Saturday, 21 May 2016

Labour's war on the Working Class

Labour's war on the working class is as old as the Party; a strong, independent and bloody-minded British working class was never going to become a compliant tool of the ex-public school Fabian socialists. The war had one aim - to destroy working class communities, make the working class utterly dependent on the State and inculcate socialist Internationalism to replace the 'crude' national identities valued by the working class. 

God knows how, but a documentary 'Last Whites of the East End' somehow got past the Stalinist censorship at the BBC to get made (they must have made and edited it in secret, surely?). Once made, and known about, the BBC realised they would create a greater controversy by not showing it - so it's been reluctantly scheduled for 22.45 on Tuesday. With the hope that it will then quickly slip from the national memory.  To be frank, I still don't believe they will show it - I think they will use the Referendum as an excuse to pull it from the schedules.

And what are Labour so scared of about a proud and independent working class? I've written about this before:-
Arthur Seldon, who founded the IEA with Ralph Harris, was born Abraham Margolis in the East End of London to Russian-Jewish refugee parents. They both died in the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. He was adopted by a cobbler, Pinchas Slaberdain, and his wife Eva. He grew up with the great depression in the East End, and knew the harsh reality of poverty at first hand. He recalls when he was nine or ten his foster father died to leave him and his foster mother provided for by an insurance policy. He says he learned that even the poor, if left alone, were doing things for themselves. He said:

I was appalled by the insensitivity of governments to the efforts of the working classes to help themselves - the belief that they could not do all the necessary things. They were most anxious to ensure that they used all the opportunities of insurance to safeguard their families in times of sickness and loss of work. I began to sense a sort of anti-working class sentiment in all political parties. They wanted the State to do these things. They didn't like people to do things for themselves. They thought that ordinary people weren't capable. They forgot all the history of the working classes.
Ralph Harris, too, came from a working class background. He recalled when his mother died finding four policies in a shoebox - a funeral benefit policy for each of her children. "The working class feared they wouldn't have the money to bury their dead, so you could take out for a penny halfpenny a week an insurance policy to pay five pounds; four children, four policies, sixpence a week altogether and five pounds on it." Harris believed in something that was about human dignity;
Liberty carries with it individual responsibilities. Responsibility for yourself, and hopefully your family and as far as possible your neighbours. But it does throw responsibility onto our own shoulders. Well, that's what living means; it doesn't mean shrugging off responsibility and taking soft options.
In the years before the 1911 National Insurance Act, the working classes were served by a network of friendly societies, savings and loans clubs, mutuals and insurers that provided an alternative to the old Poor Law provision; their growth and popularity reflected a striving for that human dignity that is at the heart of a congruent society and nation.

Friday, 20 May 2016

Euroluvvies sign chain letter shock

A group of Euroluvvies, some of whom may be known outside the UK, have signed a chain letter in support of the EU. Some of them may even know what the EU is. Others, I suspect, think it's something their agent signed them up for, like Equity or RADA, that can help them get work. The full text of the letter is reproduced below

"We, the B-list luvvies of Britain, urge the readers of the Guardian to support the EU. This vital arts funding body has paid for productions that no commercial operator, government department, UK funders or angels would support. 

Without the EU, Smarg Humply would never have been able to mount 'Being', an exhibition of his own turds excreted over a year, at the ICA last month. Tip Issleg would never have been able to produce 'Medea' in Nazi SS costume at the Donmar and Benedict Cumberbatch would never have secured the 'Sofas R Us' pricebuster advert. 

Just being in the EU makes luvvies more imaginative and allows the creative juices to flow more lubriciously, not to mention allowing opportunities for heavily subsidised Eurofilms in Lithuanian, British Council freebies in Venice and broadening the minds of the vast majority of British luvvies who can't imagine a world beyond Soho"

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

German Left debates suspending elections / defying the Constitution

Der Spiegel is one of the few lefty organs for which I have a genuine regard. It has high journalistic principles and is strictly honest in a way that the Guardian, for instance, is not. Der Spiegel prints stories that often conflict with overt leftish interests, on the basis that if the German left loses honesty (as the British left has done) then it is finished. And thus it must have agonised a little about bringing into the light of day a fundamental debate that is being held amongst the German left. The question is whether the threat of German electors voting for AfD is great enough to justify suspending elections or contravening the 'eternal and cast iron' provisions of the post-war German constitution. 

I urge you to read a good piece by Dirk Kurbjuweit. He uses the jargon 'populist' to mean anyone getting more votes than Europe's old dying parties, and is open to the reality that the change in democratic opinion is not confined to Germany; France, Austria, Poland and Hungary are all moving in the same direction. But who decides when the people's democratic choice is undemocratic? Do the parties that occupy the centre-ground rejected by the voters have that right?

He is also frank that the insurgent parties are not members of the cosy and sclerotic political club that has run Europe into the ground over recent years - the new parties cannot be relied upon to join the cross-party institutional democratic corruption that has so befouled European democracy. And that is the real fear of Europe's entrenched establishment - and the stakes are high enough for them to subvert democracy, overturn constitutions and ride roughshod over democracy. 

To Der Spiegel, we must be thankful for the warning and hopeful that the malign powers will allow democracy to prevail - whatever the result.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

The Nazis' real plans for a European Conferederation

Boris Johnson isn't Donald Trump and doesn't make the sort of unfounded free-form pronouncements that Mr Trump does. Nor is he Mr Tusk, who has just wrongly condemned him. A historian (of sorts - in the Dan Snow mould but with more knowledge), Boris wouldn't have made his jibe about the EU following Napeoleon's France and the Third Reich in a shared vision of a United Europe unless it were essentially true. And it is. 

Here in Austria, Napoleon's occupation is remembered fondly by the many local 'shooting clubs' who dress up in rather comical Napoleonic army dress for local civic occasions; they award themselves a coulourful array of medals and not all of them are Lieutenants. Like the Dutch-Belgians who ran away at Waterloo because they favoured Napoleon (or perhaps more kindly, like the Dutch who ran away at Srebrenica, they were just scared and poorly disciplined) many of Europe's ordinary folk at the start of the 19th century rather enjoyed being part of a resurgent Carolingian Empire. As a 2002 French magazine stated
".. many of the EU's features—federal law, the common market, the dismantling of frontiers, the promotion of the idea of the rights of man—can be traced to the Napoleonic heritage. Why, even the Grand Army brought together 20 nations" 
 they wrote,  under the strapline "Napoleon - the real Father of the EU"

But it was the Third Reich, and Ribbentrop in particular, whose vision of Europe was closest to that we have today. In 1943 Ribbentrop planned for a post-war Europe, and the German Foreign Ministry actually drew up a draft European Treaty, the predeccessor to Maastricht. The Benelux countries were not included in the list of members of this Nazi 'confederation' as Germany planned to swallow them whole anyway - as was also the case with Austria. And there was no independent Poland. But the plan included Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece, locked together in a mutual voluntary confederation under which;
  • The members are sovereign states which guarantee the freedom, national character and political independence of other member states
  • The organization of the internal affairs of each member state was to be their respective sovereign decision.
  • The member states were to defend the interests of Europe and protect the continent from external enemies.
  • European economy was to reorganized in mutual agreement between the member states, with internal custom and other barriers progressively abolished.
  • Trans-European rail, autobahn, waterway and airline networks were to be developed according to a common plan.
The whole was designed to ensure that 'wars never again break between European peoples'

The Nazi plan was dusted off again and re-presented by John Monnet and Robert Schuman and co. after the war - some plans seem to have been lifted wholesale from the detailed proposals drawn up by the Nazi diplomats - and thus we have the start of the EU.  

Donald Tusk is not a historian, nor does he have any real understanding of 20th century European history. He's just a leftie apparatchik desperate to toe the Party line - which is surely responsible for his silly and ignorant pronouncement that "...when I hear the EU being compared to the plans and projects of Adolf Hitler I cannot remain silent. Such absurd arguments should be completely ignored if they had not been formulated by one of the most influential politicians of the ruling party."

Sorry, Donald, but it's a matter of historical record. 
Many Austrians like dressing-up in Napoleonic uniforms

Which migrants really cost the most money?

It's not a knockout blow for our Brexit campaign, but the Migration Watch figures on the cost of immigrants give us a good guide which of them we shouldn't allow in.  

Firstly, sorry but EEA immigrants are still pretty much cost neutral - Older A10 nationals contributed 89% of their cost, older EEA others contributed 109% of their cost, while the figures for the newest A10 and EEA other are 93% and 184% (yes, 184%) - showing that non-A10 EEA nationals are the best earners for the UK. Overall, the annual £1.12bn net cost of all EEA immigrants compares to the annual cost of British natives of £88bn. 

But it's the non-EEA migrants who cost the real money. They only contribute some 92% of their costs compared to UK natives - a net cost of £15.6bn. And given the breakdown of the origin of those expensive migrants from previous academic studies, I'd guess two-thirds are Muslim - £10bn a year in taxes to undermine our own nation. 

This isn't new. The first major study was the 2007 IPPR / Channel 4 study, which I have quoted virtually every year since. I wrote:
For every Pakistani sucking at the taxpayer's teats is an Indian paying those taxes. For every feckless Somali demanding housing and health care is a Chinese grafting sixty hours a week to pay for it. The left-leaning ippr carried out an important study in 2007 that identified why Labour's immigration policy had not raised per capita GDP in the UK one iota; half our immigrants are net contributors, adding to GDP and paying taxes and creating wealth, and half of them are net consumers, spending taxes and subtracting from national wealth. The key, of course, is knowing which half is which. And it's not based on skin colour.
The Speccie was more explicit in 2008:-
If the government is serious about optimising the planning of public services, it needs to disaggregate the immigrant population and find out which groups are profit centres and which are cost centres. No doubt it has been doing so quietly in the background, but it looks as if talking frankly about the results of this exercise in public would blow their political cover to smithereens. The best research so far available (prepared by the IPPR late last year for Channel 4’s Dispatches) makes for uneasy reading. Only 1 per cent of Polish immigrants claim income support, as opposed to 21 per cent of Turkish immigrants and 11 per cent of Pakistanis; only 8 per cent of Poles live in social housing, compared with 80 per cent of Somalis, and 41 per cent of Bangladeshis.
So there you have it. Exclude Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians and Turks and we'll save a fortune, have enough social housing and reduce the demands on overworked transport and public services. Keep the Chinese and the Indians, and test the Nigerians - half of whom are grafters, half of whom are spongers, according to the evidence.

Monday, 16 May 2016

Turkey deal unravelling?

With the June target date for the lifting of visa restrictions for Turkish passport holders looming, a deal looks as far away as it was months ago - unless the EU backs down over its demand that Turkey adopts basic Human Rights standards in its dealings with internal dissent. So far this is looking unlikely, and Turkey remains more fearful of being shackled in its fight against the PKK than of not gaining visa-free access to the EU. 

And of course Erdogan is an irresponsible leader, and would actually remove police and coastguard restrictions from the West coast, allowing the mass movement of migrants into Greece to resume. But with both Merkel and the 'open borders' crowd now the subject of democratic disapprobation, Macedonia will get all the help she needs from Europe to keep her border tightly locked - making Greece into a huge, festering, migrant camp at just the time when the country is at greatest risk of defaulting on the financial rescue package. 

And neither the Pope or the German parliament are helping by giving high-profile recognition to Turkey's treatment of the Armenians in 1915; just as Japan still refuses to admit the horrors inflicted on the Chinese, the Turks continue to deny the mass slaughter of the Christian Armenians during the Great War. Erdogan also remains sensitive to the exposure of his family's arms-for-oil deal with ISIS / Daesh by Russian intelligence.

Turkey is now at a crossroads. Its sensible, secular, middle-class population have been crowded out by the stubble jawed semi-literates called to the Salafist-funded mosques. Turkey must choose whether she wants to be a civilised Western democracy or degenerate fully into a primitive and savage Islamic state with no redeeming virtues. This year will tell which way she's heading.