Triumph and Tragedy

So now we know. Despite the best efforts of the left wing commentariat, and the idiot opinion polls declaring that the US Presidential election was too close to call, Donald wiped the floor with the heroine of the woke.

Apart from relief at Donald's win it has been a delight to see the Harris supporting liberal left in this country squirming. A politician said years ago "The people have spoken. Damn them", a sentiment the morons of the Left are now echoing. It is indeed a joy to watch the left wing commentators, and the know nothing celebrities, wringing their hands, and denying reality. It's called democracy stupid! It is a particular pleasure to see the BBC with egg all over its face. Arrogant leftists accuse Trump supporters of not accepting results of elections, but now hold demonstrations against the Right when it wins. Hypocritical morons.

Donald's triumph is a victory for all those who are not these deluded so called progressives. It is a tragedy that we in the UK face five years of a government which supports all the failed nostrums of the liberal Left. Nevertheless the world is a better, safer place today thanks to Donald going back to the White House. Unfortunately the media in the UK has presented a one sided, and completely false picture of what Trump is, and what he stand for, which has meant that many, probably most, of the British people think him at best stupid, at worst a fascist, yet neither of those beliefs is true.

It is instructive to examine his record in detail, in order that one can understand why the American people chose to support him. In his time in office unemployment fell to its lowest since 1969, wages increased by 15 per cent and tax cuts and deregulation resulted in the best stock market returns under a Republican since the 1920s. America became a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957, and he allowed allow legal drug imports to lower prices, specifically providing more HIV drugs, while he became the first president to audit the Pentagon. He signed bills to clean up pollution in the ocean, to guaranteed spaces in airports for breastfeeding, and give paid parental leave to federal workers, while cutting sentences for the many of those with disproportionate prison sentences, ninety per cent of whom were black

On social issues he appointed five gay ambassadors to promote global decriminalisation of homosexuality, and preferred to allow states to decide on abortion.

If proof were needed of the hypocrisy of the Democrats it is obvious from the way that they copied Trump when in power, imposing tariffs on China, while attempting to reverse the flow of manufacturing jobs, and to deport illegal immigrants. Their record on other matters illustrates why no sane person would support them. Among policies advocated by these lunatics were abortion up to birth, promoting the absurd transgender ideology, attempting to defund the police, and, when holding power in cities, wrecking them with unbelievably stupid policies of tolerating criminal activity.

That Donald puts his fellow Americans first can also be seen by the fact that he launched no new wars in his time in office.

Turning to matters in the UK, there is of coarse the ongoing disaster of the socialist government, the disastrous budget, and the sideshow of the Conservative leadership election.

Marxist regimes have been responsible for millions of deaths, and have oppressed nations around the globe, but have managed to convince the naive and gullible that their intentions were egalitarian. They claim to represent the economically oppressed, but in reality have made the latter's lives worse, as those who dominate these parties are seeking power for themselves. In order to achieve power Marxists seek to bring down democratic societies, and they are behind most of the disruption we have seen. Karl Marx himself recognised how the ideal had been corrupted, and proclaimed towards the end of his life "I am not a Marxist".

The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci devised a phrase "The Long March through the Institutions", which was turned into a crusade by Marxist student activist Rudi Dutschke in the 1960s. It describes slowly winning over the chief institutions that determine the direction of a culture and thereby creating a soft revolution from within those institutions. The focus is on the universities, then the unions, the arts, the schools, the media, then corporations, and finally the society as a whole. Ideas that do not match Marxist frameworks are seen as the enemy, and despite denials about its reality made by the Left, it is a reality, and has now succeeded, perhaps beyond its wildest dreams.

The brainwashing of youngsters, at schools, and in universities, has led to the economic nostrums of Marxism, or at least, socialism to become embedded in many of those who go on to become members of our political elites, and we now see the results in the current government's promotion of policies which ignore reality in favour of these false ideas absorbed as students. We have always needed intelligent people, including such geniuses as Newton, Darwin and Hawkins, but not narcissistic intellectuals, who are always wrong, and do immense damage to our society. Only capitalism has generated the prosperity we have enjoyed in the past, and adolescent beliefs in the false god of socialism, as are clearly held by the majority of the Left, will, if they reach the levers of power, destroy it.

The main feature of socialism is that it doesn't work. It, and its evil elder brother Communism, is the product of academics, and student politicians, who, while in many cases intending good, end up implementing bad, or worse. These ivory tower theories sound all very nice, but bear no relation to the real world and, when this becomes apparent, those in charge try to change reality, rather than accept that their misbegotten ideas are wrong.

Labour always taxes more, spends more, fuels inflation, and goes bust. Must we be forced to learn the lessons of the 1970s all over again?

The attacks on farmers in the budget, and the pursuit of ridiculous net zero targets, may very well cause both food rationing, and blackouts, while their neglect of our defences puts us all in danger.

Much of the blame for this disaster lies with the Conservative Party's absurd belief in a ‘broad church' which meant that they did not pursue conservative policies, and eventually lost the votes of their natural supporters, thereby allowing a minority vote for Labour to take a disproportionate number of parliamentary seats. The former deserved the massive defeat they met with, but the British people do not deserve the betrayal of their interests which the political class has caused.

It is impossible to encompass those who are in essence Social Democrats, and true Conservatives, within the same party. One can be certain that it will not be long before the so called one nation Tories are attacking the new leader, and rebelling in parliamentary votes.

The Conservatives showed their real face when so many applauded Sunak after his budget speech. If he had not been such as idiot they could still be in power, with what appears to be an improving economy, and the possibility that they might have got a Rwanda project actually operating. As it is he lumbered us with five years of woke morons. If the Tories ever wish to regain power they must cut the wets loose, and concentrate on the kind of policies that the vast majority of the country actually want, otherwise we shall see another two to three leaders come and go before the inevitable defeat at the next general election.

For decades, while those of us in the Campaign for an Independent Britain, the Democracy Movement, and UKIP, were fighting to take back control of our country from unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the Tories opposed us all the way. Only after the people made their opinion clear in the 2016 referendum did a sudden Damascene conversion take place, and even then a majority of Tory MPs did not want a real Brexit. Although Badenoch is on the right of the party she has shown herself willing to appease the wets in her choice of a shadow Cabinet. We now have someone who opposed Brexit as Home Secretary, while a true patriot like Suella Braverman languishes on the back benches.

Nigel is obviously correct when he says that Badenoch does not have the policies to stop the boatloads of criminals invading our shores. Even if the Tories won the next election the number of wets in the parliamentary party would ensure that all that would happen about the boats would be much ringing of hands, and no action.

There are several very simple ways of stopping these criminals. The mildest would be to build confinement barracks in remote parts of the country, where they would be held, fed, and given medical treatment, but refused release until they agree to return to their own countries. Of course leftwing lawyers would have a fit, but they could be just ignored, and the law changed where necessary.

One thing that one would have thought that Badenoch's victory would have meant was that the Conservative leader could not be described as a racist, but, of course, this underestimates the lunacy of the liberal left. How anyone in their right mind can call Kemi's victory a triumph for racism is beyond the understanding of normal people. It is pointless trying to debate anything with these people, as they are clearly deranged.

The following is an email which Labour MP Dawn Butler chose to support: Today the most prominent member of white supremacy's black collaborator class (in Britain) is likely to be made leader of the Conservative Party. Here are some handy tips for surviving the immediate surge of Badenochism (i.e. white supremacy in blackface). Don't allow yourself to be gaslit. Of course, a victory for Badenoch is an obvious, unprecedented and once inconceivable victory for racism.

Don't get arrested… The police don't do nuance, and they conveniently refuse to understand black and brown intra-communal language or forms of critique, satire or compliment e.g. coconut, Uncle Tom, Aunt Kemi, house negro, choc ice etc. The term "house negro", which was popularised by Malcom X, is used to criticise black people who have brushed aside their own ethnic identity to assimilate into a white society. Similarly, the terms "coconut", and "choc ice" refers to an individual who is "brown on the outside, white on the inside".

The post, which was titled ‘Warning: Seven rules for surviving a Kemi Badenoch victory', is no longer visible on Butler's social media account after she removed it.

Many took to social media to critique Butler, calling on Sir Keir Starmer to remove the whip. Ben Obese-JectyIt, MP Huntingdon, said: "It never takes much for Labour's mask to slip. Dawn Butler is not alone on the Government benches in holding this view of Kemi. This will be a test to see whether Keir Starmer removes the whip, or effectively condones Butler's abhorrent approval of this smear".

Conservative councillor Oliver Cooper said: "Dawn Butler thinks the most successful black woman in British history is racist against black people. Keir Starmer has to decide whether he wants obsessive race warriors like Dawn Butler to continue to represent his party. It seems he does." You couldn't make it up!

The manner in which Ed Milliband is being allowed to trash the country in his pursuit of the ridiculous policy of net zero carbon emissions is yet another glaring example of the stupidity of this government.

Carbon dioxide constitutes a mere 0.04% in the atmosphere, and Britain contributes less than one percent of the global emissions which add to that minuscule amount, yet climate obsessives are prepared to wreck our economy, and cause blackouts, in order to reduce it still further. Indeed if the level of CO2 in the atmosphere were to be halved plant life would die, as would we.

What we should be aware of is that we may in fact, like Don Quixote, be only tilting at windmills, as any increase in global temperature may not even be due to carbon dioxide. Variations in the Earth's orbit over thousands of years can significantly affect how much of the Sun's radiation reaches us, while the current slowing of the rotation of our planet's inner core, something which occurs on a long, but regular basis, weakens the magnetic shield which protects us from harmful solar output. There are other good reasons to gradually reduce our reliance on finite fossil fuels, but not in a timeframe which means that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The UK taxpayer is funding the Committee on Climate Change, which is yet another body employing environmental obsessives, whose targets are always the UK, not the real emitters of CO2 such as Russia and China.

Their latest pronouncement says that the UK needs to make huge cuts to its greenhouse gas emissions this decade to help the world avoid the worst impacts of rising temperatures, requiring much greater investment in renewable energy, electric cars and heat pumps, despite that fact that the UK has already cut its emissions by more than fifty per cent since 1990.

This organisation now says that says the UK should extend this reduction to eighty one per cent by 2035, claiming it would make a "credible contribution" to the international goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C, but, as the total of our emissions is less than one per cent of the global total, such a reduction, even if increased to hundred per cent, would make absolutely no difference.

It is unacceptable that British people should be forced to buy expensive, and ineffective electric cars, noisy, and costly, heat pumps, and endure blackouts, just to satisfy the demands of those who seem to be totally impervious to reason, and afraid to confront those nations about whom they should be concerned.

In foreign affairs things go from bad to worse.

At the end of the Second World War we in the UK were responsible for leading the way in setting up organisations such as the UN, which were created to prevent evil nations such as Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan, from repeating the crimes of the thirties and forties.

However, since those days, these bodies have become nothing more than forums for those who hate the West to spout their bile, while at the same time expecting we, and the Americans, to support them financially. Clearly it is in our interests to remain in the UN itself, so that we can wield the veto when necessary, but we should cease to give money to those other organisations such as the WHO, whose chose to exonerate China from blame in the Covid crisis; UNRWA, whose staff do not merely constantly attack our values, but, as in the case of the Hamas attack, actually assist the killers; the ECHR, which prevents us from expelling foreign murderers; the ICJ, which always finds against the West; and the International Criminal Tribunal, now taken over by the Left.

Unfortunately with a lawyer as our PM, who clearly worships so called international law, we will see the reverse occur. We truly live the other side of the looking glass. Hamas are a group of barbaric thugs, yet a so called student who supports them is allowed to remain in this country. Those who make such decisions are deranged.

Most leaders of the West, obsessed with appeasing enemies, rather than opposing them, like to claim that conflicts must alway be settled by negotiations, and that military force cannot achieve this, something which is historically inaccurate.

Three centuries before Christ the rising power of Rome had a rival, Carthage, which threatened the former's dominance of the Mediterranean. After the Punic Wars the latter was utterly destroyed by its total military defeat at the hands of Rome, and her people enslaved. In living memory the fascists powers of Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan, were forced by military means, to submit completely, without negotiations.

If a nation like Israel is faced with a genocidal enemy, which has the one aim of extirpating it and its people, there is no negotiation which can end the conflict, while a state such as Ukraine, attacked by a despot who denies its right to exist, except as part of his empire, is obliged to rely upon force to survive. These are hard facts, and no amount of wishful thinking by those who believe otherwise can change that reality.

Those countries constantly criticising Western nations, and seeking to ingratiate themselves with he totalitarian states, should remember the old adage "be careful what you wish for".

If the obsession with net zero undermines UK industry, and consequently the military, while the US decides to follow, as it has in the past, an isolationist path, then the end of the influence of the main English speaking nations on the world would have significant consequences for humanity.

Despite courageous resistance Israel would be destroyed, and the Sunni Arab nations of the Middle East would find that domination by the non Arab Shia theocratic regime of Iran was not, to put it mildly, an unalloyed good.

The valiant people of Ukraine would eventually be crushed by the Russian steamroller, the nations of Eastern Europe would be obliged to accept the renewed suzerainty of Russia, while those of Western Europe would be in grave danger. Whether even our nuclear weapons would preserve our independence would be questionable. Those in the third world who think that Russia would champion their interests would find that actually the latter is actually far more racist than anything they might have believed the West to be.

In Asia South Korea would fall to the North, and Taiwan would be occupied by China. Indeed the rest of Asia would then find that domination by China would, while probably less barbaric, be almost as bad for its people as was that of Imperial Japan.

South America would probably still be protected by the US, who would want no foreign empire in its hemisphere, but Africa would find that the various Chinese initiatives in providing funding for projects were the precursor to effective colonial exploitation.

Democracy would die, and unmitigated force would determine the future. Is that what these gullible nations want?

Churchill entitled the last part of his great history of the Second World War 'Triumph and Tragedy', and with the success of Trump we have the first, while that of Starmer is the latter.