New Years Eve will mark exactly two years since one of the most shameful episodes in recent European history, the sexual assault of approximately one thousand two hundred women by up to two thousand men in the square and adjoining streets outside Cologne Cathedral.  There was a mainstream media blackout because the rapists were men of Arab and/or North African origin, a great many of them part of the wave of economic migrants invited into not just Germany, but the European Union, by Angela Merkel.  Only when the news spread on the internet was any form of official recognition given and the feminist establishment tried to ignore the truth.  In his book The Strange Death of Europe, published this year, Douglas Murray has detailed these crimes and numerous similar sexual assaults carried out by fake ‘refugees’ under the guise of the ‘migrant crisis’.  Such sexual assaults, against children as well as women, by the fake ‘refugees’ have taken place in every European country whose government has admitted them; those governments having abdicated any sense of responsibility for protecting their nation’s citizens and indeed other immigrants who legally reside in their respective countries.

Whilst Murray’s book gives a reasonably comprehensive summary of how unrestricted immigration, without the consent of the indigenous majority, has led to the fragmentation of every Western European society, he waffles on about those societies suffering from ‘self-doubt’ and ‘guilt’, using certain nihilistic modern art and literature as examples to illustrate his point.  He ignores that a lot of 20th Century European art and literature was very good and not nihilistic.  The ‘self-doubt’ and ‘guilt’ that Murray writes about belong to the chattering classes to which he belongs, they don’t belong to most of the working or middle classes in these countries, who are content with living in a secular, post-religious, society.  Most know what they want and need for their respective countries: representative government; immigration kept down to a level that is economically and environmentally sustainable; for those immigrants to assimilate into the host country and respect its values and laws; and for immigrants who enter the country illegally – because they think that they are more important than those willing to use due process – to be deported (following completion of a prison sentence if they have committed crimes).

Murray’s book is also not without other faults, notably his quoting attitudes held by Muslims in Britain towards homosexuality, without stating whether Sikhs, Hindus or other faith groups may hold similar attitudes.  This is relevant in a British context because most Muslims are from a similar ethnic background in the Indian sub-continent to Sikhs and Hindus.  What if similar attitudes towards homosexuality exist among Sikhs and Hindus to those among Muslims?  And disapproval does not necessarily mean a desire to murder.  I wonder if Murray has been to Manchester where the Islamic Institute is next door to the Proud Trust (both being just off Oxford Road near MMU).  Nor does Murray examine whether any of the immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, who have entered Europe via Morocco, Tunisia or Libya come from a non-Muslim background; if so they may still be possessed with the same sense of entitlement towards taking any woman whom they want whenever they want, because their Third World cultural background has no concept of women possessing human rights.

Whilst it is true that ‘Europe’ is run by an arrogant, corrupt self-serving elite – Barnier, Junker, Tusk, Verhofstadt and numerous faceless others –  this in itself does not nullify the principle of a European Community of independent sovereign nations with mutual ties of trade, scientific research and environmental protection, i.e. what we used to have and what we can have again.  It will mean a total clearout of the elites, the priesthood of the political class; with direct democracy established as it should be from the bottom-up.   Whilst the immediate future does indeed look bleak, as the political caste and its media sycophants in Western Europe become ever further removed from the majority of the population in their respective countries, European laws, culture, civilisation and indeed the nations of Europe are not yet defeated.  Although Murray’s book offers little in the way of hope, being almost as nihilistic as the art and literature he criticises, genuine liberals need to fight back to defend our post-Enlightenment secular countries from the cultural relativism of those who insist that less developed cultures are equal to ours when they are not.

One final point is that the narcissistic feminist ‘Me Too’ movement, which has developed in the short time since Murray’s book was published, ignores that women are far better off in all post-Enlightenment ‘Western’ societies than anywhere else in the world.  Whilst seeking to criminalise all ‘Western’ males, to the point where trust between the sexes totally breaks down, ‘Me Too’ women should be careful what they wish for.  A real rape culture, imported from the Third World, awaits and ‘Western’ men, conditioned to have minimal contact with women, will just ignore their complaints.  Crying wolf has its consequences.

Anyway, that’s it for this blog, thanks for reading.


Hand in Glove

I’ve tried tackling this issue already and the only successful effort I could manage was here.  My main feelings are still those of powerlessness and depression; and there is little to be said that hasn’t already been, but no amount of political platitudes, pink balloons, playlists, hashtag prayers or I ♥ MCR from people who have never set foot in the place, will make a sod of difference.  This weekend there will be a slebfest love-in which will do nothing to address the causes of the slaughter that it supposedly sets out to remember; an act of mass-murder by a Muslim misogynist at an event popular with young girls, a step further than the rape of thousands of girls by ‘grooming’ gangs in Rochdale and numerous other towns.  Britain’s Feminist Establishment has continued to deny the motivation for the murders as it has about the rapes.

Meanwhile, the government will clamp down not on the murderous Islamic ideology, but on ‘Islamophobic’ criticism of it.  But there is more to it of course, as John Pilger has highlighted.  Britain’s security services have a long track record of being hand in glove with Islamic terrorism, allowing these terrorists to be given free rein when useful.  The SAS helped to train the Islamic Mujahadeen in Afghanistan; Saudi Arabia has long been one of the main customers of the British weapons industry and earlier this year Theresa May agreed a ‘defence’ deal with Turkey’s Islamist president.  If you want more evidence of how Islam and its inherent intolerance to non-believers is permeating our society, you don’t need to see the idiots protesting about cartoons.  Follow the money and see how many businesses are owned or sponsored by the Islamic Absolute Monarchies of the United Arab Emirates, including the cricket ground where that slebfest will take place.

Compilation Album

Music, football and philosophical musings, some pages not on the blog as such, you can find them linked on the right.  Some are works in progress, some are new stuff complete and some are old posts recycled.  A bit of politics, but hopefully not too much as there are already too much in the blog.  Like the gentleman above, I’m sure that I’ll get accused of having a set of values which are full of contradictions.

Anyway, I’m taking a break from blogging for a while as due to work commitments, I don’t really have the time to update this regularly.

The Fake Ecologists

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett speaks during at Remain in the EU campaign event at the Oval cricket ground in London

The fake ecologists cling to a contrived ‘European’ identity which has been forged through large-scale international economic migration.  This is environmentally unsustainable, all the more so given that it has been facilitated by budget air travel.  The fake ecologists also believe that it is acceptable for an already highly populated and under-resourced country to become increasingly so, because the fake ecologists ignore the increased demands on those resources by ever-increasing immigration-driven population growth; with the need to provide additional housing leading to urban expansion into what is left of our green and pleasant land.  The fake ecologists ignore that the country had achieved an ecological balance with birth rates having fallen in line with increased longevity.

In my old blog, which you can find linked on the right, is a brief chronology and context as to how the Ecology Party was rebranded as the Green Party and subsequently lost its way.  However there was a political trend which developed two decades ago that I omitted from this synopsis, as at first it didn’t seem relevant.  This trend was of the main political parties abandoning what principles they still had in favour of a focus-group driven approach, Labour’s aspiringly middle-class ‘Mondeo Man’ and ‘Worcester Woman’ – did they ever get married? – being the first such targets.  To retain its inner city core vote Labour, rebranded by Blair as ‘New Labour’, also set out a divide-and-conquer policy of multi-culti identity politics, with the greater number of minority groups one can claim to be part of, the more brownie points one can attain.

Over the past decade, lgbtqwerty identity politics have been added and the Green Party, latecomers to the focus-group game, have adopted these, with brownie points, or greenie points, for claiming any ridiculous gender identity based on ‘feelings’ rather than genetics.  To be lesbian, gay or bisexual, all lifestyle choices, apparently isn’t enough nowadays.  By pandering to any ridiculous claim of gender identity, the Green Party is not merely discrediting itself, but by association, the environmental issues which it claims to stand for, alienating the majority of the population in the process.

The other focus-group which the Green Party has now targeted is that of ‘Millennial Remainers’; those who are too young to remember how the European Economic Community, the ‘Common Market’, which most British people supported with certain reservations, transmogrified into the European Union.  Essentially what the Green Party is doing is targeting another minority interest group, albeit larger than the one in the paragraph mentioned above, in the hope that this group can form its electoral base in certain cities.  Those running the Green Party are not so stupid as to indulge in ageism, but by targeting the ‘Youth for Europe’ demographic, they are hoping that these voters will not change their outlook as they grow older, so that the Green Party can keep itself at the core of the political project for a supranational European superstate.

To return to the subject of the original paragraph, this ‘Millennial Remainer’ group has grown up in the era of budget air travel, taking for granted the availability of cheap flights to and from Continental Europe, without which their ‘European’ identity would not have developed.  They have also grown up in the era of the internet and its gizmos, none of which are manufactured in Britain.  They have grown up entirely with imported consumables and are too young to remember how the world was before then.  OK, so it is not their fault, but as a demographic group they are the least likely to want Britain to be independent, hence self-sufficient and sustainable as much as it possibly can be.

Lest I seem ageist, I am not going to claim that my generation – born in the latter half of the 1960’s – is perfect.  Far from it, plenty of us have taken advantage of budget air travel and cheap consumables made abroad, not least in the latter case because British manufacturing industry was already well in decline by the time we came of age.  The most environmentally sustainable generation of all is that at least a decade older than mine, the ‘grey’ vote, who grew up in an era before rampant consumerism and who have never taken for granted cheap holidays abroad.  This is the generation that most strongly supports British independence and with it the need to in-source industry and in a global economy, to try to regain what self-sufficiency we can.  A genuine Ecology Party, which is precisely what the Green Party has ceased to be, would learn from that generation the true value of sustainability, so it certainly would not support a political project peddling a contrived ‘European’ identity, forged by environmental unsustainability.


Further information about the Green Party’s one and only Member of Parliament can be found here.


Naomi Klein’s ‘anti-globalisation’ polemic No Logo, first published in 2000, makes no mention of the European Union (EU), which is odd on the face of it as the twelve-starred EU ‘flag’ is as much of a corporate logo as any discussed in the book.  Perhaps, from her Canadian home, she didn’t even think about it.  The only indirect reference to the EU is a photograph showing French farmers protesting about cuts to farm subsidies by throwing bags of corn gluten and chicken feed into the Seine during a protest in November 1992; this is shown above a photograph of G-8 leaders posing for the official ‘family’ photo in Cologne in June 1999.  If the juxtaposition is supposed to represent the farmers protesting against globalisation then it shows how little Klein understands, or at least at the time understood, about the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The CAP pre-dates the transformation of the European Economic Community (EEC) into the European Union and was used as a means of integrating the agricultural economies of the member states in preparation for eventual political union.  France has always received the largest individual slice of the CAP cake and French livestock farmers are renowned for their militancy in opposing cuts to their subsidies and/or low prices for their goods.  The real reason that subsidies could be cut, but rarely are, is more meat being produced than will ever be eaten, as farmers have been subsidised to breed too many animals. This oversupply in meat production results in low prices. But the farmers want to have it both ways, to breed too many animals and to be paid a high price for their carrion.

In all areas of agriculture, heavily subsidised European farmers – the French in particular – are able to undercut African farmers, destroying the livelihoods of the latter and keeping their countries in a state of post-colonial dependency on Europe; the real reason for the continued poverty of African countries.  Concomitant with this, the EU imposes stringent import duties on agricultural products from outside the EU.  This is a distinctly French economic model, of which former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the friend of post-colonial African dictators, would be proud: a policy of protectionism at home whilst preaching ‘free trade’ elsewhere.

If mentioning the CAP appears to be going off at a tangent to the subject of France specifically, then think about how the attitudes of French farmers reflect that of the French political and economic elite, who are happy to use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ methods when it suits them, Électricité de France (EdF) being a prime example of French protectionism at home, whilst exploiting free trade abroad.  EdF owns all of Britain’s nuclear power stations, so these are again ‘nationalised’, it is just that they are owned by a different nation.  As with globalisation, so with the EU, the French establishment are happy to flout the regulations (border controls, budget deficit in relation to GDP for Eurozone membership), when it suits them, but protest about other countries doing likewise.

Returning to the subject of farmers, another good example of French hypocrisy was that of José Bové (pictured above), a celebrity in the ‘anti-globalisation’ movement, who became famous for demolishing a McDonald’s outlet in 1999 and being imprisoned for it a few years later.  (Although Klein’s book mentions the McLibel trial in London, it omits any mention of Bové’s protest).  His protest wasn’t for environmental, let alone vegan, reasons.  Rather, it was against US import tariffs on Roquefort cheese, i.e. against the US taking a leaf out of the French book, practicing protectionism at home, whilst preaching ‘free trade’ elsewhere.  Bové is now an MEP, a corporate ‘Green’, ensuring that the subsidy taps keep on flowing.

Why I am rambling on about all this, is because these French attitudes appear to have been forgotten by the mainstream media and numerous bloggers when dealing with the forthcoming French presidential election, where personality politics have taken over.


French cultural protectionism has long-been directed against the English-speaking world, even when the French themselves are happy to exploit ‘Anglo-Saxon’ economic methods when it suits them.  So whilst Marine Le Pen may be championed as an outsider, the only woman in the race, her support amongst the Anglospheric Alt-Right (the Breitbart crowd) may well work against her.  Aligning herself with the loose cannon in the White House may go down well with the Trumpkins, but is unlikely to do so with the French domestic electorate.  On the basis of mine enemy’s enemy is my friend, many British opponents of the EU are hoping that she will win to hasten the EU’s demise.  I am sceptical that first of all she will win and even if she does that France will leave the EU, because French Eurosceptism is based, not on a weak sense of European identity (as British Euroscepticism is), but on a strong one.  To put it bluntly, the French are happy to be European as long as they are in charge, or they think that they are.  It was the French, after all, who twice vetoed British membership of the EEC.

Prior to German reunification, France was an equal partner to West Germany in the EEC and as far as their respective capital cities were concerned, the Bundesdorf of Bonn could never compete with Paris.  However, since German reunification, followed by European Monetary Union and with it the dominance of the German economy, France has become a junior partner.  My other scepticism on France leaving the EU is precisely why I rambled on so much about the CAP, as whilst Marine Le Pen’s views may appeal to some rural conservatives, she will have a very hard job in convincing French farmers to give up the CAP privileges that they have become so accustomed to.  If she were to be elected and commit to take France out of the EU, I think that it may well be that militant farmers would bring her down; and there would be nothing whatsoever that the Trumpkin Alt-Right could do about it.


No Logo – Naomi Klein, Harper Collins / Flamingo, 2000; first paperback edition, 2001, photograph referred to above on p 438.  I purchased and read the paperback edition in early 2002.  Before typing all the above, I had a skim through it again and was surprised to find no reference to the EU, other than that photograph.


Major Failure


‘Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.  With Major Major it had been all three’, so wrote Joseph Heller in Catch-22.  Major Major was a decent looking man who ‘floundered bewilderingly from one embarrassing catastrophe to another’.  Major’s major achievements if they can be so termed were Black Wednesday, when George Soros got one over on the government that he led, by initiating a run on the pound; and the privatisation of Britain’s creaking Victorian rail network and the trains that ran on it.  The companies which run these have together received more taxpayer subsidy per annum than British Rail did, with profits being creamed off by Richard Branson and his ilk.  The network itself was temporarily renationalised and one of the franchises may soon go the same way.

Major’s major failure was in not permitting a referendum on British membership of the European Union, the treaty for which he signed 25 years ago to the day.  I was 25 years old at the time, so I am part of the generation – resented by those who were in their infancy, in gestation or yet to be conceived back then – who waited nearly half a lifetime for a vote on this.  As I have typed on previous blog posts, I don’t know which way I would have voted had a referendum been held then, so I am not going to condemn those felt the same way last year.  However, it should be obvious that the longer a referendum was deferred the more likely a ‘Leave’ outcome would become, if only because voters of my generation would want to kick the political establishment (which the Green Party recently joined through its pro-EU stance), for denying them a say for so long.

But yet it didn’t have to be that way.  Back in 1992 there was no inkling that the EU would expand east of the former Iron Curtain (save for the former DDR) and if the eastern boundary of the EU had been permanently defined as Stettin to Trieste then a fully integrated Western European Union may have gained popular support in Britain, because there would have been no large scale economic migration from east of that boundary; and Britain would have been in a union with countries with which it shares a common cultural, genealogical and linguistic heritage; but not with those which it doesn’t.  Germans, who inhabit the geographical and political centre of Europe, need to grasp this.

To put it bluntly, ‘Eurosceptism’ has always been the default position in Britain, because Britain’s geographical separation from Continental Europe has always been a psychological one.  Where ‘Europe’ in a political sense extends no further east than Germany and Italy – with Sweden also accepted as ‘Western’ – most British people are willing to accept that as a political partnership.  What we now have is a political ‘Europe’ that is unrecognisable both in a geographical and political sense from the one which my generation was brought up with.

Cognitive Dissonance

On 5th February 2015, Marine Le Pen gave a speech to Oxford University’s debating chamber, the Oxford Union, on the matter of ‘Islamic ideology being to blame for Western Society’s ills’.  Outside there were more than two-hundred protestors (see picture below) according to the BBC, many of these from ‘United Against Fascism’ (UAF) who use the distinctly fascist tactic of trying to censor their opponents, rather than attempting to defeat their opponents’ arguments in debate.  These ‘anti-fascists’ fit into the modern category of ‘Regressive Left’.


The first political demonstration that I ever saw was back in 1980 or thereabouts, in Oxford.  Some Iranian students had set themselves up at the corner of Queen Street and St Ebbe’s with a banner entitled ‘Transition of a Dictator’, showing cartoon illustrations of the Shah gradually changing into Ayatollah Khomeini.  It was a piece of satire which would certainly have cost them their lives back in Iran.  Although the term ‘Regressive Left’ didn’t exist back then the common tactic for people of that ilk was to try and ‘No Platform …’ those who disagreed with them.  Also, at the time, because Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan were being financed by the USA to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union, no-one on the political left allied themselves with Islam or tried to defend Islam.

Those protesting against Marine Le Pen were guilty of cognitive dissonance, trying to censor someone who was speaking against Islam, rather than challenging her views as to which aspects of Islam merit criticism; particularly where this relates to men who have been brought up in an Islamic culture and their attitudes towards women and girls from outside that culture.  One would think that so-called ‘anti-fascists’ would realise this, but to date they have remained silent about the ‘grooming’ gangs, Oxford having one of the worst of them, as exposed by the Operation Bullfinch investigation which I detailed in a previous blog post.  If these protestors had an ounce of intelligence between them, they would realise firstly that censorship campaigns usually backfire; and secondly that Marine Le Pen’s family-oriented conservative views (and even more so those of her niece Marion, who is now an Alt-Right pin-up) may well appeal to Muslims, who dislike the ‘decadence’ of living in a secular society.  This is an electoral inconsistency that Marine Le Pen has and which the Regressive Left are simply too stupid to exploit.


For any native or former resident of Oxford reading this, the Iranian students had their banner under the covered area where Don Miller’s Hot Bread Kitchen was located at the back.  Their banner was opposite where the buses went along Queen Street and therefore visible to a lot of people.

There are other issues with regard to Marine Le Pen’s election campaign, re globalisation and French protectionism, which I may well deal with in a future blog post.

Since I first drafted this post, the Oxford Mail has reported that, there have not surprisingly been anti-Trump protests in Oxford, though they hardly represent the city’s population as a whole.  The protestors have remained quiet about this issue though, as always.