We have been fooled by alt-right politicians and the media. It’s time for the silent majority to take a stand.

                                                                                                                                                            Source: AFP / Justin Tallis

Look around you and you will notice very little positive news. It does exist, of course: there is water on Mars; a Thai youth football team was rescued using innovative techniques despite the odds against them; the Duchess of Sussex will probably wear something stunning to a public event some time soon. None of these are political issues, of course. In this field, things seem to be in utter meltdown. Everywhere.

Theresa May’s hijacking of Brexit. Trump’s infallibility despite overwhelming evidence he’s more than likely a big-time crook and a sleazy pervert. Viktor Orbán and his illiberal democracy. Poland’s PiS party taking away citizens’ rights. Spain’s unjustifiably rough treatment of Catalan separatists. Putin infiltrating Western democracy, to the extent he was able to poison a few civilians in the English countryside. But most of all, a large number of ordinary people who either don’t believe these things are actually happening, or worse, don’t wish to know about them because they’ll just make them have to do something that will require time and effort away from their busy lives.

People often try to remain superficially indifferent in order not to get press-ganged into something they are reluctant to do, like make a stand against injustice or read up on important issues, when they could be buying that ultra-important pair of boots on Amazon, or giving the dog a haircut. Others don't want to stick their heads above the parapet in case they have trouble further down the line. Yes, we all hate being accosted on the streets by clipboard warriors. I'm not talking about that. 

But...

Right now, we are about to go into a period of immeasurable darkness once again, and what are people doing about it? They're polishing their driveways or mowing the carpets. They're doing anything except confronting the most important issue facing our civilisation since 1936. The current coordinated effort by ruthless individuals like Aaron Banks, or Steve Bannon and his band of merry men and women to smash Western democracy and install right-wing regimes should be blasted all over the media in the same way the Cuban Missile Crisis was back in the sixties.

But it isn't. 

And the reasons are simple: firstly, people would be utterly petrified. Secondly, many news outlets are party to this invasion. And thirdly, people are more interested in things that are harmless, fun, or that raise anger and prejudice, which is why the newspapers contain stories of violent lesbians, immigrant sex predators, Polish thieves or Mexican murderers. Of course, none of ours acts remotely in that way, do they? Noooo... 

These headlines stand out because they are done by people who aren't in your tribe. The fact is, most of the homosexual people I know are virtually incapable of violence; all the immigrants that I know are more likely to offer me a drink and a chat; all Polish people I know are hard-working, efficient and cerebral, and I know a couple of Mexicans, and they're pretty chilled out dudes. The fact of the matter is, right-wingers, and by that I mean people in the alt-right movement will say "if we can make a few in those enemy groups out to be wicked people, we can fool some in our society that the rest are like that too." 

The alt-right is pushing hard against the new 21st-century norms and standards that most of us take for granted as a society, such as women's reproductive rights, choice of gender and sexuality, freedom of movement of goods and people within a trading bloc such as the EU, international programmes such as Erasmus, acceptance of climate change, and I am almost convinced that they are experimenting with wacko ideas such as the flat earthers and creationists to see how far they can push people's gullibility. 

Dividing society down very strong, defined lines of demarcation is one of the steps on the road to aggressively marginalising their enemies. Once they have cordoned them off, no matter how large their numbers are in comparison, they can try to gain power through promising certain positive measures that many will benefit from (see the PiS party's rollout of childcare payments in Poland). Then, after they have gained power, they can execute the other things in their manifestos where yes, they carry out what they said they would, but on the side introduce marginalising or restricting measures on their ideological opposites, such as gay people in Russia, or pro-choicers in some parts of the US. They may also try to manipulate the judiciary so that their policies are more easily enshrined in law, sometimes for generations to come.

If you think my opinions are unthinkable, I advise you to check out the current situation in Poland and Hungary. Their spinmasters will say that these are necessary measures to do with the security of the people, but it is more to do with the implementation of their nefarious ideology.

And in all this, the moderate people sit back, content with their twice-yearly holidays, TV packages, family cars and visits to the park. They want life to carry on for them, so they sit there pretending not to notice. Many of them will have voted for all types of parties and both sides of the 2016 Brexit referendum. It's not about one side or another, it's about the silent majority. It is these people that need to be engaged the most, as it is these people that will decide if the nasty guys get in or not.

Think about it: how many decent folk do you know (you know the type: friendly, upstanding, clever, etc.) but wore MAGA caps or stuck a Leave.EU banner in their windows? Many of them voted for Trump mainly because they couldn't stand the thought of Hillary in the White House; many voted Brexit because they felt excluded from society; and that's fair enough. But a lot of them were bombarded with propaganda on immigrants stealing jobs, property and children. They were conned into thinking a darker skin colour is a sure sign of a troublemaker. In the Brexit referendum, there was a twist in the tail: apparently, the full hospitals, blocked roads, lack of affordable housing and overcrowded schools were due to too many foreigners, and nothing to do with government under-investment over many decades.

And this is where we find ourselves today - in this ideological battle between right-wing rule breakers and fair-minded folk. It is not too late to halt this criminal ideological takeover of our society: we can get out the message to more decent, ordinary folk who vote certain ways out of tradition or class rather than for justice. I mean, it is still incredible how many people still want to vote Tory, despite their total mismanagement of the country and the Brexit process. Surely, these people can be persuaded to vote for another party. 

We need to halt the rush backwards towards the intolerance and prejudices of the past, and we need to start now. We need to push people's buttons to make them see we are being manipulated into a new era of segregation and fear. The reality is that we have never been more prosperous or contented than now, but it does not feel like that, because it's not in the interests of the alt-right and their friends in the media to portray it so. The alt-right needs to spread misery and doom, and that is what sells newspapers, so they leech off each other.

In order to stop this, we need to look at several aspects: firstly, who is subsidising all this activity, and why? Secondly, just how many fake profiles are there on niche Facebook groups, or the comments section of newspapers, spouting all kinds of aggressive nonsense to make out that there are so many more people out there with the same intolerant views? And thirdly, how can we make a difference in fighting back? 

I have myself come up against a neo-fascist recently on Facebook, and it wasn't pretty. When I challenged his views, he accused me of being weak-willed and lacking in coherence (if anyone knows me, they know that is exactly the opposite of what I am). This was despite me banging on vehemently for long, sweeping paragraphs about why he was wrong in every single syllable of his nonsense. I provided evidence and links too. But no, it was dismissed with a figurative sweep of his hands, and a literal one over the "block user" option on his Facebook profile. Just before he did, like some super-villain getting a rush by telling his victim how he's going to kill him, he announced he was going to block me, so I had a millisecond to react, and I managed to accuse him of being a coward because he didn't want to debate.

What happened there was what is happening everywhere at the moment. The Orwellian 2 + 2 = 5 dogma is well and truly alive in these people: it is the twisting of everything to the benefit of the lie. The fact he was the one who more or less called me a snowflake, and yet it was he who blocked me out of unwillingness to have his views challenged, demonstrates a fragility, vanity and feebleness in the minds of these people that can be used against them. By assuring you hold the truth, and enough of your allies rally round you, you can defeat these guys. But here is the catch: nearly nobody will. 

I recently had a guy living below me whose premise on this Earth was to get through life without making too much of a ripple. Even if he saw an injustice, he kept out of it. He told me of his "triumphs" at escaping from having to deal with thugs and drug pushers at a bar he used to work in. He disapproved of my outspokenness, not that I took heed of that. These people need to be railed against for their utter refusal to stand up and be counted in these, the most programmatic of days. We cannot afford to just give up and let the alt-right overrun us. We need to give them a good shake to awaken their spirits and get them motivated to do something, even if it is to put their X on a ballot sheet every 4 or 5 years somewhere other than their default choice.

Just remember what John Stuart Mill said: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." 

Don't bring your religion into politics and count on my respect

I have been utterly astounded by the number of people whom I have come across, on Facebook, in the media, or in person, who vote for political leaders based on one point only, no matter how relevant their other beliefs are for them. This is a very blinkered and self-defeating point of view, and the biggest share of this went to Christian fundamentalists, the vast majority of whom turn out time and time again for one party in many countries that best represents their chance to implement their ideologies, no matter what else the party believes in. We saw this in Poland, which swept the conservatives to power, and now we have seen it in the US, where the Republicans have steamrollered their way to all three houses.

In 2015, the Polish elected the Law and Justice (PiS) party to power, thanks to a growing dissatisfaction in rural areas with the speed of reforms implemented by the previous incumbents, Civic Platform. Although it is understandable for people to vote out a party that has ignored them, there were many who voted for PiS based purely on their sympathies with the Roman Catholic Church in the country. Since PiS was elected, it has taken a sledgehammer to the democratic institutions that were set up to assure constitutional equilibrium in the country, has tried to totally ban in-vitro fertilisation and pregnancy terminations (unsuccessfully) and tried to gag the independent media outlets.

Many fundamentalist Catholics in Poland would never consider voting for another party, and most certainly not for Civic Platform, the party that upheld the right to abortion in a vote not long before the last election. On 3 October 2016, the proposal to ban abortion outright brought Polish women of all kinds out on strike in a huge act of peaceful civil disobedience. Two days later, many politicians had begun to distance themselves from the proposal and an amendment was being considered at the time of writing this.

The irony is, the PiS (standing for Law and Justice) party claims they helped overthrow the Communist regime along with the Catholic Church, so they feel a little like they are owed a debt of gratitude for bringing about democracy, and yet they themselves have the most undemocratic agenda since the fall of Communism in 1989. So much so, a group of intellectuals and moderates established the KOD (Committee for the Safeguarding of Democracy) as a counterweight to the encroaching reduction in freedoms taking place in the country. What they want is closer to a theocracy than a democracy, and the people are finally beginning to realise the consequences of their actions.

The moral (pardon the pun) of the story here is, do not force your ideology on others. If you don't want to be involved in, or even inadvertently condone, something that you fundamentally deplore, that is your right. But it does not mean you should force your view on others by voting for a party based on one point of obsession. This is not how democracy works. Democracy is inclusive, and one size most certainly does not fit all.

Now we turn to the other side of the Atlantic, where the Republican party has won the right to govern the United States for the next four years. There is a great paradox between people with Christian values and the parties they vote for, the vast majority siding with the Republicans.

Let us take a look at Republicans' policies and compare them to Christian values:

So, to start with, they want to keep God in the public sphere. All's well and good if you're a Christian then. But dig a little deeper and the truth is very muddy.

Christian values stipulate that one should do unto others as you would do unto yourself, including:

• giving shelter to those in need; 
• providing help to the sick and the poor; 
• not killing your fellow human. 

And yet the Republicans strongly oppose giving asylum to those who have come to the US for a better life, they wish to foist medical expenses back on the individual and advocate the reversal of the weapons restrictions introduced under Barack Obama. Upon further consultation of policy one can see the Democrats favoured these points. Who is more closely aligned to Christian doctrine in these areas? I know who I would say...

Then there are thorny issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, both favoured by the Democrats and opposed by Republicans. These issues are relevant to far fewer people than those in the preceding paragraph, and yet they are the Republicans' most fertile hunting grounds for opposition supporters. So what this suggests is that, despite the fact that Jesus himself is recorded as hanging around with socially stigmatised groups like prostitutes and ex-criminals, this is irrelevant when it comes to Christians' political behaviour in modern times.

We can ignore the hundreds of thousands of people on the poverty line who are about to have healthcare added to their list of debts; rough up and throw out any under-the-radar immigrants who are doing all the jobs Americans don't want to do rather than give them an amnesty; and risk our lives by going out onto the street hoping not to meet a testosterone-fuelled sicko with a gun licence who can kill at a second's notice. Forget that, because hold your horses, folks... love between two people is only right and proper if they're male and female, and we shouldn't allow anyone to make sexual "mistakes". This is really rather creepy, but yes, fundamentalist (emphasis on the mental, and most definitely not on the fun) Christians would rather vote based on such kneejerk matters such as that rather than on the bigger issues.

The same goes with the environment:
It is entirely feasible that the next energy secretary will be a climate change denier. Despite all the warnings, the evidence and the fact that nearly two hundred countries have signed treaties to deal with it, the US is probably about to assign this job to a sceptic. Christians are split on this issue, although time and time again the Bible tells humans to respect the Earth:
Leviticus 25:1-7 and 23; Psalm 24; Ezekiel 34:18; Matthew 6:26; 1 Timothy 4:4; the list is endless, and they all point to the need to look after our planet. So one would think, that even as a sceptic, one would at least be respectful of our Earth and Her resources. But most Republicans favour withdrawing from environmental treaties and reigniting the fossil fuel industry.

Again, this is considered a side-issue by many fundamentalist Christians, because moral behaviour is a far greater threat to them than this. And to be honest, I find it at best very distasteful, at worst profoundly hypocritical. But most of all it highlights the easily-led, knuckle-headed narrow-mindedness of people (or sheeple, considering they are a flock) that:

• they would elect a party that condoned the widespread carrying of guns yet called themselves "pro-life"; 
• would listen to their priest telling them the story of the Good Samaritan and then immediately join a demonstration against Mexicans or Muslims; 
• would read from 1 Corinthians 13, which even for a non-believer like me is the best definition of love in existence, and then go and heckle an LGBTQ event. 

I remember I once knew a Baptist minister's daughter who, despite the deep unpopularity of John Major's government in 1997 due to the in-fighting, the scandals, the remoteness of the ministers and the institutionalised corruption, declared she would vote for him because he went to church. Did she even pay attention to the news...? I doubt it.

And this is my problem with religion interfering in politics. You cannot blindly let yourself be guided by priests, bishops and cardinals on the very narrow moral issue of sex and love which, by the way, they don't even take part in (if you don't play the game, you can't expect to make up the rules), and at the same time have a clear conscience on other issues of a more urgent nature, like the rising oceans, civilian gun crime, free healthcare, proper education, housing the homeless and welcoming refugees. The Statue of Liberty itself has these words:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
To spread the light of liberty world-wide for every land."

If this is what you believe, then you are most definitely not a Republican, but you have probably been made to believe that you are by more eloquent people, or cajoled into voting for them by peer pressure, pressure from your elders or by your sheer blindness to the real issues.

I think it's only right to see that Bible verse in full. Learn from it, because it sums up not only what one might call "conventional" love, but also that for the Earth, for our neighbours, for our fellow humans, and our country:

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

So on that note, if you vote based on one narrow issue of religious doctrine, don't expect me to regard you as an example of moral fortitude, for you have done nothing more than condoned a sort of "Christian Sharia" - the imposition of your religious doctrine in our law and politics, where people of other religions need to coexist. The content of Sharia law is totally different to Christian teaching in many aspects, but I don't think anyone would agree that Christianity should be applied to our laws. This is why, even in France and ultra-Catholic Italy, religious symbols are banned from state workplaces. Religion has a place inside people as individuals - it is a very personal thing. It has no place in a one-size-fits-all public sphere.

So please, keep your own beliefs to yourself, and don't impose them on others.

Inclusiveness in immigration is very important

I have one or two Facebook friends that continually post the most small-minded trash about "foreigners". I should really delete them, but I get a kind of morbid kick from hate-reading their simplistic cartoons, knee-jerk videos and generalist caveman articles saying why anyone with a different skin complexion is either murderously dangerous or just here in Europe for the financial benefits. They are simply wrong, and their thinking is just as dangerous as, if not more than the revoltingly maniacal terrorists they, and indeed all of us, wish to eradicate.

I am the grandson of a Polish immigrant, and empirical witness to the praise he heaped on his adopted country. He loved Great Britain with a passion. He worked on ship maintenance most of his life in dry docks in the East End of London and crucially, he played an important role during the run-up to D-Day and beyond, coming home some weeks after he had left, black from head to foot. My father said he slept for several days afterwards. He held a passion for his adopted country, calling it the greatest nation on Earth (and he had visited many in his career).

Where I am leading to is this: if the people in my country had treated him with scorn, scepticism or segregation, or if they had excluded him from an opportunity to contribute to society, or if they had accused him of profiting from the system, I am sure he would not have stayed long. If my country's newspapers were full of stories about people like him: funny accent, strange gait, shifty eyes... he would never have said anything complimentary about my country at all. But they didn't. And he did.

Why?

Because if you come with a clean conscience, a smile, and a will to be useful, you will go far, provided the people give you a break. If they don't - if they put you in a box, if they don't trust you or "your kind", if they don't try to understand you, or at the very least accept you, then you may as well find a different place to settle. The reason why immigration into the UK has on the whole been successful is due to two factors:

1. Indifference: as long as you're not a bastard, nobody really cares where you're from;
2. The economy: it can absorb newcomers because employers take experience above qualifications.

I am really upset by the country of my grandfather, the land that has been the object of imperialist expansion, whose people have suffered greatly at the hands of oppressors from all points of the compass. I am also upset by the land I call my second home, the Czech Republic, which had a similar history, if not so brutal. The people should know better than to advocate the closing of the doors to people in dire need of help. They may not be Christian, they may not be white, they may not eat pork, they may not speak your language, but they are people. They have heads, hands, hearts, and most of all they have the right to live in peace without fear of persecution or death.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that if you commit a crime, you should be fittingly punished. But to forbid people from entering your country in case they do is a despicable act of heartlessness. Everyone deserves a chance. If you are so scared by people you have never met, if you remain fearful of them and if you don't try to befriend them, how else can they integrate? They will most certainly stick together, because nobody else wants to know them. It is no surprise to me that the recent arrivals do not want to go to Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia or Hungary: why would they, when they have some idea of how badly they will be treated when they get there?

So next time you are faced with a person from a hotter country who looks at you without smiling, or walks past you without looking, ask yourself why - could it be because he/she has had very little contact or bad experiences with local people? Could it be he/she has been attacked by locals and is afraid? Or could it be that he/she is confused by (especially European) locals' innate behaviour of keeping people at an arm's length and mistakenly takes it personally? I have been subject of two of those cases myself, both in Germany and Belgium, so I know how it feels. And I'm white. I can only imagine how much more compounded the feeling must be if I were not.

I haven't finished yet...

I watched a video posted on a group called "We Are Here At Home", a Facebook page where people from the Czech Republic and Slovakia congratulate themselves on their racial purity and point out the barbarism of other nations, e.g. showing rubbish tips and slums in African cities; men in Keffiyeh headgear beating their wives; memes showing darker skinned people saying what they're really coming to Europe for (not for shopping, that's for sure). This is the type of nonsense propaganda the Communists used to distribute, just delivered for another cause. It casts doubt into people's minds and drives them to a very dark place.

I agree, there are many countries in hotter climates with some serious problems with their systems, and their patriarchal ways. There are men in some countries that treat their women and children the same as their cattle. Or worse. There are also a lot of nefarious individuals that should never be allowed into Europe. We all know this. We also know the way the crisis in the summer of 2015 was shockingly badly handled. But this does not mean every single person coming out of Africa or the Middle East has a dastardly plan. Have you seen the utter devastation in the Middle East? If that happened in Europe (which it did), you wouldn't stay at home to wait to be blown up along with your house and possessions. It also doesn't mean that because some may have grown up in corrupt, disorganised or lawless areas, that they are incapable of being organised themselves; quite the opposite, in fact. How many of us, when we become adults, do exactly the opposite of the things we hated most about our past or our upbringing?

There is something sick about people unwilling to extend an olive branch to those in desperate need. There is something psychologically wrong about people who see the colour, religion or the nation before they see the person. There is something sinister about the person who propagates false information about "outsiders", or who actively looks for the opportunity to shock others, or be shocked by the behaviour of those they know little about.

Below is a list of just some of the many successful British people whose provenances lie partly or wholly elsewhere:

Art Malik (actor)
Rita Ora (singer-songwriter)
Asad Ahmad (BBC newsreader)
Riz Lateef (BBC newsreader)
Naseem Hamed (Boxer)
Sajid Javid (Politician)
David Lammy (Politician)
Baroness Warsi (Politician)
Nadiya Hussain (winner of a TV cooking show voted by the public)
Mo Farah (Olympic Sportsman)
Fatima Whitbread (Olympic Sportswoman)
Mudhsuden Singh "Monty" Panesar (Cricketer for England)
Chuka Umunna (Politician)
Gabriel Agbonlahor (Footballer)
Sadiq Khan (Politician)
Adil Ray (Comedian, Actor)
Omid Djalili (Comedian, Actor)
The Saatchi Brothers (Businessmen)
Anish Kapoor (Architect)
Michael Marks (Founder of Marks & Spencer)
Sir Alec Issigonis (Inventor, designer of the Mini car)
Sir Clement Freud (Broadcaster, Writer, Politican, Chef)
Lord Alf Dubs (Politician)

Nadiya Hussain, winner of the Great British Bake-Off 2015
(c) Love Productions/Press Association

Google them and you will find a very interesting story behind every one of them. Some of course suffered from xenophobic abuse (not every story is faultless), but the benignity of the system, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of people are colour-blind and take people at face value, meant they were able to make it in their chosen areas, many with outstanding results. If you treat people as you would like to be treated, you will find they will reciprocate. Only a small number would do differently.

I'll tell you something for nothing: I would never have even thought of writing such a piece as this if it were not for the necessity of putting my point across to some mindless bigots I have recently had the displeasure of discovering are actually parochial purist thugs. And that is because I have never really considered any of the people on that list above, or any other first, second, third-generation immigrant (I baulk at the word) as anything else except British. In some ways I feel like I'm patronising them by having to use them as an example. I have never seen them as anything else except British.

In fact, quite frankly, on an intellectual or human level, there are no foreigners. And I challenge any one of those propagators of hate (you know who you are) to prove otherwise. Look at the personality, the attitude, the potential, before you look at the nationality, ethnic background or religion. There are bad eggs everywhere, just don't put all their associates in the same category. If we did that, this is what we would see:

Football hooliganism = English problem in the 1980s = all English are therefore violent thugs
Marc Dutroux = paedophile and child murderer = all Belgians are murderous sexual deviants
Westboro Baptist Church = brutally xenophobic and homophobic Christian group = all Americans are religious nutcases
Dutch law = lenient on soft drugs and prostitution = all Dutch are perverted junkies
Hungarian government = illiberal and xenophobic = all Hungarians voted for them

For goodness sake, as a Pagan, I sometimes go to the forest at night and remove my clothes. It doesn't make me a flaming exhibitionist... If we peddle the line that everyone is the same because they do this or that, or come from here or there, or they believe in this or that, it tells more about us than it does about them...

I cannot believe, that in 2016, we are once again heading towards isolationism, segregation, and maybe even war. There are no reasons for it, except for those that get their kicks from the feeling they are superior to others. They generally are not - they are just unaware how ridiculous they look. I will not block these Facebook "friends" who post their nonsense, but I will try never to be in the same room as them ever again.

The Polish politician's favourite tool: victimhood

Back in the dark days of the Cold War, people of all nations involved were fearful of "the other side". This fear was generated by the idea that "we" were superior to "them", and "they" were immoral, unscrupulous and treacherous. It worked well - indeed so well, it's been resurrected for a new public, a public that by now will have forgotten that period, and should be more or less open to psychological manipulation once again. Today's Poland is a perfect example of this.

"Us" against "them": this tool is used by so many leaders to motivate their followers, especially in hard times: listen to any post-match interview from football managers like Slaven Bilic or José Mourinho; find a speech by any of the North Korean Kim dynasty; take a look at the recruitment tactics of any wacko religion such as the Jehovah's Witnesses or even the Westboro mob; read the transcripts of any large criminal trial - what you will notice in all of them is this tendency to garner sympathy with their target audience through claiming they are being besieged and thus in need of protection, support or even encouragement.

In some contexts this may indeed be the correct action to take, but in a lot of them, shiploads of salt should be offloaded onto their pretexts before even considering their legitimacy. Take the current constitutional changes taking place in Poland right now: all the pillars of democracy have been tested and are being torn down in favour of a very pious, blinkered and ultimately vindictive government being led by an éminence grise, Jarosław Kaczyński, who is clandestinely pulling all the strings from a safe distance. He himself is slightly toxic to the public, but his party, at least at the time of election, was not. I think it its safe to say that if there were an election in Poland tomorrow, his PiS party would be soundly beaten by safer, more democratic politicians.

One can say that a country deserves the politicians it elects, and sorry to my Polish friends, but I think this also applies here... Poland was gripped by the migration crisis of summer 2015 and voted for the party most likely to protect its national borders from ethnic "impurities". Poland was an up-and-coming country, a progressive nation taking the lead in its region as the motor of European integration and solidarity. But the wheels came off in the summer when its people showed that they have yet to really comprehend the outside world at large. The election of the PiS, with a majority, despite its disastrous record in office, demonstrates the same old fears that Poles continue to believe: Russia and Germany are still trying to subjugate it; the EU is the propagator of multiculturalism and ultimately the dilution of Polish nationality; Putin himself caused the 2010 Smolensk air crash that wiped out many of Poland's leading lights... there are many more, but these are the perfect examples to highlight how to manipulate a country and its people.

Playing on these fears, along with the fact that Poles play victimhood very well (I cannot remember how many times I have had to explain why the British didn't show up the day after the attack on Westerplatte in 1939 and why I am personally not to blame, or listen to how all of us Brits, whether born or not, whether we voted for the leader of the day or not, are responsible for Poland being handed over to the Soviets after the War, even if we ourselves weren't actually at the Yalta or Potsdam conferences...) meant that Kaczynski and his allies could use the perfect storm created by the migration crisis, the eurozone issue and the struggle in Ukraine to play on the fears of the average citizen. Where this has led to is a disaster for European democracy and progressive politics. 

I personally do not think the current Polish government will survive a year from now. But where it has been very shrewd is in very early in its term of office massively changing the country's internal set-up making it likely that, even if it does fall, there will be remnants that can continue to cause a lot of trouble: the constitutional court has over a third of its members linked to the PiS. National television and radio have been infiltrated with the party faithful, causing several high-profile resignations. There are other things that have caused widespread dismay amongst Poland's opposition, leading to the coining of a new term: "Orbanisation", named after Hungary's leader and advocate of illiberal democracy, Viktor Orban. 

To conclude, this is not over; not by a long way. The chances are high that the silent majority will become irritated by this and more public resistance will bring about a friction between the ruling party and everyone else (except, astonishingly, for the Polish Catholic Church, which has so far remained impassive to the current goings-on, perhaps because it too has benefited from the new patriarchal, sexually conservative and anti-abortion regime. For the moment, the European Union is leading the way in criticising the establishment in Poland - unfortunately it is led by Martin Schulz, a German, and thus an obvious sitting duck in the victimhood propaganda war, where he, along with compatriot Angela Merkel, the Luxembourgish head of the European Council Jean-Claude Juncker, and the harmless but outspoken leader of the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt all appeared on the cover of Wprost, the Polish version of Der Spiegel or Time, in Nazi uniforms under the headline "once again they want to police Poland". They chucked in Günther Oettinger, EU Commissioner for the Digital Economy and Society, for good measure, I think, just because he's German. 

And this is where I go full circle. This type of headline appeared in propaganda in the old communist Poland, and is once again rearing its ugly head. It would be refreshing to think that this time people will have learned from the mistakes of the past, but time and time again people seem not to want to; they want to try once again to dream up a reason to legitimise their irrational fears and stir up a feeling of fear and paranoia. We need to encourage the Polish opposition and seek ways to undermine this Orbanisation, before it becomes mainstream everywhere.

A Goslitski family centenary of immigration

This week is the anniversary of a momentous occasion, although it will go almost unnoticed. And that is probably the most fitting way to spend it. On 22nd December 1915, my grandfather planted his tree in the British orchard, paving the way for the fledgling Goslitski family to thrive. It is the beginning of a very successful immigration story.

Above is the registration certificate of my grandfather, Eugene Alexander Goslitski, a Russian national of Polish descent, who came on his own looking for a better life. I have done some research into his background and reasons for leaving, and there is not much to go on, but we should look at the facts: Poland had not existed since 1795, and its lands had been divided up by Prussia, Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. My grandfather was a Russian simply because of where he was born. Poles in Russia were treated as outsiders and were not full citizens. Many of them were deported to Siberian camps for katorga, that is exile and hard labour in underpopulated areas where nobody else was available. Several people with my family name were registered in those camps, although it is still not easy to identify their connection to us.

Whoever they were, my family name is quite unique and if you have that name you can only be from that family. The internet has become a sort of calling card for me. Many times, when I don't have a business card on me, I just tell people to Google me, because I'm so easy to find. This is both a blessing and a burden. For that reason, anyone with our name mast be related to us. We are like Grimaldi, Habsburg or Rothschild, although much less illustrious. I say this because our family name is aristocratic and my grandfather spoke about it now and again. He would often tell his daughters that back in the home land they were princesses. This was an elaboration - countesses would have been closer to the mark, despite their stark diminution under occupation, where all Polish aristocrats underwent screening for Russian ancestry, and those without were removed from their titles. 

It is quite likely that my grandfather left because he had no life, no opportunities and very little to keep him there. He joined the Merchant Navy and sailed around the world before settling in London, where he arrived in the middle of the First World War. This was quite remarkable, because with the war in full operation, every man was needed on the battlefield or on the sea. But come he did, and he died in the Brook Hospital in Greenwich on 22nd November 1960. 

During his life, he was a marine engineer, and he worked on the other side of the River Thames from his home in Bermondsey, less than a three-iron shot from Tower Bridge and the City of London. For that reason, he made a great deal of effort for the cause during the Second World War, and was involved in the D-Day landings. My father told me he left for several weeks around that time and when he returned he was covered from head to toe in soot. He had been jumping from ship to ship maintaining and repairing the boats to get them to the other side. He slept for a very long time when he returned home.

He is one of many who were never granted full British citizenship, mainly, probably, due to that one word: "Russian". Britain and Russia were never the best of friends once the Tsar fell, despite being the first country in the world to officially recognise the Soviet Union. But without bilateral treaties, even with countries in the direct neighbourhood, every foreigner had to fulfil a certain duty to remain in the UK. My grandfather had to leave the country for 24 hours every year, and reapply for entry upon return. He didn't go to another country - he took the opportunity to go into the Thames Estuary on one of his friends' boats and get slammed for a couple of days.

And here is the main point: my grandfather, along with hundreds of thousands of deracinated people, have found new homes in their destination countries. The vast majority of immigrants and their children have contributed to society in ways that are often under-appreciated by people. Lots of them have become famous names (Sigmund Freud, Sir Alec Issigonis, Zaha Hadid, Anish Kapoor), and some have even risen to lead their country (Nicolas Sarkozy, Benjamin Disraeli). Immigration is good for any country - being a popular destination for immigrants is the best endorsement any country can have. It is a sign that newcomers can fit in, that the local population there is not bothered by change and people are considered people, no matter their origins. My grandfather, a larger-than-life character, was known locally as the Duke of Bermondsey. He made the most of his adopted country, and said it was the greatest nation on Earth. Immodestly, I cannot disagree with him. 

My grandfather left his home to seek new climes. He was an international man in a local setting. He had bigger ambitions for himself and he set off to better himself. If he had stayed there in Poland, he would have experienced two World Wars, numerous invasions and would have been witness to the horrors of the Holocaust and the next Soviet occupation, leading to the People's Republic of Poland. Instead, he took the chance to find a place he and his future family could thrive.

Immigrants have one thing in common: their entrepreneurial spirit. They know how to get on in life wherever they go. They will never be the same again once they do, because once you leave, you can go back, but you can never go back home. You are seen as a foreigner in both places. But in general, there is no reason why being a foreigner should make you a stranger. And the fact of the matter remains, the children of those immigrants will most surely never be seen as foreigners. In a country like the United Kingdom, we don't really talk about foreigners, only when referring to those who have still stubbornly kept up their stereotypical façades. It is very wrong to say that people should speak the local language at home or adopt every local custom. That is too much to ask, and is totally unfair. They should keep their own home fires burning - I do. I mean the ones that refuse to do any integration at all. The ones that have little or no desire to accept local customs, who never take part in local events, who do not learn the language and who keep unswervingly to their own traditions. 

As I said, being popular with immigrants is a good thing for any country, as it means the conditions are right. In the current crisis sweeping Europe, it is no wonder that so many of those refugees want to go to countries known for their tolerant attitudes to newcomers. If I were one of them right now, there are countries in Europe I would really not want to settle in. I wish some of the cynics would stop peddling the "benefits" myth. Of course I'd want good conditions for my family if I were an immigrant or refugee. Why would I say to my family, "lets go to Poldakia or Molvenia because if we can avoid being beaten by the police and rejected by the authorities, we stand a chance of getting our own room above an abattoir"? I would not. I would want to go to a country that made me feel welcome. The fact they provide me with food, money and shelter is another sign that they want me not to have to struggle with poverty upon my arrival. How horrible would it be if people arriving from war-torn countries were made to fend for themselves from day one? It would say more about us than about them, that's for sure.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of spending some time with some of the younger Syrian refugees in Saarburg at an art session at the cultural centre. They were making clay winter- or Christmas-themed figurines. I really liked their imagination. Below are some of their works. All of them, despite their torturous recent experiences, had made it to a place of safety and were adapting quite well to local life. Some were already speaking reasonable German. They all seemed well-adjusted and acted very maturely. I have a deep respect for anyone who undergoes such a harrowing journey to look for calm in their lives. Some of them will one day go back to rebuild their country, but many will stay, and having met some of them, I can safely say they will be a credit to their new society. My grandfather's life was not half as bad as theirs was back in Syria, which is why to deny them the chance of a new life and happiness is to betray everything my grandfather ever did.

Here's to another hundred years of migration!

The EU is probably coming to an end and there may be nothing we can do about it

Don't believe me? Take a look around you. Read the papers and watch the news. It's happening. The creaking behemoth that has for years been eating up Europe's nations and swallowing their sovereignty in large chunks is about to burst in a huge bout of indigestion.

The idea is completely barmy to some. I work with EU civil servants all the time, so it is only normal that they will big up their roles and deny any evidence of EU disintegration. They say I'm just a Eurosceptic Brit and enjoy spreading the gloom. But the opposite is true - I am in fact pro-European; I am just anti-Brussels.

The reason for this is that the more Brussels tries to make Europeans and their governments join in their mantra of "ever-closer union", the more they are put off by it. Let us bring the EU into a more condensed setting: if you ask a street's neighbours if they think more close collaboration is necessary, they will say "yes". About what? Well, fighting local crime; putting out each other's rubbish when they're away or have forgotten; feeding their pets when absent; making informal, fair rules on parking; discussing noise levels, building and boundaries, and such like. In a European context, that means fighting international crime and exchanging information (Europol); removing the previous red tape and making it easier to live in another country without needing sworn translations or conversion of qualifications (Maastricht, Pisa and Bologna); bringing better understanding of each other's cultures in an academic setting (Erasmus) and making war an impossibility (Rome and everything thereafter).

What neighbourhood collaboration is most certainly not is knocking down the walls between the houses so everyone can see into your living rooms, kitchens and (heaven forfend) bathrooms and bedrooms. It is not about going on a camping holiday all together and all the awkwardnesses there would be surrounding bodily odours and showering. It is not about allowing neighbours to park on each other's driveways, or rearranging next door's garden so that it becomes the same as yours, or making everyone drive the same car, wear the same clothes, drink the same wine, go to the same shops or listen to the same music. And this cannot be done when new neighbours, who seem to be poorer and less pampered than the others move in, when half reluctantly accept their new arrivals and the others refuse to have anything to do with them. All this will do is create an air of exasperation. It will cause untold damage to neighbourly relations and cause the rapid re-building of walls and a lot of "For Sale" signs to go up in the street.

Having the opportunity to close the door behind you and keep out any unwanted interference in the family unit is not a luxury, it is a right. Being able to choose how you raise your family, what school the kids go to, where you go on holiday, who you spend time with, where you shop, what you wear, and what you eat are your choices and yours alone. Don't be fooled by the need to conform, integrate or do the same as everyone else. It's your life.

The same is of the European Union. There is currently too much integration. The arrival of the Euro was, at the time, a cause for celebration. It relied on the pretence that countries shared the same money even though they didn't share the same budget, pricing arrangements, economic systems, social security systems or even tax harmonisation. that's because, despite the willingness to share currency, nations are really loath to lose more sovereignty to Brussels. And this is where the plan unravels.

If countries are unwilling to open up their books, integrate budgets and amalgamate ministerial portfolios, there is no reason for them to keep up the charade that they really do want ever-closer union. I don't believe they do. And there is a trend running along national lines depending what governments want: the French, when they are unwilling to surrender sovereignty or do something about their overspending (CAP; social security bill) will accuse their detractors of being bad Europeans. This tactic has kept up the illusion that France is a rich nation for many years now. It is not rich; it just has a large territory and population. It is an agrarian country that masquerades as a world power. The Germans will strong-arm the smaller nations into falling into line by finding some other nasty experience to threaten them with, like send Wolfgang Schäuble to shake a finger at them. The British keep moaning and sighing from the sidelines and veto or opt out of everything, while hoping to gain support from other Eurosceptic countries, who often make friendly noises until the Germans and French tell them to step in line behind everyone else. The Italians and Spanish, despite being fairly large countries, do what they are told and the Poles want to join in the Franco-German gang and become the third main motor of the European project.

It would be like Mr Johnson at No 24 and Mr Simmonds at No 26 deciding what all the others in the street should be doing and accusing those who don't want to do the same of being bad neighbours. This is not right. Why should the whole street succumb to the systems dreamed up by the Simmondses and Johnsons, when there are so many other neighbours in the street who are unhappy with their situation? I'll tell you why: because Messrs Johnson and Simmonds have too many good deals going on.

In national circumstances, it means the government of France is creaming off a lot of cash to subsidise its burgeoning agricultural sector without having to reduce it, therefore keeping the farmers from burning Paris to the ground, because it is too feeble and frightened of its militants to take drastic action and take them on, and Germany has profits for life from having persuaded many other countries to integrate with the Deutsche Mark back in the day, and making everyone sign a contract saying "if you break the economic chain, this automatically becomes the property of Germany." Everyone fell for it.

This is no way to run an international organisation. In fact, this can only lead down one path. The inexorable rise of anti-European parties and anti-austerity movements. And who will be the victims? The ordinary people. We will be cutting off our noses despite our faces. The European project is a force for good. It has helped integrate us for the better and for the common improvement of our status in the world and our standard of living. What it has also done is it has shown just how selfish, opportunistic and avaricious nation states really are, even though they won't tell you. Don't forget, what the EU's Council decides to carry out in Brussels is the brainchildren of the 28 EU leaders, not the Commission - that particular institution just carries out the Council's instructions.

Some countries want to play no part in the allocation of asylum seekers; some do not want to make efforts to reduce their national spending; some are unwilling to end their reliance on a particular sector of industry, even if it is anti-competition or even hurting other member states. Some do not want to be at all flexible in the economic plight of the poorer member states. This is all leading to the inevitable withdrawal of countries from various treaties and agreements if they don't get their way.

If I were David Cameron right now, I would feel like a real prize turnip. Having promised a referendum on the UK's membership of the most successful multinational organisation of them all, granting small nations unprecedented standing in the world and prosperity the likes of which had not been foreseen even in the 1960s, I would now find myself in the awful position of being the prime minister who most likely took my country out of it. Nigel Farage and his ragbag collection of buffoons and bigots will tell you that the UK is better out, but they are missing the point. The EU and its institutions are cementing the future for a better society. It is just unfortunate that many nation states, not just the UK, have vested interests that they are unwilling to compromise on. If we could all trust each other, this would not be an issue, but it is.

The other thing David Cameron has failed to realise is he has been visiting various capital cities trying to gather support for his request to get a deal done on UK membership and conditions, but the French and German cabal has pre-empted this by saying it would require treaty change, while at the same time sewing up their own deal that does not require treaty change. This is despicable, underhand, and a brazen attempt to highlight who is in charge in the EU. On the other hand, while Cameron has been trying to negotiate this deal with one pleading face, and with the other, sterner face, with issues like asylum he has been saying "no". He cannot seriously hope to get something out of it if he, for example, refuses to take in his country's fair share of the current wave of refugees. In all of this, hypocrisy and power games seem to pervade. This is not the right climate to instil trust and confidence in your neighbours.

The simple answer to this is as follows: what Europe needs to do is to consolidate its progress so far. Maybe for ten years to a generation, it needs to put any more major integration projects on ice and take stock of its current situation. People need to be aware of how far it has come and the leaders need to take a step back and look on their work, adjust it where necessary and make the system work. If this means that after a shorter time it becomes clear that a Eurozone social security and tax system needs to be set up, or if it becomes evident that greater flexibility and understanding of nations' individual concerns need to be addressed, so be it. The European project has indeed reached a crossroads. The only thing is, one of those future directions is also back along the way we have travelled. And nobody wants to go there, do they?

Finally, Europe needs to take the concerns of its non-Eurozone members into account. It needs to address British, Scandinavian and to some extent central European attitudes to the European project, that have always been seen as non-integrationist and anti-European. It is so far from the truth that it hurts. Everyone thinks that the good things the EU has done are to be cherished and kept. But some are unwilling to drop too many barriers because they value their privacy and right to choose. If certain rights were granted these non-Eurozone countries, I am quite sure they would have nothing against the rest carrying on with their ever-closer union.

I am also one of those neighbours who values his privacy. I don't mind inviting people round for drinks or lending them a few quid until pay day, but I will most certainly not let them open my fridge door or help themselves to the contents of my wallet. And this is why the European project may be doomed in any case: if you get too close to someone, there will inevitably be more arguments.

Is the West endangered by Russia? No. By an ineffective Germany? Yes.

In recent weeks, there have been murmurs of Russian expansion into Western Europe, both in military terms and economic terms. I for one don't buy the theory that they are preparing for a wholesale takeover of the continent, or even a partial one; we should just keep them at arm's length, get on with trade and leave it at that. I fear Germany and its dismissive inactivity in areas of security and territorial integrity, combined with its grip on Eurozone austerity much, much more.

I live in Germany, a country that looks east and west in equal measures. Because of its self-instilled role as benign regional superpower, it had bestowed on itself a mainly symbolic role in diplomatic affairs. This troubles me, because I see this policy as breathtakingly hypocritical. Germany is a country with a recent history of washing its hands of highly-charged political and economic upheaval, not throwing enough energy into the fight against the international threats of terrorism, disease, poverty, hunger, or saving the planet, and seems to be happy enough to let the poorest EU member states drown in the waters of its own enforced austerity measures. Germany is getting rich off the backs of others' misery. At the same time, despite jittery Poles, nervous Balts and baffled Swedes, all who have been recent victims to Russia's mind games, Germany seems to want to carry on playing the old appeasement tune, as if in some sarcastic way to say "you emasculated us in 1945, now you'll see what the consequences are!" At this time, sitting on the fence is the most alarming thing to be doing. It is making countries who have had a peaceful recent history get second thoughts on their alignments and allegiances.

Poland and the Baltic States have had a long and troubled relationship with Russia, and no other countries are better experienced in trying to second-guess Russia's next moves. They are justified in being worried about the future and believing they need to start preparing for a Russian onslaught. This is not necessarily because they think it will happen - it is because they do not trust the bigger powers, especially Germany, to defend them if necessary. I for one believe that Russia will stay away from Poland, although the Baltic States I am not sure. But we should encourage those four countries nonetheless to increase their military spending. We should also be helping them by bolstering the number of NATO troops in the area even further. This is however not happening. The West is running out of military personnel running around putting out little fires in other parts of the world, like the Middle East and East Africa. What it should be doing is watching its own back.

Russia is loving every minute of this - watching its former underlings criticising the senior NATO members for not providing enough reassurance that they will honour the NATO promise to come to the aid of any of its members. And this is the fundamental reason why we need not fear a Russian invasion: Russia has always believed politics to be like chess - you win the game not by a full-on attack, but by tricking your opponents and making them paranoid about you. Chess is war by proxy. You manoeuvre your pieces in a way that makes the opponent fear and respect you. But it is not about territory, war or invasion. Russia wants NATO and the EU to implode by itself and so it is sowing the seeds of doubt. And at the moment it is winning very comfortably.

The Poles and the Baltic States should rightly worry about the future, and prepare for the worst just in case, but the US and especially Germany should hang their heads in shame at the ambiguous and complacent way they are treating those countries. In the end, Realpolitik may win the day, as it should, where Russia and Europe co-exist and rely on each other for trade, but we should not allow Germany and Russia to ruin us by doing nothing to defuse the situation.

Germany needs to man up, start throwing some of its weight around and act like the geopolitical power it is. 1945 is no longer an excuse; it needs to prove itself militarily. Herein lies the problem - after such a protracted period of demilitarisation, Germany is now full of conscientious objectors: people who are against war whatever the reason. How can any nation justify that in this day and age? We should all strive to avoid war, but sometimes it is the only option. There is no other way to defeat the barbaric 12th-century mob of mercenaries that calls itself the Islamic State. Al-Shabab and the like neither. At the same time, we should not seek war with Russia, Iran or any state where diplomacy would be more appropriate, but we should encourage the defence of all of our borders, no matter what the threat, and with nobody in particular in mind. Germany has shirked its responsibilities in all these areas, and continues to lord it over the Eurozone, enforcing its draconian and remorseless policies of austerity on countries whose governments have become more or less de facto puppet states of Brussels and Berlin.

This is the type of country that goes about its business with nothing in its conscience except saving its own bacon by cuddling up to Russia and China, whilst at the same time looking like the Good European. Germany's ability to persuade countries from Finland to Portugal and Greece to Ireland dance to its tune unquestioningly but with a modicum of fear and reverence, is testament to its stranglehold on European affairs. Countries like the Czech Republic, Denmark and the UK, which have a tradition of being slightly more aloof in the European context, are often isolated to the point of humiliation, the UK often being the last one standing. These are all trade-offs, you see, and the UK doesn't often give in to that, even if others do.

However, I think our feckless and thumb-twiddling politicians need to start acting a bit more streetwise. At the moment, they look like a group of bumbling and out-of-touch buffoons not dissimilar to the two hapless detectives in the ever-relevant Tintin comic strips. If I were a member of the EU Council of Ministers, no matter which country I was representing, I would be trying to persuade or even embarrass Germany into changing its stance of selfish inaction on many fronts, the UK to stop listening to the oil lobby about its objection to creating more wind farms, and also to stop reducing the size of its military, and the rest of Europe to start getting a lot quicker in its response to everything. It is so slow - it often meets and talks about matters that may have happened a week or more earlier and the world has moved on by then.

Russia though is not off the hook. Crimea seems a long way off, and the east of Ukraine has dropped off the newsreels. But it does not mean it is over - far from it. Right now, the people of that region don't know what the world is doing to them. It could be that through Europe's own policy of letting Germany actively do nothing (yes, you can actively do nothing!) we are letting the people of Ukraine down. Who is to say that the same would not happen to Poland or the Baltic countries, if such a scenario were to happen there? And this is where the UK and France come in - if Germany, having its hands firmly squeezed by Moscow due to its patronage of a lot of Russian trade, is reducing talks between Russia and Ukraine to "kiss and make up", what does that tell us about its leadership? As long as its economy is going along nicely, there's food on the table for everyone, its austerity measures kicking in everywhere except in Germany itself, what does it care? It has never acted in the interests of the whole, only its own.

According to a recent opinion poll, Germany is the most positively-viewed country in the world. Within 5 years, I think people will see that going down. It is starting to look a lot like Europe in the 20th century, as Germany is adopting a similar air of careless disregard for Poland, but this time as its so-called ally, not its master. If the EU is to survive Putin's mind games, Germany needs to stop relying on the UK and France as the EU's military wing, and allay the fears of Poland and the Baltic States by more than just words. Angela Merkel's dismissal of other nations' concerns, from protection of Polish and Baltic territorial integrity, through British repatriation of powers from Brussels, to Spanish and Greek austerity, could cause the EU to collapse. It is time we either started to take some of the responsibility away from Germany whether it likes it or not, or made it realise it is doing great harm to everyone else through its own lazy and two-faced policies.

What is the greatest nation in the world?

What is the best country in the world?

Surveys are made by newspapers and magazines on the subject. TV documentaries are broadcast showing people's opinions. Newsweek even put out a thirty-page spread about it. But these types of surveys don't talk about the real question: what is the greatest country in the world?

Firstly we need some criteria. So we must look at the country's history - what is the point of a greatest country without a full story behind it? Then we should look at its people, who will of course have a collective memory, a rough stereotypical peculiarity and a thriving culture, all shaped by its history. Finally, we should look at its present. How is it now? Is it a successful nation or just plodding along? Are there many things to ascribe greatness to it in the present day?

So, let's look at the candidates:


1. France

History - Solid beginnings, lost their way when dealing with the monarchy. Replaced kings (beheaded) with the same kind of thing but not (always) born in a palace (see here). Got ever so tetchy about being only the second or third largest empire in the 19th century and was doubly upset by being invaded in the mid-20th and having to be rescued by their old rivals. Twice.

People stereotype - food, strikes, attitude and hygiene issues. Mainly socialist in public and conservative in private. Good films, bad TV. Most of it summed up by this man here.

How now? - see here.

Chances of winning accolade: - I won't be hanging out the Tricolor any time soon...



2. The USA

History - Completely missed out on the Renaissance due to not yet existing. Once established, went around charging other countries extortionate fees for rescuing them from Nazism and Communism before electing a series of baboons as leaders and invading a host of independent nations if they had differing views to those held by their chief monkey. The whole country is held together by glossy magazine celebrities.

People stereotype - Gullible, trigger-happy religious fanatics with a penchant for only seeing the world in black or white. Four legs good, two legs bad, size also matters here.

How now? - Most have no idea of the difference between what's right and what saves a few bucksworth of tax per year.

Chances of winning accolade - No chance, unless they ban oil drilling and propping up despotic régimes, renounce their addiction to money and put out a decent cricketing team.

3. China

History - Despite inventing a whole load of clever technical stuff whilst we Europeans were still swinging about in trees, lost the plot fairly early on through obsession with self-image and pageant, getting by with a vague change in the standard of civilisation each century until the mid-20th century, when after overthrowing four thousand years of Empire, the country was set back yet another thousand years by misguided ideologists who liked to take whole crowds for long walks. Only in the 21st century have they reached the point where they have to share the status of biggest economy in the world, but in the leagues of spreading human indignity and suffering, lack of care for the environment and lack of morals will always remain first. And considering this planet contains such barbaric places as Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea, that takes some beating. Came of age at their Olympic Games in 2008, which were big on impressive technicalities and tiny on heart.

People stereotype - Don't ask - you'll get the same answer: "we're all happy and we love our country. And weren't the Olympics fantastic?" Mmmyesss.... Although if you turned the corner in Beijing, you wouldn't have known they were taking place.

How now? - Busy buying up minerals to sell to us when we run out, cosying up to dictators who can provide the elite classes with wealth beyond even Westerners' dreams, and destroying whole swathes of their own countryside with grand architectural projects to "civilise" their rural population.
Chances - About as slim as my chances of becoming next Pope. Will maybe be the biggest in everything one day not so far in the future, but never, ever the best. Ever.

4. Germany

History - Feuding princes and lords set about expansion in Europe quite early, developing a penchant for it. Did it every few decades or so. Country oddly disunited until the 19th century when someone had the brilliant idea of putting it together politically. A certain indiscretion in the middle of the 20th century sent this country's candidature to the back of the queue (except China) but its modern-day image is very good and continually rising.

People stereotype - Either über-efficient, über-capable and always blasting opponents off the football pitch, or sausage-munching, beer-swilling Lederhosen-wearing yodelers who drive at excessive speeds on Autobahns in their still German-owned cars.

How now? - A country at ease with itself these days, although still having trouble with foreigners (mainly French politicians and Austrian or Dutch maverick speakers), but still capable of impressing us with its stable economy and smaller but still thriving industrial base. "Made in Germany" still means something.

Chances - Would have been real contenders but for a slight misunderstanding of the territorial rules of the game of football in the mid-20th century, namely the game is supposed to remain on the same pitch.

5. The UK

History - Got invaded once by some angry Norman guy and didn't really enjoy the experience. Spent the next thousand years atoning for it by going off elsewhere so when invasion almost happened again, traded in their status of largest empire to keep their independence, only to immediately trade it in again for an equal share in a huge political pie with the very people they had only recently tried to fight off. Very dodgy infrastructure due to being the oldest industrialised nation. Has a language everyone speaks badly, and a reputation for the exportation of awful reality TV.

People stereotype - Badly dressed, or over-dressed, tea-drinking, umbrella-obsessed, aridly sober or gutter-crawlingly drunk, seagoing individuals who invent amazing stuff in sheds and queue up for the chance to get on overcrowded trains.

How now? - Refreshingly different to everyone else, although this may be its problem. The country was in the process of reinventing itself through the power of taking away from the people its centuries-old faithfulness to civil liberties, replacing the friendly policeman with a camera on every building. That was, until the 2010 election, whose outcome fortunately may have caused the reversal of this disturbing trend. Still the benchmark when it comes to innovation and invention (if the Chinese don't steal it and patent it).

Chances - Strongest contender so far, and not because I'm one of them.



But..........



I'd like to consider a dark horse in this contest, a country which if it were human you'd probably not notice, sitting there in its quiet corner being busily occupied with the continent's plumbing and electricity. This contender is entrant number
6. Poland

History - After driving out the Hungarians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Russians, the French, the Prussians and even the mighty Swedes over centuries and centuries of invasion from north, south, east and west, this prized strategic area of land had a powerful influence on early democracy. It was the object of the desires of the leader of our candidate number 4 in the middle of the 20th century. After suffering from the most abysmal atrocities it was saved by a neighbouring country which then occupied it for the next 45 years, subjecting it to humiliating acts of subservience from time to time. This did not stop the people from rising up against them in brave acts of defiance. Was quickly accepted into the EU after the fall of its occupiers, now one of the most respected members of its new family of nations, contributing a compatriot to be European Parliament President. Due to its people's practical skills, is well on the way to being the most needed nationality in Europe.

People stereotype - People speak a fairytale language full of tricky fricatives and nasal vowels, but "you have a leaky tap? No problem, my cousin Wojciech will fix it for you for a reasonable price and a happy smile on his face." For a nation that has endured so much, the fact they have such a happy attitude and a proper sense of community still, signifies something much deeper than what lies on the surface.

How now? - Although still has some catching up to do, the fact it has survived its centuries of invasion and reinvasion, occupation and destruction, it is a country at peace with itself. Despite not having many motorways, has some of the best driving roads in the world and gives ordinary visitors the kind of welcome reserved for princes elsewhere.

Chances - Maybe, just maybe...

I can't think of any other decent contenders.

How to find your family history

I have just been on a trip back to London for the first time in 8 years. I have been back to visit the UK on numerous occasions, but this time I went as a tourist, and boy does it look good. I can't stand those who talk down the place. It's got more potential than any other city on earth and is, and will always be, this planet's capital.

On a more personal note, the spring sunshine was tremendous, the flowers were in full bloom and the trees were blossoming like adolescent shrubs awaiting full adulthood.

My purpose of visiting was to go to the National Archives in Kew, a place which, when the underground is shut for the weekend, requires a course in mapreading just to locate the place. I have been researching my family history for years, but unfortunately have had little opportunity to do it. At last, a period of time when I have the funds and the time.

We stayed in a delightful bed and (enormous) breakfast just two minutes away with a delightful room containing a bed whose mattress was so thick you couldn't get gamma rays to pass through it and when you lay on it your eyes instantly closed in some deft pavlovian manoeuvre only outdone by the effect of the smell of coffee, which naturally had the opposite effect.

On day one, I spent the morning getting acquainted with the place, learning the ropes and understanding that it wasn't going to reveal some Dan Brown-esque code to th esecret of my family. Chances were, I'd have had a stroke of luck finding anyone in the 1911 census, which was the obvious place to start. But find we did, and we recorded several generations of my paternal grandmother's family. It turns out that she was from a fairly well-to-do lineage.

The afternoon of day one passed quite slowly, trying to trace my grandfather's passage into London in 1915. He was a Russian Pole by nationality, but (and here is where the trail goes cold for now) he was born in Batumi, Georgia, then in the Russian Empire, and his last place of residence was Montréal, Canada. That is going to take quite a bit of unravelling. So, I have a very special footsoldier on the ground in Georgia as you read these lines, who is dedicating days to travelling from Tbilisi to Batumi and back again, a four-hundred kilometre journey, just to check out the records for me. He happens to be a professor of history, presidential medal-winning genealogist and speaker of Georgian, Russian, English and Hungarian. Pretty good credentials, and someone I have the ultimate faith in. If anyone can solve the riddle of my grandfather's birthright then he can. If he is unable to find any trace of him there, I will probably have to go back to Moscow.

Either that, or I will need to contemplate the unthinkable: that he lied about his past. You never know, it might be for a good reason. But I think we're far enough in the future to realise that it has no consequence in the present.

Now stay with me in this next bit: my grandfather made the journey to London on Merchant Navy ships, arriving on 22nd December 1915. He was about 25 years old. Within three years he had swept a married woman with one child off her feet and she had divorced her poor husband, serving King and country in France. The divorce proceedings were quite fiery, especially considering the period in history. Back then it was pretty difficult to get a divorce, and adultery was one of the only ways. It was still a man's world, so once for a woman and she was shelved, whereas a man could do it as often as he liked and only when he became a local scandal maker could the wife divorce him. In my grandmother's case, a child was evidence enough for the divorce.

The rhetoric spewed in the proceedings say, that my grandmother was "guilty of adultery" in "divers (sic) locations". Wow, they really knew how to write seriously in those days.

The second day was spent checking my grandfather's Merchant Navy records. I went through about 400 documents, spread over 8 records and found very little. I need to return there in the coming months.

The Eurostar terminal at St Pancras is a delight. You really feel like you're going on a great journey when you arrive there. It sort of harks back to the glory days of rail travel: the great old iron and glass roof, the iron pillars and the brickwork on the cathedral-like station make it a pleasure, despite the bustling concourse full of shops.

So, finally, I have decided that the following course of action needs to be taken to get to the secret of my grandfather's ancestry: I am going to Marseille soon, Poland soon after, and I will take my main holidays in Georgia if the professor comes up with some interesting evidence.