Virtuous evil

During the 20th century there were numerous political revolutions. Three of them stand out for the impact they had on the wider world. These are the Russian Communist revolution of 1917, the Nazi power grab in Germany in 1933 and the Islamic revolution of 1979 in Iran. Theoretically each could claim to have been motivated by a virtuous objective. The communists could claim that they wanted a much larger share of the economic cake for ordinary people. The Nazis were motivated by patriotism, namely a love of one’s own country, and a wish for it to prosper. The Islamists would argue that their actions were motivated by devotion to the service of God, the creator of us all.

So all these revolutions, in principle, could claim to be based on a desire to create a better world, as envisaged by their supporters. But as we all know they resulted in totalitarian tyrannies in which many of their citizens were casually murdered or incarcerated, and their freedoms and liberty curtailed. Another factor they all had in common was that they very swiftly seized control from the previous authority, and immediately set about introducing a complete change of policy, that was soon apparent to all citizens.

Over the past half century and more Britain and other Western countries have been undergoing a similar revolution, whereby the old order has been thrown off, and a new one entrenched. This revolution has also been motivated by virtuous intentions, this time the pursuit of equality to empower those who had previously been marginalised, ignored or the victims of injustice and discrimination. But the one big difference with this revolution is that it has happened very gradually, step by step. Thus it has been introduced by stealth, with the result that many people are only dimly aware of what has been happening.

Instead of the hard totalitarianism of the Communists, Nazis and Islamists the Western revolution has so far confined itself to engaging in a soft form of totalitarianism. There have been no state directed murders of citizens, and the numbers incarcerated for political crimes are presently at a fairly low level, although they do exist, and the numbers are slowly increasing. These include the state harassment of Tommy Robinson, the imprisonment of ‘far right’ activists (to appease anti-racists activists) and also men handed down prison sentences for alleged historical sex offences on the accusations of a single complainant during a rigged trial procedure (to appease misandric feminists).

Currently the favoured method of thought control is dismissal from employment of anyone deemed guilty of wrong speak, which has proven to be highly effective in muzzling dissent. But given the incremental approach, the present stage is likely to be only the beginning, since the demands of the zealots is always being ratcheted upwards. There is no doubt that the freedoms and liberties of ordinary British citizens are being increasingly threatened by a powerful and unaccountable minority with a determined political agenda.

The agenda behind this new soft totalitarianism is ruthlessly promoted by the vocal hard left and comes under a variety of names, such as political correctness, identity politics, cultural Marxism and woke culture. It has been embraced by academia, the trade unions, mainstream media outlets most notably the Guardian and BBC. In politics it has taken control of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and both the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. These notionally separate political parties are in practice now a single party, having the same agenda and policies (apart from the nationalist question). The only disagreements between them are confined to arguing about who can impose the same agenda most effectively.

Politically correct values have been embedded in the civil service, local government, the education system, the Church of England, the police, quangos, advertising, charities, the film industry, celebrities, sport , the scientific community, and many business enterprises. It is enforced through social media most notably Twitter. A history and outline of this politically correct agenda is outlined here http://bit.ly/2gpklQz

There is still some opposition but it is relatively weak. The most strident is the Daily Mail group, followed the Telegraph group, and to some extent The Sun which has the disadvantage of not being a serious newspaper. There are in addition dissenting political websites such as Spiked and Conservative Woman together with some others. We live in a democracy so in theory we should be offered a choice by political parties offering some resistance to this soft totalitarianism. However, they have failed in this task.

The largest party of the right, the Conservatives, is divided between those who regularly appease political correctness and those from the right wing of the party who are more sceptical. The latter occasionally provide a challenge, but they are invariably emasculated by the former. The minor parties, demonised as ‘far right’, have all self destructed, most recently UKIP, which before its demise did at least provide a manifesto offering some hope to political dissidents. Something similar to this manifesto, which is outlined here http://bit.ly/2yXEP9t , needs to be adopted by the Conservative Party, since if implemented it would bring a swift end to the politically correct agenda.

Although the growth of political correctness has been slow it can be reversed fairly quickly. The first step has already been taken, leaving the European Union. As we have all seen, this generated a collective howl of rage from the politically correct class, coupled with innumerable attempts to reverse this decision. For decades our new cultural establishment has been pushing the boundaries and receiving very little resistance. They came to believe that they were invincible, developing a sense of entitlement and privilege, that encouraged them in their belief that they had a right to impose their values on the rest of society. They were so absorbed in their own sense of moral superiority, that they haughtily dismissed their critics as unenlightened bigots whose opinions should and must be brushed aside.

Now that we are an independent nation once again we are free to introduce measures to reverse decades of politically correct legislation, and to introduce policies to foster social cohesion and mobility. Briefly, based loosely on the UKIP manifesto, these are; restore grammar schools everywhere, limit university places to 20% of school leavers funded by taxation, severely limit all immigration for the foreseeable future and ramp up the training of our own people, significantly increase housebuilding, repeal all so called hate crime and equalities legislation (other than physical disability), scrap the Climate Change Act, renationalise public utilities including the railways so that they are operated in the public interest, and initiate a debate with minority and religious communities to ensure that they better integrate themselves into traditional British values and way of life, and eschew identity politics together with their embrace of the grievance and victimhood culture. Further administrative measures will also need to be taken to dismantle the politically correct apparatus embedded in public bodies. These measures take together should end the pernicious cultural take over of our country and foster a much needed sense of national identity.

Extinction Rebellion price tag

The anti-capitalist agitprop conspiracy Extinction Rebellion has been in the news quite a lot during the past year. Regrettably it has to be conceded that its street protests have achieved some success in influencing public opinion. Parliament and numerous local authorities have declared that we are now in a climate emergency, and the supposed threat to the climate has moved up the political agenda.

Also the BBC now never misses an opportunity to introduce the threat of climate change into a wide range of topics which on the surface appear to have little connection with the main subject under discussion. Those being interviewed are keen to show their eagerness to parrot the received orthodoxy that climate change is contributing to a host of problems faced by society. So this is a battle which climate realists are losing to a rampant out of control climate alarmist lobby that appears to have become well entrenched in all of our major institutions.

It is seriously disturbing that so many people who should know better have credulously been taken in by the climate alarmist hoax. The reality is that there has been no change to the global climate, and there is no likelihood that there will be in the foreseeable future. The facts and the evidence are compelling. During the past 60 years, since records began, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30%. But during the past 140 years global temperature has fluctuated within a range of one degree Celsius. Thus there is very little correlation between the increase in the harmless trace gas CO2 and the global climate. So projections that global temperature will increase by four to five degrees Celsius by the end of this century are clearly evidence-free nonsensical alarmist pseudo-science.

Regrettably all political parties have been spooked by the climate alarmists and the Government has now set a target of being ‘carbon neutral’ by 2050. Why is it that when British governments take unilateral action in a supposedly virtuous cause such as climate change it is seen as ‘Britain taking a lead’, but when they do the same for a non virtuous cause like reclaiming national sovereignty by leaving the European Union they are denounced by the same people as ‘leaving Britain isolated’?

Britain has to some extent succeeded in reducing its CO2 emissions by introducing vast numbers of inefficient, highly subsidised and unsightly wind turbines. These have in part replaced efficient and less costly coal fired power stations. We have also outsourced a lot of our manufacturing capacity to China. But these are the low hanging fruit and the path to achieving any future emissions reduction will be much more difficult and is likely to arouse considerable public hostility.

The inevitable outcome of what is deemed necessary to reach the 2050 carbon neutral target will be to destroy the living standards of the British public, to make us all considerably poorer in real terms and return the country to a pre-industrial way of life. Amongst other things it will mean individuals being compelled to fund the replacement of 25 million gas boilers with less efficient and more costly alternatives, the severe curtailment of air travel, the replacement of all petrol and diesel vehicles resulting in a huge increase in home electricity costs to offset the loss of fuel duty, massive changes in farming and the nation’s dietary habits to reduce meat and dairy consumption, and plenty more. All this to address a non-existent problem.

Fortunately if any Government recklessly decided to implement these madcap policies in an attempt to meet the 2050 target, it would very quickly trigger the debate we have never had on the exaggerated and hysterical claims of the climate alarmists. Far from giving a lead to the rest of the world any British government pursuing such a destructive agenda would soon find itself completely isolated as no other country is likely to be quite so foolhardy as to follow suit.

The third race relations act.

This blog has here http://bit.ly/2z6HOgJ and here http://bit.ly/2MCuAOa previously assessed legislation, introduced by the Labour government of the 1960s, which had the objective of outlawing racial discrimination. This aim was promoted as being high minded and progressive, but in reality it marked the start of the slippery slope which has incrementally resulted in today’s pernicious fixation with identity politics, in which all citizens now run the risk of prosecution if the authorities consider they may be engaging in a ‘hate crime’. As part of this ongoing process the Labour government introduced a further Race Relations Act in 1976, which provided the state with additional powers to control still further the social and private behaviour of citizens.

This new race relations bill was introduced into the Commons by the Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. He noted that there had been a great deal of change since the first race relations legislation a decade earlier, most notably that a much larger proportion of ‘coloured’ people were now born in Britain, and thus could no longer be described as immigrants. He believed as an essential principle that ‘racial minorities were entitled to full and equal treatment’, and that ‘racial discrimination was morally repugnant to a civilised and democratic society’.

However he also warned that there had to be ‘a clear limit to the amount of immigration which this country can absorb, and that it is in the interests of the racial minorities themselves to maintain a strict control over immigration’. Successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, would shamelessly and consistently continue to ignore this warning, sometimes spectacularly so.

The Home Secretary acknowledged that legislation alone was insufficient to address the problem of racial disadvantage and that ‘a wide range of administrative and voluntary measures were needed in order to give practical effect to the objectives of the law, and to combat discrimination and encourage equal opportunity’. In practice the commitment to equal opportunity was soon overtaken by the drive to achieve equality of outcome, regardless of how this agenda might alienate and discriminate against the majority white population.

Mr Jenkins acknowledged that during the past decade ‘despite all our efforts’ the end result was ‘the inability of the existing legislation to deal with widespread patterns of discrimination, especially in employment and housing’, or to address ‘a lack of confidence among minority groups in the utility of the law’. The new legislation would close some loopholes which still allowed discrimination ‘in an unacceptable way’. Thus private social clubs would no longer be allowed to operate a colour bar or to refuse membership on racial grounds. The law on incitement to racial hatred would also be strengthened.

Also included for the first time was the establishment of a new Race Relations Commission. Its principal functions included working towards the elimination of discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between different racial groups and to keep the working of the legislation under review. It was also given a major strategic role ‘in enforcing the law in the public interest, and to identify and deal with discriminatory practices by industries, firms or institutions’. The Commission would have the power to bring legal proceedings against those who persistently violate the law, to conduct investigations and research, to advise the Government and take action to educate and persuade public opinion.

So it is clear that the Commission was provided with wide ranging powers and responsibilities to promote the interests of minority racial groups at the expense of the white majority, and whose cause moreover would be reinforced by making the inevitable accusations of racism and discrimination to give greater weight to their complaints. As Enoch Powell observed in his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech this would provide ‘the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur with the power to pillory citizens for their private actions'.

A Conservative MP made the pertinent point that ‘the Commission will be able to help those who make accusations. What we have not been told, but should like to hear, is what redress there will be for those against whom false accusations are made.’ The Home Secretary agreed that ‘people should not be subject to malicious or frivolous complaints’ explaining that ‘a complainant has either to get the assistance of the new Commission, in which case he has to go through quite an important sieve, or he has to take his own responsibility for bringing an action before an industrial tribunal or a county court. So there is a considerable disincentive to people to indulge in frivolous or pointless complaints’.

The shadow Home Secretary William Whitelaw responded on behalf of the Conservative opposition. He agreed that it was necessary to encourage good race relations and confirmed that his party was ‘completely committed to the principle of non-discrimination’, but added that any race relations policy ‘had to operate against a background of public confidence’. He shared the expressed view of the Home Secretary that if the legislation was to work there would need to be a ‘policy of strict control of immigration’ since continued immigration on a ‘substantial scale’ would destroy any race relations policy.

Mr Whitelaw expressed concern about the inclusion of social clubs in the legislation which ‘represents a completely revolutionary attitude to the private life of the citizen. Clubs have been held in law to be an extension of the home and an area which should be exempt from Government interference’, adding that ‘insisting on legislation in an area where it is quite inappropriate, will stir up resentment and antagonism’. On the subject of incitement to racial hatred he believed that ‘the Government will be seen to be taking dangerously arbitrary powers, which have more than a hint of censorship about them’.

In support of the legislation a Labour MP declared that’ race discrimination and race prejudice are still widespread. Consequently there is a risk of ethnic communities becoming permanently alienated. What is needed, above everything else, is a clear and demonstrable Government commitment to equal rights’. However, the intention of the legislation was not to provide equal rights which already existed, but to create machinery in which racial minorities could intimidate the majority white population through accusations of discrimination and racism.

Enoch Powell, by then an Ulster Unionist MP, declared that he would vote against the legislation because ‘it would not in its practical application contribute to the achievement of racial harmony’. He warned that the proposals were irrelevant to the real problems and dangers facing the country, and went on to catalogue the huge increase in ethnic births that had taken place in certain town and cities. He pointed out that this increase in the ethnic population was leading to irreversible segregation, which had not arisen because of discrimination, but by human nature and the ‘mass and size of the original movement itself’. He shared the view that ‘bad social practices could not be remedied’ by the legislation adding that ‘in some respects they will flourish in an atmosphere of resentment’ and would be ‘counter-productive because the creation of new rights creates new grievances. The search for new grievance is eternal. There is no limit to the grievances which can be found by those who are determined to find them’.

A Labour MP responded to Mr Powell by claiming that the legislation would only give rights to people who need them, since the mass of the population does not suffer discrimination, unlike a certain section which is at a grave disadvantage and so requires protection because of the actions of a very small and prejudiced minority. Several Conservative MPs thought that a balance had to be struck between ‘avoiding discrimination on the basis of colour’ whilst ensuring that ‘there should be the strictest control over new immigration’. In practice this balance never happened since governments would repeatedly capitulate to ever more strident calls for greater measures against perceived discrimination, but condemn as racist those seeking to curb immigration.

A Conservative MP declared that ‘Parliament should be wary about the racial hatred clause extensions. Free speech must be preserved at all times. Parliament should be paramount in preserving free speech. However unpalatable or distasteful free speech may be at certain times to enlightened opinion, we must always allow it’. This was a timely warning which successive governments would ignore, leading to the current suppression of free speech under the guise of so called ‘hate crimes’.

A prominent Liberal MP considered that the proposals did not go far enough. He suggested that the Government should ‘by the use of their contracting role, ensure that there is no discrimination among the firms with which they deal, and by monitoring more carefully the composition of their own staff, the Civil Service. The Government should set an example in this field, and local authorities should do more in this respect’. In time such measures would not only be introduced but extended to cover many private firms.

The Conservative MP Ronald Bell in a detailed speech made some pertinent points. He believed that the use of the law in this context was wrong, and although he personally always tried to be ‘fair, courteous and kind to all’, he nevertheless discriminates ‘between everyone I meet upon every ground that I can detect. I think that everybody does so, and it is right that they do. Discrimination is not merely the supreme human quality; it is the very principle of life itself’. He continued ‘a heavy responsibility lies upon anyone who proposes to use the law to declare that people must disregard certain things which they believe they perceive’, condemning such laws as being ‘against the very spirit of the human race’. Mr Bell noted that ‘compulsion is so attractive and so quick. It saves all the bother of persuasion. It is the invariable objective of every pressure group. Once we start on the process of using the law to mould minds, we are embarking upon something that is a total abuse of the coercive processes which a society accepts for some of its necessary purposes’.

On practical grounds he opposed the proposed legislation as it widened the range of discrimination that would result in a more oppressive legal system. He condemned the ‘vicious severity of the civil procedure’ that was being proposed, pointing out the reason why this course has been taken ‘since on a civil basis it is not necessary to obtain proof beyond all reasonable doubt, it is necessary only to establish the balance of probability’. He highlighted the financial imbalance between the parties ‘because of the awarding of costs a defendant hardly ever dares to contest the matter in court, whereas the complainants have behind them the inexhaustible resources of the Crown’. With regard to the proposal to strengthen the powers against incitement to racial hatred Mr Bell denounced this as it would eliminate ‘the need for intent altogether. It strikes it right out in this restriction of freedom of speech’.

Another Conservative MP raised the issue of immigration. He believed that ‘ordinary English people wish to keep this country, which they know and love, basically as a place to which they feel they belong. Fundamentally, they do not wish it to change either its character or its cohesion. In other words, they wish to retain their identity’. He considered that this was now threatened since although ‘we have always absorbed small numbers of immigrants, the immensity of coloured immigration that this country has received during the past 25 years is an entirely new phenomenon. He observed that ‘immigration has completely altered the face of certain parts of this country and created foreign enclaves in our midst. It has brought into this country alien people whose religion, customs and habits are quite different from ours. In this way it has fundamentally altered the character of this country’. The MP declared that ‘no government has the right to carry out such a fundamental act without the most specific consent of the people. Successive Governments are gradually depriving English people of their birthright, and in time, if this procedure is not stopped, the local population will be swamped’. It is refreshing to know that Conservative MPs once held robust views such as these, coupled with a willingness to speak the truth about the facts with honesty and clarity.

Alex Lyons, Home Office Minister of State, concluded the debate. He claimed that ‘the 1968 Act succeeded in eliminating overt discrimination. We now have to do something about discrimination which is indirect, latent or concealed. We have decided not just to change the general powers of the Race Relations Board but to create a completely new structure which will have a completely new role’. Unlike the previous two parliamentary debates on this subject in 1965 and 1968, when the Conservatives voted against the proposed legislation, this time they abstained. Despite the near unanimous opposition of Conservative MPs whenever this kind of legislation was introduced, these race laws were never repealed or reversed when Conservative governments were in power.

Election 2019 euphoria

In stark contrast to the 2017 general election result the political right are cock-a-hoop over Boris Johnson’s stunning electoral victory. With a single stroke the extremist Labour and Liberal Democrats have been left leaderless and in turmoil, the remoaner wreckers of Brexit have been shafted, the SNP have been left isolated and the alarmism of the Greens has been rejected.

The immediate priority of the Conservative government will be to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and to complete all the remaining withdrawal arrangements by the end of 2020 that will deliver the final removal of EU control over British affairs. There will also need to be measures taken to ensure that any economic turbulence caused by Brexit is kept to a minimum.

Despite the scale of the victory support for the Tories is still fairly shallow, particularly in the traditional Labour constituencies which they have just captured. By the time of the next election the factors which helped them this time will no longer be relevant. Brexit will not be an issue, Corbyn will no longer be Labour leader and the Brexit Party will probably have faded away. It also appears that some of the individual Labour manifesto policies were quite popular.

We can be sure that there is likely to be more subversion from the leftist rent-a-mob rabble that have been protesting in Whitehall, as well as increased resort to the courts by generously funded anti-Tory opponents seeking to thwart and overturn government decisions. So the Conservatives will need to bolster their public support by addressing the under funding of public services, improve the effectiveness of the NHS, deliver on their promise of significant increases in nurses and police numbers, and end the era of austerity.

They should also start to address some of the longer term problems which have become endemic in British society. The difficulties in achieving home ownership have alienated whole swathes of young people, so more house building will need to be delivered. Uncontrolled immigration, in particular the chain migration of Muslims through arranged marriages, is destroying the nation’s cohesion and cultural identity, as well as putting pressure on public services and housing. Conservative policies on this issue are currently totally inadequate for dealing with the scale of the problem.

Slavish support for identity politics, political correctness, and unachievable equality of outcome targets should be ended, by repealing all equalities legislation other than for physical disabilities. Additionally, all so called ‘hate crimes’ need to be repealed to ensure freedom of speech is preserved. The divisive and alienating policy of multiculturalism should be more vigorously repudiated. The Climate Change Act is another meddling piece of legislation than needs to be repealed, and the impossible and unnecessary climate CO2 emission targets abolished, together with the termination of the futile and expensive carbon trading racket.

The madness of transgender activism has to be faced down, and legal recognition of same sex relationships ended, to be replaced by measures to encourage the stability of those marriages in which parents are responsible for the upbringing of children under school leaving age. HS2 should be scrapped and the savings used to improve the current rail network, reopen some closed lines and invest in an improved north of England east-west rail link.

A more rigorous education for brighter pupils is needed which can only be delivered by the reintroduction of grammar schools. University admissions should be halved allowing those who would most benefit from higher education to be fully funded as they are in Scotland. Pupils not intellectually equipped for university life should receive well funded support both for vocational education and for improvements to their numeracy and literacy.

In short, if the Conservatives are to retain the confidence of the British public, they should start to promote genuine conservative policies and stop pandering to their politically correct opponents who can never be appeased.

A brief history of climate alarmism

It is a strange paradox that the longer the global temperature remains flat, the greater the alarm becomes about rising temperatures in the future. This year the hysteria has been ratcheted up by the mob activities of Extinction Rebellion, the doomsday hectoring from the Swedish teen savant Greta, the indoctrinated school truant protestors, the latest alarmist projections from the IPCC, and the recent UN climate groupthink summit in New York. So it is time to analyse how and why so many people have succumbed to this collective madness.

At the end of the 19th century Svante Arrhenius from Sweden was the first scientist to link increased CO2 in the atmosphere with rising global temperature. But it would take the scientific community another eighty years before expressing any concern about increasing CO2 emissions. During the 1970s some of the more vocal were concerned that we may be heading towards a new ice age as described in this http://bit.ly/27RaoNr earlier blog. They had reached this conclusion as global temperature had been falling for three decades.

However, from the mid 1970s global temperature began a rising trend. During the 1980s a network of scientists concluded that this temperature change was caused by increasing CO2 emissions caused by the use of fossil fuels. They predicted that if fossil fuel use was not curbed then the resulting increase in CO2 emissions would lead to damaging environmental consequences.

As a result of this concern the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations. Crucially, those placed in charge of the IPCC were totally committed to the theory of ‘human induced climate change’. Thus from its inception this supposedly impartial body has been packed with activists promoting the man made global warming agenda, and anyone questioning this belief has been ruthlessly excluded from its deliberations.

During the coming decades the IPCC would produce increasingly alarmist reports and projections about the future. Its scientific credentials were boosted by its establishment under the authority of the United Nations. Any dissenting scientists opposed to its conclusion were effectively marginalised and their criticisms, however valid, were dismissed as being contrary to the global scientific ‘consensus’.

It is often argued that because of this repeatedly exaggerated ‘consensus’, supposedly existing amongst scientists, that the ‘debate is now over’, and that the ‘overwhelming evidence’ supporting the ‘science’ of man made climate change promoted by the IPCC should now be accepted without demur. What this outlook overlooks is that there has never been a proper debate about climate change.

All that has occurred is that the IPCC climate alarmist agenda has been institutionalised at government level by the Kyoto Agreement, and the various climate summits held since then, which have mandated governments to sign up to increasingly restrictive and economically damaging measures to ‘combat’ a threat, the validity of which has never been debated in the global forums promoting the alarmism. Any critics of this approach are denounced as ‘deniers’, and no attempt is made to address their arguments or concerns. The reality is that there has been no change to our climate since the end of the ‘little ice age’ over 200 years ago. During the 20th century there were only minor fluctuations in global temperature. According to the respected UAH temperature research findings, for the past twenty years global temperatures have been flat except for a couple of short spikes due to the El Nino weather phenomenon, which is unconnected to the burning of fossil fuels.

During the past century there has been a significant increase in the trace gas CO2 but this has not led to any noticeable change in global temperature. The ideology of the climate change activists is based on nothing more than a belief in a dubious discredited theory which grossly exaggerates the threat from CO2, together with alarmist computer predictions and projections. So it is reasonable to assume that, as there has been very little change in temperature during the past century, despite the CO2 increase, the remaining part of the current century will be no different.

In short, the past evidence shows that there has been no correlation between increasing CO2 emissions and global temperature, and there is no reason why this situation should not continue into the future. Moreover, CO2 is not a pollutant as many climate change activists ludicrously claim, but is essential for the continued existence of all plant life.

As described above, majority scientific opinion performed a complete U-turn, in a relatively brief period between the late 1980s and the early 1990s, on the impact of CO2 emissions. But neither the science nor the evidence changed, only the politics. The climate alarmist cause was then hijacked by the politically correct class eager to proclaim their superior moral virtue, in contrast to ‘deniers’ supposedly eager to promote the vested interests of the oil companies and a rampant capitalist class intent on destroying the planet. The leadership of all the main political parties have uncritically bought into this outlook and treated the IPCC scientific opinion as being near infallible, aided and abetted by the BBC propaganda machine.

Yet in practice the views of scientists on this matter have turned out to be a highly adaptable, and susceptible to political pressure. This political agenda promotes the alarmist consequences of increased CO2 emissions, in defiance of the actual scientific evidence which has shown no significant global temperature change over the past century and more.

The theory underpinning their claims is that X amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere will ‘inevitably’ lead to Y amount of increase in global temperature, variously estimated as between two to five degrees higher, by the end of this century. This is pure speculation, falsely but repeatedly presented as scientific fact. The climate alarmists then go on to claim that this increase in global temperature will have catastrophic consequences, hence their calls for the various public authorities to declare a climate emergency. However, no evidence has been provided for these unsubstantiated claims since they are all based on a theory which, on real evidence that is readily available, is seriously flawed.

The credible evidence for this comes with an analysis of the past behaviour of the climate. The alarmists state correctly that there has been a 0.8 degree increase in the global temperature since pre–industrial times, a period of over 200 years since the end of the ‘little ice age’. What they overlook is that the significant increase in CO2 emissions which has occurred during this period has, importantly, not been translated into anything like the temperature increases they are predicting for a much shorter period in the future.

Thus the evidence of the past suggests that by the end of the century the worst case outcome would be a global temperature increase of no higher than half a degree, but more likely to be less, with quite possibly no increase at all. This outcome is well within normal temperature fluctuations from the past, and even the higher estimate would be lower than the drop in global temperature that took place between 2016 and 2017, after the contraction of the last El Nino weather phenomenon.

Today’s protesting schoolchildren will not thank their elder groupthink climate alarmists for their deception when they reach more mature years and can better think for themselves on this matter. Nor will they likely appreciate living in a society in which they are subject to endless top down bureaucratic decrees that will place curbs on citizens’ rights such as travelling by air, owning cars and consuming meat and dairy products, as advocated by the Extinction Rebellion anti-capitalist agitators. Moreover, they are unlikely to be too pleased with having to fund expensive crackpot schemes to bury harmless CO2 underground which are being promoted, or to pay the additional trillion pounds estimated by the former Chancellor that will be needed to meet the government’s latest emission targets.

Finally, it should not really be necessary to state the obvious, since we can all observe with our own eyes that the climate in Britain today is no different to what it has been for the past two centuries. Moreover, there has been no change in the underlying global temperature this century so far, so for the reasons explained above, the declaration of a climate emergency by parliament and a number of local authorities is patently nonsensical, as it is in direct conflict with observable reality.

How the transgender delusion began

The transgender cause it not a recent phenomenon but has its roots in the mid 1970s, following the publicity surrounding some high profile ‘sex-change’ revelations involving prominent individuals. The medical correspondent of the Spectator, John Linklaker, in 1975 wrote trenchantly about the folly of uncritically accepting the validity and justification of the delusional claims underpinning this emerging agenda.

Linklater asserted that ‘the transvestite male is usually satisfied by wearing female clothing, whilst maintaining a clear inner concept of his own male identity’. He diagnosed a ‘continuous spectrum of varying degrees of deviation’ encompassing transvestism, from dressing in women’s clothes for amusement, to those for whom cross dressing ‘is necessary in order to achieve sexual satisfaction’.

He regarded such behaviour, although deviant, as being relatively harmless since no permanent physical damage is caused. However, this was not the case for those at the extreme end of the spectrum where the transvestite undergoes ‘surgical metamorphosis by having his external genitalia removed, becoming a eunuch and permanently adopting a female role’.

Linklater outlined how the sex of each individual is fixed irrevocably at the moment of conception, at the fusion of the first cell. So all females have XX chromosomes and all males have XY chromosomes. As every cell of the new individual’s body is derived from the first cell, it follows that the differences between the two sexes operate at a fundamental level. He concluded that all surgery and hormone treatment can achieve for the transvestite male is to ‘alter the superficial appearance’ of an individual, resulting in a deformed outcome that is no longer recognisably male, and which is a travesty of the female.

Linklater claimed that ‘transvestism is the product of a psychological hang-up’ which is not directly related to an individual’s ‘physical condition’. He dismissed the views of those who promoted the acceptance and validity of sex change operations ‘as an end product which is known full well to be a hoax’, that has been performed on ‘anatomically normal males suffering from a sad emotional fixation’.

Some of today’s activists agitating for the normalisation and acceptance of transgender identity would do well to face up to the reality that Linklater exposes, namely that an individual’s birth sex identity cannot be altered, and that those who declare otherwise are fostering a delusion. This becomes dangerous if it involves the physical mutilation or hormone treatment of vulnerable individuals who are mentally confused about which sex they belong to, and is still more pernicious when it ensnares young people who are reaching puberty.

The whip hand

Over fifty years ago, in his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Enoch Powell quoted a constituent who claimed that in the future ‘the black man will have the whip hand over the white man’. For this remark Powell was both ridiculed and reviled. So it is worth examining whether there was any truth in this prophesy, or whether it was merely a paranoid reaction to fears over black immigration.

A recent BBC TV programme The Unwanted:The Secret Windrush Files presented by historian David Olusoga focussed on the impact of what has been termed ‘the hostile environment’ by the Home Office towards members of the Windrush generation. This policy threatened to deport people, mostly from the Caribbean, who arrived in the UK as children before 1973 without documentation, with the result that when challenged in recent years by immigration officials, they were unable to prove their right to remain in this country.

Unfortunately, the programme did not confine itself to examining this particular issue, but linked it to a denunciation of the political outlook of the early post war period, as expressed in internal government documents of the time. These revealed the fears of politicians and officials about the problems that Britain might face from large scale black immigration. After reading these official documents Olusoga concluded that the Windrush generation had been subject to what he termed ‘decades of official hostility towards black immigrants coming to Britain’. Olusoga condemned the attitudes of successive governments to black immigrants who came to Britain to work as ranging from ‘uncomfortable ambivalence to downright racism’. He concluded that Caribbean citizens were seen as a ‘black threat’ rather than as British citizens. So what did the official documents which aroused Olusoga’s ire so much actually say?

One top civil servant warned that ‘any scheme for the importation of coloured colonials for permanent settlement should not be embarked upon without the full understanding that this means that a coloured element will be brought in for permanent absorption into our own population’. He added ‘that the trade unions would be firmly opposed to such proposals and such measures would have to be introduced in the teeth of the most violent opposition from some trade unionists’.

Eleven Labour MPs wrote to prime minister Clement Attlee warning that ‘the country may become a reception centre for immigrants regardless of whether assimilation is possible or not. The British people fortunately enjoy a profound unity without uniformity in their way of life, and are blessed by the absence of a colour racial problem. An influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness amongst all concerned. We venture to suggest that the British government should, by legislation if necessary, control immigration in the political, social, economic and fiscal interests of our people.’

Churchill was reported to have said that immigration was the most important issue facing the country and complained that he couldn’t get his ministers to take any notice. Concerns were expressed to him that ‘government had a respectable image to maintain that would be undermined if it put into law, on racist grounds, measures for excluding black people coming into the country’. Since it was not possible to publicly acknowledge to being racist, Ministers sought measures to stem the inflow of black immigration, without impeding white immigration and without appearing to discriminate on the basis of race. The Government’s eventual solution was to introduce legislation which allowed skilled workers, and those who had been offered a job to enter, but severely limit the number of unskilled immigrants who would be allowed in. This would facilitate the entry of mostly white skilled immigrants, but exclude the overwhelming number of black unskilled applicants, thus permitting a policy that was not ostensibly racially discriminatory, but would in practice have that outcome.

Olusoga is so steeped in the anti racist agenda of our times that he is incapable of understanding the fears which would have concerned British politicians in the early post war period. This was most articulately expressed by the Labour MPs who observed that the ‘British people fortunately enjoy a profound unity without uniformity in their way of life, and are blessed by the absence of a colour racial problem’. This is really the crux of the matter. What would Britain gain by allowing the large scale immigration of people of visibly different race and culture? The clear answer is that it would gain nothing but instead risk losing something precious, namely our homogeneous society, through the influx of vast numbers of people most of whom would be unlikely to ever be properly integrated into our society, or be accepted as one of themselves by the majority of the existing white population.

Olusoga in his arrogance derides and condemns these legitimate concerns while asserting the spurious belief that non white colonial citizens should automatically have been given the right to reside in Britain regardless of the deep concerns of the existing population. Thus he has been given a platform by the BBC to lecture the white population for their ‘political panic, bad faith and racial prejudice’ for voicing concerns which, in the wise observation of the Labour MPs, would ‘impair the harmony, strength and social life and cause discord and unhappiness amongst all concerned.’ As a consequence of hectoring TV programmes such as this, which play the race card in a selective and one-sided way, the black man has now clearly been handed the whip hand over the white man, just as Enoch Powell and his constituent foretold.