but it is still Islam, regardless of who you offend. That is a big step to dealing with the problem. The security state we live in also needs a rethink to stop wasting tax-payers money on checking absolutely everybody entering and leaving these shores. The authorities have to start homing in on dangerous people and do profiling and targeting those who are genuinely suspicious, instead of treating everybody as a potential terrorist criminal. But you can’t do that, it’s discriminatory. Tough, it’s common sense, and if you don’t like it, it’s reality. The whole issue of immigration needs a massive reality check. Always and every time a government’s first priority is the safety and security of its own people. If you do not understand that, you should not be in government.

One American commentator says that each American election that comes up is more important than the last one for the US. This is now very true for the UK. The 2015 election could prove to be a defining point in our history. The window of opportunity is narrowing quickly and if there is not a turning point in this election I predict that we will increasingly be in the grip of great darkness that will demolish what is left of this nation. The vacuum of leadership in the UK is critical and has to be filled, we must be hoping and praying that Great Britain will produce a leader to deal with the impending conflicts. Whatever you say, UKIP represents a very imperfect but encouraging sign that the tide is turning and that the iron grip that the politically correct elite has on this nation is beginning to be broken. Nigel Farage has said some very sensible things about the difficulties that mass immigration and the doctrine of multiculturalism have brought to our land. The nation needs to hear it.

Institututionalised foolishness!

There are now so many cases of what I call ‘institutionalised foolishness’ in the West now that you would be blogging all day and all night just to keep up with the latest example of how the authorities seem to have had a common sense bypass operation in many areas. It is hard to say which nation has gone further into such ‘moonbattery’ as one commentator calls it, but the UK is right up there, together with other old stalwarts of the traditional West like Canada, the US and Australia. Then there is the outlandish stories you hear from the Nordic contingent, especially Sweden, and so it goes on.

The Daily Mail reported on its front page recently that schools have been logging incidents of ‘hate crime’ for local authorities committed by, wait for it, little children in school. Incidents of racist, homophobic, zenophobic or perhaps even islamophobic abuse on one child by another is enough to get you a record as a ‘nasty little bigot.’ Records of such ‘prejudice labelled behaviour’ can be passed on to the next school. Offences of 4000 pupils were logged in just 13 council areas. Here’s a quote from Josie Appleton of the Manifesto Club, a civil liberties group, to make a grown man choke into his cereal:

‘One primary school pupil calling another a girl suddenly becomes a sign of gender image prejudice, subjected to recording requirements more thorough than accompanying most burglaries. A reality check is urgently required.’

Institutionalised foolishness. This would be laughable if it was not so frightening. Of course this is all targeted hate crime, the type that the authorities have decided is unacceptable. All other types of ‘hate crime,’ say that committed against Roman Catholics, Christians or white Anglo Saxon men, or the hate expressed by the aggressive foul language that we hear and see every day on our TVs and in the media, or the innumerable slights and insults made between millions up and down the nation largely escapes all this as it does not fulfil the purposes of the deceived minds behind the legislation pushing such actions.

This poison originated with New Labour, the most harmful government the UK has experienced in generations, and thankfully the coalition pulled back from rolling it out further and left schools to use their own discretion (although I can imagine a few Lib Dems might have argued for it!) but recording and reporting evidently still goes on. In 2012 to 2013 4348 incidents were reported to 13 LEAs (Local Education Authorities). Nevertheless the whole state apparatus is still there to persecute dissenters on a wider scale. We have a new ‘Witchfinder General’ in the form of our paternal state that must control, what we say and how we think for our own good, a kind of soft totalitarianism, but this will eventually become hard totalitarianism. It is nothing less than part of a vicious assault on everything we hold dear, because there are forces at work to crush freedom completely in this land. Control can come from the right or the left of the political spectrum. At present it is coming from the left, but both extremes can be equally harmful to freedom.

In the papers there has also been the story of an Ofsted inspection at a Christian school in the north east where the school was found severely wanting, but only by the warped standards of political correctness. It has caused a lot of distress, including amongst parents. One child was quizzed about what lesbians did and as a result greatly upset, and another about Moslems. A reference to terrorism by the child did not go down too well with the inspectors, surprise surprise! Meanwhile other youngsters were asked if they knew any boys and girls in school who though they were in the wrong body, obviously a reference to transexuals. At the same time childrens’ behaviour and motivation was seen to be very good, and exam results above average with children achieving higher grades than expected!
I said a few years ago when speaking to a group of people that in a few years the UK would become like it was in Nazi Germany in the 1930s if things were allowed to go on as they were going on. We are now much further down that road and if you have not woken up by now then nothing will wake you.

I wonder how on earth I survived at school without all this legislation to protect me against hate crime. How on earth did we all survive into adulthood? I don’t know how many times I was abused verbally at school or how many names I was called, but mercifully I seem to have forgotten it all. To be fair I don’t think I received that much abuse, but it’s all forgiven and forgotten. I even believe in treating all people with dignity and respect regardless of creed, colour or sex, again all without the help of all this legislation, although I would not tolerate all behaviours, which might put me at odds with some of the commisars of the new order. Funnily enough these values were taught to me from a Christian background.

Part of all this rough and tumble at school is reality, a microcosm of reality. Nastiness, bullying and manipulation is part of life, sadly, and we all have to deal with it in our own way. For children at school it is part of the developing process, and it can make or break youngsters, but it is patently not the role of the State to impose its ideology on our children. Nastiness and bullying, etc. has to be dealt with. Often it is dealt with through one’s own developing box of tools for dealing with opposition, so for example I seem to remember using my fists on some occasions, and that proved quite effective. I am glad to say I have evolved beyond using that method of conflict resolution! Wise teachers and other school staff are there to help protect the sensitive egos of children when need be. At school we can learn to fend for ourselves, how to deal with different types of people, and to hone our verbal (and sometimes physical!) skills to deal with abuse and bullying.

Slowly but surely people are waking up to what is going on. The regulation of childrens’ behaviour reported in the Daily Mail shows how far the State has intruded into areas that it has no business in. At best it is highly impertinent, at the worst, manifestly evil. Another sign of the State’s relentless erosion of the responsibilities of schools and parents.
It is now time for the people of these islands to clamour for change, that these things are not acceptable in a once free society. The older generation have a special responsibility at this time as they remember how it used to be when the British people were relatively free and were not indoctrinated with state sponsored ideology about things like diversity and discrimination. The younger generation have been conditioned to the new morality of equality and diversity

It is now time for this edifice of political correctness and control to be brought crashing down as the stinking offence it is to any free society, and it is time for the Davids to rise up to defeat the Goliaths that have established themselves in high places in the media, politics and the law courts. This is a battle on all fronts, as the anti-freedom and pro control brigade want access to all areas. The whole European continent needs a bottom up revolution to sweep away the whole rotten edifice, that has risen up as a counterfeit means of control as opposed to the simple beauty of self-policing. This will require men and women of immense character and courage, who can face down absolutely anyone without fear or favour, especially those who trumpet the full set of ‘phobias’ that are supposed to blight western civilisation. Things can change a little bit at a time, but change they can!

Debbie Purdy and assisted dying

If you are from an international audience reading this blog you may not have heard of Debbie Purdy. If you follow the news on the cause of ‘assisted dying’ however you will have heard of her because she has made her mark indelibly in the minds of Brits involved in this argument. Debbie Purdy has just died at the very young age of 51 and was a long term sufferer from primary progressive MS. She had just spent a year in the Marie Curie Hospice in Bradford where she had sometimes refused food. She has spent her years of illness and undoubted heartache to campaign for the right for a person to be able to be assisted in taking their own life if they no longer wish to put up with unbearable circumstances associated with a debilitating disease. She was particularly concerned that her partner could be prosecuted by the existing law for assisting her through compassionate reasons to take her own life.

This has been a significant issue in the UK as a steady trickle of people with terminal or incurable illnesses have been going to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland to end their lives. Should people helping them in any way to fulfil their wishes be criminalised by the courts? Debbie Purdy succeeded in taking her fight to the very highest courts in the land and forcing the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) to clarify the legislation by writing out a list of particular circumstances which should be considered over a prosecution concerning someone’s assisted dying.

Given that the default position of western society is so often personal peace and affluence you can understand that the way has been prepared for strongly emotive arguments to be made in support of any and every way possible to make our lives, and deaths, as easy and pain free as possible. No other generation has had so many opportunities to minimise the physical discomfort that life throws at us. Why should we allow unnecessary suffering if we can find a quick and painless way of overcoming it?

You had to have every sympathy for Debbie in her plight. A young woman of great energy and vitality reduced to a shadow of herself by a cruel illness. What comes over is that she was a woman of remarkable strength and conviction, extremely strong minded to the extent that she was determined to force the authorities to change the law in her favour and in favour of others in a similar plight. However is it a good idea for one person with extremely strong convictions over a particular issue to force a change in the law that will affect potentially the whole population not necessarily in a positive way? It is sometimes said that hard cases make bad law. Is this an example of that?

‘Assisted dying’ is another one of those euphemisms, and this time it’s not a very well disguised alternative expression for assisted suicide. It has traditionally been the accepted mind-set that suicide either assisted or otherwise is wrong. Why? Some would argue that it is part of the Judeo Christian framework on which our society is based, that all human beings are created in the image of God and that precludes self-destruction or assisted self-destruction. It is killing, whichever way you look at it, and the job of a physician looking after you is to sustain life and not to take it.

In such a framework, given the nature of the human predicament, is it better for the law to have a stern face with an edge of compassion, that is to maintain the present law, so as to discourage any illegitimate taking of life, but at the same time allowing doctors to use their common sense and discretion in end of life situations. That way there’s wisdom in minimising the potential for human beings to take advantage of other people for spurious or sinister purposes, and maximising the importance of the sanctity of life and that there are some things that we really have no right to take.

In view of the prevailing culture, the desire to live a pain free existence and to minimise suffering, and with the medical knowledge to make this possible, it is entirely understandable that arguments for assisted suicide have gained credence, especially when relatives have witnessed the awful and distressing suffering of loved ones. I remember my old Headmaster saying that by the time he was old he hoped that they would have invented a pill that you get to take to quietly slip away.

The framework that used to dominate our lives, and was in effect almost unquestioned, was the framework set by that Judeo Christian culture. But now people have jettisoned that culture and replaced it with a human rights culture. This begs the question is there such a thing as right and wrong, of rigid principles that should not be rooted out, or has the human rights culture enabled us to move towards an evolving understanding of what it means to be human? So there are no absolutes and no fixed reference point such as a divine nature that governs the affairs of men. Human rights can evolve as we become more enlightened as you might say.

So the argument has become that you should have a human right to take your own life if you so wish. After all, it is your body so don’t you have a right to deal with it as you wish? Human rights culture has opened the way to extreme individualism, so how far do we allow human rights to go?

The sanctity of life as we have understood it in a Judeo Christian framework is now being squeezed inexorably from both ends of the human life cycle. Abortion, a highly emotive subject is seen as killing of the unborn by the pro-life movement, but a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice for women who have a human right as to how they choose to use their own body. Evidently the right to an abortion over rides the right to life of the unborn. So the right to take a life at one end is now being complemented by the right to take a life at the other end, whether you choose to do it yourself or someone else helps you do it. One wonders how long it will be before we argue for the right to take a life at any age in between. Oh, hold on, there was the case of the Belgian twins this last year who argued for the right to take their own lives which they argued were no longer worth living. Born deaf, they found out that they were going blind and would never see one another again. This they could not bear, and were killed by Belgian doctors after seeking euthanasia. At the age of 45! Days after the twins were killed the Belgian government, socialists incidentally, tabled a legal amendment allowing the euthanasia of children and Alzheimer’s sufferers. Is this the way we want to go?
We are now living in an age where people could potentially argue for the right to die for all sorts of reasons, not just terminal illness or unbearable pain, at any age, from any class, intelligence or income level or background. The Belgian twins saw nothing to live for, desperately sad in view of their impending blindness. What would the Belgian authorities say to a person who no longer wanted to live because they were unhappy with their appearance, they considered themselves not clever enough, they felt depressed despite being young and physically fit, they had suffered a lot of rejection, they just didn’t enjoy life anymore, their financial troubles were too great, and so on? This is the prevailing atmosphere now in western culture, although laws are different in different countries and are certainly not yet in the UK at the stage found in Belgium or the Netherlands.
There is now a very strong movement in Parliament to pass an Assisted Dying Bill so that people such as Debbie Purdy will no longer have to agonise over whether a loved one will be prosecuted over their assistance of a loved one to commit suicide. Notice that change in the language again, killing or suicide will now be called ‘assisted dying.’ So the agreement of two doctors will guarantee that you go ahead with the full support of the law. Even churchmen and women will support this, including notably Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Proponents of assisted suicide might not like being reminded that when abortion was legalised in 1967 the signature of two doctors was needed for an abortion to take place. Abortion was apparently designed at the time for extreme circumstances when the mother’s life was at risk, but since then abortion has morphed into abortion on demand where we have even had proposals for women being allowed to have an abortion without a doctor properly considering their case and the diabolical practice of sex selective abortions. Those who sneer at the slippery slope argument may be on a slippery slope with their own arguments.

One thing to remember is that all cases of arguments for new ‘human rights’ affect other people. To successfully argue that you have a human right in a particular area you need to show that giving of such a right will not harm other people. None of us lives in a vacuum. What you do or say affects those around you.

Now it may be that in your particular situation a beloved relative will on compassionate grounds help you fulfil the wishes you have so vehemently argued for. However I am by no means persuaded that giving people the right to take their own life will be good for society as a whole. There seems to be a certain naivety about human nature in some of the discussion. Unfortunately not all motives for ensuring that somebody dies are entirely altruistic. One can easily envisage situations where pressure will be put on people to do away with themselves because of ‘strains on families or loved ones,’ when all sorts of sinister motives, pecuniary and otherwise could be dredged up to subtly manipulate, bully and control people in vulnerable positions. It is worth bearing in mind that perhaps the most powerful negative spirit we all face in our daily lives generally, in family, work, social situations and so on is the spirit of control, manipulation and intimidation that can operate through other people who believe they are higher up the pecking order, continually trying to press us into a mould made for us by other people. That spirit has much to take advantage of in end of life situations.

My conclusion to this is that we tamper with laws like this at our peril, and what we stand to lose will be much more than what we stand to gain. The protection of wider society, the poor, ill, vulnerable and weak especially, is far more important than deference to the minority of hard cases that are continually trumpeted in the media.

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin!

What does that gobbledygook in the title mean? Well anyone with a Bible education knows exactly where it comes from and what it means.
This is what it means: ‘Your days are numbered; you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.’ (Daniel 5 v 25)
There’s a profound story in the Old Testament about Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar and the Persian King, who is feasting with his acolytes when a disembodied hand starts writing on the wall of the palace. Scared to death, the King does not understand what has been written so calls in all his magicians to provide an interpretation. No-one can, and finally he calls in Daniel, the prophet to help out.
Daniel provides the interpretation as above and makes it clear that because Belshazzar has not been a very good boy, has not been humble towards the God of heaven, but instead has praised the gods of silver and gold and has drunk from the golden vessels that belong in the Jerusalem temple, his kingdom is going to be taken away from him and given to someone else.
There are some people in the world today that still believe the hand of providence still governs the affairs of men, that Almighty God promotes who He wills and brings down who He wills in world affairs. Others count this as the musings of madmen. However, there is a general principle lurking somewhere here. That if as a government you flout your responsibilities and forget the source of your legitimacy, you may face a ‘car crash.’
Perhaps we can widen the comparison somewhat to analyse the situation in the UK today. If you fail to properly fulfil the responsibilities of government in providing for the welfare of your nation and the security of your people, then an increasing disconnect will develop between the government and the governed, a vacuum will appear, and eventually it will be filled with something else.
Could the rise of UKIP be a bit like that giant hand writing on the wall giving a stark warning to the political class that their days as a political monopoly are over? As the Westminster elite try to divine what exactly is happening in the UK the walls are turning a ghastly shade of purple all around them.
If you do believe in God, and that he still controls the affairs of men, you could well conceive that He has used David Cameron to help destroy the Conservative party, something Peter Hitchens thinks should happen, so that a phoenix can arise from the ashes before it is too late. I have said before that his passing of ‘same sex marriage’ disqualifies him and his acolytes from governing this nation. It is a direct assault on the model of father and mother nurturing the next generation. You may not like that and even find it offensive but that is my view. If you allow offence to be the measuring rod of what is ‘acceptable’ or ‘not acceptable’ in society your culture is on its death bed. Another basic responsibility of any government is to control the borders of the nation. This is just plain common sense. You do not allow people willy-nilly just to walk in and out of your country without knowing exactly who they are and what agenda they have, and you certainly do not allow vast numbers to enter a limited land mass in such a short space of time. As a result of our laxity we now have goodness knows how many highly dangerous people walking the streets of the UK.
Whatever you think a ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel ‘ moment may have come in UK politics. The present governing classes have disqualified themselves and continue to disqualify themselves from governing this great but sadly diminished nation. It is now time for people of the highest integrity and character to rise up and take the reins of leadership in Great Britain. It is quite conceivable that we are in the process of power being taken out of the hands of those who have been given custody of the nation but have failed to fulfil their awesome responsibilities. Now it is time for others to have a go, those that really love this country and have been in despair over recent years at what has happened to the UK. And some of those people are still within the old parties, good people who can see what is going on, it is just impossible for them to break the spirit that controls their parties. Perhaps there will even be splits in the main parties to help form something new.
You only have to keep up with the news to substantiate my viewpoint that the earthquake continues and there is something seriously wrong with our system of governance. The defection of Douglas Carswell and subsequently Mark Reckless to UKIP is part of the fundamental realignment that is now going on that will continue to be poo-poohed by the media. The cat is out of the bag and many British people know that we are reaching a critical point in our history. It is no longer business as usual.
Recently in the news was the story that hundreds of migrants in Calais tried to storm a ferry to gain illegal entry to the UK. This outrageous disorder is the result of a seriously malfunctioning system. It may be on the other side of the Channel and a little removed from our island plot but the very fact that such a motley crew are trying with such bravado to illegally enter these islands shows a very ill wind is blowing. This is a continuing problem with regular updates in the MSM.
Another story that has absolutely horrified the nation and has repercussions worldwide has been the abuse of 1400 girls in Rotherham by Pakistani Moslem men swept under the carpet by the authorities because of the fear of being called ‘racist,’ political correctness’ and ‘cultural sensitivity.’ I don’t know about you but I think a culture is sick to the core when it cannot do what is right and protect the innocence and vulnerability of white girls being systematically raped, bullied and abused by evil men. And this outrage took place under the Labour watch.
This situation is sadly probably the tip of a very big iceberg which when fully exposed is going to make the people of these islands very, very angry. The Labour party are given over to the poisonous ideology behind multiculturalism and therefore should never be allowed to govern this nation again until they get their house in order. Extreme courage is needed by true leaders in the Labour party to deal with this type of corruption and face down bullying and intimidation. Unfortunately far too many people cannot see beyond their tribal voting patterns and will sadly vote Labour even after all this exposure.
This is the problem, as Melanie Phillips so presciently says, that political correctness kills. If it doesn’t do that it will certainly do irreparable harm to many people. This is what the wonderful doctrine of multiculturalism and diversity has brought to the once great nation of Britain, and this doctrine is now so entrenched in the body politic that it will take a ruthless and clear minded strategy to extract the poison in its fullness that has done so much harm to this country. But now the chickens are coming home to roost. Multiculturalism and diversity is like a weed that is strangling the lifeblood out of this country and the sooner it is dealt with the better. Watch this space!

Israel

If there is one thing guaranteed to split opinion strongly in any polite dinner party it’s the Palestinian Israeli conflict which has flared up again over the last month or two.
I will always stand with Israel as the first line of defence against militant Islam. If you care about the future of the world then you will stand foursquare with Israel who are the canary in the mine. Unlike the majority of democracies in the West Israel’s first priority is to survive against a murderous foe who wish to destroy them and build a worldwide caliphate. It’s OK for people over here in the UK to criticize Israel for disproportionate responses, the media, radical leftists, Moslems and other assorted denizens who swallow the liberal worldview of organizations like the BBC, but if you live in Israel or have visited that country as I have you know that it’s a bit like people throwing bricks into your back garden all the time. What would you do with a terrorist enclave parked next door to you?
I’d say the first responsibility of any government is the safety and security of its citizens, and that means having a very powerful military designed to crush anyone who invades or attacks your nation. That means using overwhelming force if necessary to protect the lives of the people under your wing. There is a wider strategic issue here. Hamas represent militant Islam, and come from the very same stable as the ISIS fanatics sweeping through Iraq, El Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria and all the other Islamist movements worldwide. So when you see ’Jihad John’ on the front pages of your newspapers involved in yet another beheading it’s the exact same spirit driving him as the spirit driving those Hamas fighters in Gaza. And some of these dangerous people are walking the streets of Britain as evidenced by the Lee Rigby tragedy. It is simply a many headed monster with the same root. So the west had better know its enemy. If the US is making airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq to stop genocide they should be ready to give Hamas no quarter. The same spirit that drives Hamas as they fight Israel is coming for us in the west and hates us almost as much as it hates Israel. That point is fundamental, and that spirit could make its presence felt in greater measure on British streets sooner than we think, so Britain needs to be on a ‘war footing.’
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where Jews and Arabs live alongside one another and Arabs have more rights than anywhere else in the Middle East, they can even enter government, and still we get accusations of Israel being Nazis or racist, of being an apartheid state and goodness knows what else. Aramaic and Arab Christians in Israel even join the IDF even though they are exempted from national service. Israel gives great freedom to religious minorities, so the Jewish state’s Christian minority is treated much better than in surrounding Arab nations such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Politicians and churchmen, bishops and university professors, ant Semites and Jew haters pontificate from on high about the wrongs of Israeli actions, but Israel understands better than any country on earth the mentality of the people they are dealing with. They understand that the only way you deal with militant Islam on a political and state level is with overwhelming force, because sadly force is the only word that militant Islamists understand, bar any of them having a Damascene conversion experience.

One of the most underappreciated things in this issue is the difference in mindset between your average British liberal and a militant Islamist. Relatively few if any indigenous Brits in our present climate understand the mindset they are facing or have any idea of the level of ruthlessness needed to deal with it. The western mind set is so conditioned by human rights, diversity and anti discrimination ideology that you really wonder whether if confronted by great evil, we would be effectively able to deal with it. It is no surprise to me that because Israel understands far better what they are dealing with than we do, a recent poll said that 86.5% of Israelis believe that Israel must destroy Hamas in this operation, and that there must be no permanent ceasefire until that has been achieved. So Israel sadly has a huge problem because of the level of casualties that will be suffered.
Of course none of this means that I support any and every Israeli action, they make mistakes just like any other nation in the conduct of war and otherwise. But they are defending their land, an ancient homeland going back thousands of years, way, way before Islam or even Christianity ever appeared as the new kid on the block. They now have their own land back after nearly 2000 years of exile. They are a tiny country, only the size of Wales, and it is unrealistic to expect them to give up any more of their land. Gaza is a parable of what will happen if they concede any more land. Under Ariel Sharon Israel withdrew from Gaza, only to have a terrorist enclave develop on their doorstep. They have every right to defend themselves just like any other country on earth.
The state of Israel is a modern miracle whatever you say. It has made the desert bloom and is a remarkably gifted and technologically advanced economy, despite its problems. It is number 19 in the world HDI (Human Development Index) which is a measure of economic development in terms of GDI, life expectancy and education. Even great Britons of the past such as Lord Shaftsbury recognized before the state of Israel was ever set up that the Jews needed a homeland after wandering the earth for thousands of years. Israel now is a final refuge for Jews whenever they are hounded out of countries around the world that take a dislike to them. There is a dangerous rise of anti Israel sentiment rising up in Europe right now which is mixed up with anti-Semitism. Those who try to delegitimize Israel are treading on very shaky ground. A litmus test of any culture or society is how it treats its Jews, and I would add to that whether it supports Israel or not. It ties in with our very humanity and regard for our fellow man.
You now have a group called BDS, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, the leaders of which have stated their movement’s goal is the end of Israel, even rejecting a two state solution. You just cannot boycott everything Israel produces in the twenty first century, when things like instant messaging , voicemail technology and SIM cards were developed in Israel! Such a group should be vigorously opposed and exposed.
The media has a very powerful grip on the mindset of the west, and so is answerable for a lot. That’s why we need to sift and weigh up what we hear, aligned with personal experience and gut feeling. We have heard plenty about Hamas cynically using human shields and their disregard for human life, that’s not difficult to swallow given the track record of militant Islam. There is plenty of talk of how Hamas use schools and hospitals to cynically base arms, knowing they will be targeted by Israel. Just how much power do Hamas hold over journalists and news broadcasters through intimidation, threats of violence, bullying and even bribery? Everyone has their price. To what extent is the UN compromised by Israel haters within its ranks?
It’s best not just to swallow one point of view, and it’s also worth listening to people who know just a little bit more about the circumstances in Gaza than your average armchair pundit in the west. That’s why it’s worth listening to the son of a Hamas founder here speaking on American TV giving us the truth about Hamas, and not some of the politically correct casserole we get in the British media. There is nothing like listening to someone who has been in the situation and knows the mindset of the terrorist. ‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.’ I always remember Shimon Peres saying on TV years ago that the PLO had one language for Europe and another for the Middle East. It is the same with groups like Hamas, they have one language to suit the western liberal progressive taste, the language of victimhood and so on, and another language that fits the Middle East. It is in their interest to paint Israel in the worst possible light to western viewers to win the propaganda battle. It takes a little bit more discernment to understand exactly the rights and wrongs of this conflict.
Here is the clip:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KakxXN5Z-XI

A huge amount is made of proportionality in this conflict. Where do they get this idea of proportionality? Have military leaders over the centuries sat down before a battle and discussed whether they are going to kill and injure an excessive amount of people in comparison with their own potential losses. In the Second World War the UK and US flattened one city after another in Germany to help bring the war to an end, and the US resorted to an atom bomb to finish off the Japanese. How many military commanders in recent times have thought of proportionality in their dealings with the enemy, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans, etc. Regardless of losses, horrific and wasteful on both sides, I hardly think the Israeli military go out of their way to kill as many people as possible.
Don’t forget the provocation Israel has had. The Israel Defence Force website reports that since Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip in 2005 terrorists have fired more than 11000 rockets into Israel, with over 5million Israelis under threat of rocket attacks. Let’s just think about the area they are targeting. Israel as I say is the size of Wales, or if you think of it in terms of London and the south east of England, very roughly similar in area to a chunk of England stretching down to Bournemouth and north towards Cambridge. The Hamas charter has the basic goal of destroying the State of Israel and their foot-soldiers are tucked into the borders of your nation. It would be a bit like belligerents continually firing rockets into the Home Counties from northern France. Can you imagine England sitting back for years and doing nothing about it?
If the world is so concerned about the bloodshed in Gaza perhaps they should get together with Israel to take some responsibility for the area and negotiate some sort of occupation to weed out the terrorists and help destroy all the terror tunnels that have been built with cement supplied by Israel to build houses in Gaza. You could not make it up! At the moment Israel may have to consider such a nuclear option themselves, to occupy an area they withdrew from years ago to destroy the terrorist infrastructure designed to destroy Israel.
Let me quote the former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, who recently said in an interview:

“I would say that the Jewish people should be extremely proud of the state of Israel, they should try their best to disregard the terrible anti-Israeli propaganda that is designed solely to contribute to the conspiracy to exterminate the state of Israel – I myself, am personally outraged by the shocking anti-Semitic violence and verbal attacks that have been triggered by this conflict against Jews, especially in Paris and Germany, but also in Britain and other countries – it’s absolutely despicable and should be fought by authorities as vigorously as possible.”
The same Richard Kemp has praised the IDF for doing ‘more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.’
Food for thought!