A global prediction written in May 1999

The twenty-first century.

A broad based prediction from the middle of the night May 1999

These words are not offered as a warning because it is too late and warnings won't prevent the inevitable. Be warned only that some places will be safer than others for some people and not for others.

A storm is gathering that will make all others in human history pale by comparison. The early years of the Third Millennium will be marked with tragedy beyond any scale mankind now knows. Death destruction and terror will rule the planet. The planet itself will contribute little to the cataclysm.  It is all but unaffected by our presence.  We are no more than vague fungi on the planet’s face. In our character we have the dynamic to bring all this about.  In our past history we have sown the seeds of what is to come.  In the nineteenth and twentieth century we moved the pieces into position. We nurtured all the things and allowed the growth of ideas and concepts that will guarantee a tragedy of biblical proportions. We will be brought down by lies and religion, and religion and lies.  They live together in a hellish alliance.  One cannot live without the other.

People, humans, mankind, are unable to be honest and truthful about their sameness and their differences.  They concocted many lies and repeated them many times even to themselves and they asked themselves to believe them knowing them to be foolish.  They do not have the wisdom to know that the lies would come back to haunt them.

The fate of the land is damage from fire and destruction that will heal in time. The fate of vast populations of people will be a different matter. The people from all races and nations refuse to learn from the stupidity of the past, they refuse to see the obvious. You will to, until you see it before you. When you do you will remember my words and regret your blindness.   You will know that what you see here as you read on is true, but many of you will be too stubborn to accept it.  You will deny it to yourself although you know in your heart it is true.  I say accept it because belief is something that requires faith. This knowledge requires only acceptance of what you already know. Accept it. The planet will continue on its natural path with all the normal cataclysmic phenomena that afflicts men. The planet will continue on its own path to destruction regardless of the efforts of men.

The tide will turn after an outrage, an outrage that will come from religion, from the militants of Islam. This Islamic Outrage will polarise the peoples and the powers of the world. On the one hand the West with the power of knowledge scholarship, science and industry, on the other hand the Middle East with the power of oil, insane religious belief, terrorism and extremism. It will bring millions in the west to acquiesce to racial and religious separatism and persecution as shown by the people who lived under Fascism and Communism. The mind-set of these millions will allow the internment and deportations of other millions.  People born in one country will be deported to the land of their forefathers. The deported will be as much to blame for the tragedy as those expelling them, but they will suffer as innocents.

Religious and ethnic groups around the world will be distracted from their petty squabbles to look in fear on the gathering storm of Islamic militancy. Morality will be ineffectual alongside the rage of race and religion.

The Islamic Outrage will occur in a western capital. It will be the first use of a weapon of mass destruction since the end of the Second World War.  The weapon, a nuclear, toxic, or biological bomb, will arrive in this city by the ordinary path of travel and trade.  

This Islamic Outrage will cause enormous destruction and loss of life where it is perpetrated but that will be the least of its effect. It will halt the progress of the western democracies from their journey toward tolerance of other cultures and religions. It will cause the West to rise up in a way that will astound themselves as well as the militants of Islam. The retaliation of the West will be huge and complete.  Europe will defend itself from the Islamic threat from within by interning millions.  The tools to do this are being assembled as I write.  As the first are interned the indigenous European populations will acquiesce to the will of governments wishing to rid itself of the Islamic threat. Neighbour will turn against neighbour. Europeans will no longer tolerate protest from those who wish for tolerance. Their own former tolerance will be seen to be shallow and no more than a fashionable affectation.  The European population will demand of their leaders protection from the excesses of Islamic fundamentalists. At first only Islamics will be interned in these concentration camps with a new and fearful name, then as perceptions change these camps will come to be seen as a necessary evil, necessary for the greater good and a wide range of people perceived to be a threat will be interned and then later transported to other continents, or eliminated.  Millions of Africans will be transported back to Africa, Arabs to the Middle East and Asians to Asia. 

Written early July 2000.

In the following pages I will tell more of this story as is clear to me and I will need to fall back on my own life experience to explain the dynamics that will bring these things about.

I was born in Wellington New Zealand in the early years of the Second World War. I went to a Catholic school in the late forties and through the fifties. My experience of war was only the grainy black and white pictures in newspapers and the tangible fear of the adult women around me who worried about the safety of husbands posted overseas to far off battlefields and the prospect of invasion by hoards of Asian Japanese who were perceived to have little or no humanity. 

Those fears and beliefs will return again in the first half of the twenty first century as China grows in strength to become the most feared nation on earth and Indonesia struggles with the divisions exaggerated by Islamic militancy. 

North Korea will remain a rogue nation and will be strengthened by western aid and technology provided in an effort to appease them.

Japan will appease China and become subordinate to its power.  America will retreat to its home shores.

Australia will live in fear as its northern shores are colonised not by governments but by lawless boat people from Indo China and Indonesia.  Australia will agree to allow Indonesia or China to occupy its northern regions under the pretext of controlling these renegade people.  This will eventually lead to China’s annexation of northern Australia and then eventually the whole country.

New Zealand will be troubled by the militancy of the indigenous rights groups but will, like Japan and Australia, need to appease China and allow a wave of immigration that will swamp the rights of all.  The indigenous people will live to reflect on their contempt for the Europeans as the Chinese take eventual control of their homeland and work to wipe out cultural ideologies that differ from their own. Many Europeans will leave Australia and New Zealand to live in North America and Europe.  The decedents of the colonisers will return to the homes of their forefathers and be strangers in strange lands.

 The pacific islands will become both strategic possession and the playground of the Chinese who will have no use for the indigenous inhabitants.  As one by one they fall under the heel of China the USA will withdraw to their mainland to deal with the problems brought on at home by The Islamic Outrage.

Russia will go through a transition from a criminal state to a state ruled with an iron hand by the descendants of the criminal gangs of the late twentieth century and the early twenty first century.  The ruthless power of Russia will be sought after by the European governments trying to deal with a legacy of years of liberalism followed by the social fallout from The Islamic Outrage.  Russia will loose much of its Eastern regions to China’s expansion.  Unlike the West, Russia and China will not be troubled by the niceties of human rights issues, -- and as the crisis deepens, neither will the West.  Russia will become Europe’s buffer, protecting it from China’s expansion.  To aid this Europe will provide Russia with billions in military aid.

Written late July 2000.

Africa is already descending into the total social and economic chaos that will be the norm for at least 100 years.  It will be saved eventually by the transportation to its shores of millions of blacks from the USA and Europe.  Events in Africa in the year 2000, and particularly in Zimbabwe are a catalyst for a change of attitude by both black and white all over the world.  Robert Mugabe has demonstrated something that many Europeans and all people of colour have always known but have not been allowed to speak of.  That is that all races are equally racist.  All men with common sense know this is true and make their judgments of events from that position. You know this but may be one of many reluctant to admit it even to yourself. 

 Events in Africa will show the liberal Europeans living anywhere in the world that they are more in danger from the racism of others toward them than they ever thought possible.  It will be a revelation to many of them that their perception that they were the most racist people on the planet was a foolish one.  Those nations and individuals who were the most liberal will become the most xenophobic.  They will be grossly offended that the people they most wanted to protect from the slights of fellow Europeans have betrayed them.

As I write this in the year 2000 it is clear to me that South Africa will quickly follow Mugabe’s lead and begin terrorising white citizens.  By the year 2010 there will be a wave of European emigration from Africa and with them will go the last vestiges of modern ordered society.  By the year 2020 travel to Africa will be something to be considered with great care even by those supported by military force. Disease and war will decimate the population.  By the year 2030 the once great cities of Durban and Cape town will be fearful places all but destroyed. It will be said that Africa has returned to the Stone Age but in fact it will have moved into a time far more dangerous than the Stone Age.  There will be enough modern weaponry to make life anywhere in the whole African continent a fragile thing.  If you are from South Africa you will know this is true.

Alliances will continue to shift like quicksand in the Islamic world until The Islamic Outrage.  The aftermath of this will bring them together for the first time.  They will recognise their weaknesses of division and they will unite as pariah on the planet.  Their weakness will be the fact that they have no academia capable of developing technology or industry to meet the rising tide of vengeance from the western powers. They will pay the price of failing to develop their own ability to create the things and luxuries they ridiculed but lusted after. 

There will be great bloodshed talked about all over the world as Armageddon and there will be many rumours of the second coming and the arrival of the Beast of the biblical revelations. The western lifestyle some of the Islamics enjoy now will fade away as they are unable to maintain and replenish it.

 One by one the Islamic nations will be enslaved by occupation and isolation and their own inability to accept any responsibility for the global carnage.  They will still foolishly believe that god is on their side and they will share generations of social darkness with the Africans. 

These words will be anathema to many people. I will explain as it comes clear to me where these thoughts come from.  They are not revelations from a higher being, they are simply a true recognition of the human condition and an extrapolation from today’s position.

2

The beginnings of an explanation

The people in Europe who perpetrated the horrors of the Second World War were the contemporaries of your parents and mine, seemingly civilised reasonable and moral people. The Nazi criminals and the people who can commit the dreadful deeds such as done in the German concentration camps, exist in every society and every neighbourhood on the planet.  There is no race that does not have these people in their midst. Even they themselves may not know what they are as they wait like sleepers in the population until the day when the dogs of disaster are loosed.  You know this is true.

The effect of these people in the population of developed countries will be magnified by the growing under-class bought into existence by the ever expanding wealth of the Western Global commercial and information sector and their contempt and apathy toward social problems faced every day by poorer people.  This low-income sector will become a renegade society within society and will be a problem those governments and the ruling elite will be unable to come to terms with. You know this is true. You see this under-class growing in size about you.  If you don’t you are blind and stupid. 

After The Islamic Outrage, many of these social outcasts will be employed by the state and by the wealthy to deal with the religious and racial outcasts. They will become prison guards, soldiers, tormentors, torturers, enforcers and executioners.  Their survival skills and contempt for human life will make them a devastating and ruthless army untroubled by moral judgments about what they will be called upon to do.  Money and the lust for blood will rule them.  The “respectable” elite who employ them will argue that it is all for the “greater good” and learn a new lie to tell themselves to protect their feelings of superiority and morality.

The collective morality of the human race is a product of two things - belief and knowledge.  These two things may seem in concert but they are not.  They are in direct opposition to each other.  Knowledge is confidence and common sense.  Belief is ego driven weakness.  Belief does not need to be supported by facts.  Knowledge has no need of belief. If you think about this you will know it is true.  People with knowledge are often in disagreement with people with belief.  People with belief will often refuse to accept the realities of knowledge when it confronts them and is in conflict with their beliefs. This and greed are the cause of all conflict between peoples. The people of the Axis, Germans, Italians and Japanese, were carried into the Second World War by dogma, ignorance and prejudice.  If Hitler had not invaded Poland as early as he did then Britain in the late forties would have become fascist and been a pliable ally.   Many on all sides who knew what was coming remained silent for fear of ridicule while some spoke up and were ridiculed and punished.  By 1941 well meaning Jewish people selected their most healthy to be loaded on to cattle trucks believing them to be destined for better places.  Others with common sense warned of the obvious and were ridiculed.  You know this is true.  It will happen again, (but not to the Jews). 

Some in the 1930s had been warning European Jews for more than a decade that a conflagration was coming but most would not believe it.  You may well do the same as you read this.

Remember that as the Axis powers waged bloody war across the northern hemisphere in the 1940s the righteous powers of the allies allowed themselves access to more and more immoral and brutal retaliation.  They were waging war for “The Greater Good.”

3

For the purpose of this writing I need to separate what I know from what it may seem that I believe.  I don’t “believe” any of what I say here about what might happen in the next 100 years or beyond today’s date but I will write what I think is probable. A forecast – not a prophesy.  The things that I know are the things that you also know. The difference between me and many who will read this is that I am prepared to acknowledge and accept the probable results of our actions past and present.

Here is an example of something that will be pivotal to the future of humanity.  You know it is true but might find it disturbing or offensive to see in print.

Western European civilisation and Society has created the most desirable lifestyle existing on the planet today, 2000.  It is the lifestyle aspired to by all of the developing nations.  That’s why we call them the “Developing Nations”.  What are they developing?  They are developing a western lifestyle that may be tempered with their own cultural colour but none the less will be a western lifestyle.  They want to have the products, commodities, services and medical and other benefits developed by the Global Western Civilisation. This is referred to by world leaders when they speak of the haves and the have-nots.  The haves have a western lifestyle and the have-nots do not.

Here is another. 

The have-nots are angry, and resentful that they do not also have what they can see is a comfortable and easy lifestyle such as they know exists in the West. They are angry with the west (and therefore Europeans) for this and for several more important reasons.  That is, that if and when they get a western lifestyle they will remain resentful that they aspire to things that are the rewards of an alien culture, the culture of the “White Man”. They will remain angry and resentful because they know their cultural background contributed nothing to the things that they want.  They feel like second-class people for knowing that their culture made no contribution yet they still desire it.  They know that the people who have lived in the western lifestyle have no desire to live anywhere where the trappings of a western lifestyle are not available. They (and Europeans) do not aspire to the lifestyle of the Bantu, the Arab, the Eskimo or the Ethiopian and none of these people who have some how achieved a western lifestyle wish to return to what they were.  You know this is true. The people of these other cultures perceive that Western society is deliberately depriving them of the Western lifestyle. It must be acknowledged that the most important culture on the planet is the culture of Western European Global Civilisation.  This is the culture that people from other planets will want to deal with.

The Bantu in South Africa might well believe that if it were not for the White Man (he will not discrimination between the white races) he would be living in a big house in Capetown.  He does not give thought to the fact that the big house in Capetown is the creation of the White Man and as such he guards possession of it.  The Liberal in Europe in the year 2000 will say that the White man in Capetown only owns that big house because he exploited the Bantu.  This belief only has a grain of truth.  Without the existence of the Bantu the White Man would still have created his big house just as the Bantu would have created a mud and thatch house and the Eskimo an Igloo.  That is the nature of their lifestyle and culture.  Until the Bantu becomes part of the Western Culture he has no way to create the big house. When he does there is a good chance that he will demand of the Europeans that they give great respect to the Bantu Culture he no longer wants to be part of.  This way he can assuage the guilt he feels about leaving it behind.

Many people will see these comments as racist because they imply that Europeans created the Global Western Culture and those other cultures are not equal. Both these statements are true.  You know that.  I call it (the global culture) European because it originated in Europe, migrated with the Europeans to America and grew from those two places. All of the primary elements in modern society have their origins in those two places.  You know this is true. It is politically incorrect to say this but it is never the less “accurate”.

The Global Western European Culture is the only culture on the planet that actively works to preserve and sustain other cultures and yet those other cultures such as New Zealand Maori, Australian Aboriginal, Canadian Inuit and Native American Indian continue to denigrate European culture and blame it for all that ails them.  It is interesting that all of these indigenous cultures demand and get special status in their own countries yet no one wants to accord this right to indigenous Europeans in their countries.

Think about the first part of this statement and be challenged to name one other culture on the planet that works to nurture and save another.

The Chinese, even as they are moving towards a fully industrialised and productive future seem bent on destroying the Tibetans and the Mongolians.  Their huge and powerful culture has no interest in preserving the dying cultures that live adjacent to it.  Remember that the Bantus hate the Zulus, the Hutus and the Tootsies have killed each other in their thousands in a war that is about race.  The People in Seria Leoni have such contempt for other tribes that they use machetes to amputate the hands and arms of thousands of children to create a race of humiliated and disabled people dependent on others.  In Uganda the forces of Idi Amin murdered hundreds of thousands of people from other tribes. Eritrea is at war with Ethiopia.  Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe ruthlessly eliminated all opposition from the tribe of Joshua Nkomo after the Europeans ceded power to the Blacks in the Seventies?? Now he has turned his attention to the White farmers and business people in a campaign that will eventually cripple the Nation and bring on the new Dark Age.

In what you might call the border between the Eastern nations and the Western nations, the Japanese despise the Koreans and many do not like westerners or the western influences.  The Arabs want to destroy the Israelis.  The Indians and the Pakistanis are at war over religion and cultural differences and everywhere you look the Islamics are either involved in a Jihad or threatening one.

Africa is worst. Everywhere you look in Africa there are racial wars and we in the west blame ourselves for all of this by according the responsibility to the colonialisation process of the last 400 years.  It is never suggested in the West that the Africans themselves might contribute to their own misfortune because such a statement would be politically incorrect.  If you can’t speak of it how can you fix it?

As you look at Africa in the light of this, how could you believe that the millions who have suffered in civil wars and learned contempt for human life could ever raise children who might run a nation of fair and just people?  How will these damaged people educate their next generation to become a people who might run a modern nation that is capable of looking after its own, let alone caring about the survival of another culture or people. How long is it since these people lived in peace? -- have they ever?   Africa is doomed to generations of social and economic darkness.  You know this is true.

It is often implied by the politically correct that the continent of Africa lived in peace and plenty before the European slavers arrived.  It is seldom acknowledged that the Arabs had been trading in Negro slaves since before biblical times and that the tradition of Negro slavery in the West arose out of that.  Another thing that is never acknowledged that the slavers had to have the cooperation of Africans to gather the huge numbers that were transported to America, (and even more to South America.)  There is no doubt that slavery in America would have been terrible for some but there would have been others whose lifestyles would have vastly improved.  It should be remembered that many Europeans living in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were also living close to slavery.  Indentured European labourers in Britain and the Colonies where just slaves by another name. There are still wealthy European families in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and The USA whose so-called “Old Money” came from this sort of exploitation. 

The abolition of slavery in the West was a step along the journey to tolerance for the global culture that I spoke of earlier.  It is a fact however, that the culture of slavery and the sale of human beings still exists in all the regions of Africa from where the slaves of old were transported to the West. (it is also endemic among the Arabs, particularly in Saudi.) If you watch CNN or read a newspaper you will know that is true.

All of these statements are a heresy in the current culture of the West where political correctness is the norm.   Political correctness is endemic in the population of all western countries and I am sure it will have crept into my writing on these pages because I to am affected by the conditioning of my surroundings. 

Politically correct philosophies are offered to justify the lies that people are expected to accept and repeat as their own.  Think about the term itself. Political correctness is a correctness that is defined in a certain way.  It implies dogma, and dogma is belief, and belief has nothing to do with actual knowledge or actual correctness. The word correct has no ambiguity.  It has a clear meaning. Correct is correct.  Politically correct, dogmatically correct or religiously correct are definitions of opinion.  They are all about what is acceptable to a society at a given time. It is about social opinion and social opinion will change.  You know this is true.

My knowledge of history is not great but a relatively meagre knowledge is all you need to understand and know this next statement. This little piece of history illustrates constantly changing social opinion.

Political correctness, as it is known in the later part of the twentieth century, supports totally different ideologies and dogma than the political correctness of earlier times but it works today in exactly the same way as it did during the French Revolution and earlier during the reign of Henry the Eighth.  Then the accusation that you were a papist (supporter of the pope) could get you killed without trial by a mob of Henry’s supporters.  For the centuries of the Inquisition the accusation of heresy was fatal and the Catholic Church still exacted terrible punishments for it until 1870.   During the French Revolution all an enemy had to do was accuse you of having royalist sympathies and your life was forfeit.  In the nineteenth century you could still get accused of being a witch and find it impossible to prove otherwise.  In the early part of the twentieth century in Russia any ordinary person only needed to tell a Bolshevist that you were sympathetic to the Tsar and you would be in grave danger.  In the thirties as Hitler came to power in Germany the accusation that you were a Jew, married to a Jew, a friend of a Jew, a client of a Jew, sympathetic to Jews would see you loose your job, your livelihood, your home, your freedom or your life.  Unscrupulous people used such accusations to take your job or put paid to business competition or rid themselves of a rival for a woman’s interest.  In the nineteen fifties in America, McCarthyism ruined the lives of thousands of good people when they were accused of being commies by other ordinary folk.  Many people on both sides of that politically correct ideology are still alive today.  Many of these people knew that they were supporting and accepting a lie.  Like Hitler’s Brownshirts they were our contemporaries.  To stand up and disagree meant that you might be one of them, the accused.  All these accusations through the ages had one thing in common.  They were mostly unprovable either way because they were about belief and insane political or religious ideas that have not stood the test of time. 

We all know that this is true but are you objective enough to accept it in the context of the late twentieth century?

Today, the year 2000, the same dynamic of unprovable accusation is at work in our Western European society and the people of third world countries are well aware of it and use it to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the West in all their political and strategic dealings with it.  The accusation that the politically correct in our own society might make against you today would be that you are a sexist a racist, or culturally unsafe. These accusations are regularly levelled against us as individuals, as nations or as part of the Western European Global Culture.  All accusations are unprovable either way but they always leave a taint and they always gain an advantage for the accuser, and as often as not the accuser is among us.  As the current politically correct ideology looses credibility (as it will) watch them, the proponents of it, deny ever believing in it.  Watch them take up the cudgel for the opposite point of view.  This is the human dynamic that the parable of Judas denying Jesus attempts to illustrate.

It is interesting to note here that sexism or anti feminism has always been lumped in with racism or so called cultural unsafety.  The people who support feminist dogmas often find themselves supporting racial or cultural ideologies that are more anti women that anything they might find in western global culture. For example; Feminist activists lending support to apparently anti racist dogma that supports cultures that have and enforce laws that absolutely ensure the subjugation of women.  You will have heard apologists for this kind of thing speaking about it on the news or in print and like me you might have been amazed at the verbal contortions they go through to avoid confronting the foolish reality of their position.  They will speak a lie that supports the apparently anti racist/pro feminist position while knowing it to be a lie and knowing that most people who hear it will also know its a lie but accept it as a politically correct dogma.  They might argue when questioned about it that it is all for the “greater good”.  If they cannot find words to argue they will resort to the “Scoff.”

After this I started to ramble a bit because I was a bit overawed by what I had done - so I will stop here. But I have to say, that today September 2013 - As I read this now I find a lot of it chilling - so much of it has turned out to be true. I would describe China in different words now but I do think that much of what I have said about it is true. I did not realise the impact the Chinese would have in Africa - since today they are busy colonizing the place - so who knows how that might turn out. As for this Islamic Outrage - I think it is yet to come - and I thought that even as the twin Towers crashed to the ground.

A PLACE TO START

I have been writing for many years on the subject of what I have called "The Coming Holocaust." I have made many false starts and posted many random essays on other people's blogs and websites in response to what they were saying. It is time now for me to get on with it and do this blog - because I think I am beginning to understand how to bring it to the attention of like minded people.

Here goes.

 I have called this Blog the "The Secularists" because I believe that secularism is very important  to the future of humanity. Religion has become so extreme and out of control that I know it must be kept out of government - - - I know it!

 I believe that religion in government in this modern age will bring the world to disaster. That is not to say I think religion should be banned - because I do not. It has its place and gives comfort to many people - but in government?

It is difficult enough to get agreement in government as it is - and confusing that by introducing competing religious ideologies and agendas would make it impossible. To good and ordinary people, keeping religion out of government just makes sense. To my perception as a Westerner it seems that the greatest threat faced by the planet today - 2013 - is Global Islam. It simply runs against the values of Western society and that is already the cause of terrible problems all over the planet - with the exception of China and Japan - because neither of them will tolerate it. When you are in either of these countries you live by their rules - end of story. For us in the West though - there is a problem with that. We have seen ourselves as the most tolerant and the most inclusive societies in the world, and frequently judged Japan and particularly China by that "Human Rights" yardstick. China just fobs us of as they watch our society being torn apart by various "Minority" interests. They smile and think - oh well - they will see.

So now we need to debate this - and we have introduced and continue to strengthen the very thing that curbs our freedom of speech and ability to debate the most vital issues. We have the blight of political correctness.

The Inherent Dishonesty of Politically Correct Thought

The Inherent Dishonesty of Politically Correct Thought

I wrote this in December 2003 and left it languishing in my computer all this time. I have often looked for a line that describes what my gut feeling about this is and today I took a line from StarWars spoken by Obi Wan Kanobi because it expresses my feeling so well. I changed it slightly and I believe I will use it again and again through this Blog.

I feel a great disturbance in the force – as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror – and were deliberately silenced

It is just one example of politically correct behaviour on the part of our judiciary, and like all the others will be forgotten in a matter of weeks.  Our capacity to forget it and “Move on” is a sign of a deeper malaise that infests every strata of our society and affects our capacity to make informed judgments about the true state of human relations both nationally and internationally. Political correctness is not new.  It has a deceitful history and has helped some of history’s most despicable tyrants to enforce their particular brand of social engineering.

One must wonder at our amazing capacity to allow people with certain political agendas to look us straight in the eye and lie, -- through their teeth.  Every day our politicians hurl accusations of “political correctness gone mad” at each other and others simply respond with a “scoff.”  It all makes no difference, it just goes on. If you object to a politically correct decision or proposal you are labelled a “racist,” a “redneck,” or a “bigot” or just plain prejudiced, and the people in power will scoff at you. 

“Politically correct” is a definition of correctness, not accuracy.  Correct means: to remove errors or defects from, to blame or punish for defects of character or bring into conformity with an accepted standard.  

Accuracy on the other hand, has no definitions.  Accuracy means accuracy, no compromise.  To define something as “politically” correct is to define it as not necessarily accurate but as “acceptable” to people with a certain view.   You need to think in a predetermined way and avoid any thoughts that contradict the “politically correct” view. Think about this. “Politically” correct is always a belief, a political view or a dogma, -- never “factual.”

To me, politically correct thought and dogma means that the politically correct person must propagate a lie.  It is usually a lie that they perceive as supporting a moral, ethical or political position or dogma that they believe supports the greater good, or at least their particular good.  Other people may disagree but they are usually called “racists” “sexists” or the more all encompassing “rednecks,” or “bigots.” You’d think we would be sophisticated enough to be above name-calling, but we are not. These names, which are in fact non-provable accusations, serve to isolate and denigrate the dissenter and allow the “politically correct” person to deal with any debate with the “scoff,” sending the dissenting opinion off as unworthy of debate. The scoff is in fact an accusation of thinking in a “defective” way.  Although you may try, you cannot prove what another person is thinking, hence the frequent reference to the “Thought Police” by people being scoffed at for their opinions.   If you can scoff at the opposing view you don’t need to have considered it, or have cogent arguments at your finger tips. 

Another way to look at this, is that political correctness supports the promulgator’s particular “positive prejudice,” which may manifest itself as a belief that habitat of "Spirits" must be respected or that all men are rapists.    Before you dismiss this, have a look at the actual meaning of the word “prejudice”.  The usual attitude of the politically correct person is that anyone who disagrees with their particular politically correct view, is in fact “prejudiced.”  The “Scoff” is often used to identify a “prejudiced” or “stupid” person. To accuse someone who disagrees with you of being “prejudiced” means that you don’t believe that they have anything of value to say on the subject because their disagreement means that they are either racist, sexist, bigoted or stupid.  This means that you have pre judged them.  Look at the meaning of prejudice again and think about whether you have any “positive prejudices.”   

All this has serious social implications for us as citizens and as members of the "Global European Civilisation." That title is in itself politically incorrect because it contains the word “European.”  See how it makes you feel a bit uncomfortable, even though today’s Global Civilisation did in fact grow out of Europe? 

An obvious case in point for us in New Zealand is our amazing acquiescence to the spiritual and cultural gobbledygook offered as reasons why the dominant European culture should submit to, and commit vast recourses to appeasing the wildest flights of fancy of the indigenous Maori people, people who in fact enjoy every day of their lives all the benefits of the “dominant” culture, provided for them as a matter of right and in many cases in disproportionate amounts to that given the people of the culture that provides it. They blithely collect these benefits as citizens in a modern technological democracy while demanding a second tier of benefits as “indigenous” people. Those extraordinary benefits always include the most modern technologies which of course never existed when the two cultures came into partnership. Most of us object, but it is politically incorrect to hold a dissenting opinion on the subject, - so we shut up.  – We lie by omission. 

The European acquiescence that allows this is attributed to some kind of collective guilt that we all must bear for bringing civilisation and the global culture with it’s phenomenal range of benefits, to the stone age cannibals we found living in these cold isles without so much as a decent blanket to keep them warm, let alone a glass window or waterproof clothes and a good pair of socks, -- and shoes.  

For me and many like me it simply represents the living of a thousand lies and giving pandering reverence to stupidity and dishonesty, every day.  I am one of many New Zealanders who are feeling very resentful at the government (and social) compliance with the never ending demanding and complaining from the Maori establishment, and the total lack of recognition of the huge benefits brought to them by European culture.  Aspects of Maori culture are enshrined in law and must be treated with embarrassing deference and respect while European culture is denigrated daily by any idiot who wants to slag it off.  It is politically OK to do that but politically incorrect to do the same to Maori culture.

The recognition of my culture and heritage is every bit as important to me as Maori culture is to any Maori, and it is my culture, European culture, that provides primary sustenance to both. I want my European Heritage and culture respected and recognised for the fact that it brings civilisation to the planet, for the fact that it is the only functioning font of modern civilisation and for the fact that among other things it has almost doubled the lifespan of Maori over these last 163 or so years.  What greater gift than longer life?  Respecting Maori culture is one thing.  Bowing down to it as something superior is quite another.  Now there’s a politically incorrect statement if ever there was one.

Now, as we enter the twenty first century, it seems that a new minefield of politically correct thought is making it’s insidious way into our lives.  It is the notion that no matter what they do, the United States government and the philosophies and values of Western civilisation are always wrong.  To me and millions of people like me in dozens of nations all over the planet, the United States and Great Britain, and to a lesser extent greater Europe, represent the cradle of, and the only defender of, modern global civilised culture.  I see Canada joined at the hip with the United States, and Australia, New Zealand as distant outposts of that global culture.  To me these five nations represent an “Axis of freedom” which I absolutely want to remain part of.  I instil in my children the importance of their European heritage and culture and fervently wish to see them able to raise their children in the type of environment, and with the values promulgated in the West.

As I write these words it feels to me, that here in New Zealand we are letting Western values slip away as we wend our way to a probable place in the Third World.  As a new member in the Third World cartel of basket case countries, we will not be regarded with respect by our new contemporaries.  They will be suspicious of our recent membership in the group of nations that they perceive as blameworthy for the fact that they cannot achieve in the modern world.  At the same time we will be regarded with contempt by the people who lead the First World because they will perceive our decent to Third World status as an indictment of our pathetic politically correct and sanctimonious, greenworld cultural policies.  If you think that this scenario is extreme you need to look at our steady decent over the last 3 decades and then extrapolate that trend into the future. In thirty more years we will be way off the bottom of the O.E.C.D. scale and our impact on world affairs will be zero except by wining.  

As each day goes by we seem to move further and further away from the values and civilisation of the U.S.A., Britain and Australia and closer and closer to the tribal stone-age mumbo-jumbo and disruptive and dangerous ambiance of Zimbabwe, Kenya and South Africa. We insist on allowing race activists and tribal leaders to wield enormous influence over all aspects of our economy, social structure and future, even when almost daily being confronted by their foolishness, contradictions, incompetence and down right dishonesty.  Why is it that Third World leaders and Indigenous leaders in New Zealand and elsewhere don’t need to meet the same standards as European or “White” leaders?

In the face of all this there is a new politically correct dynamic of ambiguity that will have much more far reaching repercussions.  When we talk about the actions of and events in the Western nations we criticise and apparently take responsibility in the same breath, by referring to a collective “we.”  “We shouldn’t attack Afghanistan.”  “We shouldn’t use so much fossil fuel.”  “We should oppose the World Trade Organisation.”  “We shouldn’t attack Iraq.”  “We brought terrorism on ourselves.” --- We brought terrorism on ourselves???  Isn’t it interesting how we identified that strongly with the U.S.A. when they were the victims then in the next breath “We brought terrorism on ourselves?”  We (the West) didn’t do something we didn’t know about for some Islamic killers and they chose to kill 3000 innocent people and destroy one of mankind’s engineering wonders, terrorise the Western world and “we” brought it on ourselves??? - then in the next breath, “Terrorism is encouraged by the policies of American greed.”  Why are we so inconsistent with the collective “we?”  Is it reasonable to opt in and then out of the collective in one statement?  I wonder if the Americans, Australians and British think of us as part of their collective “We?’ 

When we make the politically correct statement “We need to do more for the third world.” What we really seem to mean is that the United States should do more for the third world because they are the richest, the strongest, the most generous and the easiest to criticise. We will stand and watch and pass sanctimonious judgment on the amount given, the way it is given, how quickly after we think it should be given that it is in fact given, and if there is any bad outcome as a result of what is given and where, -- and who was in charge and what negative effect it has on the local economy, culture, dietary habits, religious beliefs  and regional conflicts as a result of well fed third world soldiers trying to make money out of what is given, and whether the USA was in fact deliberately trying to bring all these possible negatives about as part of a giant global conspiracy.

As flippant as these comments may seem they do serve to illustrate a woolly headed dynamic in our country that we will one day regret.

Another platitude that we hear every day from commentators both here and all over the world is “The whole world changed after September the eleventh.”  I believe that the world had well and truly changed some time before September the Eleventh, most of us had simply not noticed or maybe even turned a politically correct blind eye to the events and trends leading up to it that didn’t support our particular prejudices.  September the Eleventh was simply a defining moment that brought many of us to the realisation that all was not what we wanted it to be. We now know that we are all vulnerable and it is interesting how many of our own people think we deserve to be.  Many people said “America deserved this.” And some even more deluded said “We,”- the collective “We” again, “We deserved this.”  Politically correct stupidity.

September the Eleventh horrified me like nothing else, but I have to say that I had been expecting it or something like it.  What I wasn’t expecting was the same old politically correct muddled view of it that has emerged in this country and the world in the wake of it. 

I must add here that I felt the attack on the World Trade Centre in a very personal way as a direct assault on my world, my European culture and my values.  I felt as a victim of Islamic militancy. I have watched the growth of Islamic militancy and I have read a lot about it.  One thing that becomes obvious is that within Islamic communities both in the West and the East there is another form of political correctness at work.  They may not agree with the militants in their midst but they won’t dob them in or openly criticise them either.  This cloak of politically correct secrecy provides cover for extremism that is proving a problem to authorities trying to fight the war on terrorism. I have to say that I have heard members of the Iraqi community here in New Zealand express the view that America got what it deserved on September the Eleventh.  I would not rely on these people to expose a terrorist supporter in our midst.  Many people are of the view that American policy in the Middle East is the reason for this hatred but I believe that it is simply annoyance that the American society works very well and the Middle Eastern Islamic one doesn’t.  Another politically incorrect statement but there is plenty of evidence to support it.

   It seems now that it has almost become politically incorrect to show support for anything American and many people like me find that disturbing.  My school age children come home with stories about how George Bush is a war-mongering maniac who wants to take over the world, and they have developed a hatred for him and a general prejudice about anything he does and many things American.  They must be getting this stuff at school and that is a problem that many parents won’t bother dealing with.  I tell my children about what life was like for us when we lived in California in the late eighties and try to inform them of the muddled thinking behind some of the twisted stuff they are bringing home from school. 

People who denigrate the U.S. like this are aiming at a big target.  That’s easy. They should spend some time educating themselves about the realities of life in some of the smaller targets, individual African nations for example, where the daily grind of violence, hunger and poverty is amplified by the incredible corruption of their black (therefore politically correct) politicians.  They should read about the dreadful Sharia and Wahabibi punishments given for very minor offences in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran.  They should ask themselves what is going on in these countries that has created the massive global migration out of them into the amazingly tolerant nations of the West.

The politically correct argument is that they have a right to the freedom and lifestyle available in the West.  That’s all very well but the probable result of it will be decades of social disruption followed by draconian Right Wing governments coming to power in the West that will bring in a new (and opposite) political correctness to help preserve their indigenous European cultures. Anyone who has bothered to turn a non politically correct eye to recent events in Europe will have seen the move towards new cultural laws designed to enforce Western cultural standards on the immigrants.  This is just the first step.  Some of the others in time to come will be less savoury.

In the meantime some of the very positive forces at work on the planet come from the generosity of both pocket and spirit in the U.S. People need to be reminded that many of the very good things that they enjoy every day originate there.  National Geographic, Animal Planet, the Discovery Channel are easy examples of the American ethos and its view of the planet.  

Our children need to know about the Peace Corps, American aid to impoverished countries, and the fact that the only thing that guarantees the freedom of millions of people in dozens of countries is the restraining influence of the U.S. military on ambitious, corrupt and aggressive regimes.  Try to imagine a world without that restraint.

 I have international students staying with me and some of what they believe about America is disturbing to say the very least.  “America is the enemy and wants to dominate all the people in the world.”  “America steals the oil and oppresses people in the third world.”  “The only thing stopping the U.S. from invading China is the might of the Chinese military.”  “America is trying to impose its culture on the whole world.” --- They could do worse. -- It fascinates me that they stand before me making these pronouncements while smelling of McDonalds, dressed in Nike shoes, wearing Levi jeans and a baseball cap on back-to-front, - all personal choices.  These young people have been educated with politically correct slogans and do not feel the need to back up their opinions with anything other than the “Scoff.”  I tell them that their fashionable need to wear Nike shoes and Levis is in conflict with their politically correct cultural views.  They look at me blankly and I realise again that a slogan is much more important to some students than actual thought and experience.  I suppose that’s why the Hippies of the sixties eventually cut their hair.

The upshot of all of this is the disturbing fact that political correct sloganism is depriving the youth of our Western culture of the ability to make informed judgments about where we are going.  To my jaundiced eye it seems that there are two new and dangerous forces emerging in world affairs and we mustn’t allow political correctness to blind us to the realities.

The one that will most surely succeed in the long term is rampant Chinese (and Asian) economic colonisation and consumerism.  It is growing at a rate that is phenomenal even in modern history.  Note well that approximately 100,000 Chinese and Asians will study English in New Zealand this year while our children are being taught to speak Maori - a stone age language with a constant supply of made up words emanating out of the politically correct language nest in our universities.  What is not growing in proportion to all this is an Asian ethos that cares for the environment or other cultures.  A visit to Taiwan in the nineties showed me a contempt for the environment that astonished me. 

(I wrote this in 2003 - before I travelled to china and discovered that in fact the Chinese were beginning to put a lot of effort into cleaning up their environment - and I assume the same is happening in Taiwan now.)

The other more menacing and far more dangerous force is the rise of Islamic militancy world wide.  The paradox here is that it has become politically incorrect in the West to criticise Islam and in fact the Islamic movement is not asked to take any responsibility for the excesses of some of its adherents. Isn’t it interesting that Western politicians will stand up and say Islam is a religion of peace when all the evidence points to the contrary, and in the same breath will label the Americans as warmongers.  I can’t help but wonder if the population of 9,000,000 Muslims, mostly Middle Eastern, living in France, and similar populations in Germany, Holland, Britain, Italy, Austria, Holland and Belgium, instils a fear among Europeans that causes them to resort to sloganism rather than to speak out honestly.  I imagine that some would consider that speaking out might endanger their lives.  Shades of Pim Fortain.

 The appalling record of human rights abuses by Middle Eastern governments has become something no-one wants to mention, even in the face of citizens of these nations daily abusing and threatening our Western way of life in our Western homelands.  In England there is an Islamic Parliament and it is the stated aim of many British Muslims that the future for England must be Islamic. Polls show that British Muslims will not fight for England but that they will for El-Qaeda. These Islamics, like the Maori in New Zealand don’t allow the dynamic of politically correct politeness to stand in the way of their vitriolic criticism and denigration of European culture, even as they claim all the benefits of it.

We all need to understand that political correctness in various forms in the past has been well and truly discredited.  It played a vital role in the growth of McCarthyism in the U.S. in the fifties.  It condemned millions of Jews in Germany in the thirties and forties when Nazism made it politically incorrect to treat the Jews as equals. Remember when Chamberlain didn’t want to criticise Hitler and Nazi expansionism?

In Russia in the early part of last century communism would have never succeeded without the dynamic of politically correct denunciations of non-believers.  Stalin and Chairman Mao used it with deadly effect to retain control of their population for most of the twentieth century.   During the French Revolution it condemned many Frenchmen to death at the guillotine for politically incorrect sympathy with royalty. The Catholic Church used it as the primary weapon to subjugate populations during the centuries of the Inquisition.  The un-provable accusation over the centuries has had many names. There were Papists, Heretics, Royalists, Tsarists, Jew Lovers then Commies, sexists and racists.  I suppose in our turn sexist, racist and bigot seem innocuous by comparison, but I believe that the dynamic, however apparently innocuous, prevents people from reaching a proper understanding of what is going on around them.

Think about it.  In all these times past people knew they were supporting lies and deceit, and of course far worse, -- but political correctness guaranteed their silence. Aside from its basic dishonesty, it is being used to educate our youth with slogans, and those of us who were around will remember the sloganism that supported communism.   There will be a price to pay for all this, and as the world moves

 towards a dangerous future, that price will likely be more than we might expect.

Politically correct people hold a prejudice toward non-believers and believe that they in fact are the doyens of free speech, but I believe the opposite is the case.  It is a clear case.  If you can’t say it because it isn’t politically correct, then speech is definitely not free.

VITAL QUESTIONS FOR LIBERALS WHO CAMPAIGN FOR PALESTINIAN DOMINANCE OF ISRAEL

Below some questions (no answers – just questions) for the left leaning liberals in the USA and elsewhere – assuming, that since they think they have all the answers, perhaps they are the right people to ask – Oh – and also assuming your mind is open enough to actually read them.

Do you believe in “Doublespeak” and “Doublethink” as expounded by George Orwell?

Or have you got no understanding of the premise of his book “1984?”

But do you perhaps know by osmosis what he was suggesting in this term?

Do you believe that he could have meant - believing in one thing while knowing the opposite to be true, and paying lip service to the lie because it’s the lie that caters to the predominant political attitude?

 Do you think the fact that you or some of your friends excuse the firing of rockets into Israel by Palestinians on the grounds of them being “freedom fighters,” but condemn the violent response of the grossly outnumbered Israelis trying to protect their homeland, is an example of your personal doublethink?

So – Can you answer this next question truthfully?

Is it OK to hate Jews as long as you can call them “Israelis?”

Why did the media demand extreme retribution and apologies from Mel Gibson because he made an apparently anti Semitic comment, when they completely ignored hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in early 2011 who were chanting “Kill the Jews?” 

Is the statement “Kill the Jews” anti-Semitic?

Was it OK in the thirties and forties for the Nazis to kill Jews?

Is it OK now to kill Jews as long as it is done by Arab and Palestinian Muslims?

Did you know that they were chanting “Kill the Jews” in that Square - or did the News that YOU watch, not tell you?

Why do you think they didn’t tell you?

Are they biased or just deliberately protecting you from being offended, or having a difficult judgment to make, or maybe they think you just  - couldn’t cope?

Why were the people of Egypt chanting “Kill the Jews” on a day when they were apparently fighting and cheering for “democracy?”

Was it OK because they were just excited?

Why is it that, when it comes to this sort of thing, Westerners are held to a higher level of accountability than Muslims – and other cultures or races?

Is it because we Westerners - “Should know better?”

What!? - Is that some kind of racism on your part?

Why should we Westerners know better?

Are we smarter than them?

Are Arabs less likely to feel empathy and less likely to understand that killing people is wrong?

Well are they?

Do you watch the news – or the sports news – or do you watch “E” News?

 Is American Idol more important than the coming holocaust?

Do you think that was a stupid question?

Do you think it’s OK for Muslims to hate Jews and Christians?

Do you think it's Ok for them to SAY they hate Jews and Christians?

Is that the natural state of affairs?

If it is do you think you should support it – and import it to the West?

When did you rename your personal anti-Semitism “Anti-Zionism” or Anti- Israeli?”

Oh! Did that question piss you off?

Have you already decided that I am a “Racist” and a “bigot?”

Why? - Because these simple questions are a bit difficult for you perhaps?

Do you actually know what Zionism represents?

Did you know that Israel would fit into the USA 475 times? 

And that in comparison it is a mere sliver of no-oil land in the vast oil-rich lands dominated by Muslim Arabs that represents a space on the planet greater than the USA and Europe combined?

Do you realise that Muslim Arabs are building the biggest airline in the world (Emirates) and yet spend NOTHING to help these Palestinians that they apparently feel are so important, not to mention the BILLIONS they are spending on the bad taste capital of the world in Dubai and the disgusting way they treat immigrant workers from places like Viet nam and the Philippines?

Do you believe that American or European style Democracy can actually exist in these countries experiencing the “Arab Spring?”

Why do you think it’s OK to wish to protect the “Culture” of the Arabs but you think it’s OK to foist our idea of Democracy on them?

Does that question confuse you?

Did you know Britain did that to Rhodesia  and gave the country to Robert Mugabe who then renamed it Zimbabwe?

Did you know that his first act on gaining power through the vote was to declare a one-party state and set about killing 300,000 of his opponents?

Do you think there is any chance this might happen in this “Arab Spring” when the Muslim Brotherhood take over?

Do you think it will be OK when the Palestinian Muslims take over Israel - if they then slaughter millions of Jews?

If they decide to deport them instead of slaughtering them, do you think it will be any different to Idi Amin deporting the entire Asian population of Uganda – after confiscating their wealth?

Do you know about Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin?

Do you think when the Palestinians expel the Jews from Israel instead of slaughtering them - that they should let them take their wealth – given that the place was an unproductive desert when the Israeli state was declared?

What do you think Hamas and Hezbollah will do with the huge number of Palestinians who live, have homes and business and citizenship in Israel?

Will they be nice to them because they are Palestinians or do you think they will  regard them as traitors?

If they are traitors, where will they go – if the new Palestinian state decides to just deport them?

Two million Israeli Palestinians?

That’s a lot of plane-loads - which country will take them?

 Europe? The USA? Canada? Australia? New Zealand? China?? Japan??? Saudi Arabia???? Lebanon????? Egypt?????? Palestine???????

Can they keep their wealth and the things they worked for?

Will those Palestinians or the Jews in Israel get the first chances to leave?

 Who will decide about that?

Will that have any parallels with the Nazis exporting and exterminating the Jews from Europe?

Do you think that the Holocaust was all bullshit?

Have any of my questions made you uncomfortable?

Are you getting more pissed off with me and are you now absolutely convinced that I’m a racist and a bigot – or a “Zionist?”

Do you think that the opposite of the view represented in these questions, is more or less racist or bigoted?

Was that question difficult for you to figure out?

Do you think a question like the following will make it easier?

If you are a modern, Western, educated woman with left leaning tendencies living in America or Europe or Australia or New Zealand, can you make a reasonable rationalisation of why you support a religion and culture that is demonstratively misogynistic and has the unmovable position that women should be subservient to men?

Do you know that 80% of women polled in Egypt in 2011 reported sexual harassment or assault, and that 60% of men admitted to perpetrating the same? (Poll conducted by a female academic from Egypt in Egypt.) (Brave lady.)

Is that kind of behaviour in Islamic communities OK in Western Society?

Do you make a distinction between your support of Islamic rights and needs - and your support for the subjugation of women among Muslims?

Is that a bad and insensitive thing for me to ask because it is insensitive to other cultures and difficult to answer because you’re not accustomed to answering questions that don't fit your usual dialogue?

If I said that women with bags over their heads “offends” me – is it possible for my offence to be as firmly held if I am a Western white male – as opposed to the offence felt by a Muslim male because I said it?

Is it OK to offend western people because they should “know better” than to be sensitive to such things?

Is our “sensitivity” less important and less deeply felt than the “sensitivities “ of Muslims?

Why is it, that despite all that is happening on this planet, there is still only ONE culture that tries to defend, preserve, help and encourage other cultures and religions?

Which one is it do you think?

If you actually realise that it is in fact the much-vilified Western Culture - can you think of any other global culture that spends ANY time, intellect, money, and energy on the protection and preservation of another culture or religion?

Does Islam support the safety and preservation of any other culture or religion? Does China? Does Japan? Does Black Africa?  Does saying “Black” Africa offend you?

Is that ethos represented in that last question important to your support of the destruction of a very small nation in the Middle East because it is inhabited by Jews?

What if they were - “Blacks?” (Oh! Hush my mouth.)

Do you know what “Ethos” means?

Do you think that when Islam takes over Belgium and the Netherlands (Holland,) that they will be as tolerant of other cultures and religions as the Dutch were to allow their nation to be first colonised by and then taken over by Islam?

Do you think Muslims will be tolerant of the indigenous DUTCH culture when they control the Netherlands???

Well do you???

What is the Islamic ethos do you think?

Do you think that the rise of Islam in Europe and the rest of the world is a threat?

Do you think it has anything what-so-ever to do with what is happening in the Middle East and to Israel at the moment (June 2011)?

Have you any idea what IS actually happening in the Middle East in June 2011?

 Do you think that as Muslims achieve more power and influence in our Western culture, that your freedom of choice and religion will be enhanced – or reduced?

Do you think that question is ridiculous?

Do you think that there is ANY chance that Israel might use its nuclear arms to protect itself from destruction?

Do you think THAT question is ridiculous?

Or do you think that in the interests of the planet’s peace and health the Israelis might just let themselves be destroyed?

Could they possibly be that magnanimous?

Could that possibly be their ethos – those bad Israelis?

Do you think that if they decide NOT to use these nuclear weapons when faced with annihilation and being destroyed - that they will allow those weapons to fall into the hands of the Palestinians?

 What would happen to the world then?

Would Israeli nuclear weapons then be more or less of a threat to civilisation if they are in the hands of Palestinian Islamics?

Do you think you and your family would have an enhancement of your lifestyle in the USA or Europe if the Palestinians have control of Israel and a nuclear arsenal? 

Do you think you and your family would have an enhancement of your lifestyle if the Israelis dig their heels in and there is a nuclear war in the Middle East?

If they do - and all the oilfields and ports in the Middle East become contaminated with radioactivity - have you REALLY considered life without cars and petrol and trucks and trains and planes and all the energy using stuff that uses energy from the possible nuclear contaminated Middle East???

Well – have you?

Will your job still exist?

Have you thought about that?

Have you talked to your kids about the possibility of 75% unemployment in the western nations because you supported Palestinian rights over Israel’s existence and it brought about a nuclear war?

Well - have you?

Will you be prepared to accept your portion of the blame for the destruction of the economies and social structures of the world because you supported policies that brought nuclear war to the Middle East in 2012 – or 13 – or 14 - - or will you do what the liberals and Leftists in Europe did in 1939 when they finally figured out what Hitler was up too?

Do you know what they (liberals and leftists) did after vilifying Churchill and INSISTING, that Hitler was just being assertive and that he would not go to war, even after he had invaded the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudeten land and Czechoslovakia, and right up until he invaded Poland?

They (leftists and Liberals) had an INSTANT, OVERNIGHT change of opinion and immediately put Churchill in charge and rushed to hide behind the soldiers and the army and the people who they had accused of being “Warmongers” – and only weeks before they wanted him destroyed  --- Churchill destroyed – not Hitler – Look up your history and see the very disturbing parallels with today and the part YOU are playing-----?  

OK. So that wasn’t a question.

History – it’s not just a school subject, it can enlighten you.

Do you know who Churchill was?

Probably not.

I have hundreds more questions – but I’m tired now.