28 Dec

Arrest the Prime Minister of Japan

Speaking at Pearl Harbour, Japan’s prime minister has offered Americans his “eternal condolences” for the deaths inflicted by his country on US soldiers in the 1941 attack. I believe the emperor of Japan is regarded as a god by his people, but it’s a bit presumptuous for a mere prime minister to express “eternal” condolences: he should leave such promises to the one true God who alone can deal in the business of eternity. Condolences – eternal or not – are one thing while apologies are another. The PM stopped short of making an apology. But he did make an astonishing promise: he said his country would “never wage war again.”

The man should be arrested, charged with treasonous intent and locked up.

“Never” means “never.” I think, in this case, the Japanese for “never” is “zettai ni.” And it means “In no circumstances.”

So the PM has pledged that Japan will not go war even if his country and people are attacked. That is a contemptible promise for a statesman to make.

Of course, there are those – so called “pacifists” – who would never make war. And pacifists tend to get a very good press. The fact remains that pacifism is fundamentally immoral. I may on my own behalf refuse to fight, but to refuse to fight to protect those for whom I have responsibility is both cowardly and wicked. To refuse to defend my country when it is under attack is a betrayal of all upon which I rely for my safety and well-being.

War is a very bad thing, but there are things worse than war: for instance, surrendering to tyrannous aggression. Redemption can indeed come through war – when men are prepared to shed their blood to redeem us from the enemy. I would go further and say that when our soldiers give their lives in battle, their sacrifice is joined to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

It is a bit much when so called “peace activists” presume to lecture soldiers about the nature of war. Soldiers do not like war – because it is they – and not the peace activists – who are called to fight. But soldiers know that there is a worse thing than war, and that is the triumph of evil. Sometimes war is the moral, the righteous, thing to do. The soldiers are the true peace activists, because peace is what they are fighting for. This is the lasting peace which only comes after victory. And the Bible itself warns us against those who “…cry peace where there is no peace.”

I wonder where soldiers get their courage from? Surely their love of our country and their fierce attachment to their Regiment. Through the knowledge that they are fighting a good fight. Through their loyalty to their comrades-in-arms.

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

28 May

The horse has bolted

Lord West, the former-First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, has called for a blockade of the coast of Libya. He said that such a measure would require ten Navy frigates and destroyers, along with helicopters, drones and other intelligence and surveillance capability.

He added that the plan outlined by Prime Minister David Cameron to send one warship to the area was “not really the way to go about things. It’s no good having ships in the Mediterranean picking up refugees before they drown, because that actually is causing the problem to be worse.

“I know from the people smugglers in southern Nigeria that what they say to people is: ‘Give us your $2,000, we’ll get you across the Sahara, and put you on a boat. Here is a number, phone it on your mobile – that’s the Italian coastguard. You’ll be picked up by a British ship and taken to  Italy.”

Lord West’s description of the immigration crisis is refreshingly at odds with the lies we hear constantly from our government and most of the mass media. According to the government, most of the non-EU immigrants to Europe are refugees fleeing war zones and places where they are persecuted. Everyone from Angelina Jolie to the Pope says we should make the immigrants welcome.

But most of the incomers are not escapees from wars and persecution.

Actually, it’s not only Lord West who is spilling the beans the government doesn’t want spilt. He gave the example of Nigerian immigrants, but Nigeria is not the only source of the massive influx.

Credit where it’s due: sometimes we hear snippets of truth, even from the BBC. On The Today Programme this morning, an African correspondent reported that she was standing “on a stunning hillside in Eritrea.” She then told us that last year 34,000 Eritreans arrived in Italy.

Why do they come?

“Actually, British foreign aid facilitates immigration. If you look around the hillside where I’m standing, you’ll see many houses with satellite dishes. Local people receive hundreds of television channels which feature news, documentaries and soap operas about the west and these portray a glamourised lifestyle which encourages Africans from a score of countries to try to get to Europe. These people are not the very poor: they have money with which to pay the unscrupulous traffickers.”

Isn’t it also likely that among the economic immigrants there will be jihadists and terrorists?

Of course. And we are rendering ourselves impotent to prevent their coming.

This presents a dangerous threat to the lives of our civilian populations, and it is scandalous. It is more than scandalous: it is treacherous on the part of our government to frame no effective policy to stop it.

But in the great scheme of things, the terrorist threat is merely a side issue.

The main threat – but it is more than a threat, it is an actuality – is from what amounts to the latest in one of the periodic mass migrations of populations which revolutionise political realities and obliterate civilisations and cultures – such as the massive invasions of the eastern tribes as the Roman Empire declined.

The reality in such monumental shifts is the abolition of one way of life and its replacement by something that is alien.

With due respect to Lord West, it will take more than ten frigates, destroyers and a few helicopters and drones to stop it. The problem requires a whole new defence and foreign policy.

That noise you can hear is the sound of the stable door been slammed. Unfortunately, it is now too late in the day to halt the destruction of our European homeland.

29 Jul

Come on if you think you’re hard enough–we’re not!

A few years ago, I asked an Air Marshal, “If the government decides we should bomb Libya, will both our aircraft be involved?”

Emphatically: “No – one of them is out of service.”

Things are not as bad as that – quite or yet. But the number of our military personnel – army, navy and air force – now stands at 143,000, down from 176.000 five years ago.

Of course, when asked why the reduction, the government blames the economies which have to be made following the financial crisis. Agreed, economies have to be made, but is military provision the right place to make them?

The world-political scene would suggest not. The Russia-Ukraine conflict shows no sign of abating and, more generally, there is plenty of evidence for believing that the Cold War is hotting up.

And, unless you’ve been asleep for the last twenty years, you have probably noticed that there is a violent Muslim insurgency in west Africa, central Africa, north Africa, all across the Middle East and as far as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Given recent local atrocities – and the un-stemmed tide of immigration – this shows every sign of moving imminently into Europe.

Is the minister of defence confident that we have the forces to counteract this threat?

We have limited resources, so what are our spending priorities? An out-of-control benefits racket, a national health service that is not fit for purpose and foreign aid – including to countries such as India which are wealthy enough to boast a space programme; as well as to profligate African states where our hand-outs disappear into the pockets of crooks and dictators.

The first duty of government – some would argue the only duty of government – is to preserve the peace in our streets and to defend us from foreign enemies. But we conspicuously fail to honour these responsibilities because we are spending our resources on items not essential to our survival.

When a breadwinner loses his job and belts have to be tightened, the household does not look first to cut back on necessities but on optional extras. And so it should be with the national defence.

I have just read a very disturbing sentence from Professor Keith Hartley, a defence expert at York University. Asked to comment on the reduction in our armed forces, he says: “We can’t fight in as many wars as we used to.”

But we don’t always have a choice when it comes to which battles we are obliged to fight. Often war is thrust on us.

Clearly Professor Hartley has not thought through to the shocking implications of his statement. He is as good as saying to any enemy, “Please don’t attack us, because we are unable to defend ourselves.”

Pre-emptive self-abasement. Cowardice and abject surrender.

It’s a serious crime to give such comfort to the Queen’s enemies. A crime almost as serious as our government’s refusal to arrange for the national defence.