The Origins of Islamic of Anti-Semitism 

The origin of Jew hatred is envy. Envy of Jewish achievements runs deep in many societies, but it runs especially deeply in the hearts and minds of the adherents of Islam, whose devotees are constantly confronted with the clear evidence of Jewish success together with indisputable evidence of their own lamentable failures.

All around them they see the results of Jewish superiority in almost every field of human endeavour.  In Science, in Philosophy, in Technology in Literature, in Medicine in Military expertise, in Rationality, in Business, in Law, and so the list could go on and on.

This is clearly visible in the discrepancy of Nobel prizes awarded respectively to Muslim and Jewish recipients. Since its inception in 1901 only 15 Nobel prizes have been awarded to Muslims and of those, 9 were for Peace. However, during the same period, 223 have been awarded to Jews. This, even though the world’s population of Muslims as of 2023 stands at approximately 1.8 billion compared with a total Jewish population of around 16.1 million. This discrepancy is so huge as to be inexplicable, unless, as I believe, its cause is deeply rooted in the anti-intellectual nature of Islam itself.

It's true, that there was within Islam, a brief flowering of literature and mathematics in the late Middle Ages, but unfortunately it soon fizzled out under Islam’s fanatical adherence to the teachings of its holy texts, which lead to violence and hatred of all Infidels. This hatred was especially directed towards those members of the other major monotheistic religions, Christians and Jews.

However, since those days of early promise, Islam has firmly set itself on a path of bigotry, intolerance and rejection of western civilization. By so doing it has excluded itself from participation in the achievements of the Renaissance, and The European Enlightenment and instead, has pursued a path of religious fanaticism so fervently embraced that it has closed the Islamic world to rationality and religious reformation.

This inability within Islam to reform its murderous medieval doctrines has inevitably led to the stark contrast between its achievements and the obvious superiority of the rest of the civilised world.

This gap is no more clearly evidenced than in the current war between Hamas and Israel. Where driven by hatred, resentment and grievance the fanatics of Hamas carried out the instructions of Mohammad, their so-called Prophet of God and massacred innocent men, women, children, babies and pets in actions so vile that Israel was compelled to respond with a massive and justified retaliation.

There is no doubt that among the primary causes of this war is the Jew hatred and envy inspired exclusively by the barbaric religious doctrines of Islam, a religion so obsessed with the literal truth of its own ancient scriptures that it fails to comprehend the true reasons for its clear inferiority.

Its world-wide followers are so indoctrinated and mesmerised by their belief in the divine superiority of their religion that they are driven crazy by its failure to deliver the world domination they were promised, thus leaving them in a quagmire of resentment, envy, frustration, and hatred. This is the perfect recipe for unreasoned violence and all the fault of their commitment to Islam, the world’s most dangerous religion.

 

 

 ‘Proportionality’

 

 

The call for proportionality in warfare is a relatively new concept, called for primarily by the progressives of the loony left, the woke media and the moronic apologists for Islam. It is most usually requested when one side in a conflict is superior to the other and is consequently, likely to win.

It is always called for when innocent members of countries, or western military forces, are attacked by fanatics inspired by the death cult of Islam. Thus it was, that following the terrorist attack on October 7^th by the religiously inspired maniacs of Hamas upon the innocent civilians of Israel there came the predictable demand from the media and anti-Semites that the Israeli response should be proportionate. What does this mean exactly?

Does it mean that the Israeli military should have crossed into Gaza and brutally murdered around one thousand five hundred men, women, children, decapitated babies, raped young girls and women, slaughtered cats and dogs and taken over two hundred Palestinian hostages back to be incarcerated in some hellish underground tunnel? I think not!

What those calling for a proportionate response really want, is to limit the ability of Israel to properly defend itself and achieve victory against a vile, terrorist, Islamic death cult. The members of which, if ever allowed to win in their desire to kill every Jew in Israel would then inevitably, turn their attention to wiping out all infidels and focus their efforts upon destroying all the achievements and values of western civilisation.

The call for proportionality in warfare is always a plea for evil to triumph. It is a demand that should never be advocated as it would forever prevent victory for the morally superior cause.

In all cases of conflict where a victim makes a response to an attack the question should never be ‘was the response proportionate?’ but, ‘was the response justified?’

For example: completely unprovoked a tiny Chihuahua attacks and bites a Rottweiler causing a small wound. The Rottweiler responds and bites the Chihuahua causing instant death. Was the response proportionate? No! Was the response justified? Absolutely!

Those calling for proportionality in Israel’s response to one of the most heinous and barbaric attacks in their history should be challenged by all of us who value freedom and the right of all democratic countries to live in peace.

Just consider: if tomorrow, Israel were to lay down all its weapons and refuse to defend itself, the result would be the total annihilation of all Jews in Israel and the destruction of the Jewish State. If tomorrow, Hamas were to lay down all its arms and refuse to engage in any form of violence towards Israel the result would be peace.

This fact alone is sufficient to prove that there is no moral equivalence between the actions and intention of Israel and the actions and intentions of Hamas. And all people should consider very carefully which side in this conflict they should be supporting.

 

© James Rainsford,  November 8^th 2023

 

The Endemic Bias at The BBC

 

Since the barbaric attack upon innocent Israeli citizens by the religious maniacs of Hamas our publicly funded national broadcaster, The BBC, has demonstrated an unforgivably biased attitude to the actions of the Israeli military to punish Hamas for their vile slaughter of men, women, children and babies.

The BBC has consistently questioned the actions of the IDF in its efforts to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas and to end once and for all their murderous attacks upon innocent civilians living in Israel.

The BBC constantly talks of ‘proportionality’ as though there were some sort of moral equivalence between the terrorist actions of Hamas and the legitimate right of Israel to defend itself from the incessant barrage of rockets and the genocide inflicted upon it by the Islamist fanatics of the world’s most disgusting death cult.

The refusal of the BBC to call the members of Hamas ‘terrorists’ is indicative of their antisemitic attitude towards ethnic Jews and their belief in the rights of the so-called Palestinians to slaughter Israelis for their imagined illegal occupation of Arab lands. There can be no impartiality in the face of the evil actions of the Islamist terrorists of Hamas. In the face of such inhumanity, everyone of good conscience should pick a side, including the BBC. At least that way, we can identify the true enemies of civilised values.

Part of the explanation of the BBC’s partiality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is their ridiculous belief in the desirability of having a diverse and inclusive workforce. This woke agenda has resulted in the employment of a significant number of Muslims, whose natural sympathies lay with the inhabitants of Palestine and whose world view is coloured by their religious affiliation. The BBC’s desire to appear as a champion of ‘diversity’ has resulted in a sickening conformity, diverse in everything, except in the only diversity which truly matters, which is a diversity of opinion.

The fact that we all are expected to pay a very expensive licence fee to the BBC which enables it to broadcast biased and frequently anti-British views is disgusting and should not be allowed in a democratic state.

The government, as a matter of urgency should abolish the licence fee and cast the BBC adrift to broadcast its woke opinions without the compulsory funding extracted from the pockets of the long-suffering public, the majority of whom find the BBC’s opinions and obvious bias to be intolerable.

  The Success of Succession

The acclaim heaped upon the TV series ‘Succession’ is an almost perfect example of the paucity of wisdom and demonstrable lack of taste of so-called TV critics. The near universal praise for this mediocre drama is only comprehensible by accepting that those who find the programme commendable are seriously lacking in sound judgement and artistic appreciation

The drama is a very long-winded account of an ageing, insensitive and bullying media mogul (Logan Roy) and his four scheming children, who all jockey for position in an attempt to win his favour and inherit his corrupt media empire.

All the characters in this interminable saga are odious in the extreme, not one of them possesses any quality which could even be loosely described as admirable. They are all stock stereotypes of evil, grasping capitalists with not a moral bone in their expletive ridden bodies.

The script is littered with so many and such frequent profanities, that if all the swear words were removed the drama could have been reduced by several episodes. In fact, the level of swearing is so invasive as to prove intrusive and detrimental to the dramatic flow of the dialogue.

In many scenes the degree of dramatic torment is so exaggerated as to become cartoonish and totally unbelievable. The episode in which the father (Logan Roy) dies on an aeroplane delivers an opportunity for the four children to indulge in the most childish and over-acted display of phony grief ever witnessed in any TV drama. Their individual responses to the news of their father’s demise are without exception risible in the extreme. 

For any drama to be truly engaging it requires characters who in some measure can elicit our empathy and understanding, so that we are able to learn something enlightening about the world, or discover within ourselves some new appreciation about the complexities of the human condition, Unfortunately, ‘Succession’ serves only to illustrate the shallowness and mediocrity of much of modern TV drama. It certainly does not deserve its plaudits, or its ubiquitous hype.

 

The Transgender Delusion

The recent rise in an obsession with transgender issues is yet another indication that left wing ideologues have lost the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Their refusal to correctly answer the simple question ‘what is a woman’ reveals them to be driven by woke dogma rather than truth. This is both concerning and potentially dangerous, since many of those asserting that a so called trans-woman is in reality an actual woman have care of, and influence over young children. To tell children lies about human sexuality and to indoctrinate them with the false claim that a man can become a woman is clearly child abuse, since it encourages impressionable young minds question the very basis of biological truth and can lead to mental trauma and an inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

Just to be clear, I have no issue with a man dressing as a woman, unless of course that leads to allowing him to access women only spaces and bestows upon him the right to participate in women’s sports. Women are, and have been throughout history, the recipients of male sexual predation. As such, they must be protected as much as possible from situations where males have easy opportunities to freely enter female only spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and female prisons.  To remove these safe spaces for women is to abrogate the responsibility to protect the potentially vulnerable from harm, which should be the cornerstone of any civilised society.

I believe that the claim that a man can become a woman is a form of collective insanity which seems increasingly prevalent in North American and European society, and is I fear, just another symptom of the decline of the values and principles which underpin the very foundation of western civilisation.

Once we lose the ability to tell fact from fiction and to distinguish between truth and lies, then we will be on a downwards spiral to chaos and the disintegration of civilised society. We must quickly recover the courage to confront those who seek to distort truth and value feelings above facts, by robustly refusing to accede to their version of reality and insist upon the supremacy of fact over fiction. We must treat all claims to the truth of sexual transformation by the same criteria we use to assess the truth of any other claim. We must ask to see the evidence. If no convincing evidence is forthcoming, then such claims must be treated as at best, unproven and most probably, false.

 

Our failure to learn the lessons of the 9/11 terror attacks

The most important lesson which I learned in the aftermath of the plane attacks upon America on the 11^th of September 2001 was the irrefutable confirmation of the irredeemably evil nature of the so called religion of Islam.

The simple fact that these unbelievable acts of barbarity did not lead to a mass exodus of Muslims from support for their medieval religious beliefs convinced me that, unless we were prepared to acknowledge the true causes of Islamic terrorism we would inevitably face ever more attacks and ever greater erosion of our ability to defend our culture and civilisation from the insidious growth of Islamic ideology throughout the western world.

So it has proven to be. As Islamic immigration into the USA and Europe has steadily increased so too have the number of Islamic terrorist attacks.  This was entirely predictable, since almost all western leaders failed to identify the fact that the causes of Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam and instead of dealing with the real causes of terrorism they tried to cover their own incompetence and cowardice by asserting that the attacks upon innocent victims had nothing to do with Islam.

Unfortunately, the blindingly obvious truth was that such attacks had everything to do with Islam and politicians and media commentator’s attempts to pretend otherwise, put our security and safety in ever greater peril.

Tragically for the future of western civilisation our political leaders have still not acknowledged the true causes of Islamic terrorism, nor have they made any attempt to lessen the threat to us all by limiting the influx of religiouly motivated fanatics into our society, or by minimising the influence of Islam throughout the civilised world. This failure, will I predict, lead to an ever increasing influence and involvement of Islamic beliefs and culture into western societies, until the time comes when Islam is unstoppable and we are all forced to live under Sharia law in an Islamic caliphate. This will be a very tragic and ignominious end for the values of The Enlightenment and all attributable to our own appeasement, stupidity and cowardice.

 

The Diversity Delusion

The mad Mandarins at the BBC are yet again proving their 'woke' credentials by proposing to spend one hundred million pounds of licence fee payers' money on promoting 'diversity' within the organisation. There are many problems with this endeavour, not the least of which is the political make-up of the BBC itself. There is clearly very little diversity within the BBC in the most important areas of opinion and political philosophy. 

Those tasked with examining and increasing diversity across all sectors of the BBC and media in general, are all tainted with a similar set of views and beliefs about culture and the nature of society, and are the least likely people to ensure that the BBC represents and reports upon the views of the vast majority of the British public, who for the most part, are sick to death of the BBC's bias, partisan reporting, virtue-signalling and politically correct agenda.

We can already see in the BBC's output in news, current affairs and drama the unfortunate results of their obsession with diversity and identity politics. In their determination to be inclusive, there is now scarcely a drama or news report which does not include reference to the so called LGBTQ or BAME communities. Many dramas are now peopled with actors portraying every ethnic, sexual and cultural orientation known. This neither enhances the story, nor adds to the drama's authenticity. In fact it does quite the opposite, rendering many programmes completely unwatchable due to their political, sexual and cultural bias.

However, the real problem comes with the idea of 'diversity' itself. There is nothing 'good' in and of itself in the concept of diversity. Firstly, 'diversity' has to be very unambiguously defined, and then secondly, it has to be unequivocally demonstrated that its achievement will bring tangible and incontrovertible benefits to all. I submit that to date, no such case has been made for 'diversity' being a desirable outcome and that, the value and benefits of diversity, both in concept and reality remains unproven.

The other major problem is who decides how many different characteristics have to be accommodated in this drive for inclusivity. Is the aim to ensure fair representation for some minority groups, or all minority groups? How many categories must be equalised across to achieve 'diversity?' 

One could perhaps begin with ethnicity. How many ethnicities? Just those which make up the mix in a particular society, or wider maybe, to take account of the divergence across the entire world? What about gender? How many of those are there currently? Must all those who identify as non-binary be given equal opportunity with all other self-identified genders? 

Then next perhaps, one could examine sexual orientation. Again, how many sexual orientations are there, two, four, six, eight, ten, or an almost infinite number? Let's not forget religious conviction, must we ensure that the views of all religious groups are fairly represented? Will air time and acting opportunities be offered equally to Christians, of all denominations, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs Mormons etc, etc?  All this and we've not even begun to tackle other differences which need to be considered. Like age, for example, then there's disability, and height and weight and eye-colour and hair-colour and baldness and educational attainment and disadvantage and class and so on and so on ad infinitum. 

What happens if an organisation discovers that all its plumbers are straight white males? Does it then need to advertise for a disabled Trans black female plumber? Such an advert would probably offend a Chinese dwarf who'd just completed his apprenticeship as a domestic heating engineer. Or, if a scene in a drama calls for the appearance of a cyclist, it calls for the appearance of a cyclist. It doesn't call for a disabled, black lesbian on a bike. Even less should it provide an opportunity to highlight the difficulties of the disabled BAME community to cycle in safety. The whole diversity agenda is fraught with such ridiculous and conflicting difficulties.

The case for 'diversity' has neither been effectively made, nor have the consequences of 'diversity' been properly thought through. Politicians, journalists, and other public figures speak about 'diversity' as though there were no question as to its desirability, as though there exists a universal public consensus that 'diversity' is unquestionably a 'good thing.' This assumption needs to be robustly challenged as there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that 'diversity' is either desirable, or achievable.

At present, 'diversity' remains a delusion obsessing the thoughts of the woke metropolitan elite and inflicting upon the unconvinced general public, the unfortunate consequences of their diversity driven insanity.

Part 2

Since I lasted posted on the subject of Islamophobia I've noticed a marked and worrying increase in the use of the term, particularly by politicians and so-called journalists, who wish to confirm their politically-correct, multicultural and 'woke' credentials by making unsupported and undefined accusations of anti-Muslim prejudice towards their political rivals and ill-prepared interviewees.

This is noticeably true of politicians on the left and interviewers working for the mainstream media, especially those employed by the BBC, who inevitably use the accusation of Islamophobia as a supposed counter-balance whenever anyone accuses those on the left of anti-Semitism. This was clearly evident this morning  (November 9th 2019) on The BBC's  Today Programme, when the accusation of Islamophobia was levelled at the Conservative Party as a counterweight to a criticism made of the Labour Party for anti-Semitism.

What is surprising is the apparent acceptance by most commentators that the two accusations are somehow morally equivalent and that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are both well defined and understood to be examples of bigoted prejudice against race and religious belief. However, such an assumption is patently false. Anti-Semitism has a very long and well-documented history spanning thousands of years and its consequences are well known and well understood. Islamophobia on the other hand, is a relatively recently invented word, designed to suppress criticism of Islam by labelling all those who question its religious claims and its culture as racist bigots. This is clearly intended to deflect attention from the truth concerning Islamic history, doctrine and actions. The term  is also misleading in a linguistic sense. A 'phobia' is defined as an irrational fear, but it's abundantly clear from the barbarous slaughter of innocents perpetrated by Islamist fanatics that fear of Islam cannot and indeed could not in good conscience, ever be categorised as irrational.

Recently, there have been misguided attempts to define Islamophobia so as to make it possible to criminalise legitimate criticism of Islam and so shut down debate regarding the ongoing threat it poses to the continuation of Western civilisation and freedom of speech. An attempt to introduce into European countries Islamic blasphemy laws presents a grave danger to us all and unless vigorously resisted, could result in a serious diminution of our hard-won liberties and cultural freedoms.

No person, no group, no organisation, no political, religious or temporal authority should ever be granted the legal right not to be offended. The legal right to be offensive is the cornerstone of freedom of speech and is necessary for individuals to be able to think and express themselves without fear of judicial punishment. Everyone must have the right to think what they like and to say, or write what they think.

Everyone, but particularly the young, must have the right to criticise bad ideas. Indeed, I would go further and argue that people have a civic and social responsibility to challenge all ideas and opinions which advocate harm to others, or which spring from assertions of truth and validity offered without good and demonstrable supporting evidence. This would include all claims to truth made by faith-based organisations. Thus, all statements made from the standpoint of divine revelation or claims to know the wishes of an imaginary deity must always be challenged in the most rigorous manner possible. 

I would advise all individuals, or organisations who are ever accused of Islamophobia to insist that their accusers define precisely what they mean by the term and what specific evidence they possess to support their accusations and further, to explain why such evidence proves that the individual or organisation has broken the current law. For, all attempts to make criticism of any so-called religion a criminal offence must be challenged and defeated if we are to preserve our right to live in a free and libertarian society.

Accusations of an ill-defined term like Islamophobia only serves the interests of those who desire to diminish our established freedoms and make criticism of Islam seem like xenophobic racism, when such a position is totally untenable, due to the fact that Islam is not a race and therefore, any criticism of it, or ridicule of its doctrines can not be defined as motivated by racism. All such false accusations must be called out and subjected to critical analysis of the accuser's loyalties and motivation. 

In conclusion, all people and organisations must never give a free pass to sloppy politicians and biased journalists who throw around accusations of Islamophobia as though there were an agreed public consensus as to its meaning and an accepted societal view that it represents a  bigoted state-of-mind. We must insist that fear of Islam is not irrational and that criticism of all its stated beliefs and doctrines is not only permissible but necessary in any truly free society.

Jihadi Brides 

The Case of Shamima Begum

There has been considerable coverage in all the main stream media in recent days concerning the stated wish of Shamima Begum to be allowed to return to the U.K. from her camp in Syria.

This ex Bethnal Green Academy schoolgirl fled to Syria at age fifteen with two fellow pupils to join ISIL and become part of the Caliphate committed to waging total war to spread its version of Islam throughout the world.

There has been much media comment about whether or not she should be allowed to return home and what kind of risk she might pose if allowed to do so. 

However, the aspect of all this media interest and moral soul searching over the rights and wrongs of her particular case which most concerns me has been largely absent from the discussion. There has been an almost total lack of journalistic comprehension or comment regarding the true motivation for her original decision to flee home, family and country to seek a new life as a Jihadi bride.

The unwillingness of all the main stream media to address the true causes of Islamic fundamentalism represents on their part a lamentable failure of courage, integrity and intelligence. It is crystal clear to anyone with a functioning mind and a reading age above seven that the major causes of Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam. 

The almost total refusal by both journalists and politicians to acknowledge and confront this issue has led them to concentrate upon everything, but the one thing which truly matters.

By refusing to seriously discuss and challenge the clear commands and exhortations of Islamic scripture and teaching, they consistently miss the opportunity to engage with the true causes of radicalisation, thus allowing by default, young minds to be corrupted and influenced by religious texts of such medieval barbarism that any individual infected with their message will have no chance of a fruitful, or worthwhile life.

Given the potentially deadly consequences of confronting the religiously motivated teachings and actions of Muslim fundamentalism it is hardly surprising that many in public life tread very cautiously when discussing these issues and steer well clear of saying anything publicly which may be interpreted as racist, or Islamophobic.

However, we will not as a society, even begin to seriously confront the problem of the true causes of Islamic inspired thoughts and actions, unless and until we abandon our moral and cultural relativism. We must somehow summon up the courage, honesty and integrity to start questioning the truth and validity of Islamic doctrines and squarely face up to our responsibility to assert and defend the superiority of western civilised values. 

Brexit and the Perfidy of Parliament

If we have learned anything from the entire Brexit fiasco it has been the confirmation that a very significant number of our elected parliamentarians are at best breathtakingly incompetent and at worst traitorous, self serving mediocrities, who neither deserve respect, nor their publicly funded salaries and generous expenses.

Right from the very beginning, the scale and nature of their collective failure to negotiate a favourable Brexit deal with the EU has been an object lesson of perfidious ineptitude. With almost every decision taken and strategy employed they have demonstrated a monumental level of misjudgement and an abysmal lack of courage and confidence, which has become both a national embarrassment and a betrayal of the democratic vote of the British electorate. In the case of many individual MP's this betrayal has been so blatant that it deserves no less than electoral annihilation should they ever  again have the temerity to stand for election.  

The errors made during the Brexit process have been both numerous and regrettably, almost entirely predictable. Just for clarity I list a few of the more obvious mistakes below:

1. Knowing the result of the referendum the Conservative party should have elected a committed Brexiteer as Prime Minister following the resignation of David Cameron.

2. Comprehensive and serious preparations for a no deal Brexit should have been commenced immediately the referendum result was known. 

3.  With a working majority in the Commons, Theresa May should not have called a general election. 

4.  Civil servants, such as Ollie Robbins, should have taken no part in direct negotiations with the EU.

5.  Theresa May should have been much more inclusive and collegiate in her dealings with her cabinet colleagues and should have ensured that all members of her cabinet were fully committed to the UK leaving the EU and all its laws, rules, institutions and conventions.

6. Theresa May should not have proposed (the so called Chequers deal) and then agreed that deal with the EU without first ensuring that what she was agreeing had a very good chance of delivering Brexit and of being fully supported by the European Research Group and capable of achieving a majority in Parliament.

7. The offer of a 39 billion pound divorce settlement to the EU should have been made contingent upon them agreeing to an equitable and acceptable future trade deal which fully incorporated all the legalities necessary to ensure that the UK would be operating completely outside the restrictions of the single market and the customs union.   

8. Parliamentarians should have adopted a far more courageous and positive attitude towards the entire Brexit process, both respecting the referendum result, and demonstrating their commitment to democracy by fully supporting the vote of the electorate, and when in conversation with anyone from the main stream media, made it absolutely clear that, as elected public servants they fully supported the will of the electorate and would do all in their power to deliver the people's clearly stated wish to leave the EU.

9. The UK government should not have allowed the EU to dictate both the agenda and scope of the initial negotiations and should have insisted that no talks would occur until and unless the EU agreed to run the negotiations on the future trade arrangements in tandem with those on the withdrawal agreement. Such a strategy would have prevented much of the confusion concerning our future trading relationship and prevented the EU from structuring the withdrawal agreement entirely in its own interests.

10. Having ceded responsibility to the British electorate over the decision as to whether or not the UK should leave the EU, or remain members of the EU, all MP's should have accepted and fully supported the result and not subsequently worked to undermine democracy by trying to subvert, or overturn the majority decision to leave.

There can be little doubt that the total lack of unity among MP's, together with their Machiavellian machinations to thwart the result of the referendum has seriously damaged the reputation of Parliament, causing widespread public anger and dismay at the contemptible antics of their elected representatives. Such damage will not be easily repaired and due to the arrogant actions of many MP's, trust in politicians has been seriously eroded and the very foundations of our democracy, irrevocably undermined.

Now that MP's have traitorously voted to ensure that no deal is taken off the table they've effectively countermanded the instruction they received from the electorate and reneged on their own manifesto commitments to leave the E.U.  A more reprehensible and callous disregard for democracy is difficult to imagine and will have far reaching constitutional implications for the future relationship between Parliament and the people.

 

 SOVEREIGNTY

   Why it Matters

Under normal circumstances sovereignty is thought to lie with the people's representatives, elected to serve in Parliament and for most purposes, this goes unchallenged. However, there are occasions, such as in a national referendum when Parliament chooses to acknowledge the ultimate authority of the true holders of sovereignty and passes an important decision to the British people. 

Such an occasion occurred on 23rd June 2016, when Parliament asked the British electorate to decide whether or not to remain in, or leave the European Union. It's now a matter of historical fact that a majority of those eligible to vote, voted to leave. All political parties promised to accept the result & to implement the referendum result in Parliament as instructed by the electorate. 

The reason all of the above matters is because, since the referendum and despite the promises to deliver Brexit, the members of the Government charged with this responsibility have proven unequal to the task. They have prevaricated, obfuscated and argued about the meaning and legitimacy of the referendum result and have demonstrated a level of treacherous incompetence rarely witnessed in any arena of public life. 

They have had two and a half years to deliver a clean break from the European Union and have failed so spectacularly that they have exposed their own deplorable incompetence and revealed their lack of willingness to implement the wishes of the people, whom they had charged with deciding this very important and divisive issue.

Theresa May's proposed Brexit agreement is a work of such monumental ineptitude, timidity and deceit that it's resulted in significant resignations from her own Cabinet and has alienated so many in her own party and beyond that it's very unlikely to be approved by Parliament. In such circumstances it would be right and proper for all MP's of good conscience to accept the result and allow the UK to leave the tentacles of the European Union without a deal, thus delivering on their promises to respect the result of the referendum and ensuring that we regain full and unfettered control of our laws, borders, finances, agriculture, fisheries, tariffs, and all other matters vouchsafed to a sovereign nation.

Instead, what we are witnessing is various increasingly desperate and duplicitous plans to prevent Parliament from accepting a no deal Brexit and this takes us to the heart of the issue of sovereignty and the question of where, and with whom, it ultimately resides. 

For, if Parliament attempts to thwart Brexit by refusing to allow a no deal scenario to pass, then it will clearly have placed itself in direct opposition to the expressed will of the people and will have usurped sovereignty from its true holders and made an enemy of its own citizens. 

Under such circumstances it must expect at best rigorous legal challenges as to its own legitimacy and questions as to whether such a denial of the people's expressed will is unconstitutional and therefore illegal; and at worst it could result in protest and civil unrest. An outcome which would be very regrettable, but in view of such a blatant disregard of the people's wishes, it would be understandable.

Why we should Ban the Burka

The recent controversy surrounding the Islamic practice of Muslim women wearing the Burka or the Niqab has produced a variety of conflicting opinions. These have ranged from those advocating a complete ban in all public places, to those who believe their views are more libertarian and who see the issue as a matter of personal freedom. 

Both of these opposing views have their committed adherents, who passionately advocate their points of view, believing that their arguments are those which best reflect the values of a tolerant, pluralistic society.

My own take on this matter, is that the covering of the face in public places should, except in very specific and defined circumstances, be made illegal. I argue this, not simply for reasons of security, although that is clearly a grave concern where individuals, by their choice of dress, identify themselves as adherents of a religion infamous for its well documented violence against non-believers: but also, because if we wish to live in a tolerant and harmonious society, then we should not allow members of a specific sub section of that society to conceal their identity.

Personally, I would refuse to interact in anyway with someone who had chosen to hide their face and this would make it impossible for me to have any kind of social intercourse with them. The clear implication of this, would be to exclude a whole set of citizens from our collective social space and would mark them out as non-existent. Under such circumstances it would be impossible to create a situation where I could treat all members of our country's shared social space equally and would undermine the possibility of creating a society of mutual trust, tolerance, respect and understanding.

In refusing to recognise, or acknowledge a masked person, I would be doing no more than granting their apparent desire for complete anonymity, although such a response on my part would effectively be to deny the existence of  anyone choosing to wear a burka, or niqab. Such a situation would not be desirable, since it would foster suspicion and mutual alienation, making social cohesion impossible and would inevitably create an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility. 

Another important consideration, is that the wearing of the face veil makes a statement, and no matter what the wearer believes that statement to be, for many in the non-Muslim community the statement is this: "I am a believer in the teachings of Islamic scripture and a committed follower of the prophet Mohammad."  Given the knowledge which we in the West now regretfully have of the teachings of Islam and the example of its revered prophet, we are at least justified in being suspicious of anyone making such a clear statement of their beliefs and loyalties.

Inevitably, suspicion breeds antagonism which can so easily lead to ridicule, hatred and contempt and although not necessarily justified, such feelings are understandable in the face of a garment which makes such a provocative and divisive statement of the wearer's rejection of our country's values and traditions.

As a final reason for a ban there is the coercive and misogynistic attitude of Muslim men in insisting, or advocating, that women should be hidden from public view. They may try to justify this practice on the grounds of female piety and modesty, but it's discriminatory in the extreme and denies women full and equal human rights and robs them of their dignity, denying them the unfettered participation in the wider society to which they are entitled and which they so richly deserve.

The Myth of Islamophobia

When I first encountered the word 'Islamophobia' I was very confused and not at all certain what it was meant to signify and what I was meant to infer when I heard or saw it. However, it soon became apparent from its use and by examining its origin (invented by The Muslim Brotherhood) and by understanding the viewpoints of the people who used it, that it is intended as a derogatory term to categorise anyone, who makes any criticism of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic ideas, beliefs and actions as Islamophobic, and by implication, racist and reprehensible. This, despite the irrefutable evidence that Islam is not, and never has been, a race.

This raised the question for me: can Islamophobia be real? Well, let's analyse this conundrum.

A phobia is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary as an 'irrational fear.' Now, since Islam has proven itself to be a violent and very dangerous ideology, which has slaughtered thousands who disagree with its actions and beliefs, and has inspired deadly attacks upon, often wholly innocent people whom it perceives as its enemies, fearing it, cannot conceivably be described as irrational. Therefore, fear of Islam is not irrational and so, ipso-facto, cannot be a phobia. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Islamophobia is not real.

In fact, the only possible incidence of genuine Islamophobia which might occur, would be if a self-professed and committed Muslim were to fear Islam without good reason. Such a fear could perhaps be thought irrational if it had no evidence based cause.  This must mean, that the only true incidence of Islamophobia (if it exists at all) could only properly be ascribed to a Muslim who possess no reason to fear his own declared faith, yet for some irrational reason, does so. 

Given the above, one can only conclude that the word 'Islamophobia' is an invention designed to intimidate and silence those who raise quite legitimate concerns about the truth, value and dangers of Islamic doctrines, beliefs and actions. In other words, labeling someone, or some statement as Islamophobic, is designed to silence debate and frighten those brave enough to confront the so called religion of peace with a few hard facts about its history and current barbarism.

The Gender Pay Gap and Other Inequalities

The British government in its infinite stupidity has bowed to pressure from the loonies of left-wing new-wave feminism and forced large organisations and businesses to spend precious time and valuable resources producing largely meaningless statistics regarding their gender pay disparities. This fruitless waste of time has proven what all truly perceptive people already knew, that by and large, overall and generally speaking, men in these large organisations tend to earn more than women.  Well, there's a surprise! The sad truth is that, the cost of this ridiculous exercise could have been saved by the government simply by asking an averagely intelligent member of the public for their view on the issue.

However, now that this futile exercise has been undertaken, the government has the excuse it needs to put in place strategies to tackle what it claims is unfair gender remuneration in the work place. It will undoubtedly come up with plans to increase the number of women in top positions, thus increasing their relative levels of pay. Unfortunately, these plans are likely to include such strategies as all women short lists  at job interviews, persuading the nation's schoolgirls to study accountancy and promoting people to senior management positions on the basis of gender instead of talent and ability. Such strategies are not only likely to be spectacularly unsuccessful, but also massively expensive. Having myself given the issue some cursory thought I've come up with a much cheaper, and I believe a much more easily implemented solution.

As gender is now viewed by many in the LGBT community and beyond as a social construct, why not simply provide some small financial incentive to a certain percentage of men in top positions to transition from male to female? This would at once be a cheaper option and would also solve the so called gender pay gap at a stroke. There would of course, be some small cost in providing gender neutral toilets and an alternative wardrobe for the agreeable candidates, but this would amount to no more than the price of make-up, wigs, dresses, hosiery, over-sized stiletto-heeled shoes and padded bras. Those who desired to fully transgender and wished to have their genitals removed, could perhaps be given the added incentive of having their surgery provided free under the National Health Service. As long as the number of men willing to transition was appropriate we could achieve perfect pay parity between the genders, thus providing a cheap and simple solution to what would otherwise  be a very complex issue.

Of course, the real problem of unfair remuneration in the work place goes far beyond the issue of gender. If it's judged unfair in general to pay men more than women, then what about all the other criteria which may affect pay inequality? For example, are tall attractive people generally paid more than short ugly people? Are right-handed people paid more than left-handed people? Are hard working diligent people paid more than feckless lazy people? Are blue-eyed people paid more than brown-eyed people? Are intelligent people paid more than unintelligent people? Are able-bodied people paid more than disabled people? Inevitably, there's no easy fix for many of these disparities. It would prove much more costly to make short people tall, unless one was prepared to use the rack and even if more humanely, one could enlist the co-operation of reluctant surgeons, it would still prove immensely expensive and troublesome to achieve. The list of potential reasons for inequality are almost infinite. I think we need the answers to some of these other issues which may affect relative pay. After all, in a society where all inequality is perceived as discrimination we need to ensure that no identifiable sub-group is unfairly treated.

Witnessing our politicians and politically correct media muppets considering all the other possible reasons for pay differentials would provide great fun for all of us interested observers, who would immensely enjoy seeing what depths of insanity might be plumbed by the efforts to achieve the fairness so desired by the advocates of human rights and social justice.

Ultimately however, the only way to absolutely ensure that there is no perceivable pay gap for whatever reason, would be to pay everyone in work exactly the same, regardless of age, education, talent, ability, effort, experience, or indeed, gender. The resulting society would of course, make North Korea look like paradise on earth by comparison, but would I'm sure be welcomed by the nihilistic masochists of left-wing idealism.

Ten reasons to vote to leave The European Union

The European Project continues

 1. Leaving the European Union is the only way to ensure the restitution of U.K. sovereignty. By remaining members The European Courts will continue to impose laws upon our country which run counter to the interests and wishes of the British people. This will make it difficult at best and impossible at worst for us to protect our citizens from terrorism. It will also allow the continued imposition of undemocratic rules and regulations which dictate every aspect of our lives. By voting to leave we shall take back the rights and powers to make our own laws sovereign once again and re-establish the supremacy of the British House of Commons and the British courts as the final arbiters of U.K law.

2. By voting to leave we shall finally regain control of our borders and have the absolute right to determine who is allowed to come here as an immigrant. If we should be foolish enough to vote to stay, then we must expect an ever increasing number of migrants to come from Europe to settle here. Inevitably, many of these migrants will be those currently fleeing conflicts occurring in Islamic countries. This will swell the number of our citizens who hold beliefs which run counter to our traditional western values, and who we know from bitter experience, will harbour some, who wish to harm us and who desire to impose upon us the humourless barbarism of Islamic law. The only way to guarantee that this does not occur is to vote to leave the European Union.

3.  The European project of ever closer political, social and financial union of its member countries is doomed to failure. This is largely due to the undemocratic nature of the European institutions and the disastrous policy of allowing millions of Muslim migrants to settle in the all the major European countries. This short sighted policy has, and will continue, to result in ongoing difficulties, as the doctrines of Islam and the European traditions of freedom and tolerance are incompatible. This clear incompatibility will continue and increase as the numbers of Muslims living in Europe continues to grow. Outpacing the reproductive trend of native populations, it is only a matter of time before the tensions between Islamic immigrants and the indigenous populations of many European countries results in either open conflict, or subjugation by a deeply barbaric culture. If we wish to prevent this scenario playing out in Great Britain then we need to vote to leave the European Union and ensure that we prevent any further spread of Islamic culture within our society.

4. We must resist the arguments being generated by those who wish us to remain members of the European Union. Their arguments concerning the consequences of voting to leave are mere speculation. The uncertainties of leaving will I believe, offer new opportunities which will far outweigh the certainties of remaining. Should we prove too cowardly to opt for taking control of our own destiny then we can be certain to reap the whirlwind of ever closer European integration. We don’t need a crystal ball to see where the European project is headed. More integration, more harmonisation, more migrants, more rules, more regulations, more unwelcome laws, more bureaucracy, more interference, more costs and all at the price of less freedom, less autonomy, and less sovereignty.

5. It looks increasingly likely that, in return for a deal on migrants Turkey will be given an accelerated passage to full membership of the E.U. This will allow a further 79 million, mainly Muslim people, free and unfettered access to all the member states of the European Union. Should we vote to remain, this will of course, include unrestricted access to the U. K. These new rights will apply in addition to the rights soon to be granted to all the migrants currently waiting asylum and citizenship in Europe and who will also have the right to come and settle here in Great Britain. This will be a disaster, not only for the cohesion of European societies, but also for the ability of our nation to protect its own citizens and control its own destiny.

6. Ever since the end of the war in 1945 there has been a steady and relentless erosion of the values of the European enlightenment. This has been largely driven by the rise of four regressive dogmas. These are: multiculturalism, political correctness, and moral and cultural relativism. This four-pronged attack upon the values of liberalism, tolerance and freedom has been inspired and strengthened by the European project, which has focussed upon human rights instead of human responsibilities and which has encouraged a culture of entitlement and grievance. Any society which promotes the human rights of its citizens to the exclusion of their human responsibilities is a society destined for the plug-hole of history. The complete failure of the politicians and bureaucrats of post-war Europe to recognise this has been a significant factor in the failure of Western societies to prevent the diminution of enlightenment values and protect the British traditions of freedom of speech and equality under the law. Should we vote to remain in the European Union, then I believe we shall see a further erosion of the moral and cultural identity of our nation.

7. To argue that we will be financially better off inside the cocoon of the European Union and its single market is a counsel of despair. It demonstrates a total lack of confidence in our own abilities and resourcefulness. It also shows a lamentable lack of imagination as it promotes the idea that the most important constituent in human happiness is individual wealth.  Personally, I would rather see a drop in my income than anymore surrender of my freedoms and culture. If we wish to build new trading relationships with the world then we must have the courage to leave the E.U. and negotiate with all the new and emerging markets across the globe to promote the excellence of our products and the value of our services. To imagine that we shall not be able to achieve this is a failure of vision, courage and determination, qualities which I believe the British people have in abundance.

8. Had the European project been an unqualified success then the arguments for us remaining members would be much more persuasive. However, it is clear to everyone that our membership has come with very high costs and very few benefits. The monetary union and the adoption of the ‘Euro’ has been an unqualified disaster for many countries, and if we’d taken the advice of the British Europhiles at the time and joined, it would have been an unqualified disaster for us too. In this forthcoming referendum we would be ill-advised to listen to those who lack the confidence, courage and vision to believe that we are perfectly capable of managing our own affairs. After all, trusting the European politicians, judges and bureaucrats to make our lives better and more prosperous has not proven a roaring success up to now. We must therefore, grasp this once in a lifetime opportunity to retake control of our own affairs and determine our own future without constant interference from the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels.

9. The predicted financial disaster resulting from a vote to leave forecast by bankers and financial commentators, should of course be treated with considerable scepticism. We must remember that, by and large, these are the same infallible individuals who proved such competent managers of the nation’s finances during the banking crises of 2008, the effects of which are still keenly felt by us all. My own inclination is to listen to their opinions and advice and then endeavour to do precisely the opposite to what they recommend. The more I hear dire warnings of the consequences of leaving the more persuaded I become that leaving is the sensible strategy.

10. Before coming to decision as to which way to vote we should all carefully examine the views from both sides and ask ourselves exactly what is the motivation of each individual for their specific arguments. For many, it will of course, be for perceived self-interest. For others there will be political motives for career advancement and even perhaps a genuine belief in ever closer political and social integration with our European neighbours. The print and broadcast media will also have their own, not always apparent agenda and will inevitably campaign according to the prejudices of their owners. In the end though, the decision will be ours. All I can do is to set out my personal beliefs and reasons for wishing to leave and hope that my arguments may persuade some of you to join me in trying to take back control of our own destiny.

Please feel free to add your comments below.