An attack on British democracy

Channel 4 News this evening led with the alleged Russian hacking that is supposed to have influenced the American elections:  https://www.channel4.com/news/russian-hacking-controversy-in-us-elections

Senator John McCain has called Russian interference “an unprecedented attack on our democracy”.

When President Barack Obama interfered in the British referendum on EU membership was that an attack on British democracy?

Back of the queue indeed!

I hope Theresa May makes it clear to the Obama family that they are not welcome in the United Kingdom after 20th January.

And if by any chance Mr Obama does turn up in future years at Heathrow, can we make sure he is at the back of the queue for the passport checks.

A significant point is being conceded

Very little comment in the news about the Pakistani planned expulsions of millions of migrants:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38457236

And absolute silence from all the usual pontificators.

Nothing from Sundar Katwala (British Future sic), usually so keen to give an opinion on these matters.

Nothing from Shami Chakrabarti (former head of Amnesty International and now Corbyn toady in the House of Lords).

Nothing from Yasmin Alibhai Brown (Independent writer).

And little evidence of Hope Not Hate no-platforming Pakistani academics at British universities.

Of course all these people (and many others) are master exponents of Molierean Tartuffery.

Nevertheless, a point is being conceded here.

That it is possible for a nation state (one with a huge diaspora population in the United Kingdom) to expel millions of migrants and nobody says a word.  They look the other way.  They pretend it isn't happening.

Of course, it would be unthinkable for the United Kingdom to forcibly expel millions of migrants.

But we could usefully expel a hundred thousand or so (and we more or less know the ones we don't want).

Therefore I repeat - a significant point is being conceded here.

https://twitter.com/sundersays
https://twitter.com/libertyhq
https://twitter.com/y_alibhai
https://twitter.com/hopenothate

Conflicts that are nothing to do with us

Guardian writer Owen Jones appeared on Sky News Press Preview and made a comparison between the old fear of Soviet Russia exerting an undue influence on left-wing movements in the West, and the new Russia of Putin exerting a supposedly equal influence on right-wing movements today.

This is a false reading of history.

Soviet Russia had a communist ideology that it was determined to export to the rest of the world.  It was a direct threat to Western nations.  It had to be confronted, and the useful idiots that supported it needed to be negated.

There is no such necessity today.

Putinism is not an ideology that has any relevance or appeal outside Russia.

Russian foreign policy may be expansionist, but it would have to expand a long way before it began to touch us in the United Kingdom.  Let them keep the Crimea.  Let them take the Baltic states (look how insultingly rude the leaders of those states were to the United Kingdom during the Brexit referendum).

There are already signs that imperial-overreach is beginning to curb Russian expansionism.  Imperial overreach is a self-correcting mechanism in international affairs.  As we only too well know, empires might deliver prestige, but are extremely expensive to maintain.

We need to be careful about Russian expansionism, but not get involved in conflicts that are nothing to do with us.

http://news.sky.com/video/sky-news-press-preview-10648649

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84

What we signed up to with the vote earlier this week

On Dateline London the discussion, inevitably, was about Syria.

There seemed to be serious misconceptions about the nature of "Islamic State" and the reasons why the United Kingdom has joined the onslaught against the evil organisation.

Since Hiroshima the unstated principle of Western foreign policy has been that any attack by a non-Western enemy upon a Western nation will result in overwhelming, indiscriminate and terrifying punishment.

Ho Chi Minh defies America? - hundreds of thousands of yellow people are killed and south east Asia is bombed back to the stone age.

Saddam Hussein threatens the West - hundreds of thousands of brown people are killed, Hussein is hanged, and Iraq is comprehensively trashed.

Muammar Gaddafi sponsors terrorism in the West - Libya gets a beating and Gaddafi is killed and thrown on a rubbish heap (metaphorically).

There is no "after plan" to any of these scenarios.

You threaten the West and you will get a beating.

I have doubts about the effectiveness of this policy.  I have doubts about the morality of this policy.  But it is what we signed up to with the vote earlier this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m93g

Evil Muslim monster Jihadi John

Reports today that American drones have probably killed evil Muslim monster Jihadi John:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34805924

All the media reports say Kuwati-born Mohammed Emwazi "came" to the United Kingdom aged six.

They announce this fact as if it was the most obvious, most natural thing in the world.

He just "came" here.

I would like to know who let him in and why they let him in.

Can we please know the civil servants and immigration officials and politicians who enabled the entry of the Emwazi family into the United Kingdom and why they did so.

Because we do not have an open border with Kuwait.

We are under no obligation whatsoever to allow Kuwaitis in here.

If you were to test public opinion on the subject, either now or in 1994 (under John Major's crap government) I have no doubt the resounding response would be:  DON'T LET THEM IN - we don't need them, don't like them, don't want them in our country - under no circumstances do you politicians and civil servants have a mandate to allow Arabs into our country.

So can we please know which officials (including elected officials) allowed this serial killer into our national home.

And on an anthropological level, there is enough data now from immigration statistics and intelligence reports to be able to assess how many terrorists and criminals will result from a given Muslim immigration rate.

Muslim immigration in large numbers only began in the mid-1970s.  It must be possible to say that out of every one thousand Muslims coming into the United Kingdom a statistical percentage will be "radicalised" and either help in the commission of terrorist acts or actually commit those acts.  We can then extrapolate from that evidence and predict how many more terrorists are incubating in our midst - and indeed how many of the 20,000 Syrians coming in the United Kingdom over the next five years will mutate into terrorists and go on to commit atrocities.

How does one counter Islamic fanaticism?

On Dateline London this morning Gavin Esler referred to a Russian general who in 1988 had predicted that the West and Russia would have to co-operate to counter the rise of Islamic fanaticism:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06nztkw/dateline-london-07112015 (about 16 minutes into the braodcast).

Which makes me ask:  how does one counter Islamic fanaticism?

An ideology can only be subverted from within - the holders of the ideology must be made to doubt what they are believing.

Which means the security forces must understand the Koran completely, and identify all the flaws, and use those flaws to destroy confidence in the belief system.

It is no use employing tame Muslims to do this - they are a tainted and unreliable resource.

It will have to be done by specialist teams in the security forces approaching the task from an entirely secular point of view, with the aim of undermining entirely the certainty on which Islamist fanatical belief depends and generating social media interactions designed to circulate these ideas.

When the Germans said they would take 800,000 migrants this year were they telling lies?

I am confused by the behaviour of the German government.

They have already said they want 800,000 Syrian migrants this year.

They have also said they intend to take 500,000 migrants per year for an unspecified time into the future.

Now we learn that the German government is bullying central European states over the distribution of a mere 120,000 migrants.

When the Germans said they would take 800,000 migrants this year were they telling lies?

If they were not telling lies why do they not simply take the 120,000 migrants as a first instalment of the 800,000 migrants they say will be welcome this year?  No need to bother anyone else.  Take them into Germany and keep them in Germany.

However, if the migrants (together with their descendants and dependants, since the 800,000 they take will soon double and even triple as family members claim their human right to a family reunion) are to be imposed on other EU nations then an important constitutional issue is at stake.  Artificially ramping up the population of the EU must imply an eventual allocation of citizenship to the majority of the migrants (since history demonstrates most will not return), with a consequent impact on the electorates of the EU states the Germans are bullying.  Therefore the imposition on the four bullied nations of central and eastern European must be unconstitutional.

And while we are discussing constitutional issues, has the German government gained the permission of the German electorate before they give their country away?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34332759

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33988013

Turkey is a booming economy with strong cultural, linguistic and ethnic links with Syria and Iraq

Abdel Bari Atwan was wrong to blame the West for messing up countries in the Middle East on Dateline London earlier today:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m93g

The United Kingdom ruled Iraq for less than ten years, and did not rule Syria at all.

For centuries, until 1918, the imperial power in the region was Turkey.

Turkey is a booming economy with strong cultural, linguistic and ethnic links with Syria and Iraq, and is a safe haven by any standards.

If refugees pass through Turkey on their way to somewhere else the moment they leave Turkish territory they have ceased to be refugees and asylum seekers and have become economic migrants.

And thank goodness for Alex Deane providing some much-needed balance to the programme.

Germany now realises that it cannot take in the whole world

Entirely predictably, after the German Chancellor's incontinent bouts of irrational emotion Germany now realises that it cannot take in the whole world:  https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/asylrecht-abschiebungen-101.html

Can those German politicians who criticised the United Kingdom's immigration policy now apologise (publicly please) to David Cameron.

Not for the first time, it is David Cameron who is providing the true leadership in the European Union.

And when are we going to see EU countries meeting their foreign aid commitments so that Syrian refugees can be supported safely and comfortably in areas close to Syria so that they can return when their country is ultimately made safe.

On the issue of EU solidarity

It didn't take long for reality to catch up with the Germans:  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/13/germany-to-close-borders-exit-schengen-emergency-measures

Can we clarify about the 800 million Syrians Germany is "accepting" - do they intend to just process them in Germany before moving them out to other countries in the EU?

And on the issue of EU solidarity, it is clear that the Merkel administration has invited in 800 million Syrians without first gaining the agreement of the German people.  The United Kingdom is also a member of the EU and the Germans are (for the time being anyway) our fellow EU citizens.  In the name of solidarity I suggest that our government has a duty to confront the Merkel government and tell her bluntly to stop behaving in such a dictatorial way and to hold some form of public consultation with the German electorate before massively expanding the German population.

And let us reiterate to all EU governments that the only practical solution to the refugee crisis is for ALL governments to meet their foreign aid commitments so that the refugee camps in the Middle East can be made safe and (let's be ambitious here) even comfortable places of refuge.

WHO EXACTLY is responsible

Report on Channel 4 News this evening highlighting the terrible conditions in the refugee camps in Lebanon and reporting that the United Nations is cutting back the amount of aid provided to people who had no other means of support.

Why is this happening?

The United Kingdom has not cut the money it gives to the United Nations indeed the amount was increased only a couple of weeks ago.

So what is causing the reduction in the amount of money the United Nations has to give these people?

Can Channel 4 News do some serious research and not just broadcast half a story.

Is Germany the culprit here?  Is it the Americans?  Is it Save The Children diverting the money into pro-Labour domestic political campaigns (again)?

WHO EXACTLY is responsible for the reduction in United Nations aid that is causing those people in Lebanon to say they have nothing to eat?

http://www.channel4.com/news/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/04/us-europe-migrants-cameron-aid-idUSKCN0R41M720150904

Internationalism is a middle class vice

On Channel 4 News this evening political editor Gary Gibbon told us there were "jitters in the Corbyn camp" over a fall off in support for Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Leadership election.

What can have changed in the last couple of weeks to have made people stop and hesitate?

The main issue has been the prospect of open door immigration once again.

Is Jeremy Corbyn being punished for his espousal of unlimited access for refugees, displaced people, asylum seekers and their economic equivalents?

Don't give me all that guff about Corbyn supporters being internationalists - "old" Labour and the genuine poor cannot afford to be internationalists.

Internationalism is a middle class vice.

It will be interesting to see whether open-door political statements by Jeremy Corbyn and Yvette Cooper stymie their campaigns and let in Andy Burnham.

There is a lot of anger due to come out as a consequence of the last couple of weeks.  Ordinary people feel that they have been bounced into accepting an increase in migration because to question it immediately leads to the accusation that you do not care about young toddlers drowning face down in the surf.  The voters knows when a trick has been played against them, and will punish at the ballot box politicians who betray the country.

Yes, it is possible to care about small children AND be sensible about issues surrounding the implosion of failed states.

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/labour-leadership-corbyn-camp-jitters/31349

PS misleading report by Channel 4 News concerning the plight of Syrian refugees in Lebanon.  We were told that the Lebanese government had simply "had enough" of migrants, the implication being that they were just racist bigots.  No mention of the fact that Syria occupied Lebanon for many years and that there is a considerable residue of bitterness from the behaviour of the Syrian occupation forces.

And what is the United Nations doing with our aid money?  One billion pounds a year, and yet there is no evidence of it reaching the refugees, who are living in unstable ruins.  Is all the aid money going on expense accounts for UN personnel and mega expensive PR campaigns by the UNHCR representatives?

Presumably Frau Merkel can be impeached if she has exceeded her authority

On Channel 4 News reports that even within Angela Merkel's political coalition in Germany people are telling her that the open-door policy towards refugees / displaced persons / asylum seekers is not sustainable:  http://www.channel4.com/news/

I am not familiar with the German constitution but presumably Frau Merkel can be impeached if she has exceeded her authority.

And have you noticed that all those nice middle-class refugees when asked their occupation give neutral replies such as "civil engineer" or "teacher" or "doctor".

There are no administrators or civil servants or police chiefs in the hundreds of thousands of people streaming into Germany.

What the Germans must not be allowed to do is to export their folly to the rest of the EU and certainly not to the United Kingdom - they must process ALL 800,000, keep them within their borders.

The United Kingdom is doing more than any other European nation to help Syrian refugees

Is the British civil service knifing the Conservative government in the back through deliberately inept PR handling of the Syrian refugee crisis?

Under the Conservatives the United Kingdom is doing more than any other European nation to help Syrian refugees and yet none of this is getting publicised.

Instead, the UNHCR representative publicly attacks the British government - despite the UN operation round Syria being largely funded with British money.

It is time for some serious ass-kicking (as the Americans say) - the UN needs to be told they must start being more appreciative of the United Kingdom in front of the press.  The UN also needs to be told to improve conditions in the camps so refugees do not want to leave.  Otherwise we will take the money away and set up our own camps, using private contractors (and we have a total foreign aid budget of £11 billion to do this if we want to).

http://news.sky.com/story/1546454/britain-to-take-in-thousands-more-refugees

Article by Hugh Naylor for the Washington Post

At last some clarity on what is happening in Syria in this article by Hugh Naylor for the Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/islamic-state-has-killed-many-syrians-but-assads-forces-have-killed-even-more/2015/09/05/b8150d0c-4d85-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html

It is the openly fascist Ba'ath regime that is driving people towards supporting ISIS (just as German atrocities in Poland in the early 1940s drove people towards supporting the communists - even though the communists were just as bad).

You do not get to be a professional in Syria unless you are at least a supporter of the Ba'ath Party

On Channel 4 News this evening Matt Frei was interviewing Syrian refugees in Budapest:  http://www.channel4.com/news/

He talked to professionals - a teacher, someone who wanted to be a doctor, in the past he has talked to other professionals.

Syria was a totalitarian state that openly and unapologetically modelled itself on Nazi Germany.

You do not get to be a professional in Syria unless you are at least a supporter of the Ba'ath Party, and preferably a party member (estimates vary but it is thought that ten years ago up to 18% of the population of Syria were party members).

Perhaps Mr Frei could probe a little more into the political background of these refugees  - who seem to include (from the broadcast reports) a disproportionate number of young men, exactly of an age to have been active in the Syrian Mukhabarat or secret police.

Are the EU authorities happy that large numbers of fascist national-socialists may be entering the Schengen area?

And is it not ironic that they are headed to Germany, which they must consider to be their spiritual home.

Be careful about the surges of Syrian refugees into the EU

Everyone knows David Cameron is a nice bloke.

In fact he is rather a softie - hugging hoodies, fussing huskies, hanging out with shoeless new age political gurus exploring a softer, kinder Conservatism (and to be fair, a version of Conservatism that has kept us in power since 2010 and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future).

However, it is not good practice to allow emotional surges in social and broadcast media to change national policy:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34148913

There will be electoral repercussions as a result of this change of policy.

And in real terms it will do nothing to solve the crisis - far better to have stuck to the policy of everyone being helped fairly in the regional refugee centres (and if the budget for this has to be increased then so be it, in an emergency the United Kingdom has a total foreign aid budget of £11 billion much of which can be allocated to helping ALL Syrian refugees). 

But returning to the lucky few who are going to be given entry to our country, can we have a cast-iron assurance (assuming cast-iron guarantees are worth anything) that no members of the Syrian Ba'ath Party will be allowed access to the United Kingdom.

Let us remind ourselves that Syria pre-civil war was a totalitarian state in which political terror was routinely used to enforce complete control of every area of life.  To get anywhere in that society you had to be connected to the Ba'ath Party.  It can be accurately compared to Nazi Germany  http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/ruling-party-learned-from-nazis-1-601588

And as with the collapse of Nazi Germany, the collapse of Ba'athist Syria has led to panic among those implicated in the crimes of the Ba'ath Party.

Estimates vary, but in the mid-2000s membership of the party and its subsidiaries was estimated to be 18% of the Syrian population.

That is a lot of people.

What has happened to these Ba'athists? 

Some are still in Syria, enjoying the protection of the Syrian regime within the decreasing enclave that can still be described as Ba'athist Syria.  Some have been captured by rebel forces and their fate is unknown (but perhaps can be guessed at).  Some have fled the country, first to refugee camps in neighbouring countries but ultimately and with increasing desperation and urgency plan to get to the West (since remaining in the camps means eventual return to a democratic Syria with all that that implies in terms of trial and punishment and, let's not be naive, revenge by those who suffered under Ba'athist rule).

Therefore I think we should be careful about the surges of Syrian refugees into the EU.  These are, it seems, people with reserves of money which indicates they are Ba'athists (since you did not make money in Ba'athist Syria unless you were connected to the Ba'athist Party).  They are also people desperate to get out of the refugee camps and out of Turkey, even though the UN camps and Turkey are safe havens - this indicates that they are afraid of being recognised and apprehended for crimes committed under the Ba'athist regime (terrible crimes let us not forget, comparable with the very worst of totalitarian regimes).

One of the more puzzling aspects of the refugee surges across the seas towards the EU has been the willingness of parents to risk the lives of their children in rickety boats at the hands of criminal people smugglers.  How can loving parents do this, when going to the UN refugee camps will ensure protection and basic welfare for their families?  We are told the parents are "desperate" but the origin of this desperation is not questioned.

At the end of the Second World War many German parents killed themselves and their children rather than allow them to fall into the hands of the advancing Russians.  In Berlin in April 1945 Frau Magda Goebbels killed her six children and then herself rather than allow them to fall into the hands of the liberating Russians.  Perhaps she thought that death was preferable since the crimes of the regime were so dreadful that her family would be killed anyway in the reprisals that would follow the fall of the regime  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc23cWro0aY

All children are innocent, but not all adults are.  

Let us have careful screening of all Syrian adults claiming to be refugees.

Are we to assume that Turkey is not a place where refugees feel safe?

Rather shoddy Channel 4 News this evening - no explanation why refugees are so desperate to leave Turkey.

This is a country that aspires to join the European Union.

Are we to assume that Turkey is not a place where refugees feel safe?

If that is the case can we have it clearly established that Turkey forfeits for some considerable time any possibility of joining the EU.

And are we only to take the rich refugees that have the money to get out?

What about all the millions who are left behind and are unable to pay people smugglers.

One suspects that the outpouring of "compassion" we see displayed by media commentators has got nothing to do with providing real help where it is needed by the most people - it is all to do with public emoting and the desire to feel good and holier-than-thou, with evil politicians such as Yvette Cooper using the deaths of children to make political points.

Ten thousand or twenty-five thousand or forty thousand - all these numbers imply some form of selection, and selection is an obscene moral compromise.

We need to hold firm to the original policy - everyone gets helped, via our overseas aid programme, not just the rich or the photogenic.

http://www.channel4.com/news/

I would disagree with his point "not to your disadvantage"

On the World At One the German Ambassador Peter Ammon lectured the United Kingdom about taking in more refugees, displaced persons and asylum seekers:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p031d1py

"Britain has taken in refugees for centuries, and not to your disadvantage" the Ambassador told us.

I think I would disagree with his point "not to your disadvantage".

Anyone who has seen Yasmin Alibhai-Brown shooting her mouth off on Dateline London is going to have serious second thoughts about whether we really want any more refugees coming here.

Yes, the refugees when first arrive will be mostly grateful.  But as we saw with the Ralph Miliband letter, after a little while they become ungrateful and want changes to OUR society so that it suits them.  And by the second and third generations (I'm thinking Daniel Trilling and David Aaronovitch here) they are so obnoxious you start thinking don't care how tragic the situation is, I don't want anymore of those ingrates in the country.

And don't forget the ecstatic crowings of Sunder Katwala and his ilk, pleased as punch that the rising numbers of migrant people will eventually tip the political balance so the Tories are permanently out of office.

So you see Herr Ambassador, not everyone is keen on more refugees arriving here (as opposed to the very generous support we give in settlements close to their countries of origin).  Not because one does not sympathise with their plight.  But because the left has historically used them as voting fodder to win inner city constituencies and push through changes in society that would never have got through otherwise.

One more thing Herr Ammon.  Can you ask the German Chancellor to apologise for those Germans who went to Syria after the Second World War and helped set up the terror apparatus of the Ba'ath Party.  The mess that Syria is currently in is partly a German responsibility.

And let me ask a general question aimed at the Islamic world.  What is wrong with the way Syrian refugees are being treated in Turkey that makes them so desperate to leave the country?  They are Islamic brothers and sisters of the Turkish people, and yet they risk their lives to get out of Turkey - can we have some journalists looking at what is going on there please.

Ms Cooper's odious "we'll take ten thousand..."

How has Yvette Cooper arrived at the number of 10,000 refugees, displaced persons and asylum seekers to be given access to the United Kingdom? : http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/01/yvette-cooper-uk-should-take-in-10000-refugees

Is it not immoral and cowardly for her to pretend that we can choose between the deserving and the undeserving refugees?

Especially as the ones who fight their way into Europe are the rich, connected, pushy refugees.

The poor and destitute have been left behind.

The government's policy is one of very generous aid to refugees in settlements close to their country of origin so that everyone is helped in a fair and equitable way.

This is by far preferable to Ms Cooper's odious "we'll take ten thousand and the rest can go fuck themselves".