Attention Class...

With a report released this week which suggests that more and more parents are prepared to lie about their religion to get their children into top faith-schools, and the recent comments of award-winning playwright Alan Bennett against the existence of private schools, it would seem that the crusade against the class system has moved into its next phase of attack: Education. The left has, for decades, been attempting to erase our centuries old British aristocracy and middle-classes from society, and by using self-righteous reasoning almost reminiscent of that of Cromwell's they continue to succeed. The implementation of Labour's recent inheritance-tax, which can now take up to 40% of the inheritance should the figure be more than £250,000, is obviously targeted at the sons and daughters of the once social elite. Removing the possibility of continuing a family dynasty on the basis of all important 'Equal Opportunities'. The reformation of the House of Lords, which now means it will consist of 'elected-only' members has eradicated the centuries old tradition of handing down of peerages from father to son, effectively breaching a gap for even more left wing, obsessionist nobodies to fill the house. This Labour move in particular is one of several steps which I predict will occur in future years. The House of Lords (now being all elected) will firstly fill up with more people fuelled by a desire to further dismantle any remnants of the class system. The House will next be deemed by the Government to be just another House of Commons (as it is also now filled with elected members, rather than its rightful Lords), and finally a vote will be held on whether or not the House is significant enough to stay. The House (now being filled with people bent on its removal anyway) will win a vote to deem its existence unnecessary, leaving the House of Commons to be the sole decision maker, and the country, in my view, more susceptible to Dictatorship.

The removal of the class system, the aristocracy and eventually the Monarchy is a pattern which again and again can be seen in the history of many nations, most notably in those of the rest of Europe. Propagators of such acts consider what they do at the time to be righteous, and think they are ensuring the bettering of their people by doing so. As Orwell might once have privately interpreted it, a few poor people get fed up with a few rich people and decide to alleviate them from their wealth and power in the name of goodness; the poor people get a movement going (as they are a majority) and eventually do so, distributing it amongst themselves. I suppose the notion that this is in essence theft, and often cold-blooded murder, does not even enter their minds at the point of action, and seemingly it might not enter anyone's head for a good hundred years or so. The French revolution, the Russian revolution, the Chinese Revolution, all victories by the left in overthrowing centuries, sometimes millennia, old social hierarchies in favour of more 'equal' ones. Anti-establishment in Britain is by no means a new occurence, and without a doubt the acting against the ruling classes is part of our national history, whether you consider it to be treasonous or not. The difference is, that with the death of the British Empire with Winston Churchill in 1965, and the subsequent emergence of liberalism filling its void, the left has more power now over the ruling classes than it ought to. This does have some benefits however. For example the implementation of the Hunting Act 2004 has outright banned fox hunting with hounds, a sport which was, and still is today, popular amongst middle and upper class families. As a lover and great believer in the natural preservation of the countryside and wildlife of Britain, I thoroughly deplore the barbaric blood-sport; and see it as nothing more than socially accepted murder. The method by which foxes, badgers and anything else which finds itself at the mercy of such hunts are systematically ripped apart alive could never bring me any ounce of pleasure or gratification should I be responsible for its occurance. The notion that the social elite and intelligencia could be so bored as to participate in such hunts still baffles me to this day, and it disappoints me when ever I see admirable figures like Boris Johnson or Prince William advocating hunts, trail led or not. I welcomed the Labour enforced bill with open arms, after all I concluded that to be consistent as a society we might as well turn a blind eye to cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting as well if it brought people pleasure. The events which followed the act surprised me, it is said that because of the bill, more people than ever are now participating in illegal hunts across the country in defiance of the Government. A seemingly huge movement which defends the historic traditions and mentalities of their forefathers with action. I do not support the continuation of illegal hunts across the country but rather admire the people for taking such a strong stance against forced liberal restrictions. If only such movements would rally in response of real travesties like the reformation of the House of Lords, we might be less at threat from the left-wing office.

Getting back to Education, and the fact that parents are willing to have their children baptised to get them into top performing faith-schools doesn't surprise me at all. Being brought up a traditionalist Anglican at my first and most influential primary school, and further encouraged on by my mothers efforts to take us to a Baptist school most Sundays, I had the option (when aged 11) to attend either a top ranking CofE school or a largely secular but more local state high school. Much to my current regret I chose the latter, but the fact that I had a choice in the matter at all was down to the fact that I attended church. My final decision also shows how free thinking I had been encouraged to be as a boy, and it was taken (as I now realise) with much regard of the ultimately temporary friend base in which I was surrounded by at the time. The prospect of having to make new friends and start all over again was daunting to a weary 11 year old who had endured one school and house move already, all I could ultimately conceive of then was the coping of the 'here and now'. My mother had not purposely sent me to church for all those years just for me to turn down the opportunity when it arose, but in fact most of my friends at Sunday-school were there just for that very reason, openly admitting why they had started attending church in the first place, their motives were well known. This however did not hinder their willingness to learn at church, nor sing hymns, nor represent the church at Easter or at local community events; and they were just as much respected because of this. Their active role in the church outweighed the fact that they may have been going for ulterior motives, after all they supported what the church stood for, and those that didn't, didn't attend. The moral up-bringing of those parents' children at the church every week ensured that they learned about the Bible, the principles of British tradition, and the acceptability of behaviours in modern society; and quite frankly it did a better job at teaching those things than most parents could have done independently.

There are several arguments, I believe, for a persons right to attend church for whatever reason they deem fit; whether it be community, respectability or tradition, if not spiritual gratification. The first is that British Christianity is by no means what it used to be. In many parts of the country congregations are dying, churches are being demolished, and Christian based community traditions are becoming more and more frowned upon by secular councils. The realising of the premise that a child may only be considered for application at a top school because of his/her attendance at a church is bound to fill empty pews in and around the immediate local vicinity. The influx of young families into these places of worship means that those people are more likely to be affected by the moral obligations which are expected of church attending folk, more often than not resulting in a 'good citizenship-ness' which will consequently affect the community for the better. The second reason is that the whole basis of Christianity is to bring those who may not know about the principles of Christ into a place of its teaching. Thus an influx of people who may not have initially regarded themselves as Christian will be learning how to do so just by being at church. Alcoholics, thieves, murderers, adulterers, persecutors and all other forms of sinner have often been accepted into the church since its very conception, and so how is it logical to accept those people, yet deny entry to those who merely want the best for their children. The third and final reason in this argument is that this country is a free one, to claim that private and faith schools are elitist and un-equal, and therefore must be banned (as the playwright Alan Bennett this week proposed) would be to say that because private healthcare is only available to the rich, it is elitist and un-equal and therefore should also be banned. Or that expensive dining tables should be banned because they are only available to those rich enough to afford them, and are therefore elitist and un-equal. The basis of ones skills, experience, wealth and social merits to excel in life is something which all of society relies on to function properly. To suggest that this is somehow wrong would seem to me to be an illogical attack on behalf of people without such skills, experience, wealth or social merits, people connotative of Labours socialist core supporters.

Academic institutes such as Eton College have for centuries taught the 'crème de la crème' of British society, providing a top quality service to people who can afford to send their children there. Less grand examples of private educationary bodies continue to out perform many Government managed state schools, earning proud, attractive reputations which parents are obviously drawn to. The failings of state schools which many members of the public have noted, don't seem to be acknowledged enough by Government ministers. I suppose that if they think it's relatively okay to leave state schools in their current...state, then they should be prepared to accept that some parents aren't going to want to send their children there, shelling out up to £20,000 a year for ultimately better alternatives. Instead of talking about improving state schools to cap competition, Government supporters have edged away from its failings and attacked those privately funded bodies simply for being better at teaching, as well as simultaneously scrutinising parents for sending children there. Amongst all the carefully designed, politically correct Government talk about the problems of a society which doesn't know or care where it's children are at night, which often results in murders such as that of Garry Newlove outside his home in 2007, it seems the real criminals in the eyes of Labour are parents who care too much about their children.

In all honesty, the Government lobby at the heart of British policies should ask themselves this: 'Is it better to live in a place where parents send their children to church in an attempt to get them the best life can offer, or to live in a morally deficient society where parents don't care about where there children are, what they are doing, or whom they are with?' The irresponsible prattle of a few absent-mindees, who are given a platform in the hope that they might further de-stabilise our rich society is what repels me about our current age. It is the result of an immoral, illogical, socialist movement, which has taken too much power at the expense of the once ruling classes...

(Picture: The historic Eton College, Windsor.)

Mr Brown's Mrs Smith...

The new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, speaking yesterday in her first major speech on Islamic Extremism, spoke of the introduction of new security measures and methods which are specifically designed to crack-down on the growing number of terrorist sympathisers in and around the British Isles. In the week where Al-Qaeda has publicly declared online the existence of a British wing to its organisation, and called to arms' many Muslims in Britain, the Home Secretary expressed the need to treat the use of internet terrorism with much the same seriousness as internet paedophilia; requiring the co-operation of both intelligence agencies and local authorities to help stop such activities. The speech comes after it was revealed that American Security chiefs are said to see Europe as 'riddled with terrorists', and a plot to blow-up Paris's Eiffel Tower by French-born Algerians was uncovered by French and U.S agencies. The main focus of the speech however was the decision by the Government to, in future, refer to any incidents of Islamic extremism or terrorism as 'Anti-Islamic activities', a term coined to supposedly prevent the portrayal of Islam as a malicious religion. The move is part of a wider Government strategy to re-label terms used in speeches and the like, which might serve to hinder Labours other political operations. The terms 'War on Terror' and 'Axis of Evil', first introduced by the Bush administration, were the first to go last year amid the succession of Gordon Brown as PM. Other examples include the scrapping of the word 'Immigrant' in favour of a less negatively sounding 'Migrant' in an attempt to dispel the negative-stereotypes which are commonly, supposedly unfairly, attributed to people from other countries.

One has to look at the facts of the matter when making such decisions, as the ordinary sense of most people will tell them that those who sympathise with terrorists are going to do so whether they are branded anti-Islamic or not, especially by a 'Crusader' Western Government. It may be said that the move has been taken to protect British Muslim communities from backlashes by the mainstream majority, or to provide a deeper understanding of Islam to those whom the Labour movement rely so heavily on for votes. But as Conservative MP Phillip Davies expressed, if the government spent less time worrying about things like this and more time on controlling our borders, the actual threats from terrorism and increased immigration levels might be disrupted, rather than the disruption of the opinions of the public. Gordon Browns Government has also decided to stop referring to the plight against terrorism as a war, seemingly claiming that by doing so would be playing into the hands of terrorists, and creating an all too apparent void between the values of the West and those of the Islamists. The treating of plotting and succeeding Jihadist groups in Britain as no more than petty criminals or common murderers cannot possibly have any benefits. I have heard people say it acts to give the groups less credibility when recruiting or trying to gain support, but groups such as this do not work like any other public enemy most can recall. They do not require a large amount of support in Britain to launch attacks on infastructure, government buildings or senior figures, they often work in groups of 10 or less and usually have extensive support, links and funding all from outside the country. The support of the masses in the West is not, and has never been, a main concern for Al-Qaeda's 'Ayman Al-Zawahiri' or (should he still be alive) his partner in crime 'Osama Bin Laden'. The 'home-grown' phenomenon has ensured that a significant enough amount of people are now prepared to attack the country of their nationality, the country that has mothered them often from childhood or birth, in favour of foreign doctrines of which we have no conception.

The 'home-grown' phenomenon, we must remember, is not uniquely British or European, but also concerns the Governments of the United States and surprisingly Canada. Last summer Canada thwarted a plot by 17 Islamic extremists to storm Parliament, take hostages and behead the prime minister and other leaders. The group also supposedly planned a bombing campaign in the country and imported weapons and ammunition from the U.S. for the purpose of terrorist training and operations. I find the argument that we are somehow more susceptible to threats of terror due to our foreign interventions quite lacking in this case, as it is widely known that Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq at any point, even though relations with the country and the United States suffered as a consequence. The Canadian Government even offered to pledge $300 million dollars to the rebuilding of the war-torn country, an offer which if anything shows the concern of the Canadians for the well-being of the Iraqi people. As for Afghanistan, Canada's intervention there is in line with international law, and it is supported by the UN and the newly appointed Afghan Government for having presence there. I find it difficult to see why those opposed to Canada's involvement in Afghanistan would plan to commit such acts in the country in which they live. Surely if they cared so much about the Taliban and thought that they were somehow unable to look after themselves, they would be fighting with them in the deserts of Kandahar, not beheading irrelevant people in Canada. I do not believe this dribble, this complete nonsense perpetuated by the dying remnants of the 60's anti-war movement about how wars in foreign countries significantly affect matters here. I would like to know why terrorist sympathisers, all too often European and American, sought out the terrorist training camps of Afghanistan before 9/11, before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan if this were true. After all why attack the West if we haven't intervened anywhere? Support for Israel (as was the supposed reason of the 9/11 attacks) is a petty excuse for such an reaction, it would be like America launching an attack against Syria for supporting and funding Palestinians, its just not their war to fight; and I might add many, even Jewish, Americans support the plight of the Palestinians. To label everyone as having the same view is just the way these ignorant, seemingly primitive terrorist groups work, if we are western we are Kaffir, if we are non-Muslim we are Kaffir, if we are liberal or even moderate Muslims we are Kaffir; and despite the lefts attempts to somehow gain favour with groups by attacking those in opposition to terrorist activities, western members of the 'anti-war' movement are just as much hated by these horrible people as the rest of us.

As most of you would agree, the term 'Anti-Islamic' stirs up connotations of a group that is hell-bent on eradicating Islam, not a group that seeks to carry out attacks in the name of Islam. This decision by the Home Secretary just shows us how British anti-terror measures are going to work in the next few years, I can't wait to see what Mrs Smith comes up with next. The IRA was never referred to as being 'Anti-Catholic' or 'Anti-Irish', and I'm sure a decision to actively do so would have amounted in the British Government being seen as very weak by the international community, seemingly having no real line of defence left but to patronise their enemies, much like Browns Government now. The man wants to show that New Labour under him truly is New Labour, and any policy or action which might be deemed reminiscent of Tony Blair's conservativity by the electorate must be abandoned. The values of Islamist militant groups here and abroad, set on destroying our way of life in favour of an Islamic-World-State mimics the very mentality of groups like the American Klu Klux Klan, a mentality which is brutal, intolerant and animal-like...

(Picture: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith & Foreign Secretary David Milliband.)

The Bias Broadcasting Corporation

In the wake of the recent death of Flashman author, and Isle of Man resident, George MacDonald Fraser, the Daily Mail published a series of essays in which he had detailed the declining nature of the United Kingdom. In them, he describes the decay of ordinary morality, standards of decency, sportsmanship, politeness, respect for the law, family values, politics and religion in Britain which has upheld our society for generations; and of the social engineering of the past few decades which has seen the PC lobby transform the education system so that they above all can dictate what and how our young people will learn in schools. This latter occurance likens to somesort of fascist state of Orwellian conception, a government who controls and restrics the learning of children in our schools. Teaching slavery as though it was an 18th century British idea, the bias anti-monarchical teaching of King Henry Tudor's notorious reign as if to warn children of what an unchallenged King or Queen has the potential to do, and the introduction of General Studies which seems to work around truth and fact using carefully designed Politically Correct dampers. For example, mentioning the great feats of the peace icon Nelson Mandela against South Africa's aparteid, without mentioning he was actually a co-founder and subsequent leader of a militant, terrorist organisation; or of the mentioning of Communism without mentioning that Socialism is actually its milder form, and that our Labour government founds itself proudly on Socialist principles. Surely it is for the benefit of us all if our children are also taught to be free thinkers in the process of learning at school, providing them with all the facts about a subject before they are to be tested on their knowledge of it. That is what I would consider to be a healthy and adaquate education system, and by succumbing to anything less we are effectively grooming them up for the future benches of New Labour.

The influencing of the people of Britain by the PC lobby also spans into the bias workings of the media through our Orwellian conceived, everyday televisions, in which a supposedly 'impartial' broadcasting corporation, known as the BBC, uses its state funding to propogate onto our screens whatever it deems fit. The truth of the matter is that we are actually abliged by law to pay the BBC, through our TV licenses, which allows the corporation to dictate and restrict whatever we see from morning till night on their channels; whether it be the opinions of the Liberal Democrat ministers on government policy, or the 'modern adaptations' of Jane Austens over-fished drama's, and most things broadcast seem to have political undertones. The BBC also has reach of the minds of British children through the mediators of programmes like Blue Peter and SMart, who's actual presenters such as Richard Bacon and Mark Speight don't seem to be thought of as influential role models, and so are left to their own illegal drug taking devices without any mentioning of moral obligation. Even the thought that presenters (and Angus Deayton is another one) should be morally-fit to represent our high British standards of decency and sign of well spending of taxpayers money is almost laughable in the eyes of the media chiefs. It would seem as though the core of British Liberalism has exceeded the once evident social boundries of pit villages and unions, and has firmly made its way into of one of the greatest influencing weapons known to man, but does the responsibility in the decline of our morality and national culture really lie with the most influential organisation? The success of propoganda throughout the ages has proved to be a mighty force in the overthrowing of the English King, the beheading of the French Aristocracy, and the electing of a German Supreme Chancellor, it is a collective opinion which convinces the masses to agree with whoever conceived it. Just look at China, its Communist government carefully moderates all news channels and stories which are to be publically seen, even limiting the internet so that no free thought or additional influences can be accessed by the population. They understand the power of the media, and realise that it has the capability to overthrow even the most brutal and intollerant of regimes whatever their political standing.

No doubt we are all influenced by the media, but perhaps if people had a little more discretion in identifying the political motives of news channels and television companies like the BBC, we would all be in less danger of adhereing to the liberality which has no room for tradition in Britain. The wider populations attitude to current events and politics has been dramatically affected by the media in the last century, almost to a state of social revolution. Never before has so wide an audience been subject to the views of others, and the consequence of such huge advancements in our technology has led us to huge social changes in a just a few generations. The evidence of this 'liberalisation' in society which has led to many changes in public opinion, stems from the fact that although our British government has changed hands back and forth since the great days of imperialism, influences from the liberal controlled media has shown no evidence of drastic change. It is as though Brtiains main media centre (being the BBC) has been privatised to the extent that the views of those in control of it do not match those of any political party. Subsequently leaving the state funded organisation to pick and choose what it wants to tell and show people, depending on where it stands on certain political issues. This predicts that even if a far-left wing government took power tomorrow, the media would still have the ability to opinionate the population of the country in its arguably more moderate centre-left views.

I have no problem with our freedoms of speech, nor of a private organisation or corporation's right to promote its political morals or ideals; as Voltaire once famously said "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the end your right to say it"; but to have in todays Britain a publically funded organisation seemingly exempt from debate or democratic process, manipulating how we live as a society is quite frankly a discrace. If the BBC is to be continued to be funded by the people of Britain by law, then it should have the decency to be completely politically impartial, as it all too often claims to be...