The Battle of Trafalgar (re-written for our PC world)

(courtesy of Sarahoo commenting in the Telegraph)

Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy"

Hardy: "Aye, aye Sir".

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to the signal officer. What's the meaning of this?"

Hardy: "Sorry Sir?"

Nelson (reading aloud): "England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability. What gobbledygook is this?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, Sir. We're an equal opportunity employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."

Nelson : "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."

Hardy: "Sorry Sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments.

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main brace to steel the men before battle.

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it. Full speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest, please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, Sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and safety have closed the crow's nest, Sir. No harness. And, they said that a rope ladder doesn't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo'c'sle Admiral."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, Sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."

Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of Admiral by playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, Sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."

Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, Sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?

Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny."

Hardy: "It's not that, Sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?

Hardy: "Actually, Sir, we're not.

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, Sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on a disciplinary."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your King.

"Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules."

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"

Hardy: "As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe it's to be encouraged, sir."

Nelson: "In that case. Kiss me, Hardy

Never Completely Right, Never Completely Wrong!

Now I don't claim to be an expert about anything! But that doesn't necessarily stop me having my own personal opinions about a diverse range of everyday subjects, from politics to potholes, from Sunday shopping to secondary education, from land banking to local government, some of which I have in common with other people, some of which I don't. As a fairly mature grown-up, I fully accept that some people will share my views and that others will not, but it certainly wouldn't occur to me to get so upset about this basic fact of life that I would then begin publicly and maliciously smearing those people who held an opposing point of view to my own.

 

On the rather ticklish issues of immigration, nationalism, multiculturalism and religion, all of which have been much in the news of late, according to most of our mainstream media there are only two diametrically opposed points of view to take on the various subjects, for or against, good or bad, believer or unbeliever, racist or non-racist, fascist or anti-fascist. There is no middle ground apparently when it comes to declaring one's preference over the question of migration, national identity, religious affiliation, cultural traditions or gender specifications, there are only a set of absolutes, most of which are being dictated by certain media outlets and covert political organisations that are pursuing their own specific agendas.

 

Currently, if you're opposed to unregulated migration you're a racist. If you're opposed to the concept or actual imposition of multiculturalism, then you're a fascist. If you're a nationalist, you're both a racist and a fascist. If you're opposed to gay marriage, then you're homophobic. And if you're against the rise of all intolerant religions in our society, then you're Islamophobic.

 

Of course it's become too easy to label and stereotype anyone who falls outside of the widely accepted norm, so that if you don't "buy into" what we're told, or what we perceive to be the generally accepted view, then it is more than acceptable nowadays to just label someone as a racist, a fascist, homophobic or islamophobic, rather than just accept that they might in fact have a perfectly legitimate point of view, just one that doesn't tally with everyone else's.

 

In reality however, what is deemed to be the "norm" is often nothing of the sort! In most cases the widely reported attitudes of the country and the vast majority of the people who live within its borders, towards issues like immigration, religion, multiculturalism, gay marriage, etc are nothing like those which are regularly being stated by the TV, press, mainstream political parties, or the bevy of political pressure groups that currently receive their funding from one of the main political parties, or from politically inspired newspaper owners.

 

In truth, a good many of these so-called social "norms", rules to live by, or standards we should all aspire to, are being drafted, written down and implemented by comparatively small numbers of largely un-elected, unregulated, unrecognisable and unaccountable activists, lobbyists, theorists, or strategists, who are simply ensuring that their own personal opinions and points of view take primacy over everyone else's, without them having first been subjected to any sort of wider counter argument or scrutiny by the wider population.

 

Just why is a professed nationalist now commonly referred to as a fascist or indeed a racist? Why are those who want a reintroduction of proper national border controls often referred to as being racists? Why are those who oppose gay marriage described as being homophobic? Why are those who attack religious intolerance regularly described as Islamophobic? Is it perhaps because such lazy and wholly incorrect labelling simply helps play into a much more secretive agenda, one where a social problem is created or invented, even though it does not really exist, simply to justify the existence and expense of a social solution that no-one really needs or ever actually wanted.

 

Central to the perceived problems revolving around immigration, racism, multiculturalism, sexism and religious intolerance, extremist groups like Unite Against Fascism and their sister group, Hope Not Hate, are reported to have been pivotal in managing the public perception's relating to such issues, but probably not in the way most people would imagine. With the general demise of Britain's traditional Far Right parties, such as the National Front and even to some extent, the British National Party, the UAF had essentially become an army without any sort of enemy to fight. Late to the battle; and perhaps raised to protect some of the funds that were being donated by various political parties, newspapers and trade unions, the group Hope Not Hate appears to be the new vanguard of the new and improved anti-intolerance brigade, set up to counter a problem that hasn't really existed in mainland Britain for the past thirty years or more.

 

In and of themselves, both of these anti-fascist groups would, in normal circumstances, be generally irrelevant to the wider landscape of normal British political life, after all, if they and the English Defence League, who seem to be their main targets, want to square up to one another in the street, get drunk, get arrested, then why would anybody else be bothered? When all's said and done, they are all what they are, unrepresentative street mobs of unrestrained louts, who individually have little to contribute to any sort of meaningful educated discourse on the subject of immigration, racism, sexism, multiculturalism or even religious intolerance.

 

Unfortunately, the likes of the UAF, HnH and the EDL have all begun to recognise that the battleground surrounding such important social issues has fundamentally changed, from the streets of Britain, to the internet servers of the world, allowing each of them to bring their vitriolic hatred of the other to all of our computer screens. Now no reasoned debate, no earnestly held view, no rational argument or opinion is safe from the uneducated rant of the UAF, HnH or EDL poster, who wants to act as a spoiler for legitimate political debate. As a rule, such extremist groups generally start off from the premise that they are always right and everyone who opposes them is always wrong; and they generally know that to be true because members of such groups rarely disagree with one another, thereby creating a self sustaining lie. As the old adage tells us, a lie repeated often enough; and widely enough can quickly become the truth; a fact that has never been lost on the politically savvy manipulators who can often be found at the centre of such radical groups.  

 

Indicate that you're a member of UKIP; and you're instantly a "RACIST", or a "FASCIST"! Express your concerns about our country's open border policies and the reply is "RACIST"! Complain about the growing influence of Islam in Britain and you become a "FASCIST"! State that you don't agree with gay marriage and you're instantly "HOMOPHOBIC"!

 

Of course, in most cases the posters are anonymous and offer no justification, rational or any sort of substantive argument to underpin their informed opinion, or their personal point of view, no matter how limited it may be. No doubt that's the label thing again, why have a rational debate when you can just as easily label someone as a "racist", "fascist", "sexist", "homophobe", or "islamophobe", without having to go to the bother of actually substantiating the claim?

 

The particularly sad thing about some of the UAF and Hope Not Hate supporters specifically is that they purport to be reasonably well educated people, brag that they know what they're talking about; and yet absolutely refuse to make any sort of cogent argument in support of their sometimes outrageously offensive claims. And when they do attempt to justify their positions, or their opinions, it is often in the most ridiculous fashion possible, such as, "if you want controlled borders, you must be a racist", or "if you're against gay marriage, you must be homophobic", or even "if you're opposed to Muslim extremism, then you must be Islamophobic".

 

Obviously for the political paymasters of such groups, there is very little down side to their financial support, as each group is largely disassociated from the political party, newspaper or trade union body that's actually providing the funds to fight this supposedly necessary fight. However, in the wider political context they inevitably do benefit directly from the work that UAF and Hope Not Hate undertakes, if only by responding to, reporting on and legislating against the very problems that such anti-intolerance groups are thought to be fighting. The problem is of course that the actual scale and depth of the vitally important social issues that they purport to guard against are very much products of their own making and their own imaginations; and do not really exist in fact. However, for them to admit that would fundamentally bring into question the need for these groups themselves; thus threatening their very existences, along with the vast amount of monies that they generate for the people who run such unrepresentative organisations.

 

The reality is that being a British "nationalist" does not automatically make you a racist or a fascist, only your own actions and beliefs do that. Being opposed to our country's open borders policy does not automatically make you a racist, as only your own personal actions and beliefs do. Being worried by the spread of Radical Islam does not necessarily make you Islamophobic, only your deeply held personal beliefs and actions will ever prove that; and being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically mean that you're homophobic, only your actions and personal beliefs would prove that also.

 

As has been stated before on this blog, personal opinions are a bit like noses and backsides, everyone has them and everyone is perfectly entitled to have them, whether or not the likes of UAF and Hope Not Hate agree with them. And as with noses and backsides, not everyone is going to agree that you've got the best ones going, but you can always be sure that at least somebody somewhere will agree with you about them, so sadly you're never going to be completely right all of the time, but then again you're never going to be completely wrong all of the time either, so always consider that to be a good thing :)  

A Foreign Land Known As Britain!

In the "idealist's", or the dreamers world of the mythical so-called global village, every race, every ethnicity, every religion, every culture and all of the world's many and disparate peoples would get along with one another, united in common aims, strategies, languages, cultures, religions and lifestyles, thereby creating the ideal of a truly multicultural and ethnically diverse world family.

 

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your individual point of view, this mythical global family village, is entirely that; a myth, a fabrication, the product of delusional minds, created in part by the sorts of great two dimensional social thinkers and commentators, who always see the good, never the bad, always the upside, never the down; and who steadfastly refuse to accept that such a world can never, ever be created, simply because there is one great stumbling block to its creation, the people themselves!

 

Even though the human race has been interacting, interbreeding and trading with one another for thousands of years, giving the various peoples of the world more than enough opportunity to amalgamate or assimilate into one big happy family, instead, here we are in the 21st century, still separated by permanent national borders, defended by powerful armies and protected by weapons of mass destruction, yet the "idealist's" still cling to their deluded theories of multiculturalism and the ethnically diverse world family.

 

If the theory of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity had any sort of logical justification, then why did India and Pakistan separate so quickly and so violently following the end of British imperial rule in 1947 ; and why do they continue to threaten and fight with one another to this very day? Why do hundreds, perhaps thousands of ethnic minorities die every year throughout the globe, as a result of being attacked by other minority groups, or followers of majority faiths? Why does Muslim kill Muslim in any number of Middle East disputes, whether that be in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq? If multiculturalism or ethnic diversity are such ideas, why is the Korean peninsula still divided between north and south, some sixty years after they fought a bitter and brutal war with one another?

 

If the concepts of multiculturalism and ethic diversity don't apply to these particular countries, then does that perhaps suggest that they are purely western concepts; and that only those countries which are rich enough, developed enough, or perhaps foolish enough, are the only ones that should actually implement such ill-thought out and dangerous social theories? The term multicultural was only ever really intended to be a descriptive one, illustrating that a particular country contained a diverse number of differing cultures, but instead since the 1970's successive British governments and their various creative policy advisers have attempted to turn it into some sort of real social experiment, which has tried to purposefully integrate any number of disparate foreign cultures into Britain, often without the agreement of and sometimes against the wishes of the indigenous British population.

 

Sadly, like with most things today, it seems to be the vocal minority, including these now largely discredited multiculturalists and ethnic diversity campaigners, who were allowed to set the agenda for everyone else, including the generally silent and compliant majority that were often too busy getting on with their lives, to fully realise that their country, its rich history, its culture, its traditions and its native tongues were slowly but surely being taken away from them. One cannot imagine that any other of the great historic nation states, such as China, Russia, America, Canada, or anywhere else for that matter would willingly allow their own native cultures to be rapaciously subsumed by foreign cultures or practices, so why should we?  

 

In the period 2010 alone there were reported to be an estimated nineteen foreign born ethnic groups in the UK, consisting of at least 100,000 individuals each, including migrants from Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, United States and Zimbabwe. In total, there were estimated to be approximately just under five million foreign born residents of the UK in 2010, compared to just over two million in 1951.

 

Now, in and of itself, one might imagine that some five million souls, out of a total population of some sixty-odd million might not appear to be that troubling, but often even the smallest numbers can have a wholly disproportionate effect on the larger figure. In a 2011 ONS survey the largest migrant groups in the UK were said to have consisted of Australians (107,000), Irish (457,000), Indians (729,000), Pakistanis (457,000), Poles (643,000), Germans (297,000), Bangladeshis (230,000), South Africans (200,000), Nigerians (190,000), Chinese (136,000), Sri Lankans (120,000), French (137,000), Americans (189,000), Italians (124,000), Jamaicans (143,000), Kenyans (133,000), Philippinos (137,000), Somalians (102,000), (Lithuanians (107,000), and Zimbabweans (125,000)

 

Even if you discount the likes of the Irish, Australians, Americans, Jamaicans, South Africans and even the Kenyans, all of whom have had some sort of shared history with the UK, either through being geographical neighbours, having a shared language, or a basic understanding of Britain's cultural heritage, it still leaves some three million people living here, whose various languages, cultures, traditions, beliefs, etc have to be catered for and accommodated. One only has to consider the rather thorny issue of Islam to recognise the immense cultural and religious effect that even a relatively small community can have, especially if is forced on a indigenous population.

 

In total there are estimated to be a couple of million practicing Muslims living in the UK, most of whom are centred around a number of our major towns and cities, which on the face of it would seem to suggest that Islam itself poses no real threat to our country's culture, heritage or indeed the way we live our lives. But that's not the case, is it? The events of 7/7 proved that conclusively, as has all of the other attempted Islamic terrorist attacks that our security services have successively managed to foil in subsequent years. Such extreme events aside though, just how many millions of pounds are being spent and wasted every year in translation services, because migrants who have come to live in our country, from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Poland, Lithuania or wherever, are just too lazy or indifferent, to learn the basic English language? How many Muslim women or girls are being physically abused, or forcibly married each year, simply because their religion or their culture states that it's right or proper to do so? The thing is, we don't live in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, or any of those other Islamic countries where such cultural practices exist, we live in Britain, with an entirely different set of values and a completely different cultural heritage.

 

Why should a religion with such a comparatively small number of adherents in Britain, when weighed against the total numbers of people living in the UK, affect the way all of our children are educated or entertained? Why should our animal welfare rules be specially adapted for, what is after all, a relatively small religious community? Why should annual celebrations, such as Christmas parties, be adapted or cancelled, simply because they "might" offend a member of a minority group, which is foreign to our country?

 

The answer is of course that they should not! There is absolutely no justification for anyone, be they local councillor, national politician, religious leader or individual believer, to enforce what are fundamentally foreign practices onto the wider indigenous population, even when they try to justify them under the guise of social cohesion, multiculturalism or ethnic diversity. The ritual slaughter of animals, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, religious courts, the public and vitriolic denunciation of other religions, or the advocating of cold-blooded murder against members of our Armed Forces, none of these things belong to Britain's rich cultural heritage; and neither should we expect to see them added to it, through the influence of foreign migrant communities.

 

Were a British born citizen to choose to live abroad, they would fully expect to have to learn the native language of that country, respect its laws and customs; and if necessary curtail some of their own personal practices that might otherwise prove wholly unacceptable to the native peoples of that particular land. One has only to consider how Saudi Arabia might treat any Christian evangelist who was foolish enough to try and convert a member of the Islamic faith. What would be the reaction to a westerner who publicly denigrated a member of the Pakistani or Indian armies? Would an Islamic country purposefully alter its national holidays or ceremonies in order to accommodate the feelings of a foreign community within its own national borders? We all know the answer to such questions, yet so many immigrants come to the UK each and every year with an arrogant determination not to offer the same sort of basic courtesy to the native British population.

 

Of course it would be naive in the extreme to believe that all such unwelcome changes are purely the result of the immigrant communities themselves, as they are not. Ever since the 1970's and the time of the Wilson administration, successive governments have deliberately pursued a largely unannounced and undemocratic program of cultural change, without giving the British public any sort of say on the matter. Our membership of the European Union aside, the centrally driven erosion of our shared cultural history and our traditions is most evident in the steady decline of our schools, our churches, our governments, our communities and most importantly, our own sense of national self worth. There was a time when being "British" actually meant something, but increasingly this has become less and less so, as we have allowed ourselves to become slowly immersed in our new multicultural and ethically diverse society, which does not have a history of its own and seems to stand for very little really.  

 

It is perhaps hardly surprising then that as each year passes we move further and further away from the remarkable country that we once were, to the unremarkable country that we're almost certain to become. The more that we allow ourselves and our society to become diluted and demeaned by unwanted foreign influences, the harder it will be for us to hold onto those cultural traditions and practices that once made us a unique people in our own right. Quite how we do that is open to debate, but unless we find an answer to our present predicament, we're in serious danger of finding ourselves in a foreign land that we once knew as Britain.

Consigning Political Correctness To The Dustbin

Given yesterdays hullabaloo over Godfrey Bloom's utterance of the term "Bongo Bongo Land", one can't help but be drawn to the conclusion that Britain's mainstream media are becoming sillier and sillier by the day. The fact that editors, commentators and producers are so far removed from the vast majority of the British public on this particular issue and on the wider subject of political correctness generally, makes you wonder whether or not the ruling elite of our country, the politicians, the media, the political lobbyists have any common sense left at all, assuming that they had any to begin with?

 

Bearing in mind that the entire leftist crux of the argument regarding Mr Bloom's speech was to do with the term "Bongo Bongo Land" and its perceived connotations with any state of African origin, which the progressive minority found deeply offensive, but only amongst themselves, it begs the question do they really believe that they're actually changing anything by being so publicly and vocally opposed to any and all types of speech that they themselves are opposed to, or personally offended by?

 

By making racial, sexual or religious intolerance unacceptable in the public domain, is that helping to eradicate racism, sexism, or religious hatred within our society? Probably not! Can politicians, political commentators, newspaper editors, or television producers actually force people to comply with artificially enforced social norms? Probably not! Unless of course they're prepared to enforce these new social norms by either locking people up for their transgressions, or by making them too scared to say what they really think, which is a bit of a dilemma for any elected leader who purports to govern a modern democracy.

 

Like it or not, people who choose to hold racist, sexist or religiously intolerant views are going to hold them; and what they don't say public, they will almost certainly say in private, which often also includes their access via the internet through to the world wide web. You simply cannot legislate for, or regulate against people's personal likes or dislikes; and to believe otherwise is just sheer lunacy on the part of those who hold such a view. As with any nation of several million inhabitants, Britain has always had significant numbers of citizens who choose to believe that one race is superior to another; that one gender has primacy over the other, or that one religious faith is more righteous than the others. Those beliefs are often not simply rhetorical, but are firmly and faithfully held; and no amount of legislating, tut-tutting, or publicly telling off is going to change that fact.

 

There also seems to be a mistaken belief that virtually all of these personal intolerances, on daily display in our country, are entirely one way, be that out and out racism, with white demeaning black; rampant sexism, where men impose their sexual will on women; or religious intolerance, where Christians or non-Christians regularly attack those believers of Islam. Clearly, by playing into these traditional and almost stereotypical types and agendas helps underpin the basic premise that only Blacks, Asians and other non-whites are ever the victims of racial discrimination, violent assaults or tragic murders. Likewise, we are lead to believe that women are rarely if ever the perpetrators of sexual impropriety, or that White Christians are ever the victims of Black or Asian gangs, whether or not they're inspired by their Islamic faith. In reality of course, our society and events that occur within it are much more complicated than the progressive minority would have us all believe, both Black and White regularly antagonise, attack and kill one another, women do occasionally commit acts of sexual impropriety; whilst Muslims and Christians do disparage, assault and murder one another, simply because that's the nature of individual people, be they Black, White, Brown, Red, Yellow, or be they Agnostic, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim, or even if they're male or female. To suggest anything else is absurd; and the very idea that you can somehow regulate, educate, or legislate for any or all of these differences, whether they're racial, sexual or religious is quite honestly, ridiculous.

 

We have not, will not and cannot create some sort of homogenised British society, where each feels equally pleasant about the other, human nature and its inherent weakness and frailties prevents that from happening. By regulating, or legislating in favour of one group, whilst accidentally or deliberately discriminating against another group in society, is and has been a recipe for disaster for Britain. You cannot under any circumstances legally compel someone to "like" a Black person, an Asian person, a Muslim person, or a Gay person, anymore than you can make one White person like another one, it's all too often all down to individual choice, personal chemistry, or whatever it is that drives the individual to like a complete stranger.

 

The problem with adopting the dogmatic approach of our "politically correct" elite, is that it only really works if everyone is willing to embrace their one-size-fits-all agenda, which is an impossibility. Individuals who don't like Black people for instance, aren't going to change their views, just because they're told to do so by some or other politician, newspaper editor or television producer, whether their opinions are backed up by legal statute or not. Similarly, a Muslim isn't likely to change his belief system, or his opinions just because the law of the land says that he has to.

 

It seems between them, our politically correct elite, including the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have helped to create and perpetuate a modern day version of the medieval witch hunt, where potential suspects have their every word, meaning and inflection minutely dissected by those who have charged themselves with safeguarding our supposed social harmony. Reputations, careers and livelihoods appear to mean little to those who have taken on the sole responsibility for enforcing this new ill-thought out policy of political correctness, as they generally don't allow themselves to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that they are prepared to impose on others. However, rather than helping to create the integrated social homogeny that they would aspire to, instead their largely unwanted interference has merely resulted in greater intolerance, increased tensions and a more divided society than we ever had in the first place.

 

Not only have elements of our native language and culture been eradicated in pursuit of a completely alien concept of political correctness, so that traditional annual festivities, certain children's toys and specific English words have become completely "unacceptable" in our brand new multicultural Britain, unless of course they happen to belong to one of the many newly arriving ethnic minority groups whose presence is behind many of the changes. It is probably true to say that such alterations to what could be termed "traditional" British life are not so much driven by members of the immigrant communities themselves, but commonly by local and national bureaucrats who take such decisions unilaterally, without any sort of recourse to the indigenous British population most directly affected by such changes.

 

It seems scarcely believable that up and down the country native British communities are being asked to forego traditional Christmas religious festivities, for fear of offending migrant settlers; or that school sport's races no longer have winners and losers, for fear of upsetting those who aren't able to win a foot race. Certain local Councils refuse to fly the flag of St George over their civic buildings, in case it offends; and some Muslim groups can freely set fire to poppies on Remembrance Sunday, because they choose to. Black sisterhoods can publicly berate our border officials for simply doing their jobs, whilst our soldiers can be spat at and murdered on the streets of London, because the perpetrators claim their foreign religion permits and orders them to do so. Slowly but surely our laws and our courts are not only being demeaned, but being replaced by alien jurisdictions, purely on the basis of it being more politically correct to do so.

 

By no stretch of the imagination can such marked changes be regarded as progressive, or correct! It is simply the ideology of the completely and utterly insane. Rather than progressing our country, our society, such madness will almost inevitably lead to the fracturing of any remaining social cohesion that may still exist on these small islands. To positively discriminate in favour of one particular cultural, ethnic or religious group, at the direct expense of others, can only ever lead to isolation, division and civic turmoil, to the extent that we have already witnessed elsewhere in the world, be it in Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Iraq, Syria, etc; and what will the politically correct elite have us do then?

 

Although some may argue that Britain is a nation of immigrants, made up of Anglo Saxons, Normans, Vikings and many more such disparate ethnicities, it is perhaps worth remembering that these various people's, along with the native Britons and Celts have had several thousand years to adapt, to assimilate, to merge and to blend with one another, to create our own unique hybrid nation. Compare that to the current situation though, where millions have flooded into our country over the course of a few decades, bringing with them their varied and completely alien cultures, beliefs, practices; and then ask yourself why multiculturalism hasn't, doesn't and cannot work as its supporters believe it should. Modern day Britain hasn't just been supplemented by a few thousand Anglo Saxon settlers, or a few thousand Norman conquerors, it has literally been swamped by millions of foreign strangers, many of whom have absolutely no intention of integrating into British life, but instead are content to supplant our own native cultures, beliefs, practices and language with their own.

 

So as far as I'm concerned, it's refreshing to hear the likes of Godfrey Bloom and others dare to challenge the unmitigated disaster that the politically correct elite have helped create here in Britain. We can only hope that more and more Britons, be they English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish, finally wake up to the real danger that lurks behind the PC agenda that our politicians have bequeathed to us all over the past twenty or thirty years; and choose to consign it to where it belongs, the dustbin of British history. 

More Bongo Bongo Please!

I wonder just how many people heard about Godfrey Bloom's "Bongo Bongo Land" remarks today and secretly smirked, given that someone in the media spotlight had either been brave enough, or perhaps for some foolish enough to actually use the term "Bongo Bongo" in public, knowing full well that the wrath of the progressive British mainstream media would probably rain down on his head like a bucketful of bolts?

 

Unsurprisingly, the newspaper responsible for exposing Mr Bloom's non-PC remarks, the Guardian, which was reported to have acquired the material from an outside source, was thought to be cock-a-hoop with its exclusive story, probably because it played right into the mindset of the ever decreasing readership that it now purports to lay claim to. Judging by some of the reader comments attached to the story, indeed most "Guardianistas" were glad of their new UKIP related bone to gnaw upon, once again demonstrating to the entire internet community, what a bunch of anal and out of touch lefty's they really are; middle class, excessively liberal and politically correct, to the point of being dangerously irrational.

 

Of course once the story of Mr Bloom's remarks was out in the public domain, we were then treated to the spectacle of most of the remaining mainstream media jumping on the politically correct bandwagon, including the increasingly disreputable and largely irrelevant Aunty Beeb, whose political even-handedness is at best highly questionable, at the best of times. Rather foolishly, like many others in this country, I once chose to believe that our public broadcasters and newspapers simply reported the news, now it is clear that they not only decide "what" is the news, but also help to engineer it, if indeed it suits them to do so! The fact that Godfrey Bloom chose to use the description "Bongo Bongo Land" when speaking to a public meeting, is and of itself, is probably of little interest to most people in Britain, who probably hear far worse in their everyday lives, whether it's walking through a public space, or sitting on a bus. The remarkable thing about this particular incident, if you follow the mainstream medias line of thinking, is that Mr Bloom is not only an elected representative of the European Parliament, but perhaps more importantly is a leading member of UKIP, whose every gesture, murmur and scribble is somehow worthy of public scrutiny.

 

Rather disingenuously, the mainstream media would have us believe that the United Kingdom Independence Party and all of its would-be representatives have to be constantly scrutinised by their reporters, in order to ensure that the British electorate aren't in anyway mislead into voting for any of the reported fascists, racists, or white supremacists who supposedly inhabit the UKIP ranks. After all, such people don't exist within the Labour, Conservative, or Lib Dem parties, although we'll just have to take their word that that's the case, because the media are far too busy checking up on all of the UKIP candidates, rather than scrutinising their Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative opponents. Is this just paranoia on the part of UKIP supporters? Well, people will just have to make up their own minds about that, but it does seem mighty odd that virtually every recent newspaper story relating to political intolerance, outright racism, or inappropriate language seems to find a focus on UKIP or its prospective candidates; which cannot simply be put down to some sort of eerie coincidence.

 

Having backed the wrong political horse in the 2010 General Election, when they advised their readership to back the Lib Dems and their leader Nick Clegg, the Guardian is reported to have reset itself towards Mr Miliband's Labour Party, clearly explaining its decision to "dish the dirt" on any party that might in anyway hinder Labour's chances of returning to Downing Street in 2015. Likewise the Mirror and other socialist publications have dedicated themselves to a similar objective, even to the point of funding a small number of extremist groups to do their dirty work for them via the internet and on the real streets of the UK.

 

For their part, the Tory media are already planning for the electoral fight in two years time, with the Telegraph and Mail leading the way, along with their, as yet unwritten "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" series of sensationalist expose', all of which will be designed to undermine and seriously damage their political opponents. It is indeed highly regrettable that a number of newspapers that purport to be serious journals find themselves so easily inclined to adopt the strategies of their tabloid counterparts, thereby dragging the reputation of British journalism even further down than the levels it has descended to over the past thirty years or so. For a daily newspaper which has helped expose some of the greatest wrongdoings in Britain's long history, the fact that the Guardian is now choosing to adopt such partisan and infantile storylines, simply helps to illustrate how low it has fallen when judged by its own previously high editorial standards.

 

The Guardian, Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Mirror readership's apart, one wonders what the vast majority of British people might actually make of Mr Bloom's "Bongo Bongo Land" remark; and whether they might equally demonstrate the extremely high levels of faux outrage as has been the case with much of our mainstream media. Mr Bloom seems to believe that most everyday people will not share the media's attitude to his off-the-cuff remarks, sensing instead that most right-minded individuals might choose to support his non-PC attitude to the subjects that he chooses to discuss, or talk publicly about. Whatever the case, ultimately people will make up their own minds about Mr Bloom and his suitability to represent them, whether in the European Parliament, or at Westminster, should he ever choose to stand for our own national elections. Personally though, I like the idea of politicians who are willing and able to speak their minds, without fear or favour, rather than the usual brand of non-descript political appointees, who are too afraid to open their mouths, for fear of offending this religion or that, this race or that, this country or that!

 

For far too long we have allowed a vocal minority to dominate the political discourse in our country, to the extent that we are no longer able to freely speak about any subject we choose, for fear of upsetting some or other overly "sensitive soul", who feels aggrieved by someone else's opinion. Sadly, we have become a nation of compromisers, to the point that the indigenous people's of the UK have become prisoners in their own country, trapped by a series of progressive laws and regulations that have not only stifled free speech and intelligent thought; but also allowed outsiders to gain mastery over us.