Running the Army on the cheap causes more deaths
As we write it seems likely that our 5,000 troops based at Basra airport, with no hard cover, could be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. We only hope that no more deaths will be added to the 170 who gave their lives, plus 700 seriously wounded, since the pointless war that served no British interest began.
The fight continues in Afghanistan, where British forces have achieved incredible results despite (as in Iraq) second rate equipment in several spheres. A classic example of this is the continued use of Land Rovers for patrols, which should have been phased out by the mine-protected Mastiff patrol vehicles, if only Brown had released more cash. Then we come to the great tragedy of the death of three soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment (known as ‘the Vikings’) hit by an American bomb. As far as we can see, this was not the fault of the American Air Force but due to inadequate British combat identification equipment. How can our armed forces expect anything but inferior equipment when after 10 years as Chancellor Brown has brought the proportion of GDP spent on defence to its lowest level since 1930. In the same period he doubled the expenditure on health and education. The results are not worth it!
The ‘Vikings’ and other regiments have been engaged in intense fighting, not seen since their grandfathers fought in Normandy and Korea, and are acting with equal bravery. Even though Iraq and Afghanistan are conflicts which do not serve British interests, the BNP certainly backs a special medal for recognition of the bravery and suffering of our troops.
Because of the high casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan there is now said to be a backlog of 1,570 compensation claims to support servicemen and women injured or killed in both campaigns. When such compensation is paid it hardly gives the victims a high life style. The official tariff is £57,500 for the loss of a leg and just £8,250 for injuries associated with surviving a gunshot wound to the torso. Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, 23, lost both legs and suffered 36 other injuries including permanent brain damage when a landmine exploded in Helmand. He was awarded £152,000 payment , supposedly to give him medical care for the rest of his life. Contrast this with the £484,000 awarded by the MoD to an RAF computer clerk who suffered Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) as a result of typing in numbers, poor lass. A serving soldier who comes home from the war suffering from “permanent severely impaired grip in both hands” would only get a one-off payment of £16,500.
Finally, let us not forget the extensive role played by the Territorial Army reservists in both campaigns. They represent 7% of our forces in Afghanistan and slightly less in Iraq. They are being worn to shreds by over-use and training days in the UK are down to a minimum. Responding to Brown’s successive cuts over the past ten years, the MoD propose to cut funding for the cash-strapped TA by £5 million . Only after serious pressure did the Government recently agree that wounded reservists would be entitled to specialist aftercare like the Regulars.
The independent ex-servicemen’s organisation ABEX is also campaigning against the futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the decent and properly funded treatment of our injured heroes.
The king is in the altogether
October 29, 2007 by News Team
Filed under Joe Priestley
Rector and son of the manse
The most remarkable thing about Gordon Brown is that he was ever taken seriously. Precisely what is it that he has that we supposedly need? But whatever his well hidden attribute might happen to be, there’s no doubt Brown was taken seriously, and some still are taking him seriously, in spite of the evidence.
Like most in the upper echelons of the Labour Party Gordon Brown has very little experience of work in the real world. The closest he came to it was the four years he spent teaching politics at Glasgow College of Technology after leaving the University of Edinburgh in 1975. His interest was politics; and at the 1979 general election he made his move and stood as Labour candidate in the Edinburgh South parliamentary constituency. He lost to the Tory Michael Ancram and spent the next four years kicking his heels as a journalist with Scottish Television waiting for the next general election to come around. When the time came he was eased into the safe Labour candidacy at Dunfermline East and in 1983 he was duly elected MP - and he’s been in parliament ever since, now as Prime Minister and MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
We’re hearing less of it now, of course, but after his appointment as Chancellor following Labour’s 1997 general election victory all the commentators were praising Brown’s brain. They sold him as a ‘genius’, as a ‘towering intellect’, and most everyone swallowed it, hook line and sinker. Conservative newspapers hailed his ’skilful management of the economy’, and the Tory opposition were overawed by this supposed ‘omniscient brooding presence’ on the government front bench.
Born in Scotland in 1951 Gordon Brown was fast-tracked at a Scottish fee-paying school and at 16 years he took up a place at Edinburgh University to study history. He says the biggest influence on his politics is his father, a Church of Scotland minister; “He taught me to treat everyone equally, and that is something I have not forgotten”. It’s fair to say that Brown must have been brighter than the majority of his peers but the counter to this is that he was socially advantaged; it was exceptional to be offered a place at university at sixteen, but then again he was fast-tracked at a private school.
Student life suited Brown and he made himself comfortable at University and stayed there for nine years. It’s said he’d have been there forever had the authorities not been made wary by his political activism which came to the fore during his last three years at Edinburgh where he held the post of University Rector.
It’s interesting that Gordon Brown and his entourage have spun a sort of mystique about his role as Rector at Edinburgh so as to give him a grand, all knowing, and almost aristocratic aura. They did a similar thing with his status as ’son of the manse’ and used it to suggest that it somehow made him more morally fit to govern. And of course the mass media lapped it up. How they loved to tell us, with due reverence of course, about the extraordinarily cerebral Mr Brown, ’son of the manse’, former University Rector. What they meant was that Brown was a glorified students’ union president and that his dad was a Scottish vicar, but that version didn’t go with the spin. They calculated that Brown needed frills - what does that say about him? To put things in perspective, recent rectors at Scottish universities have included Lorraine Kelly at Dundee, Clarissa Dickson Wright at Aberdeen, and John Cleese at St Andrews - which sort of brings Brown’s tenure at Edinburgh down to earth.
Political ambition
They say he’s a ‘towering intellect’ but he left very little behind at Edinburgh to prove it. The high point of his academic years was his editorship of the socialist ‘Red Paper on Scotland’; his university thesis, The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918 to 1929, which he wrote for his PhD (which incidentally he wasn’t awarded until 1982), is gathering dust on an out-of-reach shelf somewhere in the university library at Edinburgh.
In Brown’s early years in Parliament he shared an office in the House of Commons with another ambitious newcomer, Tony Blair. Oh to have been a fly on one of the walls in that office. Labour Leader Neil Kinnock saw Brown as an emerging talent and in 1985 he appointed him Shadow Spokesman for Trade and Industry. There Brown formed a friendship with another Scot John Smith, and when Smith took over the Labour leadership from Kinnock in 1992 he appointed Gordon Brown as his Shadow Chancellor.
During this period Brown was refining his political ambitions and tempering his socialism, and he began the lengthy process of spinning himself a persona fit for public consumption, which came together when he was crowned PM by TB. Prime Minister Gordon Brown: Prudence, tolerance, social duties, social responsibilities, new smile, new teeth, and new coiffure.
Brown had successfully distanced himself from the fiscal incompetence of previous Labour governments and nurtured an image that had him as a highly intelligent economist and a natural Chancellor. And by 1997 he and Blair were forming a government and everyone who was anyone was singing Gordon Brown’s praises, “He has the finest of minds.”
Post neo-classical endogenous growth theory
The defining moment of Brown’s political career came way back in 1994 in a speech he made when he was Shadow Chancellor during which he spoke in support of “post neo-classical endogenous growth theory.” Brown’s use of this jargon defines him perfectly. The highly intelligent Mr. Brown, he’s so clever he talks a language that hardly any of the rest of us can understand. That’s Brown’s spin: ‘Rector’ at the University of Edinburgh, ’son of the manse’, and dead brainy too. And the thing is most everyone believed him.
In opposition to ‘Post neo-classical endogenous growth theory’ theorists, I have my own theory. And it’s that anything can be explained to anyone provided the explainer knows his subject sufficiently well. When politicians resort to jargon they do so for one of two reasons. Either they don’t know their subject well enough to explain it in readily understandable terms, or they’re trying to impress. Post neo-classical endogenous growth theory is a fancy way of saying that improvements in the infrastructure have a positive impact on economic growth - Brown was out to impress.
Actually the speech in question was written by Brown’s right hand man (or is that puppeteer?) Ed Balls, prompting Michael Heseltine’s excellent quip, “That’s not Brown’s, that’s Balls’.” But that’s just a point of information. The real point is that Brown uttered the phrase not as a means of communication but as a means of creating an image, an image which the mass media has been only too happy to accept; Brown as genius.
Brown has sold himself as some sort of intellectual who’s an expert at managing ‘the economy’. The endogenous growth ‘thing’ was pure spin, and when he became Chancellor he continued to spin this intellect spin at every opportunity, the Treasury being the ideal vehicle for it. He’d stand at the despatch box spouting endless statistics entwined in convoluted language, the opposition would look nonplussed, the government would cheer wildly, and nobody had the faintest idea what he was talking about, Brown included. It was the perfect cover. He worked on the principle that if people could be persuaded of his genius they’d be more likely to interpret his inability to communicate with them as their inability to understand him.
Brown has advanced on the reputation of his superior mind. That he’s been so successful in this ploy tells us where his skill really lies - in convincing others that he is what he’s not. Brown’s good at pulling wool over eyes; it’s surely significant that his wife and his two brothers all work in public relations.
A formidable intellect
The inside-cover blurb of a recently published anthology of Gordon Brown’s speeches proclaims Brown a “.formidable intellect.” But then I suppose it would wouldn’t it? And while we’re on the subject of Balls, in 2002 the Guardian referred to Ed Balls as “.the intellectual in service to the most intellectual minister of all.” That’s Brown that is. But where is the evidence of Brown’s famed intellect, other than in people’s say so? Let his record speak for itself.
It doesn’t help Brown’s case that his most successful act as Chancellor was to free the Bank of England from his own interference thus saving us from the consequences of his meddling with interest rates. Somewhat less successfully he flogged most of our gold reserves when gold was selling at $280 an ounce - today it sells at $770 an ounce and its value looks set to grow. Smart move Mr Brown.
He ruined one of the best pension industries in the world, caused the wholesale closure of final salary pension schemes, and shattered the pension prospects of tens of thousands of people. He encouraged mass immigration to keep wages down.
He instituted a tax credit system that turned into a fiasco. He’s fiddled every statistic there is to fiddle, he saddled future generations with debt care of the Private Finance Initiative, he wasted billions on unworkable computerisation schemes. He presided over chaos in the NHS and transport system.
He sent our troops to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and then refused to sanction spending the funds to ensure they went properly equipped.
And Gordon Brown has the damned cheek to call himself a patriot. And just to prove it the ‘formidable intellect’ has recently called for “British jobs for British workers”! That’s the very same ‘formidable intellect’ that helped formulate the laws that made the expression of sentiments such as ‘British jobs for British workers’ illegal.
Unfortunately for Brown his ambition far outweighs his ability. When he was Chancellor he wasn’t so much hiding his talents under a bushel as hiding his shortcomings behind the statistics. It was easy for him to pretend to be someone else when all he had to do was talk equations, calculations, and forecasts. But there’s no hiding place for him now. And he’s crumbling before our very eyes. Have you noticed how the BBC has taken to telling us what he’s said rather than showing him telling us? Brown can’t string two words together - how the hell did he get to be Prime Minister?
But he’s not going to last. He can’t do the job; Prime Minister’s question time must be torture for him. It turns him into a quivering jelly. He is pitiful and embarrassing. Slow witted and inarticulate. It’s hard to imagine what degree of self deception it must have taken for Brown to convince himself he could do the job.
And Labour MP’s are guilty of the same self deception. The majority of them must have been aware of Brown’s shortcomings. Yet they went along with the notion of him as Prime Minister as if it was a self evident truth. If Brown really is the best man for the job it’s a terrible indictment of the rest of Labour’s MPs, and of course of those that voted for them.
Great clunking fist
Tony Blair labelled Brown ‘the great clunking fist’ and it’s a label that’s stuck. Brown likes it because it suggests the toughness that he so clearly doesn’t possess, and the press latched on to it because they like to associate politicians with toughness - it must sell newspapers. But Brown as ‘great clunking fist’ is just another absurdity in the list, following on from ‘hard man’ John Reid, ‘bruiser’ Charles Clarke, and ’straight talking’ David Blunkett. The mass media have attempted to portray Brown as a tough guy intellectual; it’s hard not to laugh. Great clunking fist indeed - is that the one with the fingernails bitten down to the quick?
And the media followed this tough-guy line in describing his performances as Chancellor in the House of Commons, sprinkling references to him with adjectives like ‘brooding,’ ‘fuming,’ ‘angry,’ and ‘intimidating’. Phew, you’d better not get on the wrong side of that Brown fellow - he might chew his nails at you!
How things change, ‘brooding Brown’ as Chancellor has been replaced by ‘bottler Brown’ as PM. He was rightly slated for lacking the guts to call an election when he had the opportunity earlier this month (Oct ‘07) when everything was in his favour. But he’s a frightened man. So frightened that now he has his hands on his ‘precious’ premiership he can’t bear the risk of letting go, even when, as the polls suggested, the risk was as small as it was likely to get. He’s going to hang on to the bitter end of this term; either that or he’ll be forced out by his own MPs as his credibility plummets.
But who was surprised by this? Brown has a record of bottling it. On a number of occasions he had both the opportunity and inclination to challenge Blair when all the signs were saying his challenge would succeed - but he bottled those as well. With Brown it’s not caution, like a rabbit caught in the glare, his indecision is brought about by fear.
The Prime Minister explained his decision against an election thus: “The decision I have made is because I want to get on with the job of change in this country and I believe I have got to show people that we are implementing the changes in practice and I believe that what we are really talking about now in Britain is the rising aspirations of British people.” You may think he’s talking nonsense, but that’s because he’s a ‘towering intellect’ and you’re not clever enough to understand him.
Brown is a fraud. His great clunking fist is a podgy mitt that’s never done a day’s work in its life and his intellect is a front behind which cowers a devious cunning. Now that he’s achieved his goal he’s not quite sure what he should do next - he hasn’t got a vision for this country because his vision extends no further than himself. It’s hardly the sort of leadership qualities that Britain needs, but perhaps it’s an indication of why we’re in the mess that we’re in.
Nick Griffin speaks from Detroit - latest
The latest update from Detroit from Nick may be heard here . Enjoy.
China tries to colonise Africa
It is not jingoistic if we say that despite the greed enacted in the past by individuals and companies exploiting the mineral riches of Africa - King Leopold of the Belgians being a classic case, many administrators of the British and French empire territories did devote their lives to trying to improve the lot of the African. Be that as it may, the liberal-left intelligentsia of today do their best to indoctrinate a guilt complex amongst our youth into believing that everything about the British Empire in particular was evil and oppressive. Little, if anything at all, is said about the new ‘Colonial’ power that is trying to take over Africa.
China is building up an economic empire in Africa, and its trade there totalled nearly £30 billion last year. China now buys one third of its oil from Africa, mainly from Nigeria and Angola. Taking no notice of the slaughter in Darfur being carried out by the Moslem government in the Sudan, China has built a 900-mile pipeline there to carry oil to the coast, costing around £8 billion.. Beijing has also acquired copper mines in Zambia, where it is stated that all health and safety regulations are ignored, textile factories in Lesotho and retail developments in almost every major township, including South Africa.
China is not bothered about the reputations of some of Africa’s worst despotic rulers and will do deals with them all. Mugabe’s party in Zimbabwe has received Chinese money for at least 30 years and the Zanu-PF national headquarters in Harare was built by China.
EU stitch-up: Blair to be first EU Reich President?
Immigrant rioting in Amsterdam suburb
The Amsterdam suburb of Sloetervaart has seen an exceptionally violent week, with cars being set alight, and immigrant youths clashing with police on several consecutive nights.
The violence erupted after a 22 year old man of Moroccan origin was shot dead at a police station by a policewoman he had stabbed several times.
There is violence in all the major towns of The Netherlands, usually caused by youths of Moroccan origin, whose parents arrived in the country as migrant workers. The authorities referred to them as “guest workers”, believing that they would return home when there was no longer work for them to do. They were never taught Dutch, and when their wives arrived in The Netherlands, they never learned to speak the language either.
Very few returned home, instead they went on to have children who grew up learning a set of values alien to the country they were living in. The politically correct climate in the country prevented the problems of migrant children from being discussed without people being accused of racism and Islamophobia.
Since 11th October, Sloetervaart has seen a number of violent incidents. On that date, a 16 year old boy died after being stabbed in a row with a 14 year old over a pen. Three days after this, a 22 year old mentally unstable man walked into a local police station and repeatedly stabbed a female officer. He was shot dead on the spot.
In the days that followed, local Moroccans set fire to four cars andsmashed the windows of the police station. Heavy police patrols followed, and police stopped a car and arrested eight youths after finding cans of petrol in their car. Officers have likened this to the riots in Paris two years ago where immigrant youths set fire to cars and rioted on consecutive nights.
The Dutch government is spending millions of Euros on aid to the area and so those responsible cannot say they are being ignored by the government. Experts say that the youths are using recent events as an excuse to cause severe trouble, and this is born out by police reports which state that the offenders are all known criminals.
Immigrant rioting in Amsterdam suburb
The Amsterdam suburb of Sloetervaart has seen an exceptionally violent week, with cars being set alight, and immigrant youths clashing with police on several consecutive nights.
The violence erupted after a 22 year old man of Moroccan origin was shot dead at a police station by a policewoman he had stabbed several times.
There is violence in all the major towns of The Netherlands, usually caused by youths of Moroccan origin, whose parents arrived in the country as migrant workers. The authorities referred to them as “guest workers”, believing that they would return home when there was no longer work for them to do. They were never taught Dutch, and when their wives arrived in The Netherlands, they never learned to speak the language either.
Very few returned home, instead they went on to have children who grew up learning a set of values alien to the country they were living in. The politically correct climate in the country prevented the problems of migrant children from being discussed without people being accused of racism and Islamophobia.
Since 11th October, Sloetervaart has seen a number of violent incidents. On that date, a 16 year old boy died after being stabbed in a row with a 14 year old over a pen. Three days after this, a 22 year old mentally unstable man walked into a local police station and repeatedly stabbed a female officer. He was shot dead on the spot.
In the days that followed, local Moroccans set fire to four cars andsmashed the windows of the police station. Heavy police patrols followed, and police stopped a car and arrested eight youths after finding cans of petrol in their car. Officers have likened this to the riots in Paris two years ago where immigrant youths set fire to cars and rioted on consecutive nights.
The Dutch government is spending millions of Euros on aid to the area and so those responsible cannot say they are being ignored by the government. Experts say that the youths are using recent events as an excuse to cause severe trouble, and this is born out by police reports which state that the offenders are all known criminals.
The Broken Society
October 9, 2007 by News Team
Filed under Joe Priestley
The levels of crime and disorder and the general malaise in this country have forced the establishment to focus its attention less on economic issues and more on the ’state of society’.
Its favoured position is that if the economy is ‘healthy’ then it will naturally follow that society will be ‘healthy’ too. Clinton’s “.it’s the economy, stupid” and Thatcher’s “.there’s no such thing as society” express more or less the same sentiment and Blair and Brown had no difficulty in adopting both. And they carried a good proportion of the British public with them too; many were convinced to follow the government’s lead and put their own short term economic interest before everything else.
For the past sixty years or so British governments have been managing the country according to the belief that society is a function of the economy, in finest Marxist tradition. Thus they set about creating what they termed ‘a healthy economy’ which they argued would automatically result in ‘a healthy society’.
But their calculations were in a knot. Far from solving society’s ills their management has exacerbated them.
The writing was on the wall ten years ago, but Blair and Brown tried to hold back the tide of chaos by encouraging an orgy of consumer and public spending. They figured that foreign holidays, consumer goods, and ‘investment in vibrant communities’ would take people’s minds off the deterioration of British society and make them live happily ever after. And they did, but not for very long! Meanwhile the massive changes being imposed on the British people in furtherance of this alleged economic ideal were ignored as if they were somebody else’s problem.
Prime Minister Brown hasn’t realised it yet, but Tony Blair handed him the reins just as the wheels are about to come off the cart. The issue of the effect of mass immigration on British society is in the process of overtaking the issue of the economy as the main focus of attention of both politicians and public. Blair must be laughing up his sleeve - he got out just in time.
Gordon Brown was at his most comfortable hiding behind the Treasury’s ledgers, and were it possible he and the rest of the parliamentarians would prefer to spend the rest of their political careers in the comfort of the economy issue where they can bluster to their heart’s content to no effect. The issue of ’society’ is dangerous for politicians on the gravy train; they don’t like it when they have to choose their words so carefully. But events are forcing their hands. Such is the impact that mass immigration is having on the country that it can’t be ignored - much as the politicians would prefer.
Problems don’t go away
Up until recently the LibLabCons have ignored the problems associated with mass immigration, and they did it on the grounds that they didn’t exist, or that they were the ‘figment of racist imaginations’. But problems don’t go away just because they’re swept under the carpet; they tend to accumulate until you start tripping up over them. That’s where we are now - the immigration-fuelled problems affecting our society have become so serious that not even the LibLabCons can ignore them. But talking about an issue and doing something about it are two different things. And the LibLabCons are stuck because the solution to the problems that their policies have caused requires them to accept a set of facts that contradicts their world view. In other words the solution requires honesty; a willingness to admit that not only their previous policies were wrong, but that the philosophy that guided them was wrong also. It requires the rejection of the establishment’s wishful thinking approach to the way of the world and instead demands the acceptance of nature as it is and not as they would wish it to be.
But of course the LibLabCons are morally and intellectually incapable of doing that. So instead of applying facts to the situation and acting accordingly, they resort to breast-beating in an effort to show us how much they care.
Dave hug-a-hoody Cameron is typical of the breed. “How many more parents have to bury their children before we decide to choose a different society?” he sobbed, crocodile tears welling in his eyes. You may think that I am being unkind to Mr Cameron by casting doubt on the sincerity of his concern. He was talking in the aftermath of the murder of 11 year old Liverpool schoolboy Rhys Jones and in the context of what he calls “Britain’s broken society”. But I think that if Mr Cameron was as concerned about the state of British society as he’d have us believe, he’d put his concern for British society before his concern for his political career. And he’s not doing that, is he? But then which LibLabCon politician is?
Gordon Brown’s response to this shift in focus says a lot. He’s trying to take the politics out of politics. He knows that honest argument about the nature of British society will only bring these problems to the fore of the public’s consciousness. And like the rest of the political establishment Brown is wary of being seen to be responsible for the mess that society is in, so naturally he wants to distance himself from the problem. That’s why he’s in favour of a “consensual approach” incorporating politicians of “all persuasions” as a means of addressing the problems we face. The intention quite clearly is to create in the public’s mind the image of establishment politicians standing together in opposition to something that falls under the label “broken society”. Significantly they have yet to establish precisely what is broken, who broke it, how they broke it, and why they broke it. Now why would that be I wonder?
One of the Prime Minister’s bright ideas, he’s an ‘intellectual heavyweight’ you know, is the creation of ‘People’s Courts’ where ‘ordinary people from all walks of life’ get together and come up with ways to tackle society’s problems. Remind me again, what do we pay politicians for?
Conservatives to blame as well
The Tories are just as much to blame. They encouraged mass immigration when they were in government, and like Labour they did it without any mandate from the British people. And like Labour they too sought to silence objection to it. The Tories currently twitter on about lax borders and illegal immigrants, but this is mere posturing. They’re still in favour of mass immigration; it’s just that they’d prefer a better class of immigrant, one who is more inclined to vote Conservative. And of course the LibDems are more or less the same.
As you’d expect Tory leader Cameron differs not a jot from Brown - he too wants to take the politics out of the debate on society. “This is not about politics, it’s not about elections,” he said, as if the problems we face have nothing to do with politics and politicians.
Cameron wonders what it will take “.before we decide to choose a different path”. He says, “It’s up to us to decide what kind of society we want”. He adds, “We should recognise our obligations”, and that “We should ask ourselves what is going wrong.”
Is Cameron for real? Can he really be that out of touch? Does he not know that ‘we’ can have the society ‘we’ want only if it coincides with the society ‘he’ wants, in other words with the kind of society Cameron and the rest of the political establishment want. And that is precisely the problem!
Cameron and Brown’s transparency is an insult to our intelligence.
The state of the nation is a function of the politics of the political elite. How can any politician argue otherwise, especially in this country where the political establishment seeks to govern every aspect of our lives? And whether they like it or not, the nature of society today is their responsibility, created by their policies.
Since the end of WWII Britain’s political establishment has consistently failed in its duties to the British people. Instead of governing according to the harsh realities of life it has governed according to wishful thinking; theory has replaced fact. Guided by the idea of the equality of man, successive British governments paved the way for mass immigration by arguing that it would have no significant impact on British society - as indeed it wouldn’t have if all men were equal.
Of course the reality is the exact opposite of what the politicians have been telling us; far from having no impact, mass immigration has changed British society out of all recognition. So much so that it is fast becoming the issue of our time.
In their panic politicians are now arguing the impossible; both that mass immigration has had no effect on society and that it has changed it for the better - and all the while contriving new laws to compensate for its adverse effects. Make no mistake; the collapse of society is due to mass immigration and to the changes that the establishment has had to make to our way of life in order to accommodate alien ways of life. The combined forces of the Libs, Labs, and Cons facilitated mass immigration, silenced objection, and browbeat the British people into accepting their argument that mass immigration has greatly improved our economy, society, and way of life.
And look at them now, these great leaders, these innovators, these visionaries, blinking in the harsh light of day, nonplussed that their grand scheme hasn’t worked out as they had predicted it would. Alas vision is not the same as seeing.
But the political establishment can’t say they weren’t warned about the dangers of mass immigration. Lots of people warned them, and many others are still warning them. And those whose warnings they can’t ignore they intimidate into silence or throw in jail.
But the evidence is clear. The LibLabCons are responsible for the mess that has been caused by mass immigration. They opened Britain’s borders and they used every arm of state to encourage the flow of aliens into our midst and to silence any objection to it. These are not the actions of democrats; they are the actions of totalitarians. Yet now, when it’s obvious to even the most head-in-the-clouds libdim that the multiracial utopia hasn’t happened, they’re acting all innocent. As if the approaching chaos has nothing to do with them, like it suddenly appeared on the horizon, out of the blue, without any warning.
Too late
The genie’s out of the bottle. The powers that be have tried every trick to deflect attention away from the impact that mass immigration has had on British society. Nothing is too cynical for them. Nothing is too evil. What kind of ‘leaders’ are these LibLabCons? Rather than face up to the problems that they’ve caused, they’ve blamed us for them! Those who oppose mass immigration are blamed for the problems caused by mass immigration. Immigrant ghettos are blamed on inhospitable Britons. High levels of immigrant crime are blamed on ‘institutionally racist’ police. Immigrant failure in the education system, you guessed right, it’s the fault of the racist education system. etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. That’s our leaders for you. They are cowards who want the rewards of power without the responsibilities that go along with it. And so every problem thrown up by their betrayal of the British people they blame on the British people - we’re not doing whatever it is that we’re supposed to do to create the multiracial multicultural multilingual heaven on earth that they had planned for us. Maybe that’s why they hate us so much.
It was David Cameron who asked when we’ll choose a different path, but the question could just as easily have been asked by Gordon Brown or by Ming Campbell - or for that matter by any of the parasites that inhabit the Houses of Parliament. But our question back to them surely is to ask why are they asking us? They’re the ones that decide which path we’ll take, and without any consultation too. And they’re the ones that set us on the path to destruction - because they knew best.
Yet now they’re beating their breasts and wailing “Where did we go wrong?” But they’re not talking the royal ‘we’ here. Oh no, in fact they’re talking the exact opposite, let’s call it the common ‘we’. Because when they ask ‘Where did we go wrong?” they’re not asking where they went wrong, they’re asking where we went wrong - as in us, the British people. It’s our fault you see, or at least that’s how they want to play it. They can’t blame the immigrants and they won’t blame themselves so they blame us.
What broke our society was doing it the Brown, Cameron, Campbell way. Whether it can be fixed or not remains to be seen, but what is certain is that the LibLabCons can’t fix it. They broke society because they applied the equality of man idea in managing it - and no matter how bad things get they’re not going to abandon what is after all the corner stone of their way of viewing the world. So all they’ve got to offer is more of the same; more deviousness, more ducking of responsibility, more shifting of blame, and more treachery.
Loading... 
