Brutal, stupid and cruel: The rise and rise of Generation Eloi

If the Nazi leadership famously cared for animals and were conversely capable of the utmost cruelty to people, then our post war, public sector driven, welfare dependent and 

excruciatingly politically correct caring society is becoming a savage, vile and foul place for both. Day in day out the UK’s papers carry stories of children, the disabled, the old, sick or just those in the wrong place at the wrong time who have been beaten up, abused or worse by our nations burgeoning brutalligentsia. 

Even more upsetting, given mankind’s supposed elevated status at the top of nature’s evolutionary ladder, is the increasing vileness with which many people mistreat, abuse, torture, maim and kill any animal defenseless or unlucky enough to fall within their vile, bestial grasp. From poisoned cats, stabbed horses, abused dogs and shot swans, few 

species of the animal kingdom escape the attention of the sadists in our midst. 

Yet our slow, and inextricable descent into a dystopian mire is not only of our own making, but its progress and acceleration is being driven by our government and societies lack of collective will to stop it. For years our inability to punish wrong doing with any sense of vengeance, or to chastise and set parameters for children’s behavior, or for parents to accept the responsibilities that come with parenthood and to discipline their children and set guidelines of what is and isn’t acceptable have created an inflexible, amoral mindset of self-serving apathy, viciousness and worthlessness. Our collective psyches slowly nullified by the combined forces of capitalism at its most crass and welfare statism at its most soporific and stultifying. Leaving us either incapable or unwilling to accept responsibility for  our own actions at best, and at worst allowing us to shirk adulthood altogether in preference for a life lived forever young; like a kind of Chav Eloi which prefers tattoos and trainers to whites and pumps.

In fact, decades of rejoicing in stupidity, deriding competitiveness, elevating failure, rubbishing elitism and swallowing in the antics of ‘celebrities’, whose every move is fawned over, analysed and mimicked by a population desperate for something to believe in have created a society and a mindset in which the ‘self’ and self-gratification transcends all. Now the ‘I’ want, ‘I’ need and ‘I’ am is everything. Our selfish desire to consume more and more, for recognition among our friends and for a bit of our own celebrity, coupled with a sense of worth are fueled by our ‘rights’. It is our ‘right’ to play music loud, to behave badly, to shout and scream and to seemingly do anything, even commit crime yet be protected from punishment by our Human Rights. Rights that allow a serial burglar freedom from prison because of his ‘rights’ to be with his children. Children that are in turn paid for by the State because of the criminals ‘right’ to create life. Rights, more rights, and more rights, rights ad nauseam... But no Wrongs.

This slow corruption or morphing of society from one which, if not perfect, that at least still had a moral compass and enforced a sense of right and wrong to one which, devoid of virtue, has replaced basic moral values with a set of legal ‘Rights’. Rights which can, unlike morals but like goalposts, be moved and tweaked by clever lawyers and which allow wrongdoers and those whose actions have broken the old morals to not only claim the ‘moral‘ high ground again and again, but often to punish and chastise those whose views or values society once protected. Clever lawyers have made black white and white black and helped drive society towards a new barbarism where all values are only as strong or as a weak as the lawyer defending them and where wrong can often be right.

Now as a generation born into a Rights obsessed society give birth and their children reach adulthood and exercise their right to be stupid, inarticulate, illiterate and unemployable, so these Darwinian throwbacks take out their frustration and sense of worthlessness on the few creatures in our litigious society who have no rights, the animals. 

Therefore when the fifteen year old thugs that destroyed, maimed and mutilated the defenseless animals in an inner city farm in Manchester are tried, their lawyers will defend their rights over all else and ensure that they are not punished as they deserve to be. As no doubt will the lawyers defending other representatives of the UK’s burgeoning Eloi population who are responsible for so much pain and suffering among our animal kingdom. 

Perhaps soon the moral pendulum that has swung so far in favour of our Rights, will finally start to swing back in favour of our Responsibilities and begin restoring not just a sense of wrong but of punishment as well. For the people that commit these terrible crimes are truly unworthy of ‘rights’, or in fact the right to create life at all. They have no function, their life’s are pointless and we as a society should begin the process of eradicating them with the same thoroughness with which they now seem to be eradicating England’s wildlife.

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT

Watching the news, reading the papers and seeing our politicians in the UK, in Europe and in the US could make one feel that the excitement and impending sense of economic doom predicted by so many since the end of 2007, 2008, last year and this year, was over. That the world had moved almost effortlessly from sub-prime crisis, to credit crunch to ‘lets have lunch’ without anyone getting hurt, give or take the odd Greek bank worker and the occasional British Prime Minister voted out of office.

The stock markets have lurched, inched, spurted and crawled inexorably upwards in recent months and commentators and the media instead of using scary words like crash, depression, the Thirties, mass unemployment, social breakdown, collapse, credit crunch are now soothing us with words like; employment, new jobs, low interest rates, controlled cutbacks, bank lending, work force, skills, cohesion and of course everyone's current fave, coalition. Of course there are still a few yobs out there on the fringes swearing and shouting expletives like; double-dip, recession, deflation, inflation, pensions, baby-boomers, pensions, rising unemployment and, lest we forget, Quantitative Easing. But generally the world is calm. Or is it?

The world’s decision to use a Keynesian approach to solving its economic woes has temporarily calmed things, but the stimulus has been at a massive cost, particularly in the US where the home of capitalism has shown itself to be weak in the face of crisis, preferring the soft option, high taxes, Healthcare Reform, and delaying hard choices for the future. Yet that future could only be months away. Already the effects of the first stimulus are waning, consumer spending is slowing again almost before it started rising, house prices are still falling, new house building can barely get it together to erect a flag-pole let alone a new house and meanwhile evermore foreclosures beckon as debt carries all before it. Yet the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration’s only answer is another, bigger, stimulus package, more Quantitative Easing and ever more spending. It’s like having maxed-out all your credit cards, mortgaged and remortgaged the house and borrowed everything you can from the bank and your friends, yet you still believe if you can just borrow more it’ll be alright.

The effects of the first stimulus are fading because it didn’t create anything meaningful and props up businesses that should close. More money will just prop them up longer and create more meaningless jobs and when its removed or its effects wane then the failing businesses and McJobs will go to anyway. Better to get the pain over and build anew than risking a bigger collapse and hyper inflation in the months and years ahead. Stimuluses only work if there’s something to stimulate, if the patient is dying, then sometimes its kinder to let him die..

In the UK too, talk of cuts are beginning to be talked down and the threat of big cuts to social services moderated. The UK though will have to wait until October this year to find out exactly what is to be cut so it would be churlish to harp on and heap criticism on the Breakback Coalition before they have had a chance to show their true colours. I suspect though that given their current moniker that they will be multi-coloured as they try to be all things to all men. In which case they’ll please no one and disappoint all.

The US and potentially the rest of the West could be heading towards a double-dip recession or, in reality in the US, a full-blown, no-nonsense Depression, where nature will do what the governments of Bush, Obama and the Federal Reserve have failed to do and that is to burn away the rubbish so that a new economy and new businesses can rise from the ashes. The only genuine alternative is the half way measure of hacking away at the economic mess through cuts, but it remains to be seen if the UK coalition government has what it takes? If we have then we may avoid America’s fate, if not we to may see the dark clouds of Depression before too long.

AS YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap, says the bible, in which case, the people of the UK may well be about to reap the whirlwind for having created a political, economic and social climate that now has all the ingredients for disaster on a biblical scale. 

We have three ‘leaders’ and three political parties that have totally failed to either address or acknowledge the true and dire state of this countries finances or the fragile social environment against which our national debt has been borrowed and whose foundations it props up. Equally, we have a population that has become so inured by credit, cocooned by public services and enfeebled by political correctness and human rights legislation that in a ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ kind of way they have become Generation Eloi. A placid and docile race content to shop, watch TV, and trade banalities on Twitter and Facebook while their comfort zone is fueled by ever rising property values, easy money and a sense that life just gets better and better. It doesn’t, sometimes it gets nasty. 

This is one of those times and usually this country throws up a few strong leaders to rally the people, to speak the unspeakable and rouse us from our nice comfort zones. Instead we have thrown up a collection of political pigmies, men of such shallowness that their superficial values and trite displays of political ‘passion’ only highlight their complete lack of any beliefs worthy of the name. These worthless little men, the product, born not of deep political conviction and struggle, but of focus groups and public relation experts are our creations and our nemesis. They are what we deserve.

Clegg, Cameron and Brown and the political parties that they represent are finished. They are bereft of new ideas and incapable of leadership. Instead they, like smart and slick salesmen, smile and recite their latest formulated political ideas. Prepacked and preordained. Uniform, and for the most part interchangeable, this is one idea fits all politics. If it works for the Conservatives, then it’ll work for the Liberal Democrats and New Labour. They are like the Ford Ka, the only difference being the colour. Blue for the Conservatives, Red for Labour and Orange for the Lib Dems, with a big yellow streak down the middle. Perhaps, now that all the parties are up for a bit of Lib Dem action and are selling out any remaining credibility for the chance to bed Clegg, they should all have a yellow streak down their backs.

Our country is broke and teetering on the brink of a financial and social catastrophe yet during the three weeks of electioneering our would-be prime ministers barely mentioned it instead they fell over themselves to boast about what they would not cut.  Brown, no doubt with a tear in his eye, announced that he was ‘shocked and angry’ that Cameron and Clegg were in a ‘coalition of cuts against children’ and that cuts in child tax credits were an anathema to him. As were cuts to the Health Service, Education, the Police, or it seems anything else that might hurt the vulnerable. In our new Eloi paradise it seems money is no object. If we’re short we can just borrow it from those nice people in the City or, better still, we can print it. 

Watching and listening to these three wise men was like watching a troupe of fanatics that have been fired up by a preacher and told to spread the word. Suddenly Brown and Co. had seen the light, “No Cuts”, “Protect the Vulnerable” they cried. “What’s My Line?” had morphed into “What’s My Slogan?” and it was going to be cutback light, no pain, maybe an ache, no cuts now but a scratch or two next year or the year after that. Like the parent whose child had a nightmare, they were not only going to leave the hall light on but would sit next to the bed and watch over us. See, there’s nothing to worry about... The trouble is, there’s actually lots to worry about, not the least of which is the three buffoons that would lead us and the three parties they represent, for the longer they delay making cuts the sooner that their ability to act may be taken out of their hands. Very soon the financial markets and world events may, like in Greece, begin to exert pressure on our economy that will affect interest rates, the exchange rates and the Government's ability to borrow and maintain its current financial commitments.

Yet the mantra of ‘no cuts’ rules and the people like it. ‘Protect (the vulnerable) and Survive’ is the way to win this war. The only trouble is that you don’t win wars by being nice or by protecting the vulnerable, in fact, often the vulnerable are the first to go, after all they contribute nothing and often take more than their fair share. The Health Service is full of useless managers and inept staff that should be sacked to make way for people who can actually do the job. Unfortunately, politicians and sentimental journalists have so milked the whole ‘angels in uniform’ nonsense that the Health Service has become a sacred cow that consumes money faster that its asylum seeker, economic migrant patients can spend it. Likewise our bloated public sector is ludicrously over staffed with no-hoper under achievers who are being paid vast salaries for doing nothing more than being alive, while others are so obviously cranially challenged that the kindest thing to do would be to kill them. 

The vulnerable, along with hundreds of thousands of individuals whose contribution to the UK is on a par with their IQ’s, is actually what a large percentage of our national debt is paying for and would be easy to cut if we had a government prepared to forgo the ‘nice’ in order to deal with the ‘nasty’ for once. However given that our three main political parties are now about to engage in some sort of ghastly love-in and the only political parties waiting in the wings are UKIP, whose leader flew his plane into a field on election day, the BNP, which collapsed into farcical disarray during the last few days of the campaign by getting sued by Unilever and having its website pulled and the Greens, who at least managed to get someone elected, it’s unlikely that anything will be done and that the vulnerable, the public sector and sacred cows are all safe for now.

The truth is that we are reaping what we have sown and that right now there is no alternative to the Clegg, Cameron and Brown Kabal in whatever form it finally takes and that is the truly scary aspect of this non-election. For, in order to protect the vulnerable and the public sector, these men will most likely damn us all. Amen.

THE BLAND LEADING THE BLAND

It says something about the state of the UK when over ten million of its adult population choose to spend an hour of their time watching three virtually identikit politicians regurgitate three almost interchangeable responses to a series of preset questions and go wild with excitement. The media claimed the next day that the American-style format ‘leaders debate’ had ‘electrified’ voters and galvanised a previously lacklustre campaign and made the previously unelectable Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg the viewers’ favourite, a bit like the X-Factor, though with Peter Mandelson taking Simon Cowell’s role, Brown playing Subo and Clegg and David Cameron doubling up as Jedward. So far there’s all to play for, though, whoever wins, the loser will be the UK and its people.

Since the ousting of Margaret Thatcher as leader of the Conservative party in 1990, British politics began the process of morphing from nasty to nice and from nice to bland and from bland to banal. Firstly, the inability of the Labour Party to mount a credible campaign against the Conservatives kept them out of office for over eighteen years, necessitating the creation of New Labour and the election of a media-savvy leader in the form of Tony Blair. Secondly, Blair transformed Labour’s fortunes to such an extent that the Conservatives in turn became unelectable and ensured that New Labour has had thirteen years in office, a feat almost unimaginable a decade ago.

Blair’s triumph was that he was able to tap into the psyche of New Britain in a way that no one else, except perhaps Simon Cowell, could and, in doing so, stymied the opposition to such an extent that it was effectively dead. So dead, in fact, that the Conservatives have, rather than reinvent themselves as a credible alternative to New Labour, sought to become New Labour, Right. The Liberal Democrats in turn, have slowly moved from a party of ban the bomb, lentil-eating greenies to a slightly fadish and more socialist version of their previous selves and become, in effect, New Labour, Left. Blair, ironically, had admired Thatcher and her strength in sticking to her beliefs, something Blair, to his credit, did over Iraq but, to their shame, our opposition have no sense of. To them, belief is what they think voters want or what their focus groups tell them we want or, worse, is a watered down, or beefed-up version of an existing Blair or New Labour policy. If it worked for Blair then it will work for us. Radical ideas, like radical politics, are out. British politics is now lite and trite. 

Now Blair’s Dauphin, Gordon Brown, the anointed one and his chosen successor is seeking to carve out his own niche and to wear the crown of elected office, something that has so far eluded him in his sham role as unelected Prime Minister and saviour of the world. Likewise, Clegg and Cameron are seeking the voters’ approval so that they too might savour elected office and yet they offer nothing. No new ideas, no new initiatives, no nothing. We have weak men, appealing to a weak electorate with neither able or willing to accept or utter the truth that our country is teetering on the abyss; financially, socially and morally.

Now, our would-be leaders feed and nurture belief that the worst is behind us that by some clever trickery and word manipulation, printing money became quantitative easing for instance, that they have all but conquered the recession. That we can avoid any hurt by cost cutting ‘savings’, by making our public services more efficient. This is against a national debt that is increasing by half a billion a day, which currently stands at £776bn and which, according to the governments own figures, is due to reach £1,406bn by 2014/15. Further, if government spending continues at current levels then as a percentage of GDP it will rise from 70pc now to 500pc of GDP by 2040 with the interest alone equaling 27pc of GDP. These figures are from the Bank of International Settlements the body for the world’s central banks and are contained within a report called The Future of Public Debt: prospects and implications. What they mean is that the UK is bankrupt and borrowing like a man possessed, with the report showing that, aside from Japan, which has higher savings, UK public spending is the highest in the world, totally out of control and heading for disaster.

Yet, our three main political parties are now virtually interchangeable, sub-Blair clones, scared of offending, scared of losing and scared of being different. Not for these men the hard choices and true cost cutting that hurts, that will bring protest and pain yet ultimately might go some way to averting disaster. No, what we have instead is inaction and inertia, the politics of fudging and prevarication, of sound bites and friendly chats on TV sofas, all driven by the politics of needing to be liked. Gone is the genuine passion of the convicted politician whose ideal’s drive him and in has come the need me, like me, fay politicians of today, the X-Factoresque Tweedle Dee’s and Tweedle Dum’s who will dance to almost any tune provided enough of us can hum it. Men and women whose message is vote for me because I’m nice and leave the nasty stuff to someone else.

Leaving the nasty to someone else is fine of course, provided that whatever bogey man is lurking in the wings stays away. We all like the nice and calm but, by and large, we don’t elect politicians to be nice and, more to the point, it’s usually the nasties that we ultimately remember and respect. Churchill’s demands to rearm and resist Nazi Germany weren’t exactly popular at the time as most of the electorate dismissed his dire warnings as warmongering. Thatcher was almost universally loathed when she tackled the Trade Unions and government overspending. In the US, Reagan was shot and mocked for his stand against communist Russian but all three politicians had stood up for what they believed to be right and more importantly had done what they knew had to be done at a time what doing so made them reviled by many.

Are Brown, Clegg or Cameron prepared to be reviled for tackling this countries spiraling debt? No, though they may well be reviled later for being nice and delaying the pain. But right now, they want to be liked so much that they’re not even admitting the extent of the problem. They’re lying, in fact; lying because they’re still spending and promising to do what we can’t afford; lying by printing money; lying by hoping that inflation will magically reduce the debt and, most of all, they’re lying because they all refuse to address our debt honestly and by doing so they cheapen and discredit our democracy, devaluing it to the point that one day soon someone might just kill it off and put it out of its misery ...

THE SILENCE OF THE SWANS

Nothing symbolises England more than the swan, the beautiful, graceful white bird that has been protected in law for over 400 years; a law that has, barring the odd violation, been upheld and respected by UK citizens without question. Equally, nothing symbolises England’s decline and its current pitiful state more than the news that stateless migrants, who have been illegally camping in fields and woods alongside the river Nene in Cambridgeshire, have taken to killing and slaughtering the birds to eat around their camp fires. 

In the nearby Cambridgeshire town of Peterborough, people have also had to deal with migrants setting up camps in their gardens, sleeping in their sheds and defecating on their lawns. These charming garden visitors have, in some cases, been in residence for over five months and counting, with the house owners being told by members of our useless politically-driven police force that migrants are a civil matter and consequently not something that they can deal with. The police did however warn house owners against hurting the garden squatters or forcing them off their land as this would infringe the migrants ‘human rights’, in which case the police would intervene against the house holders. The swans too, it seems, are also to be sacrificed on the alter of human rights and political correctness, as left-leaning officials are dismissing reports of swan-eating as ‘incitements’ to racism.

England 2010. A country in transition, its people cowed, its symbols mocked, its countryside bulldozed and its rulers too weak to do anything but connive in its ongoing demise. Forget too any nonsense that the English can only be pushed so far and that, like the symbolic lions that guard Nelson’s statue at Trafalgar and which decorate so many of our nation's other emblems, we will eventually rise up and roar. Now, all we are likely to see and hear is the bleating of a nurtured and beaten creature that is not so much ready to lay down its life for its country but rather one whose life has already been taken by its country.

For nearly twenty years the parties that govern the UK have allowed a poisonous cocktail of politically driven, Marxist-inspired doctrine and human rights dogma to allow immigration on a scale that will either destabilize or radically alter communities, cities and eventually the UK as a whole. Yet, still the powers that be shirk the issues its polices create, dismissing criticisms of their utopian plans as ‘racist’, or ignorant or, as is often the case now, enacting and evoking new ‘gagging’ laws that criminalize and deter criticism altogether.

The truth is that the UK is being subjugated and colonized, not so much by outsiders intend on conquest, but by insiders intent on change. This is not immigration as invasion or attack as some would see it, but rather immigration as manipulation and exploitation. In the nineteen fifties and sixties, immigration was primarily driven by our need for labour, in the seventies and eighties it was driven by our old colonies and by refugees fleeing crises in places like Uganda and Bangladesh. In the nineties, the relaxation of border controls and war in the Balkans began to change the dynamics of immigration, though it wasn't until the early noughties that UK politicians actively began to change the actuality of immigration itself to suit their own agenda and to see and exploit the movement of peoples for their own political ends.

For the last decade, immigration has accelerated with peoples moving to the UK, not for colonial reasons or fleeing conflict, but other reasons often at the behest or with the tacit connivance of UK ministers. The main reason, though, being that they could. They could, and our politicians acquiesced in the process, lowering regulations and raising expectations in terms of housing, schooling, health, and work and thereby making the UK the choicest option to move to.

Our politicians played the race card inversely because with the new century came a new vision, as was admitted recently by the former government adviser Jack Nather, 'that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'. And that from 2001 onwards the Labour Party 'set about a deliberate policy of encouraging mass third world immigration, to socially engineer a multicultural society. With the alleged principle political aim of undermining the base of their opponents, the Conservative Party and to get rid of traditional conservative British culture'. To effectively swamp the country in diversity, whether we like it or not.

At the route of this are our leaders who see immigration as a means to an end, the end being the creation of a multicultural socialist utopia that, once in place, will be unassailable and unquestionable. Their reasoning a mixture of benevolence and malevolence as they seek to change society, as they see it, for the better, whilst rendering all opposition to their vision either powerless, usurped, or destroyed and, in that, they have been incredibly effective, though at a price.

Immigrants and, in particular, immigration that is visible and which brings with it new religions, new ideas and new votes, will naturally gravitate to the political party most likely to benefit it and its people and so in this Labour has done well. Furthermore, if the numbers of immigrants reaches a high enough level then at some stage their influence will be such that no political party will be able to ignore their wishes if they want their vote.

Yet our politicians are playing with fire as, on the one hand they exploit immigrants for their own ends using them as a kind of human chattel in their quest for votes and to cement their multi-cultural nirvana while, on the other hand, many immigrants exploit them and actively work against the planned diversity dream. Many would seek to create a society that is not only at odds with our politicians' utopian plans but which would in fact destroy it. Yet talk of Caliphates, of extremism, and intolerance is dismissed as the words of a few extremists, which will be overcome by further embracing Islamic or foreign culture and diversity. Dissing difference is not on the agenda. Likewise, rises in gang culture, inter-ethnic violence, honour killings and other less desirable aspects of immigration are masked by being absorbed into our wider crime statistics, leaving any direct criticism free to be dismissed as racist or discriminatory.

Race and Racist. The new taboo words. The words that have launched a thousand laws and as many lawsuits. Yet, how can one discuss immigration without mentioning race? You can't. Yet this is what our Machiavellian leaders would have us do and to make sure they have created a whole plethora of new 'race' laws to help enforce their racial state. No matter that the cracks in their scheme are beginning to show, that our services from housing to health are overloaded and that there is a simmering anger among many communities. For the government, to speak ill of multi-culturalism is racial blasphemy, and as such the language of the heretic.

If people cannot speak or voice their fears without fear of prosecution then what are they to do? It's all very well for the government to parade their multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, culturally diverse, non-discriminatory utopia but, if it's so good, why does it need so many laws to protect it? 

The government have begun the process of transforming this nation, of reshaping its religious and racial balance without consultation, without debate and with all redress denied. They have, in effect, set up a sort of racial dictatorship where all dissent is crushed. Yet, the government should remember that most dictatorships, revolutions or social movements are driven by the motivation of the people, good or bad, not clandestine government initiatives enforced by Civil Servants. As such they really are playing with fire, in which case our swans won't be the only creatures sacrificed in the name of racial diversity.

TANTRUMS IN THE MACHINE

The dawn of 2010 and the ending of a year, especially the ending of a decade is most always a time for reflection. Thinking back to the beginning of the decade, things were very different. The end of 1999 was a time of hysteria; the media was filled with nonsense about the millennium bug, doom-sayers were predicting the end of the world and media darlings like Naomi Klein had been so inspired by the legions of anti-globalization protestors who had battled the police and the worlds financial leaders at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) shindig in Seattle that year that she had put pen to paper to cash-in on the angst and wrote No Logo - Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies.

The world, in fact, seemed poised to enter a whole new era of I-care-you-care-but-I-care-more-than-you-care compassion driven economics and the search for a better way. A world where realpolitik had become surrealpolitik and eunuchs had taken over the world machine. And, as befitted the times, the nation at the head of the machine and leader of the most powerful nation on earth cried and hugged as much as he huffed and puffed. Bill Clinton, interns aside, was a popular and charismatic world leader; he cared, he cried, he lied, and the world, generally, loved him for it. Globalization, it seemed, was something that just happened, driven by market forces rather than political forces, and for many represented the worst aspects of capitalism.

In 1999, as a new millennium dawned, the word ‘global’ was the expletive of choice. People, or rather, ‘caring’ people, wanted to protest targeted ‘global’ companies and, in particular, American global companies; McDonalds, Nike, Starbucks and, when they could get at them, US-owned multinationals. Global was a despised concept; it meant, in the minds of earnest ‘caring’ protestors, the worldwide destruction of indigenous businesses, traditional skills, the exploitation of labour and, of course, the absolute desolation of the local environment by ‘global’ companies intent on using cheap third world labour and accompanied by the vampiristic exploitation of the local resources. And, like the vampire, these faceless multinational global bloodsuckers were hated and feared, their presence seen as the harbinger of death and destruction, that at worst they would suck the life-blood out of a country and at best that they were making the world the same and filing it with American uniform trite; junk logos, junk food, junk culture, junk life and all driven by a junk, corrupt, capitalist ideology.

This was to be a decade where the traditional left / right in politics would begin to fragment and where individuals would unit behind a specific cause; Reclaim the Streets, Nuclear Power, anti new roads, saving trees, banning fox hunting, stopping wars, saving the whale, or supporting the Palestinians; where there was a cause there were thousands ready to march. Often these protest groups were loosely linked or collected under the umbrella of anti-globalisation, as indeed were the black bloc anarchist groups that, cuckoo-like, used protests for their own ends and a bit of ultra-violence. Then George W. Bush got elected and some religious zealots decided to take anti-Americanism to a whole new level.

Within two years of the world partying like it's 1999, a group of Muslim fanatics armed with nothing more deadly than a few penknives and their own hateful zealotry high jacked four airliners, crashed two of them into the Twin Towers and another into the Pentagon and a forth almost into the White House and virtually changed the world forever. What they did achieve, aside from killing a large number of innocent people and launching the biggest surprise attack on the US since Pearl Harbour, was to show to the Muslim world just how weak and fractious the West is when under threat and just how fractious, delusional and self destructive the West’s sense of protest has become.

For many on the left, anti-Americanism is endemic and almost a faith and, like all faiths, once one believes in its creed it is very difficult to change. Some felt that the US deserved 9/11, others that it was about time that the USA experienced an act of terrorism that, after years of carnage in Europe and the rest of the world, it would do America good to get a taste of just how horrible terrorism could be. For others, it was a terrible event but one that had been caused partly by America’s rampant globalization and equally gung-ho foreign policy coupled with their support of Israel, which justified and created Arab hatred towards the US. That 9/11 was in fact the US’s own fault.

Though another group saw the attack for what it was, an attack on the West, on the values and way of the life of the West, and on the centre of the West’s strength; the United States of America.

The USA’s reaction and the wider world’s response to it were sympathetic but hesitant and most of all careful not to attack or blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. In fact, the West went overboard in its efforts not to blame or offend Islam by appointing blame to the wider Muslim community and by doing so began to attack itself. Rather than lashing out, the West lashed in. We changed, altered and subverted Western culture and our Judeo Christian religions in favour of Muslim values so as to be seen as inclusive. New laws were rushed through parliament, making criticism of religion illegal and, for religion, read Islam.

When it was the UK’s turn to be hit and four Islamic disciples decided that they were doing Allah’s will by blowing themselves up on London’s underground, killing 52 people and maiming dozens more, the first people that the quota-driven BBC interviewed were not the victims and wounded but Muslims at London mosques to see if they were frightened of being victimised by thuggish Londoners who might blame them for the atrocity. Well boohoo and lucky for them that there was no fiery Iman calling for a ‘kristallnacht‘ style revenge as no doubt there would have been had the bombing happened in reverse and it had been Christians blowing themselves up in an Islamic country.  

What we have had throughout the noughties is the steady and constant self-flagellation style erosion of our culture, beliefs and values in favour of Islam for fear of offending, or being deemed to have offended, Islam or Islamic values. We now self-censor and find ever more ridiculous and craven ways of kow-towing to Islam lest we offend those who would, and possibly will, destroy completely our freedoms and way of life. And why? Because we have no faith in ourselves, or in our values, or in our countries. 

For the last decade we have protested everything and protested nothing. We have damned capitalism and smashed up McDonalds, we have hugged trees and championed same sex marriages, become colour blind on issues of race and ignored our own people in favour of foreign cultures that hate and despise our own culture and which would kill all homosexuals and which stones and burns women who question the decisions of men. Yet still our great Western liberal elite and politically correct soothsayers, bend over backwards to defend and protect Islam. Why? Because Islam is anti-American and anti-Isreal and to many on the left that is better than anything. It maybe be an unholy alliance but for the last ten years it has been the alliance of choice for many on the left, a choice that was made all the more imperative by the arrival of George W Bush in 2001.

President George W Bush was a man whose general demeanour, Christianity-driven Republicanism and slow Southern delivery, peppered with embarrassing Malapropisms, induced hatred and derision on an unprecedented scale. He was also seen as a man who had achieved his position in part because of who his father was. Whatever the reason, Bush failed to deliver as a President and led the US and its Allies into a disastrous war in Iraq, while presiding over, and sowing many of the seeds that would create one of the worst economic crises the world has ever seen.

The combined effect of 9/11 and the failed presidency of Bush ironically changed the forces of protest. Now, at the end of the decade, being ‘global’ is cool. Gordon Brown, the UK’s profligate and pompous prime minister called the economic crisis a ‘global crisis'; that is, it wasn’t his fault... "We need ‘global’ solutions", he said. President Obama, the liberal worlds messiah du jour has globalitus and talks endlessly of ‘global health initiatives’, ‘global warming treaties’, a ‘global currency’ and a ‘global poverty act’. Obama is noble and global and, as befits the Son of God, was awarded a coveted Nobel Peace prize after only a few months in office when he had actually done nothing but espouse his wishes for ‘global solutions’. But no matter the world loves him. They love him because he’s black, because he’s not George Bush, because he knows how to be cool and doesn’t fluff his speeches, and most of all because he’s global without the ‘ization’ bit at the end.

Yet now at the beginning of a new ‘global’ decade where are we? The Reclaim the Street activists have all bought cars, and the anti globalization hordes are making lots of money online, or advising ‘global’ companies how to look cool. Bush has gone and is making, like Mr Blair, vast sums of money talking on the lecture circuit where his Bushisms are seen as quaint and endearing. Iraq is in a bloody mess, its streets strewn with the limbs and entrails of our soldiers, suicide bombers and the countless innocents caught in the middle and the countries that went in now can’t wait to leave. Iraq may fall to Islamic extremism or it might not, all that’s certain is that, whatever happens, no country in the West is going to go back in and help the Iraqi people, which leaves the fanatics, Iran and Syria waiting like vultures to pick at the remains.

In the West, governments have borrowed and printed money on a scale unprecedented in history and despite the current euphoria in the markets there is an upturn, there is, as they say, ‘many a slip twixt cup and slip’ and the world may yet see a crash or social upheaval caused by a market crash. In the US, the great liberal messiah is losing popularity almost as fast as Bush lost his words. 2012 may in fact see the US people elect a curvy woman from Alaska as President, which would be a fitting revenge on the President who said of her; ‘a pig in lipstick is still a pig’, which is an unfortunate phrase coming from a someone who is black, liberal and presumably likes to be seen as a respecter of women...

Yet the decade began with the threat of radical Islam and it is ending with it as well. From the attempted bombing of Flight 253, to the nuclearisation of Iran, to the Islamification of Europe, the West’s way of life is under real threat and the next decade will be crucial in deciding how and where that threat leads. One in the know, of course, is the daughter of anti-porn crusader Bonnie Klein, the journalist and ‘activist’ Naomi Klein who launched the decade with her anti-capitalist diatribe, No Logo. Now having ditched the anti-globalization mantel in 2007 with her book, The Shock Doctrine, she has got in early on the 'stop Sarah Palin getting elected in 2012' bandwagon with the publication of Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare a play on the title of Palin’s best selling book Going Rogue. No doubt Going Rouge will be full of the kind of liberal left bile and invective that was spat at Palin following her sensational arrival as John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election and no doubt she will shrug it off but if Klein and her po-faced acolytes are on the warpath already then Palin must be doing something right.

Klein and her kabala of liberal left opinion formers protest anything as long as it's anti-Amercian and anti-capitalist and have been wrong consistently. Their opinions morph from one bogey man, or woman, to another and now that their chosen one is in office they are desperate that it is their politically-correct quasi-Marxist take on the world that sets the agenda for the coming decade. I for one sincerely hope that it isn’t but believe that the fight to save and keep some of the West’s values after another ten years of Islamification, liberal left fifth columnism and political shenanigans will make the next decade one of the most decisive and toughest ever. Happy New Year.

UNNATURAL ATTRACTION

In Oscar Wilde’s story ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray’ the antihero makes a Faustian pact in which he keeps his beauty while a portrait of himself ages and also displays all the twisted marks that his debauched lifestyle makes on his soul. In the end Gray’s vanity and immorality conspire to destroy him. Wilde’s character had ultimately attempted to cheat nature and failed.

In a similar manner the antihero of Joris-Karl Huysmans “poisonous French novel”,  ‘A Rebours’ or ‘Against Nature” rebelled against the boring trappings and limited thrills offered by petit bourgeois society as personified by 19th century France and embarked on a journey of his own to create an artistic and ascetic capsule in which he can escape the vileness of the world that surrounds him. In the end though his decadent lifestyle threatens to overwhelm him and he is forced to return to the mainstream in order to survive. Again the natural order of things quietly triumphs.

Fast forward a century and the ascetic obsessions of these writers and the angst ridden guilt and poetic desperation of their heroes to rebel against the norm seem almost quaint. Indeed their adolescent yearnings for sexual relief among the painted and seemingly exotic prostitutes of bohemian Paris. or in the forbidden embraces of their own sex may seem tame by today's standards but at the time these stories shocked and scandalised. Indeed Oscar Wilde’s hints at homosexuality during his trial and the ‘love that dare not speak its name’ were testament to how underground talk, and knowledge of, sex was at the time. Wilde, had in fact, like his creation, gone against nature and as such he would pay.

Now the natural order has again been tampered with, though not, on this occasion by angst-ridden fops clutching glasses of absinthe in their trembling hands, but by the far more deadly forces of political correctness, or cultural Marxism as its becoming known as. Over the last decade an army of lawyers and civic busybodies has been intent on sweeping aside any vestige of that bourgeois world order so loathed by Wilde and Huysman’s creations. Now any budding rebel with a liking for the wild side can witness almost any sexual perversion or depravity in seconds on the internet or for real should he or she so desire. Most drug’s are easily available and human behaviour is now all but devoid of restraint and morality, anything goes in fact.

The denial of gratification or limitations on personal desire have, in just over a century, moved from seeing a renowned writer like Wilde imprisoned for ‘gross indecency’ with another man to seeing that same sex act enshrined and protected in law. Likewise lesbianism, transsexuals, same-sex marriages and a whole plethora of other sexual acts which were until recently deemed perverse, or existed only in the twilight world of pornography or were at best known but unmentioned are now discussed openly and even taught to school children. Six year olds can now seemingly describe the three F’s; fisting, felching and fucking better than they can perform the three R’s; reading, writing and arithmetic, such is the wonder of our modern education establishment.

The liberal lefts obsession with the propagation of human rights and sexual rights no matter at what cost to society has now removed the fun and thrill of illicit sex and moved it from the bedroom, where it belongs, into the realm of officialdom, lawyers and bureaucrats. Now what a gay man does to another man’s bottom or what someone else may think of such activity is proscribed by law, people can be arrested, not, as in Wilde’s time, for committing an act of indecency, but conversely for thinking or saying out loud comments or statements that maybe deemed derogatory of that once, ‘indecent’ act.

Gay rights, along with women’s rights, have in fact championed and set the tone and tempo for all other rights legislation since the UK legalized consensual sex between two men in 1967. Originally an act of genuinely liberalism to remove an unjust and unwarranted criminalization of a small number of homosexuals, ‘gay rights’ have since been used as a sledgehammer with which to bully and cajole the wider society firstly to accept and tolerate a minor sexual proclivity, then secondly to champion and promote it as a lifestyle choice and finally to offer it as an alternative to the male / female relationships so beloved of nature.

Now the sexual act is almost irrelevant as its ‘rights’ obsessed supporters have sought out other sexual causes and variants to add to their orgiastic lexicon of rights legislation. Reading almost like a Karma Sutra for the politically correct sexually minded almost no sexual act or minority group is excluded from the liberal lefts great rightsgasm except of course straight, bourgeois, for which read middleclass, society. For this despised group who taxes fund this liberal lasciviousness and who must grin and bare it for fear of prosecution when their children come home clutching copies of the latest copy of ‘Same Sex, Safe Sex’ or

a pop-up guide to fellatio, there are no rights only wrongs.

Human rights, sexual rights, race rights, religious rights, age rights, gender rights, disability rights, fat rights, slim rights, children’s rights, animal rights, criminal rights, asylum seeker rights, immigrant rights, ugly, low IQ, semi-human, thieving non-entity, welfare dependent all-my-life rights. In fact any rights accept those for the indigenous mainstream population are now enshrined in law like some new ten commandments, though these are written not in blood, or hewn from stone but scrawled in semen like the ejaculatory musings of the sexually obsessed. For the world that Dorian Gray or Jean Des Esseintes, the anti hero of Against Nature, sought out in the dark and forbidden recesses of their cities red light areas is now establishment policy, and protected by law.

Many would argue that this is a good thing, that the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde for being homosexual or that societies previous Victorian attitude to sex and sexual freedom was both harmful and damaging to society. Further many would see sexual repression or self restraint as harmful and to many it was, but like many aspects of life it was also the natural balance between desire and denial that kept families and the wider society intact. Now in our new, rights-enshrined, fisting, same-sex, burka wearing, disabled, fat-friendly, ethnically aware, carbon-footprint reducing, multi-ethnic, religiously tolerant, tree-hugging liberal utopia we have championed human pleasure, decadence and gratification over family, stability and abstinence.

And now that the world that Jean Des Esseintes and Dorian Gray sought out is here in reality would Oscar Wilde relish the rights enshrined pleasures on offer to him or would he recoil in horror from the vileness of a culture that promotes anal sex to children and champions the rights of transsexuals and gender awareness over families and the laws of nature? Would he, in fact, do as he did before and get on the ferry to Dieppe in France and leave England for good?

I think he would. He might get intimate with a sailor on route, but that is his business, and his alone, it is not the right of the state, of lawyers or of a collective army of shrill, liberal left activists determined to enshrine every illicit sex act in law as a right. There is after all nothing more unappetising, unarousing or unerotic than someone demanding that you have sex when you don’t want to and yet that is what the state is doing. It is turning illicit fun sex into licit, civic duty sex, and who wants that? Not nature. And nature, long term, has a tendency of winning...

SPITTING IN THE FACE OF UTOPIA!

About twenty or so years ago when I was in Paris with my then girlfriend Nadine I remember seeing large groups of well dressed, in a kind of petit-bourgeoisie French kind of way, looking people emerging from a hall near Place Maubert in the 5th arrondissement where I was living at the time. There were hundreds of people and I remember that they all seemed very excited and animated, with lots of them talking loudly. There was also a lot of hand-waving going on accompanied by occasional cheering and spontaneous clapping. I imagined that they were just leaving some sort of religious meeting or service, but I was wrong. They were in fact, Nadine informed me, just leaving a Front National meeting which, this being Paris, had been addressed by Jean Marie Le Pen, the charismatic leader of France’s far right nationalist party.

Around the same time, Nadine told me that a lot of her associates from school now went to, or hung around, a university located near the Jardin de Luxembourg and that this was a well known college with strong fascist links. She also said that someone she knew, the ubiquitous friend of a friend, had recently been arrested for shooting dead a black man, simply because he was black. This was Paris circa 1985/86.

The French don’t conceal their racism in the way that the English do, rather if they don’t like someone because of the colour of their skin, they tend to make it obvious. This was the big difference that I noticed between English racism and French racism, ours was concealed and wrapped up in niceties’ and politeness whereas the French just spat in your face or, if they were being polite, they would just turn their back on you. This didn’t make it right, it was just the way it was.

 This was true too of our racial parties: France’s Front National has always been a very different political animal to the UK’s National Front or its latest incarnation the British National Party in that in its leader Jean-Marie Le Pen it had a charismatic, pugnacious, humorous and highly effective public speaker who was able to build and maintain electoral support at between 10 and 15 per cent. This level, whilst not sufficient to get the party elected to office, meant that the Front National had been able to carve out a credible place in French politics without too much hassle in the form of opposition. This all changed in 2002 when Jean-Marie Le Pen stood in the presidential elections and got voted through to the second round of a three-part contest. This gave him a real chance of gaining the Presidency. Quelle l’horreur!

 At this point the French media and opposition parties of all political persuasions behaved in a similar way to that in which the UK’s media and politicians are responding to Nick Griffin and the British National Party following Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC’s Question Time. They have unified against a common enemy with the single aim of stopping them at all costs. In France, this meant that life long communists and die-hard socialists would vote for the despised Jacques Chirac, the right-leaning, incumbent president that Le Pen was threatening to succeed. The media and the political opposition threw normal democratic rules aside and attacked Le Pen on an unprecedented scale, ultimately achieving their objective with the generally loathed Jacques Chirac obtaining a colossal 82 per cent of the vote. At no time did the hysterical French Establishment address the issue of why so many people had voted for Le Pen, instead the media damned them as at best, stupid, white, ignorant racist scum and at worst, stupid, white, ignorant, racist, Nazi scum. The Establishment being made up of white, highly intelligent, non-racist people who know best, of course.

In the UK, we are now following a similar path though in our own inimitable way. From the Queen to Ken Livingstone, to politicians and the nation’s media, virtually anyone who could has condemned the BBC’s decision to allow Nick Griffin air time. Yet, unlike the French leader Le Pen, Griffin is neither charismatic nor a particularly good speaker but, despite this, within 48 hours of a particularly unimpressive appearance on Question Time, 22 per cent of the UK’s population have said that they would seriously consider voting for the BNP. Cue shocked political pundits! Cue gasps of amazement! Cue anti BNP media frenzy!

Why? Why the hysteria and why the big potential increase in support for the BNP? Why indeed? For the new Establishment any form of politics or opinion that dares to criticize their multiracial utopia is an anathema, likewise the reinvented heirs to Blair, the Conservatives, are now so desperate for power and to be seen as ‘nice’ and ‘inclusive’ that David Cameron would probably black-up, cut off a limb and go gay if he could and our mainstream media is now so spineless when it comes to issues of race that despite a few rare exceptions they have almost universally joined in the assault on the BNP. Again, as in France, the fact that 22 per cent of the population would consider voting for the BNP is ignored as these people are again dismissed as ‘stupid, white, ignorant, racist, Nazi scum’.

Yet our erstwhile leaders and opinion formers in their absolute arrogance, sneers and rights off voters who fear for their country and their way of life, forgetting that these same people were never consulted or even asked if they wanted a ‘multicultural society’ and might now be seeking someone to give their fears a voice. This multiracial ‘utopia’ was a ‘vision’, unasked for and in the main unwelcome, and is a ‘vision’ which now threatens the stability of Europe. Yet an unelected cabal in Brussels is continuing to impose its vision of a multiethnic, irreligious, centralised, neosocialist utopia on its 27 member nations regardless of its peoples wants and this is why a growing number of their electorate are prepared to vote for political parties once thought beyond the pale.

The last twenty or so years have seen an orchestrated attempt by Europe’s leaders to deliberately alter the indigenous make up of Europe’s member states and while the political will may have varied from state to state the end result in most cases has been the same; a radical increase in immigration resulting in a seismic shift in each State’s population with immigrants placing an increasing demand on social, welfare and housing resources and in some areas altering the entire way-of-life of communities.

Many would argue that this is a good thing. That immigrants bring with them cultural diversity, new ideas, that they bring energy and vitality to otherwise staid and moribund societies and that this in turn boosts the economy. And in many instances this may be true. But ludicrous, unplanned and unrestrained immigration is also dangerous and grossly irresponsible and threatens the welfare not just of the indigenous population but also of immigrants already settled in an area.

Europe is now at a tipping point where immigration is actually threatening real societal change, change that is to be expected as immigrants grow in number and strength. Next, obviously and inextricably the new populations will want a bigger say in the way their adopted homeland is run. Their religions, their standards and so on, already in many cases tolerated and incorporated, will become increasingly important and as the scales tip from the old and aging indigenous populations, toward the young, growing, new populations, so people will become scared and fearful as the world, manners, customs and religions they know begin to disappear to be replaced by manners, customs, dress and religions that are both alien and to them, often threatening.

Yet, even now when it is obvious to even the most fanatical supporters of a multiracial State, that the resources of Europe are finite and limited, discussion and criticism of their utopia is still forbidden with anyone who dares to raise a voice against it branded a racist, ignorant or, to use the current politically correct term of abuse, Nazi scum. Yet criticism and discussion is crucial before the silent and silenced indigenous peoples of Europe are forced to seek the extreme in order to be heard. If they do that, then there may be more for the Establishment to worry about than whether or not a few second-rate fascists appear on the television. For then the people of Europe will be, like the disaffected Parisian racists of twenty years ago, either ready to kill someone for the colour of their skin or, if not, at least ready to vote for someone who is. In which case, it’s time to forget the niceties and spit in the face of multiculturalism before its too late.

THY SHALT NOT OFFEND, EVER!

Twenty years ago I made a short film, Visions of Ecstasy, which was refused a certificate for release on the grounds that it was potentially blasphemous, effectively banning the film and stopping it from ever being shown. In the summing up I was deemed to have ‘outraged the divinity of Christ’ and it was feared that the public broadcasting or distribution of my film was a threat to public order and since then, for better or worse, ‘visions’ has sat on my shelf gathering dust. Preserving God’s divinity and saving the country’s streets from riots and baying mobs seeking divine retribution. As a result of this I have had, aside from a loathing of State censorship, an equally strong dislike of religion, particularly when followers of a religion seek to use the State to enforce their values. So it was with some surprise this week that I found myself not only siding with some Christians but actually getting angry on their behalf as the zealots of political correctness, appeasement and ‘cultural diversity’ sought to further the advancement of their new PC Jerusalem by censoring personal beliefs and the dress of Christians.

In the first of three separate incidents, a Christian couple, Ben and Vogelenzang, were charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which apparently covers causing harassment, alarm or distress, because they allegedly insulted a Muslim woman. The Muslim in question was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose about her faith. During the chat one of the topics discussed was whether Jesus was a minor prophet as Islam teaches or whether he was the son of God as Christianity teaches.

It was further stated by the fun-loving intellectual Mr Vogelenzang, that Mohammed was a warlord, while the equally philosophical Mrs Vogelenzang stated that she thought the burka was a form of bondage for women. Apparently this line of conversation so outraged the woman that she felt compelled to rush to the nearest policeman who, instead of telling her to grow up and get a life, questioned the Christian couple and charged them with a ‘religiously-aggravated public order offense’. They are now awaiting trial.

Now, to my mind, having a chat or an argument about politics or religion or whatever is what makes the world go round, and a religiously-aggravated assault would have meant that the Christians had donned Mahamoud Ahmadi-Nejad face masks and fist-fucked Ms sanctimonious up the arse while reciting the ten commandments and telling her to convert, as opposed to having a quiet tete-á-tete about the pros and cons of shrink-to-fit burkas. Still, I’m sure that the police know best and rounding up Christian law-breakers is really going to make us all feel safe out on the streets.

The UK’s next ‘feed them to the lions’ moment came when Exeter NHS nurse, Shirley Chaplin (no relation to Charlie, though he probably scripted her case), refused to remove her crucifix neckless and now faces the sack. Chaplin is the second nurse this year to suffer this fate as NHS nurse Caroline Petrie was suspended in February for the same ‘offense’. Chaplin has apparently worn her crucifix for 38 years without hordes of non Christians running out of Exeter’s NHS hospitals in shock and horror that a ‘christian’ was openly walking the wards.

It would have been interesting had Exeter’s wannabe twat-boy suicide bomber, Muslim convert Nicky Reilly, not failed in his attempt to blow up a café to see whether the local NHS authorities would have rushed around getting Muslim nurses to remove their ‘approved’ headscarves in case they gave offense to non-muslim infidels who had just had their limbs blown off? I doubt it.

The UK’s third Christian pogrom has, surprise, surprise, come from the Government, where so much nonsense comes from these days, and is contained in the hysteria-driven new legislation called ‘lets protect little children from everything and wrap them in cotton wool until they are 18’, or the ‘Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA)’, as it's more popularly known.

Under this new legislation, anyone coming within two miles of children has to be vetted by the ISA to see if they are a crazed sexual predator, murderer or a Scout master whose idea of getting ‘hands-on’ experience is to turn the local camp into a nonce nirvana. Christians, who are well known for their happy-clappy-touchy-feely tendencies, are of course worried that the authorities have singled out the ‘touchy-feely’ part of the bible for special attention, and they have.

From summer 2010, everyone from School governors to dentists and nurses (though not crucifix-wearing ones as they will have all been sacked) must have their backgrounds checked by the ISA, as must authors who visit schools and parents who organise lifts to sports matches and so on. Christians fear that, because of their beliefs on homosexuality, marriage and of course shrink-to-fit burkas, they could be unfairly targeted by this legislation and have their careers ruined as a result, which, given current trends, is quite likely. So now the UK's Christians, the people that for years who were seen as the guiding moral force in the land, the people who used to pack our churches on a Sunday morning and whose quaintness was, like rain on bank holidays, robins and Rupert annuals, forever England, are now being persecuted by the forces of multiculturalism, mediocrity and modernity.

Normally, the trials of tribulations of a few Christians would, like the idle wind, pass me by, but such is the speed and unceasing advance of political correctness, appeasement and abasement by the authorities to all things Islamic that I felt genuinely aggrieved by their plight. In particular because petty officialdom mixed with an almost fawning desire to please and carry favour with all things Sharia (note the Home Office announcement to its employees not to eat food in front of their Muslim co-workers during Ramadan as it might make them feel hungry or Councils desire to rename Christmas as a ‘holiday’ and to remove Christmas trees) is destroying our pagan/Christian roots and the moral basis on which we live.

The religious base of this country is pagan and then Christian and, whether we like Christianity or loathe it, its key commandments form the moral code which holds us together. We know that it is wrong to kill, to steal and to fuck our friends' partners and get jealous when someone has more than us and these rules and a few others have for centuries made us what we are. As we have have become less religious so the laws have been weakened and amended, we no longer lock homosexual men up or burn witches, but generally the Christian moral code still holds sway, or rather it did.

With the demise of Christianity will fall our values, not all at once of course and not immediately, but they will fall. Every assault on Christianity is an assault on our wider freedoms, on women’s freedoms, on sexual freedom, on, ironically, religious freedom and the freedom of speech and into the gap will step another religion. A religion whose moral code allows for no dissent, no sexual freedom, no individual rights and which will enforce its laws totally. It is a religion that would, were it in control, certainly not allow a member of another religion to discuss and comment on its shortfalls and allow complaints against it to be made in law. In fact one of its first acts, should it become the leading religion in the UK, will almost certainly be to abolish Section 5 of the Public Order Act and its ubiquitous religiously-aggravated public order offense. We should abolish it first, reclaim the moral high ground, celebrate our culture and protect the Christians in our midst, for without them the country will move another step closer to the abyss.

Hallelujah