Friday, 28 November 2014


A cold and objective look at the religion called Islam should, to the normal, logical Westerner, come across as a curse not a benefit to the world. Why, well the religious book called the Koran is not kind to other religions and instead of preaching any form of symbiotic living it preached conversion. Others have to convert to Islam or face, in an Islamic state, at the very least fines and extra taxes and at worst death.

Lets look at the current state of affairs in the Islamic world. The so called Islamic State is the biggest threat to world peace according to blinkered western leaders. But a close look at what it's up to reveals exactly how Islam should work. The leaders there are taking the Koran literally and following it to the letter. Look at it carefully, this is authentic Islam and is why they are managing to recruit so many Moslem men, women and kids from all over Europe and the rest of the world for that matter. This is actually the way many Moslems in Britain and Europe would like Europe to be. There are plenty of misty eyed British Moslems who talk about the coming Caliphate in Britain. At the moment they are a minority but birth statistics show that in Britain the birth rate amongst the Asian and Middle Eastern Moslem population is four times higher than local British. On top of this the Middle East refugee problem is boosting the Moslem population all over Europe.

The West feels in can control what it calls liberal Islam. That doesn't really exist. Moslems are very peaceful till they get to a certain percentage of the population, then they start pushing for special privileges and if they don't get them trouble starts. In England they have started their own schools where they teach the Koran as it is and inspectors are often fooled. Not always it should be said, and when they do spot it they call in 'special measures' but what they aught to do is close these schools down altogether. We should not agree to the growth of Islam in Britain, it will become a major problem. All Moslem children should go to normal secular British schools and be taught a British secular curriculum.

Liberals in Britain and throughout the West keep up the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. It isn't and the sooner the West realises this the sooner its growth can be stemmed. The Church of England keeps talking to Moslem leaders and they keep up the pretence that they come in peace and can live together. They do at the moment because they are not yet strong enough. However, they have already started to introduce Sharia law into their closed communities and ghettos in London and Birmingham and in other cities with big Islamic populations. This should not be tolerated, Britain has it's laws and all sects and communities, if they want to live in Britain, should stick by them.

Just look at the Islamic world today, it's in turmoil. The so called Arab Spring has brought disaster wherever it has touched. Like all revolutions, they are started by liberal minded people, usually middle class, who want a bit more freedom. Then they are overwhelmed, during the upheavals, by radicals. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen have all felt the touch of the Arab Spring and are all in serious trouble. Look at Moslem radicals in Africa, Boco Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabab in Somalia, Central African Republic, Mali, Kenya, Ethiopia all have Moslem factions who seem to find pleasure in murder and rape. Factionalism, destruction of property, kidnapping and loss of work, all leads to hunger and poverty and hence to millions of refugees and misery. All these are the result and in the name of peace loving Islam pushing its religion down everybody throat.

Why is it that if Islam is a religion of peace its followers cause serious trouble for the rest of us all over the world? In fact 'peace' and 'Islam' are diametrically opposed. Even in so called peaceful countries like Iran, and Pakistan, let alone Afghanistan and Iraq, Christians and member of other religions are persecuted and killed just because they are not Muslim. Recently in Pakistan a Christian couple, and the woman was pregnant, were beaten and then burned to death by a mob of Muslims who stated they had blasphemed. They had three children. No proof needed and no police action to stop it or investigate it. Christians are expendable in Islamic countries. Religious leaders and and liberal Moslems throughout Europe keep stating that these things are no part of Islam but they can't have it both ways. If all these incidents are no part of Islam then there are a hell of a lot of bad Moslems in the world. In the last few years radical Islam has caused more misery and deaths worldwide than all the man made and natural disasters put together.

Friday, 24 October 2014


Is the Islamic State a genuine attempt at a religious state or are the leaders just a bunch of hard line Fascists who fancy taking power in an area where the authority of the surrounding states is weak? Unfortunately I think it is a bit of both. A spokesman for this loathsome 'state' would be able to justify all they do in terms of the Koran. The regular beheadings that go on every day in every city they have captured. The catching and selling into slavery of young girls and women, allowed in the Koran. The killing of anyone who is not a strict Sunni Muslim and wont convert. In fact the implementation of Sharia law down to its minutest detail. They think this is the way the world should be and there are those Muslims in Britain and the rest of Europe who argue that we would be better off under such a Caliphate. One of the big problems with the Caliphate is that they can find plenty of muftis well up the religious hierarchy that would agree with them and tell them they are doing the right thing. This gives them all the encouragement and justification they need and so they continue.

However, the Islamic State can well be compared with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Its jihadists hate the Jews and given half a chance would eradicate Israel. The state apparatus has absolutely no feelings towards the individual. Similar to the Gestapo or the NKVD they would shoot their own mother if so ordered. Anyone who stands in their way is shot on the slightest whim. They do not even follow their own law when it comes to killing. Alan Henning, the Salford taxi driver, was found not guilty of espionage in a Sharia court run by the IS and they still beheaded him. Violence for this unearthly state is an end in itself. They glory in violence and show this trait by killing men, women, and children without a second thought or pity.

One can only deduce that these people are heartless psychopaths. No amount of pleading has any softening effect on them. In fact, the very opposite is true, they rejoice in the idea of the parents, friends and family of the murdered suffering too. Those born and bred in Europe and America who go and join IS to fight can be equated with serial killers. The so called 'Jihadi John' is a psychopathic serial killer and in the Islamic State he can be himself and, not just get away with it but be praised by his superiors for his efficient work. How else can you possibly explain the cool cutting off of an innocent person's head? He loves his work and it's just as well he is no longer in Britain.

The IS has got its grubby paws on a load of money and the only way they will ever be defeated is for the world to come together and starve them of funds. It should not be beyond the brains of our security services in co-operation with the banks to cut off all funds both in and out of the Islamic State. These organisations can do it when they want to and can always manage to cover it up, so do it to the IS. As soon as their money runs out the state will fall apart and their fanatic followers will melt away.

Thursday, 4 September 2014


Shame :- (the dictionary definition) the humiliating feeling of having appeared to disadvantage in one's own eyes, or those of others. It includes words like disgrace, ignominy and dishonour.

It seems many people have lost the ability to feel shame and they are often found to be the ones in positions of power. The papers are full of revelations of men and women who have committed an offence of some kind and instead of doing the honourable thing and resigning they stay at their posts and we, the public, are lucky if we get an apology. Just look at the current Police Commissioner for Rotherham. He was the local councillor in charge of looking after children. He didn't, he has been caught and named and has been asked to stand down by many of his peers, but because he's an elected officer now and can't be fired he stays. Asked about his time in office as a councillor in charge of vulnerable children, he states he feels no responsibility, bare faced or what? He goes on to say it was not his fault and the best he can do is claim collective responsibility with the other 62 members of the town council. What a man. That humiliating feeling he should have doesn't exist. You don't get much more brass necked than that.

This damning report of course points the finger at many others in the council, and those working for it. The police don't come out smelling of roses either. Officers who were told of the offences bravely informed the young girls who had been raped that they deserved what they got. They were afraid of being labelled racist because most of the offences were committed by youths of Pakistani origin. Most outrageous of all was the time that the police were actually called to a house because of a minor disturbance. There they were confronted by some Asian men and a couple of very young girls. One was only 11 years old. Instead of questioning the men as to what they were doing they actually arrested the 11 year old for being drunk and disorderly. Cowardly comes to mind. So far one person who worked for the council, now retired, has apologised and said she was sorry not more had been done for the children, so she did know about it. Great.

Every two weeks Private Eye exposes local government officers with their fingers in the till in one way or another and, having been exposed, do they resign? Not a bit of it. Shameless as ever, they just carry on and the sad thing is they get re-elected. People's memories are so short. This week a Labour councillor who is a convicted fraudster and a second conviction for selling booze to minors, and still a councillor, has been shouting the odds about benefit fraud and telling everyone that the council will find them and prosecute them. When the irony was pointed out to a senior council member he just stated that these offences occurred more than four years ago so they didn't matter. No shame there then.

Sad to say but shame started its decline in the 70's. Prior to that period a councillor or MP or policeman found to have committed even a minor misdemeanour had the honour to instantly resign, his head hung in shame. If he or she didn't they were drummed out of office by public opinion or by their superiors. This doesn't seem to happen any more. Councillors, parliamentarians, policemen and others in positions of authority commit fraud, embezzle, steal and do things that should exclude them from any public office and yet they just carry on. Prior to the 70s Britain was held in high esteem around the world as being the least corrupt of countries. I am afraid this is no longer so.

Friday, 8 August 2014


Gaza is an unsolvable problem at the present time. It could have been solved years ago when Al Fatah was in control and there were genuine chances none of which were taken by the Arabs. However, since Hamas came to power and kicked Al Fatah out, all chances have disappeared. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and is seen as such by the rest of the world. It is, therefore, difficult to negotiate with them as most governments state openly that they will not deal with terrorists.

Hamas send rockets into Israel on a daily basis. Most of these go unreported by the Western press and thankfully most of them get shot down before they land. However, the odd one does get through and it is aimed at towns, villages and cities indiscriminately. The rocketeers don't give a damn who they hit they just want to kill Israelis. This goes on day in and day out. Then there are the tunnels which come up in Israeli territory. These allow the terrorists to appear, kill and disappear with a captive if possible so they can ransom him or her. Is it any wonder that the Israelis lose patience and fight back? It's inevitable but Hamas doesn't care. Its avowed goal is to kick all Jews out of what they call Palestine by any means and mass murder is included. Imagine any European country that had to build bomb shelters for every household near their boarder. It would be unacceptable and there would be a war.

At the end of the last 72 hour armistice the rest of the world wanted it extended, Israel accepted, Hamas didn't. Why? Does Hamas like to see its people suffering? The answer is yes. They are not too bothered how many women and children are killed. It stokes up more hatred against the enemy and in any case anyone killed in the war against the infidel goes directly to heaven in their eyes. So it doesn't really matter, they have gone to a better place.

The really sick thing is that Hamas has claimed victory during the short interval. In its twisted logic the death of 72 Israelis and the fact that Israel has pulled back its troops can be passed off as a victory. Never mind that over 1000 Arabs have been killed, they are all martyrs. Hamas fighters do use their population as human shields with impunity, they want Israelis to kill them so the rest of the world sees how cruel the Israelis are and side with the poor Palestinians. Hard though it is to say, but the Palestinians have themselves to blame. In Gaza they voted Hamas into power and now can't get rid of it. So they suffer and will continue to suffer as long as the Hamas organisation remains the government of Gaza.

One of the main demands Hamas has made for any sort of peace is the lifting of the blockade round the strip. However, this can't happen till Hamas stop sending rockets into Israel. The Israelis know that if the blockade is lifted it will make it far easier for the rockets to be imported and they certainly don't want that. Peace could come to the area quickly if Hamas just agreed to the existence of Israel and stopped all terrorist activity. But that is not going to happen, it would be a total loss of face and a defeat for the terrorist organisation and we all know they can't admit to that no matter what the odds are.

It is difficult for the West to understand the Moslem death wish. Only Moslems blow themselves up in the sure knowledge that they will land in Paradise instantly, and they really believe this to be the case. Look at what they are doing in Iraq. Any non Moslems have instantly to convert or are killed. The jihadists themselves are ruthless with their own lives because of the call to martyrdom. It is a different way of thinking and one that we in the West can't fully appreciate. But we do need to remember that no matter how harrowing the news from Gaza is portrayed by the Western press, the jihadist politicians in Gaza are to blame for the peoples current disastrous situation.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014


The buzz word these days seems to be Britishness. All of a sudden important people (or they think they are) like politicians are stressing British values and how, as a foreigner making Britain their home, they should espouse British culture. But the same politicians also state that we live in a multicultural society. It's not possible to have both. If foreigners stick to their own culture these do not necessarily accord with British values. Funnily enough British values include and always have done, letting foreigners into the country to settle. This trait goes back to the beginnings of our history. In the past it was usually, but not always, because they were being persecuted and we gave them asylum. However, these same immigrants quickly settled down and within a generation had taken on British values and customs and become British. The current leader of the Labour party, Ed Miliband, is a classic example. His father was a refugee from Hitler and his mother a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust. This has not happened completely with the influx of Moslems. There are now second and third generation Moslems who despise British culture and religion and all that it stands for and want to change it. Their first allegiance is to their religion not their adopted country. So we have a problem.

British culture has, of course, changed over the ages as has Britain and the British. But there is a basic Britishness that survives. Fairness, impartiality, democracy and probably above all else, the rule of law. My father, who lived and worked all his life in Africa, (see my book Dear Chips) was as British as they come and really proud of it. In fact he was 'old British' believing that the British were the model for the rest of the world. When it come to British law, I think, he was probably right. We have a system of law in Britain which is fair, just and in general incorruptible. So why does the Law Society (the solicitors trade union) endorse Moslem Sharia based wills which, of course, discriminate against women. Under Sharia Law women can only inherit half what a man can. Then I get a pamphlet through the post from TSB headed Islamic Account, Sharia approved banking to fit your lifestyle and beliefs. Great if you are a Moslem male but not so good if you are a woman. My father would have been scandalized. This is Islam creeping into British life and it is not British and Brits should not just give it a wide birth, they should ban it.

Other things that are not British. Little girls in school all wearing white head scarves. Kids in a Moslem primary school in Britain having to learn verses of the Koran by rote for hours on end. Quite unacceptable. Segregation of boys and girls in schools. Having books in schools that preach hatred of the Jews and that praise Sharia punishments such as stoning and beheading. This was actually seen by a BBC journalist, but the head teacher, clothed in full Arab garb, assured him that it was only available in the staff room library – so that's all right then. Selling Halal meat in shops without marking it so. I don't want to eat Halal meat because whatever the authorities say and they swear it is killed humanely, the method of slaughter is cruel. Marching through the streets on a demonstration with banners demanding the beheading of people and the police standing by and doing nothing. Any other political or religious group doing the same would be violently broken up and arrests made.

British society is Christian based and whether you are Christian or not its gentleness is what we are taught from birth and what we really love about it. The Christian ethos of kindness, compassion and forgiveness does not sit well with some other cultures and religions. People flock to the UK because it is known for its friendliness, love of peace and quiet and live and let live. So when foreigners come they should take the culture on when they arrive. Many do, including Moslems. However, those that don't, give us problems and their number is growing. Multicultural societies all over Europe are failing and British politicians should recognise the problem and admit it exists. Judging from the British press, and internet and email content the British public are fully aware.

Tuesday, 10 June 2014


Islam could be the compassionate religion that many Moslems say it is. They will argue till they are blue in the face that the religion is peaceful, helpful, compassionate even desirable. But it has a serious fault that makes it unacceptable to civilized people of other persuasions, and that is Sharia law. This is an inseparable part of Islam and makes the religion harsh, unimaginative, even cruel and there are plenty of examples of its cruelty. The biggest problem with Islam is that it is set in stone and that the stone was carved in the seventh century and by its own creed it cannot be changed in any way. The bigots that administer the law are not what we would consider world class or even third class judges. They have learned the Koran off by heart and therefore feel that they can pronounce upon people's sins. They have no leeway, their minds are set in stone too. Therefore, if a person has sinned in the eyes of the Sharia law they know it and the punishment is prescribed. No matter how abhorrent the sentence they are quite happy to dish it out in the sure knowledge that they are doing God's work.

Let's take a little look at the case of the Sudanese woman called Miriam. She was brought up by a Christian mother and although her father was a Moslem as far as she was concerned she was a Christian. Unfortunately in Islamic law no matter what religion you are if you are married to a Moslem, male or female your children are deemed to be Moslem too. Miriam grew up as a Christian and married a Christian, and life was grand till someone mentioned it to an Imam. Under Sharia law she is a Moslem so her husband must convert to Islam, there is no wriggle room. Hence, under Sharia law, Miriam, a Moslem, is married to an Christian who will not convert, her first big sin. Upbringing doesn't count, she's a Moslem. Therefore, in the eyes of this twisted 7th century law, she can't be married to him so she's committing adultery So she is sentenced to 100 lashes from a whip for that crime.

Now, for her second and ultimately deadly sin, in the eyes of Islam, that very compassionate religion. She is a Moslem but calls herself a Christian (because that's what she thinks she is) so she's an apostate. Under Sharia law that brings you an automatic death sentence. You can just imagine the judge, who will be an imam, rubbing his grubby little hands together with relish dishing out these sentences, after all he's doing God's work and these men have absolutely no sympathy or empathy if they think you have sinned.

So without further ado Miriam is slung into jail in chains, there is no appeal possible. She is pregnant and about to give birth. Do they take the poor woman to hospital, oh no! She remains in shackles in her prison cell whilst she gives birth and we are not told whether a midwife was allowed in or not but probably not. The disgust felt by the rest of the world when the story leaked out meant that the prison authorities removed her shackles, how very compassionate. On top of all this compassion, she has a 20 month son to look after so he is in prison with his mother. He can't be left with father, he's a Christian. The authorities, reeling somewhat from the bad publicity, then state that under compassionate Sharia law Miriam can have two years with her newly born child before they hang her. Disgust is all that any civilised person can possibly have for this religion and it's barbaric laws

If Islam wants to be regarded as a truly compassionate religion in today’s world it has got to find a way of discarding its dated laws. Sharia law with all its brutality will never be accepted by civilised people. Politicians and clergymen who cow tow to Islam and pretend there's nothing wrong with it are making a big mistake. In Britain today, to stand at Hyde Park Corner and state that Islam is a barbaric religion would probably get you arrested and charged with speech offence. However, Sharia law is primitive and barbaric, it advocates amputation of hands and feet, stoning to death, beheading, slavery, paedophilia, and lashing with whips, none of which are acceptable practices in civilized society. The civilised nations of the world should have nothing to do with it and let it be known to the Islamic world that in its current form it is unacceptable.

Monday, 19 May 2014


The nanny state is upon us and it's our fault. Every day people invoke the government ''to do something about it''. Whatever ''it'' is, why don't people stop and think whether it's the government place to be involved. Perhaps they should think about taking personal responsibility, or using their initiative or even common sense. In fact, it's probably to late to turn the clock back, the state already involves itself in the minutiae of our lives. What people fail to understand that is it is in the nature of the beast to meddle in our lives. The state likes ''control'' and wants to control us. It does this by insisting it's for our own good and passing laws that it calls helpful and necessary for our health or protection but the actual agenda is more control over us and, of course, more revenue for the exchequer.

Recent products that have attracted governmental attention are sugar and alcohol. The government is considering putting a limit on the amount of sugar we eat, and alcohol we consume. This will be achieved by having a minimum price on those products which will, of course, be much higher than the current one so, theoretically, we will not be able to afford as much. Behind the government there are a multitude of do gooders and experts advising that it would be a good idea, be beneficial to the nations health, cost less to the NHS etc. etc..

Then there is the rash of health and safety legislation which seems to cover every aspect of our lives down to the playing of conkers. Few people actually know the full extent of the H&S rules & regs, and that includes most of the officers appointed to supervise them. Hence the banning of kids playing conkers at school under the H&S laws when no such a law exists. The problem is that it is difficult to deny something if an official says it is so. It is usually assumed that the officer knows what he or she are talking about. It later transpires to be total poppycock when a journalist delves into the regulations and publishes the facts.

The real solution to all these problems is education. Kids, at school, should be taught about taking personal initiatives and the use of common sense instead of having it knocked it out of them. Thinking for ones self is one of the most important things education can do for children yet the school system seems bent on abolishing that process. Higher education is not much better. Not many moons ago students would rise in protest when they saw an injustice being done, or some nonsensical imposition being passed. They don't bother any more. We have all been cowed into accepting whatever our great leaders in Parliament throw at us.

Politicians these days, have the temerity to stand in front of the cameras and give the news that they are thinking of restricting or banning something for our own good. It doesn't matter how absurd the suggestion as long as they do it with a look of total sincerity and in the name of ''all the people''. Politicians in general have this off to a tee. They ooze caring, and knowledge of what people need. And yet it is pure interference with our lives, we can't think for ourselves any more. In actual fact, we don't need politicians to do that for us. However, gone are the days when British politicians contented themselves with the affairs of state in the sure knowledge that the general public was quite capable of looking after itself.

The success that the anti-smoking campaign has had in diminishing smoking is difficult to argue against particularly if you are a non smoker or a reformed one. One cigarette, it can be said, is bad for your health, but when it comes to the same argument for alcohol, those in favour of a rise in the price to stop abuse are on very thin ice. A little alcohol is actually good for you. It is also probably the best social lubricant available to humankind. The vast majority of people do not abuse it. The ones that do are a tiny minority and they will always exist no matter how much you tax it. The same goes for sugar.

What the government want is extra money in the national coffers. It is hypocritical of them to make out they are doing this for the good of our health, it's really to increase revenue and its power of control over us. We all aught to be aware and resist it. The one truism about politicians is that they are consummate actors. They can spout pure rubbish, and if you were to read it first you would dismiss it as garbage and bin it. However, listen to a ''sincere'' politician giving an Oscar performance and you might be forgiven for believing it makes sense, that is, till you walk away and think about it.

Thursday, 17 April 2014


Much is being made of the fact that Martin McGuiness, an ex commander of the terrorist organisation the IRA, was invited to a banquet (and accepted) by Queen Elisabeth. 20 years ago he was leading an organisation that was fighting and killing British troops. The thought, then, that he would sit at the same table as Her Majesty was literally unthinkable. Yet there he was tucking into a steak and chips with all the dignitaries in the land, and of course, the Irish President who was the guest of honour.

McGuiness has transformed himself into an amiable, affable, yet very sharp politician. You would think that two politicians like McGuiness and Ian Paisley who were politically diametrically opposed could never work together without serious repercussions and yet they did. Not only did they work together but they sat together and were often seen chatting and having a laugh together. Some people found that galling and called them hypocrites. However, what was the alternative? Northern Ireland had gone through thirty years of internecine warfare where republicans and Catholics had fought Protestants and loyalists. The people were tired and wanted peace but how do you get that without talking. Some hotheads on both sides swore never to talk and still try and carry the fight on. The more enlightened ones turned themselves into 'peace' politicians and found that when they talked to each other they had things in common and got on.

This is not the first time, by a long shot, that 'terrorists' have rehabilitated themselves and end up sitting in the highest seats of power. Go back to the 50s in Kenya. The Mau Mau were terrorists, they wanted in dependence from Britain and their leader was Jomo Kenyatta. When captured there were many in the administration who would have liked to hang him. He was tried and convicted of being a member of the Mau Mau and imprisoned for 7 years. He was then sent into exile in a remote part of Kenya till his release by popular demand in August 1961. The rest is history. He became prime minister, then President of an independent Kenya.

Archbishop Makarios was another 'terrorist sympathiser' although he wasn't the actual leader of EOKA the Greek Cypriot terrorist organisation, that was George Grivas. Makarios knew and had contact with Grivas and was sympathetic to the group but it was difficult to prove. So he was arrested on his way out of Cyprus and sent into exile on Mahe Island, near the Seychelles. He was only kept there for one year and then released but banned from returning to Cyprus. He based himself in Greece and in 1959 was elected president of an independent Cyprus.

There are countless others who have made it to the top from murky beginnings, Mugabe, Arafat, Begin, and even the saintly Mandela come to mind. All of whom have been classed as terrorists at one time or another and yet have become leaders and dined at the top tables in Europe and the rest of the world.

Friday, 14 March 2014


Go back in history and you will see that Russia has always prospered under strong leaders. The two 'Greats', Peter and Catherine are classic examples. Under weak leaders Russia flounders and there have been plenty of examples, the most recent being Yeltsin. Furthermore, although under the communists they yelled 'Imperialists' at the West, Russia has always been one of the greatest imperialist powers in the world. At its hight, after the Second World War it included all the eastern European countries it had 'liberated' and vast areas of Asia.

Not many leaders come stronger than Stalin. As the Second World War was ending the Russian Red Army marched into east European countries and under the guise of freeing them from German rule, imposed Russian rule. They became de facto members of the Soviet empire. There then went into action a complicated and suffocating plan to Russianise all those countries. All politics and every part of their culture from art to sport to literature to education, was gradually but efficiently eliminated and everything Russian was introduced, praised and honoured. In fact, the Russians tried to do exactly what the Germans had done and in the years immediately following the end of the war they were equally as brutal. Every political, governmental, social and cultural organisation had a Russian 'advisor' at its head and nothing could be done before it was passed by him and he had approved it.

The Western leaders, particularly Churchill and Roosevelt could see this happening and there was talk of carrying the war into Russia to stop them. Saner voices prevailed, not least because of the size and strength of the Russian forces. Plus, 5 years of war and the Allies were a spent force. So Stalin was able to do as he pleased in the sure knowledge that the West would do nothing to oppose him. He was right.

The Russians ruled their empire with an iron fist. Immediately after the war anyone who disagreed with them was either summarily executed or sent to a Russian Gulag. You could be sacked, as a teacher, for not praising the USSR enough in your lessons. Even European communists were not safe because their communism wasn't quite (Russian) correct. Many of them ended up in the Gulag too.

So now we come to Russia today. The Russians were somewhat embarrassed by Yeltsin and his antics and they saw him as a weak man too willing to bow to Western pressure. He allowed many parts of the Russian empire to become independent states. He gave them a choice, join the Russian Federation or be independent. He was actually quite surprised when they chose independence so he quickly reversed the policy to stop further states leaving. This the Russian populace found humiliating and the Russians who had made their lives in these foreign countries regarded them as part of Russia and were not happy either. Then along came Putin, a died in the wool KGB apparatchik, and got himself elected as president of the Russian Federation. He is a strong man both physically and mentally and likes to show it. He is not going to be pushed around by the Western leaders and immediately started saying Niet to suggestions from the West. The Russians love him (well not all of them) and after his second term the constitution forces him to resign. He finds a puppet in Medvedev, gets him elected, and carries on pulling the strings as prime minister. Medvedev only gets one term as president because under the constitution Putin is eligible to re-stand and guess what? The puppeteer is re-elected and can even stand for another second term too.

Putin is a Russian imperialist who, given half a chance, would like to regain many of the ex USSR territories that were granted independence. Whilst outright invasion is out of the question he is now showing the world how it is done. He has to look after Russian nationals in these foreign parts, of whom there are many. If they call for help he moves in quickly, then there will be a fake referendum and it will be an overwhelming majority in favour of rejoining the Russian Federation and he won't have fired a shot. However, as back up he has already sent some 30,000 troops into the Crimea 'to keep the peace'. They will oversee the polling stations and, of course, who votes. The Western powers are hopping up and down at this bare faced invasion but Putin knows no one will lift a finger to help the Ukrainians. They didn't when he regained half of Georgia in similar fashion, only the Georgians fought back so the overwhelming might of the Russian army gave them a hiding. Unfortunately no one is going to help the Ukrainians and they saw what happened in Georgia so they won't resort to arms. So, in a while, Crimea will become a de facto part of Russia and Putin will be free to look around for his next bit of Russian populated foreign territory to annex.

Wednesday, 26 February 2014


Poor old South Africa, I should think Nelson Mandela will already be turning in his grave. The poor man didn't say very much for the last few years of his life and as he viewed the state of SA from his home or hospital bed it's not surprising. SA has not changes a great deal since the bad old days of apartheid. The police are still fairly brutal, witness the shooting dead of 34 workers who were on strike at the Marikana mine. In the bad old days that would have been plastered across every newspaper in the West and sanctions would have been tightened at the very least. Now it hardly gets a mention and not many people even know it happened.

Corruption has hit new levels of efficiency. In fact, the new elite, the Africans who took over, particularly in government, are the nouveau rich and have just replaced the ruling white minority but carry on and enjoy in the same manner of power. Apartheid may be gone and the population have far more freedom to do and go where they want but ask Mr or Mrs average whether they feel any better off and the answer is usually 'no'. The poor remain poor and many get poorer by the day. Little has been done since majority rule to alleviate their problems. Townships and all the squalor that goes with them still exist.

The economy is going down the pan. When majority rule was attained the SA rand was worth two to the pound Stirling, it is now worth 15 and corruption has done most to devalue it. There are now over 7 million unemployed in SA and that is a rise of 1.5 million since Zuma came to power with his promise to foster industry and investment and create jobs. This in a country of 52 million souls. According to an MP (Lindiwe Mazibuko) in a parliamentary speech, 30 billion rand go missing every year directly into the pockets of the politically connected insiders. A classic example of this is the 200 million rand spent on upgrading Zuma's private residence. SA bonds are fast heading towards junk status which does nothing to help future investment.

The crime rate soars, since 2007 there have been more that 12,000 murders a year and rising. The world average for murder is 7.6 per 100,000. In SA it is 36.5 per 100,000. In fact, in the year 2011/2012 nearly 16,000 people were murdered. During the same period there were 300,000 reported sexual offences. Over 400 drug related crimes are reported to the police every day.

The ANC, founded in 1912, was an a-tribal organisation that genuinely wished to abolish tribalism. However, this is Africa and abolishing tribalism is about as easy as chewing iron. The last three leaders of the ANC were Tambo, Mandela and Mbeki and they were all Xhosa. If you are going to ignore tribal attachments then this should not matter. But the Zulus are the biggest tribe in SA and the ANC was actually founded by a Zulu. When Mbeki was the president he fired Zuma, a Zulu, and this put the cat amongst the pigeons. Zuma waged a long campaign to oust Mbeki and when he succeeded and became presided he filled all top posts with fellow Zulus. The result, a return to tribalism in a big way and, in fact, this aids corruption. Inevitably the Mandela family are still a very influential group but they are Xhosa.

This flammable mixture of nepotism, cronyism and tribalism will lead to serious trouble in SA unless the next elections, due this year, throws up a leader of stature. Most sub-Saharan countries have fallen victim to this mixture of corruption and it usually ends in bloodshed. Even Kenya, long seen as an island of stability surrounded by an ocean of storms, fell victim to mass murders and inter tribal killings. You only have to peek over the boarder at Zimbabwe. Mugabe's inaugural speech promised a land of peace and racial harmony free from tribalism. He then, as a Shona, ordered the killing of thousands of his political opponents most of whom were Matabele. He has systematically deprived his white citizens of their jobs, firms and farms and given them to his cronies. He has turned one of the richest countries in Africa in to one of the poorest.

SA is still held up as the rainbow nation and it is by no means too late to pull it back from the brink of destruction but it does need a charismatic leader. Another Mandela may be too much to ask for but if such a leader does not come forth the signs are ominous.

Friday, 31 January 2014


What is it about people who dislike the Jews? There are reasons why some people dislike nations, the Japanese and the Germans come to mind. With these two there is a salient argument to be made, but with the Jews? They have never invaded anywhere, they are not a cruel nation, they don't proselytise, they always fit in where ever they are, in fact, they are kind and helpful, inclusive and welcoming. It really beggars belief. Could it be jealousy? They always seem to do well and be well heeled. Even this is not strictly true, there are plenty poor Jews. But to the outsider they seem better off than the next man.

Throughout history the Jews, a small nation in comparison to most, have been the but of pogroms, cruelty, and instability right up to the final act of insuperable inhumanity, the holocaust. They have been harried from country to country for 4,000 years. Wherever they have tried to settle they have been over run or moved on. Why should that be?

Well, a number of reasons come to mind and just about every one leads ultimately to jealousy.

The Jews, as a nation, have survived longer than any other in the Western or Middle Eastern world. Even since their last great dispersal by the Romans the Diaspora has remained in touch. This comes down to total belief in God, the Torah, the Talmud and education.

Their education system began about 4,000 years ago, is inclusive and free and has never ceased. This has made them better educated than the people they lived amongst, especially in Europe. Wherever they were their education made them indispensable to the ruling classes and this was true throughout the Mediterranean region and the rest of Europe. Whilst accepted, they moved in the top echelons of society and became ministers in governments, industrialists and bankers. This success was the main cause of jealousy and the fact that they were different. They would not convert to Christianity or Islam. It was, therefore, easy for any ruler or ruling group who was having problems such as debt or unpopularity, to blame the Jews and chase them out of the country. This happened in England, France, Turkey, Spain, Holland and so on. However, all these countries eventually allowed them back in.

Even when they were forced into ghettos as they were in Eastern Europe and Russia they maintained their independence as self governing units. In England and France during the medieval period, for example, feudalism did not apply to the Jews because it was based on Christianity and the Jews were not Christian. This meant that they owed no fealty and were free to come and go as they pleased and, of course, to be educated. There were always some Jews who converted and they were accepted into society as though they were natives. However, many of these did so only as a temporary measure and when it became safe to reconvert they did.

This whole scenario is well illustrated by the Spanish Caliphate. When Islam conquered Spain the Caliphs wanted, more than anything else, an educated population. At the time Arab learning was way ahead of anything in Europe. They opened libraries and schools all over the peninsular and Christians and Jews were welcome and treated with equality. This was a golden age for Islam and Judaism. It became the richest part of Europe. Then along came the Christians, reconquered the peninsular and the pogroms began against both Muslems and Jews.

The Jews fled east, Muslems fled south. The new Spanish monarchy destroyed the libraries and closed the schools and learning was set back 100 years. Of course the economy collapsed too. Many Jews who could not escape converted to save their lives. They were called Marranos but as soon as they could go they did, mainly to Holland and immediately reconverted. In Spain they were the gold and diamond merchants and hence Amsterdam became and has remained the centre of diamond cutting and polishing.

The Jews were and still are skilful, educated people. They bring industry and hard work wherever they are and it was this that makes them seem better off than their gentile neighbours. Wherever the Jews have been allowed to settle they have joined in without question, helped the economy, helped the ruling classes, shown the way in education, started industries and banks and even fought on the side of their adopted country. In the 20th century just look at the list of Nobel prize winners. You will find it contains a disproportionate number of Jews of all nationalities in comparison to the Gentile nationals.

Saturday, 4 January 2014


South Sudan has been an independent country for just over 2 years. The people there were exploited and harassed for years by their northern neighbours the Arabs. They are Negro and Christian and to the north are Arab, Islamic and it must be said, racist. The Arabs have, for millennia, regarded the Negroes as inferior and used them as slaves right up to the middle of the 20th century. The South Sudanese fought for decades to be free of this yolk. The country was another colonial dogs breakfast that did not take any account of local tribal boundaries. The boundaries were set by colonial rivals Britain and France in the 19th century. Britain won the tiff and ruled the country till January 1956. Thereafter the majority Arab population formed the government and started to bully its black population in the south.

So the fight has gone on till they finally got their chance for independence in a referendum, and took it. Although the country has very little in the way of infrastructure and is probably one of the poorest parts of the world, not long before independence they struck oil. So there was the promise that with the oil revenues and independence the country could prosper. This could alleviate the desperate poverty the bulk of the populace suffer. Everyone knew it would take time. The current president is one Salva Kiir Mayardit, and his vice president at independence was Riek Machar. People would hope that in this day and age these two would be civilised politicians and respect their new position of authority, their country, and especially the people in it. These poor people are genuinely some of the most disadvantaged and impoverished. Subsistence farming is what keeps most of them alive. Yet these two oafish and mindless politicians fall out and instead of thinking of their populace they start fighting. Tribal loyalties are instantly called upon and within weeks there is a full blown civil war between the two factions. The bulk of the population, who just want peace and a bit of prosperity, are sent scurrying for cover in meagre United Nations compounds.

It is difficult to evaluate these men without using such words uncaring, thoughtless, insensitive, heartless, even primitive. Certainly they have a total disregard for the good of their electors. In a three week period there have already been a couple of thousand deaths. Women and children have been slaughtered. Worse still there are now believed to be thousands of children left in the bush to fend for themselves. In Africa this usually means a slow and painful death by starvation. Is this what these politicians see as justifiable politics in a fledgling country? The UN has hurriedly flown in reinforcements to try and save more people but the world should shout its utter disgust at these cold-hearted leaders. Let these monsters look upon the suffering and pain they have visited on their impoverished people and hang their heads in shame.