By Joe Priestley — The Sunday Times this weekend (17/1/10) interviewed Anjem Choudary, leader of the recently banned ‘Islam4UK’ group, a label that says a great deal about the mentality of those that designed it. The questions were asked by Camilla Long.

It was a highly predictable piece. Typical Times: I was left wondering whether its purpose was to tell us about Choudary or to have us think about Islam and Muslims in the way that the establishment would have us think of them.

Ms Long didn’t so much skate over the issues as skate round them. My suspicion is that she was too conscious of the dictates of political correctness to go anywhere near the nitty-gritty of what constitutes Mr Choudary and that that he represents.

Curiously, throughout the interview, Choudary called Camilla Long ‘Audrey’ – even though he’d checked her press card and knew that that wasn’t her name. What was his point? I was surprised and a bit disappointed that Ms Long didn’t delve into this; why didn’t she want to know why Choudary was deliberately getting her name wrong. But then again in this interview she didn’t really delve into anything.

Initially I wondered whether he was taunting the attractive and obviously posh Camilla Long with a name that today one would associate with an older working class woman. Or maybe he was trying to offend her by drawing a parallel with the soap character that goes by the name. Or maybe he was merely trying to irritate her. Whatever he was doing he wasn’t doing it out of the goodness in his heart.

“I’m not Audrey,” she said, “I’m Camilla.”

“What does that mean?” asks Choudary.

What an odd question. Since when did Muslim clerics show an interest in the etymology of Christian names? Of course the issue doesn’t register with Ms Long. She took Choudary at face value in a typically liberal fashion and answered without a thought, “It’s Latin for slave girl.”

I don’t know about you but Choudary’s question had me investigating the meaning of Audrey – I read that at one time it was unpopular because of its association with the word tawdry. I wonder if Choudary read this.

Ms Long opens her piece with a forthright “Obviously I was never going to see eye to eye with the benefit-clogging Muslim hate cleric…” I say, steady on old girl. She continues, “…but I didn’t realise how many of his own community think he’s dreadful too.” That’s more like it.

What, she ‘didn’t realise’ that the vast majority of Muslims are moderates? Pull the other one Camilla love. It’s a necessary requirement for inclusion into the ranks of the main stream media to realise, without a shadow of doubt, just how moderate the majority of Muslims are – and to shout it if not from the rooftops then from the headlines. Islam is the religion of peace, don’t forget. How can she not realise it? Does she not read her own newspaper or any of its stable mates? Does she not watch the telly? It’s the message they all do their best to send us. In fact it’s the message Ms Long is sending in her own article.

She quotes a waiter in the ‘halaal diner’ that housed the interview, “Is that the coffin man?” he asked of Choudary, “I can’t bear him.”

What! Another ‘moderate Muslim’ speaking against him – it just goes to show how moderate these Muslims are, eh Camilla? Wink, wink. And as if to emphasise his total opposition to Choudary, the waiter adds, “I don’t see much difference between him and Nick Griffin.”

Right on cue. I was beginning to wonder when Nick Griffin or the BNP would make an appearance. Of course Ms Long didn’t ask the waiter what he meant – presumably she assumed we’d all know what he was talking about. I was left wondering in what sense Nick Griffin and Anjem Choudary are supposedly alike other than perhaps in their opposition to the liberal mindset.

This interview is a microcosm of the relationship of Western-liberalism to Islam. Camilla Long bent over backwards to accommodate Choudary just as Western Liberals bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. She refused to take his threats seriously in the same way that the liberal establishment refuses to address the threat that Islam poses to our way of life. The subtext of the whole exercise was the moderateness of the Muslim community; even Choudary’s supposed extremism was made to serve that interest.

In sharp contrast Anjem Choudary showed his host absolutely no respect. He made no effort at all to hide his contempt for her liberal weakness and saw it merely as something to be taken advantage of. Such is his disregard for Ms Long and indeed for the British state and its people Choudary felt perfectly at liberty to threaten one and all.

He made no bones about it. His aim is the “imposition” of sharia law, and he talks quite openly of a military coup as a means of creating an Islamic state in Britain. His companions, “…a noisy rabble of bearded young men,” tell of conversions to Islam and of trips to the Middle East.  Choudary boasts of advocating “…no cooperation with the police in the fight against terrorism.”

In response Ms Long feigns amusement: “But the funniest thing…”

It’s the same old story – the establishment doesn’t want to take these fanatics seriously because it fears the consequences for its madhouse utopia the multiracial multicultural society. So instead, when they’re not kowtowing to them, they say we should laugh at them.

And what was it that Camilla Long found so amusing about Anjem Choudary? Apparently she split her sides on learning that his undergraduate days were “…spent downing pints, smoking dope, ogling porn…”

Why is that funny? Is she not convinced by his conversion from decadent Western student to strident Muslim? And if not, why not? On the evidence contained in this interview Choudary’s conversion is a lot more convincing than Young’s amusement which I suspect was nothing more than a liberal’s nervous giggle.

By Joe Priestley–I’ve been thinking about the seating arrangements for the ‘BNP edition’ of Question Time. No doubt the BBC will have been thinking about it too; hour after hour, meeting after meeting, minutely detailed cost benefit analyses of each permutation of the possible seating arrangements in the search for that arrangement that will show them in the best possible light, the BNP in the worst.

My guess is Chris Hune and Jack Straw to the left of David Dimbleby, Nick Griffin, Sayeeda Warsi, and Bonni Greer to the right, Nick strategically placed between the two ladies. I wonder what the odds are. Not that I think it’ll make any difference, I’m merely employing the kind of thought processes that I imagine the BBC to employ. My thinking is that the BBC is so consumed by its own propaganda that it’ll think that this will somehow faze Nick Griffin and undermine his performance. Then again maybe the BBC is more subtle than I imagine. We’ll see.

But however they organise it, and we know they’ll organise it as best they can to their advantage, which is understandable I suppose, the inescapable fact is that they felt it necessary to invite Nick Griffin to appear on Question Time. Their exact motivation is neither here nor there; the significant thing is that they invited him because they felt it was necessary. They wouldn’t have done it otherwise.

It wasn’t that long ago that the establishment and its lackeys were totally opposed to giving a voice to the likes of Nick Griffin, the BNP, and the people they represent. The stated intention was to “…deny the BNP the oxygen of publicity” and have it wither on the vine. An action they justified on the grounds that ‘the BNP foments race-hate’.

They made all sorts of accusations about the BNP and then denied it the right of reply. They figured bad publicity and censorship would be enough to destroy the party before it got off the ground. They called it ‘denying the BNP the oxygen of publicity’ but they weren’t so much denying it publicity as associating it with bad publicity. This was an entirely negative campaign, the epitome of anti.

But they put the horse before the cart, as they have a habit of doing. The BNP isn’t responsible for people’s concern at the state of the nation as per LibLabCon stewardship; it is a function of it. Denying the party publicity hasn’t stopped its growth; the only way to solve the ‘problem’ of the BNP is to address those issues that cause ethnic Britons to turn to the BNP.

The BNP’s growing influence stems from the party’s increased connectedness with the generally unspoken feeling of the ethnic British population. The party articulates what a growing proportion of the population feels – and one wonders exactly how big a proportion that is now. It’s this that troubles the establishment. After sixty years of ignoring if not actually suppressing ethnic British feeling the establishment is poorly-placed to respond when it begins to stir, as it is now.

Old commies like Peter Hain and Alan Johnson are still living in the ‘no platform for fascists’ days and they’ve put pressure on the BBC to change its mind. They still think that the best way to counter opposition to their ambitions is to silence it. They wail that the BNP is a ‘fascist’ organisation and that therefore it should be denied a voice… and no, they don’t see the irony. The Guardian adopts the same position. On the BNP on Question Time it had this to say: “A racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone will be awarded a starring role on the BBC’s flagship political programme. The corporation should not be allowing this mob such a spotlight.” Spoken like true liberals.

But undoubtedly over this past year or so there’s been an observable shift in approach. Even Hain (on Newsnight this week) was forced to accept that the BNP shouldn’t be excluded from all mainstream current affairs programmes, although of course he draws the line at Question Time. And so does our old friend Richard Littlejohn who says, “We are told the programme offers an opportunity to expose the BNP. To whom? The party trawls for supporters among white working class voters… How many of them do you imagine watch something as cerebral as Question Time?”

Question Time, cerebral?

That’s the funniest thing Littlejohn’s written for ages. He was being ironic wasn’t he?

Littlejohn was writing for the benefit of those dozen or so of his readers that don’t yet vote BNP. He makes the assumption that they’re middle class snobs and argues, as a means of dissuading them from sympathising with the BNP (that is with Nick Griffin on Question Time), that the BNP is a working class organisation. Not bothering to disguise his contempt he labels the working class the C2DE’s, a sociology hocus-pocus people category he employs to put the wind up his readers: Vote BNP and you’ll turn into a C2DE. He was hoping snobbery would trump patriotism.

The Times uses similarly crude tactics. It quotes research that allegedly found BNP voters to be some sort of equivalent of American trailer park dwellers. It doesn’t go so far as to use the words trailer trash but it talks down its nose about caravan holidays and working class culture and it too quotes the C2DE category that BNP voters allegedly fall into, presumably to convince itself that as Times readers are supposed to fall into the ABC1 people category they don’t vote BNP. It seems they didn’t count this Times reader.

The BNP transcends class distinction. It is concerned with the altogether more important matter of the welfare of the British people as a whole. As long as there’s movement between the classes social class itself is not an issue. The establishment tries to make it an issue in the hope that it’ll discourage some from supporting the BNP – it’s the old divide and rule trick.

Liberals prefer to ‘not dignify the BNP by engaging it in argument,’ the hard liner favours ‘no platform for fascists’, Daily Telegraph writer and Anglican Priest George Pitcher demands: “Let’s incriminate the BNP – not indulge it with Question Time.” Incriminate? Since when was that a Christian act, Reverend Pitcher?

Significantly the vast majority of on-line comments in response to Pitcher’s article are in opposition to him. This matches a recent Sunday Times YouGov poll that found 63% of the public were in support of the invitation by Question Time to Nick Griffin, with only 23% who were not.

Up until ‘yesterday’ the establishment was making it plain that it wanted nothing to do with the BNP. It made out that the party’s ‘fascism/racism/nazism’ put it beyond the pale. In reality it feared the BNP’s fact-based common sense because all it has is sentiment and wishful thinking. And so until very recently the BNP has been kept waiting at the gate – the establishment didn’t want it to enter the debate.

And yet almost overnight we find ourselves in a position where we’re enjoying the brouhaha that Nick Griffin’s Question Time invite has created. What’s happened?

The good Reverend George Pitcher thinks the BBC made a mistake in inviting Nick Griffin, but he says that “The conventional wisdom in metropolitan media circles about BNP leader Nick Griffin’s appearance on BBC1’s Question Time on Thursday night runs something like this: it’s as well for the BNP to be allowed a platform in our public discourse so that they can be exposed for the nasty, racist pieces of work that they are.” Can that really be the case?

Is it really now conventional wisdom in media circles that the BNP should be given a platform, if only so that it can be opposed? When did this conversion take place?

Adding weight  to Pitcher’s claim Sunday Times columnist Martin Ivens writes, “The BNP won’t go away if we ignore it.” He thinks the BNP should be allowed its say, “Exposure to the full glare of publicity shows the shallowness of the party’s talent and its bizarre policies.” Bring it on!

After denying the BNP the ‘oxygen of publicity’ for so long they now want to expose it to publicity’s full glare – isn’t that what they call a ‘u’ turn? What’s brought about this metropolitan media circles’ change of heart. Where’s their new-found courage come from?

Previously they shied away from debate now they’re talking tough. Martin Ivens has no time for those who “…would rather engage in ritual abuse of the BNP or, equally uselessly, pretend it isn’t there” instead of meeting it head on. And it’s not just a media thing. Some politicians have indicated they too ‘sort of’ go along with the idea of the BNP appearing on Question Time and are acting like the debate’s been a long time coming – though of course they’ll be out of harms way and observing proceedings from behind the skirts of Ms Warsi and Ms Greer.

The BBC’s tried to make it look like they’re in charge of the situation; like they made the decision to invite Nick Griffin when really they had no choice. The longer they put it off, the more foolish they appeared. The ‘no platform’ argument is redundant – the BNP already has a platform whether the establishment likes it or not. The idea, obviously, is to construct a platform for the BNP in order that it can be knocked off it, but so what? That’s politics isn’t it? Why should the BNP be afraid of that?

The BBC explains Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time as a function of his status as MEP together with the million votes the party received in the Euro elections. Which is fair enough I suppose. The Times says Nick Griffin’s invite “…is the result of mainstream parties’ refusal to address immigration.” And with the exception of the BBC that’s the spin most other establishment mouthpieces are putting on it.

It reminds me of those not infrequent occasions when an MP sticks his head above the parapet and says, wearing his sincere face, ‘It’s time for an honest debate on immigration.’ MP Margaret Hodge has just done it, again. In the wake of Nick Griffin’s invite she made another of her frequent calls for “…an honest discussion about migration;” ‘migrants’ not ‘immigrants’ you’ll note. I wonder if she’s being honest with us. She continued: “If we don’t tackle perceived unfairness we are (encouraging) people to vote BNP.”  She just can’t help it, can she? She talks of the perception of unfairness (of the state towards ethnic Brits) as being the problem rather than the unfairness itself. She concludes with a defiant, “We should welcome migration.”

Simon Heffer plays the same sort of game, “Why has the BNP been allowed to pander to the worries of the country without serious competition from the mainstream parties?” Why indeed? And why has there been no serious competition from mainstream columnists Mr Heffer? Frank Field is a master of the art: He fears “…people think parliament is ignoring the issue,” ah yes, if only they could be taught to think otherwise.

Let’s get this straight: Mainstream politicians and media and every arm of the state haven’t ‘neglected’ to address the immigration issue, they went out of their way to make it a non-issue. They refused to address it and did their damnedest to prevent anyone else from addressing it.

But such is its importance it was never going to go away.

Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time is an indication of the growing realisation amongst ethnic Briton’s of the importance of the immigration issue. The establishment has tried to keep it under wraps but it’s now out in the open it struggles to know what stand to make. They can no longer deny it but if they act on it they go against everything they’ve been espousing these past 60 years or so.

Maybe they think Question Time will undo the BNP and take the pressure off them, but it’s hard to imagine their reasoning. Nick Griffin has had a tough political apprenticeship. He’s been the establishment bogeyman for years and he’s has had everything including the kitchen sink thrown at him in interviews and he’s come through the roughest joust unscathed. There are numerous clips of him on TV and no doubt every one has been scrutinised in the search for chinks in his armour; I’ll wager they struggled to find one. And then there’s his openness, common sense and honesty. How will they prevent that from coming across?

Writing in the Independent Stephen Glover says “Some argue that it is a good thing for Mr Griffin to be put on the spot since the nastiness and extremeness of his views will be exposed. I hope so, but I wouldn’t be certain. Mr Griffin, who is by no means stupid, is adept at concealing the dark side of the BNP, and appearing almost reasonable.” Well he would say that wouldn’t he? But the ‘nastiness and extremeness’ isn’t there and it’s Nick Griffin’s opponents who’ll have to work hardest to conceal their ‘dark side’. But Glover makes an interesting point about the possibility of it backfiring.

No doubt they’re acutely aware of the risk (from their point of view) of Nick Griffin enhancing his reputation and that of the BNP. But they were between a rock and a hard place and they were in danger of losing face if they continued to exclude the BNP’s point of view. They’re in trouble and this is beginning to look like an exercise in damage limitation.

When interviewed on TV news recently Mr Griffin played down the importance of his question time appearance. Certainly the detail of it will fade from most people’s memories but the invitation itself has real and lasting significance. It is recognition, grudgingly given, that the BNP has a point and it confirms for people the legitimacy of their concern about immigration. That is massive.

By Joe Priestly — Go on, admit it — it makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? Dead  proud. Following in the footsteps of Betty Boothroyd, another Dewsbury lass has made it big in politics: Arise Baroness Warsi of Warren Street (Savile Town).

There must be summat in t’Dewsbury water – eh, Sayeeda?

Crowned life peer by Dave hug-a-hoody Cameron for her services to (to what exactly)…, Baroness Warsi [sic] is now a member of the shadow cabinet with special responsibility for community cohesion. If anyone can mend our broken society, Baroness Warsi can.

However it was a shame that Sayeeda opted for the tradesman’s entrance rather than putting herself to the test via a general election. But no doubt she’s still smarting from the hiding she got last time, care of Shahid (the martyr) Malik, Dewsbury’s discredited Labour MP. Then again if you can march straight into office without bothering to go through the electoral process just because you know people in high places… networking comes naturally to Sayeeda. Well naturally!

Baroness Warsi explained her reluctance to take on Malik at the next election thus, “There are people out there (i.e. Dewsbury Tory voters) who could not handle two ethnic minority candidates.”  Our Sayeeda is “fiercely proud of her home town” (i.e. Dewsbury) and she felt that two ethnic minority candidates “…would lead to an increase in the Dewsbury vote, and I don’t want that for Dewsbury.” Selfless to the end, that’s Sayeeda.

But I get the feeling the baroness isn’t being straight with us. Although she implies that she made the decision not to stand, the reality is that local Tories told her that they’d stand a greater chance of winning the Dewsbury constituency if their candidate was white! Their argument was that “…Dewsbury and Mirfield voters did not want two ethnic minority candidates pitched against each other so soon after the bitter campaign of 2005.”

Presumably Sayeeda felt adequately compensated by Dave’s offer of a life peerage. So much for principle!

Interesting isn’t it that Sayeeda should go along with what is after all a ‘racist analysis’ for it suggests that white voters vote according to the race of the candidate. Yet our Sayeeda makes great play of her forthrightness. True to her Yorkshire roots [sic] she likes to call a spade a spade or a shovel even, and she ‘…says what she thinks even if it conflicts with policy.’ Sayeeda pulls no punches, “It is about time people were open and honest about what is going on,” she says. One wonders why then she’s not ‘open and honest about what’s going on’ — oh yes, I forgot, that life peerage…

The Baroness is “…bursting with ideas on how to bring together communities,” but curiously she doesn’t tell us what those ideas are. My guess is she’s planning coffee and (halal) cake mornings at the Markasi mosque in Savile Town.

But exactly what sort of a Conservative is Sayeeda? What exactly is it that she wants to conserve?

”Sayeeda has always been politically involved from her early college days when she was elected as the Vice President of the Student Union. She was also instrumental in the launch of Operation Black Vote in West Yorkshire in 1996.
She has always had a keen interest in racial justice issues. For many years she was an executive member of the Kirklees Racial Equality Council. She is also a member of the extreme left wing Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust’s Racial Justice Committee and regularly represents them at national conferences.
Sayeeda was born in Dewsbury in 1971 and was educated at Birkdale High School and Dewsbury College, and then the University of Leeds where she read Law (LLB).

She attended the York College of Law to complete her Legal Practice Course and trained both with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office Immigration Department. Prior to her elevation to the Lords she was an immigration lawyer helping her fellow immigrants to secure their rightful presence in our country.

And according to an article she penned for the Asian newspaper Awaaz, Sayeeda argued that the tightening of anti-terrorist legislation has turned Britain into a ‘police state’. She went on to say that the anti-terror proposals were, “…enough to tip any normal young man into the realms of a radicalised fanatic.” It’s not their fault that they want to murder ordinary British people in their pursuit of a worldwide Islamic state; it’s our fault for opposing them.

Some Tory, eh?

By Joe Priestley–I don’t know where or when the term ‘Liblabcon’ came into being. Its American equivalent ‘Republicrat’ was first used about 25 years ago on Usenet in American politics newsgroups, but I found no such information about the origins of ‘Liblabcon’.

It doesn’t appear in the dictionaries on my desk or in the major on-line dictionaries, although it’s included in the online Urban Dictionary, as is Republicrat which also has an entry in Wikipedia; “…a pejorative term used by those who allege the policies of the two American parties are in practice indistinguishable.” The entry continues, “An equivalent term used in the United Kingdom is LibLabCon (with a link to a Nick Griffin article), a pejorative portmanteau referring to the three main political parties.” 

The word articulates the growing perception that Britain’s three establishment political parties are fundamentally indistinguishable. It’s an idea that strikes at the heart of the status quo. The ‘difference’ is their justification; if they’re all the same what exactly is the point of Libs, Labs, and Cons?

The mass media and the mainstream political parties have a symbiotic relationship that runs on the energy produced by what they call ‘the political debate’. The politicians provide the entertainment, the media talks about it, and the liberal establishment lives happily ever after. It’s part of the process of maintaining the status quo, or rather the status of those currently running the show; the effort always is to restrict political thinking to the establishment-approved choice. The media makes a big fuss about the trivia that differentiates Lib, Lab, and Con and presents it as confirmation of choice. At the same time it avoids the fundamentals they share and thus removes them from the political process; the idea is to have us not seeing the wood for the trees.

Liblabcon is a relatively new word. My guess is it’s about ten years younger than its American cousin (if readers know more, please share), and given that a new word grows out of the need to communicate something new, the understanding it expresses must also be relatively new. Liblabcon says that the Lib, Lab, Con thing has lost its momentum, that the establishment-approved choice is no choice, and that the establishment parties have become a political class which now acts primarily in its own best interest. Liblabcon is a label for the political status quo assigned from outside the status quo, and I suppose the question is why now and not sooner? The Labour Party is over 100 years old, the Liberal and Conservative parties are going on 200 years old, yet it’s only recently that the parties have been seen as fundamentally indistinguishable. In its early days the Labour party was outside the status quo which was dominated by Liberals and Conservatives yet there doesn’t appear then to have been a need for a term like Libcon (or something expressing similar sentiments), otherwise presumably one would have evolved.

The melding of Lib, Lab, and Con began with the post WWII liberal consensus and continued to the point where now they share an almost identical world view and differ only on the minutiae. The term Liblabcon is recognition of this and a means of communicating it. Britain as it is today is a result of the Lib, Lab, and Con belief in the superiority of diversity over homogeneity and in the ‘immense benefits’ of mass third world immigration; Britain is as it is today because of the sameness of the establishment parties not because of their difference.

The survival of the ‘big three’ is a function of their ability to maintain an impression of separateness. This is what they spend much of their time doing, telling us how different they are, and the main stream media supports them in this by presenting them as feasible political choices. They don’t like to talk about what they have in common both because it threatens their viability as alternatives and because it brings to the fore their shared ambition for Britain, which they prefer to keep to themselves.

Yet it seems now that their cover is blown and everything they do to convince us of their difference convinces us of their similarity, exquisitely illustrated by David Cameron’s appeal for ‘new people to stand for the Conservatives – even if they’re not Conservatives’.

Lib, Lab, and Con have reached a conclusion. And after achieving their twin goals of the abdication of British sovereignty to a ‘higher authority’ and the transformation of Britain into a multiracial multicultural society, there’s nothing now left for them to do but look after their own interests. It’s them against the rest of us.

Even the main stream media has been forced to recognise it, which just shows how obvious it must be! Of course they haven’t yet (to my knowledge) resorted to the Liblabcon word, maybe they never will, certainly not while they’re still an arm of the establishment. Liblabcon has a sort of finality to it from which there can be no going back, and the ‘big three’ are desperately hoping the ‘difference’ can be revived. You can see it in their search to redefine themselves so as to maintain their relevance, particularly in the wake of the expenses crisis – this is what their plans to ‘modernise’ the constitution are all about.

But it’s too late for that. Everything is falling in around their heads and the Libs, Labs, and Cons are responding as Liblabcons and everyone can see it. The Westminster expenses crisis hasn’t helped. As if it wasn’t bad enough having their thieving exposed, the investigation and subsequent brouhaha has confirmed them as an arrogant political class that sees itself as above the law; Liblabcon not Lib, Lab, Con.

They fiddled across party political lines; they were all at it. And when they were caught with their fingers in the till Lib, Lab, and Con alike had the damned nerve to try to talk their way out of it. Even the course of their pathetic excuses followed the same path. First came the denial, with the evidence still on their snouts, and when that didn’t work they tried to shift the blame; ‘It wasn’t us it was the rules what done it, honest guv.’ The rules weren’t tight enough, they invited abuse. And the Liblabcon swine accepted the invitation and stuffed their faces. Burp.

One expects such logic from a burglar; that his victim was at fault for leaving the back door open, but coming from leading Lib, Lab, and Con politicians by way of mitigation for their corruption… It’s hardly contrition is it? More like panic, across the board. Now they’ve calmed down they’re all talking in ‘measured tones’ about the need for ‘more rigorous rules’ and for them to be ‘administered independently’.  Tweedledee, Tweedledum; Tweedledeedum.

The rules issue is a red herring. They were devised by Liblabcons so that Liblabcons could abuse them; the problem isn’t the rules it’s the rule makers – honourable gentlemen need few rules. The rules were a result of self important politicians’ feelings of entitlement. They believed that there was insufficient recognition of the sacrifices they make and the hard graft they put in on behalf of their ungrateful constituents.  But they feared the electorate’s response were they to have given themselves a pay rise so instead they came up with an elaborate set of rules that allowed for the reimbursement of their living expenses out of the public purse and at a stroke they more than doubled their take-home pay yet without drawing it to the attention of the ‘dumb electorate’.  

I suppose it just goes to show how arrogant contemptuous and indeed stupid establishment politicians are that they didn’t stop to think what would happen were the cat to get out of the bag: “When any great design thou dost intend, Think on the means, the manner, and the end.” Obviously Lib, Lab, and Con alike were too focused on the opportunities that came with the scam to think about what could possibly go wrong. Wishful thinking I suppose. Speaker Martin was one of the first to see the danger. He tried to rally the troops but didn’t get the support he needed and failed in his bid to keep MP’s expenses under wrap. I wonder how many MP’s rue the day they didn’t back Martin.

And then it was too late. What we always suspected was confirmed as true; they’re all the same and they’re all on the make. They were all lining their pockets and they responded to the crisis as one. First they lied and blamed the rules and threw themselves at our feet, then they picked a scapegoat and tied Speaker Martin to a tree, and now they’re sacrificing lambs and readying more for the slaughter, not as Libs Labs and Cons but as Liblabcons.

Self interest dominates their motives: They talk of the people and of Britain yet think only of economics and profit, and they speak of ‘equality’ while diligently feathering their own nests.

It’s curious that the Telegraph, an establishment mouthpiece, should carry out such a brutal and damaging assault on a vulnerable political establishment that’s struggling with economic and social uncertainty. Did the newspaper not consider the consequences of focusing so much attention on the scam, the potential undermining of the political system, or was it motivated purely by sales and the desire to steal a march on its rivals? Yet in spite of its revelations and accusations the Telegraph is still fully supportive of the political establishment in its current form, and like the rest of the news media they see Libs, Labs, and Cons as the only legitimate political alternatives.

So of course they all stand in opposition to the BNP. Not just the Liblabcons and the mass media, but the entertainment industry too, business and trade union leaders, and church and academic leading lights. They all put aside the differences they feign for our attention and unite to oppose the BNP.

We must be doing something right.

These people are all defenders of globalism. In one way and another they all owe their positions to their public adherence to the ‘faith’ – they are liblabcons with a small ‘l’. They believe in the superiority of diversity over homogeneity and in the ‘immense benefits’ of mass third world immigration – their careers depend on it. And so they have no choice but to defend that which is becoming increasingly indefensible. Their globalism is in crisis. It hasn’t worked out as they thought it would, or rather as they said they thought it would. Instead of the utopia they promised globalism has brought us economic and social chaos – yet still they must support it. 

Nothing unites the opposition quite like the BNP. Fundamentals are at stake here and the insignificance of the disagreements that define Lib, Lab, and Con is revealed as the whole gamut of liblabcons stand as one against the BNP: Globalism versus Nationalism.

The absurdly labelled Hope Not Hate campaign against the BNP is the liblabcons’ retort, and it’s supported across the board from Unison General Secretary Dave Prentice to Tory leader Dave Cameron. It attempts to put the globalists’ case and in doing so reveals their insecurity. Like the mainstream media, what it lacks in argument it makes up for in lies, intimidation, and histrionics. It is argument-less, but then the liblabcon argument was lost when the reality of multiculturalism failed to live up to the theory – which the Hope Not Hate title ironically concedes.

Hope Not Hate? Isn’t that a non sequitur? Hope’s not the antonym of hate although the suggestion here is that it is. I wonder why?

Why didn’t these lovers of multiculturalism label it the Love Not Hate campaign? That would have made more sense from their point of view wouldn’t it? Yet instead of Love Not Hate, that is ‘don’t hate the multicultural society, love it,’ the liblabcons give us Hope Not Hate. ‘Don’t hate the multicultural society, hope it…’? Hope it what?

Hope is the feeling that events will turn out for the best. That is events that haven’t yet run their course. Hope Not Hate says ‘Don’t hate the multicultural society hope that it turns out for the best.’ What else can it say? It’s surely not saying ‘don’t hate the BNP; hope they come to appreciate the marvels of multiculturalism’.

What a curious admission for the liblabcons to make. But then it would have been utterly ridiculous for them to label their campaign Love Not Hate, even they know that. Even these idiots realise that asking us to ‘love’ this nightmare they’ve foisted on us is a step too far – has anyone ever heard any of them boast, “I helped make Britain into the marvellous multicultural society that it is today”? Thought not. They know their mass immigration scam has been a disaster, they know that we know, and the best they can come up with is to ask us to ‘hope’ everything works out well.

The state of Britain today is a function of the policies implemented by Liblabcons and aided and abetted by liblabcons. And although the parliamentary expenses scam is something of a side issue it serves to illustrate the shared motivation of parliamentarians; self interest. It’s that that motivates Liblabcon and liblabcon alike. Establishment politicians, heads of industry, trade union leaders, celebrities, media mouthpieces, and church leaders are where they are because of their adherence to globalism. And their public support of globalism is an essential part of the job and necessary for them to maintain their places at the trough. So they continue to talk the talk.

The problem for them is that globalism is being seen to be a disaster for ethnic Britons, evidenced by the growth in the BNP. But there’s no going back for the liblabcons; they’re responsible for globalism in Britain, they made it possible, they need it, and they are tied to it. And so in the face of growing evidence to the contrary they must continue with their glowing reports of it.

They are hastening their own demise. Their only defence is to circle their wagons but by doing so they make it ever more obvious that they stand against the rest of us.

And so it has proved. The success of the BNP in the county council and Euro elections has been met by the universal condemnation of the Liblabcons and the liblabcons. Surely we wouldn’t want it any other way.

That was the advice offered by an editorial in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago for dealing with the likes of Anjem Choudary and friends who abused British soldiers at their homecoming parade in Luton. The paper’s argument is that Choudary may very well be ‘unpleasant’ but unless he breaks the law he should be allowed to say what he wants. It warns that it would be a mistake to make a martyr out of him, “Far better that we deploy the weapon for which Britain is famed: humour and ridicule. He (Choudary) is, to use a well worn phrase, a sick joke and should be treated as one.”

The paper says that calls for Choudary to be silenced on the grounds of his dangerousness “miss the point.”

 It continues, “The lesson of Guantanamo Bay and ‘extraordinary rendition’ is that a free society gives ammunition to the enemy if it is provoked into a breach of its own revered principles, which means fighting on the higher moral ground. The best way of ensuring that his (Choudary’s) views get no more traction is to let him air them so they can be seen for being vacuous.”

According to the Sunday Times Choudary aims “…to see the flag of Allah fly over Downing Street and a pure Islamic state with sharia law established in Britain (where) all women, Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a burqa; a woman’s evidence would be subordinate to a man’s in court; drunks would be whipped in public; and adulterers would be stoned to death.”

If anyone’s missing the point it’s the Sunday Times, and deliberately too. How very convenient that it dismisses Choudary’s ideas as “vacuous” thus saving itself the trouble of having to address them and their implications. Instead it focuses on the freedom of speech aspect of the issue concluding that giving Choudary his say gives us the opportunity to ridicule him and thereby reduce him and his ideas to a joke.

Curiously the Sunday Times didn’t follow its own advice and ridicule Choudary and his thinking. It had already reached its conclusion; ‘Choudary and his ideas are a joke’ – though the process by which it got there remains a mystery. Was the editorial group in hysterics when the topic came up for discussion?

It was a pity the writer didn’t let the rest of us in on the joke. What’s so funny – has anyone any idea? And on what foundation is this piss-taking based? Precisely what is the Sunday Times encouraging us to do?

Surely ridicule of the man risks the charge of racism. And ridicule of his beliefs risks the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ not to mention the threats to personal safety. Come to think of it, wouldn’t any ridicule of Choudary and his ideas be smothered by the dictates of political correctness and the strong arm of the law? I contacted the Sunday Times asking for an example of the humour they advise, maybe a joke or two that I could pass round the pub and that would sort of snowball resulting in the exposure of Choudary and his ideas as “vacuous” – so far nothing.

And of course there was a sideswipe at the BNP in this infinitely patronising example of vacuity. But it’s no more than we’ve come to expect – especially from the so-called ‘thinking papers.’ The writer performs contortions so as to bring the BNP into the equation; the best he could do was a spurious and badly constructed parallel. He reasoned thus: Choudary is British, the BNP are British, the BNP is allowed its say, and because it’s “…views (are) no less repugnant than Mr Choudary’s,” Choudary should also be allowed his say.

Clever, eh? That way he gets to kill two birds with one stone: Choudary and the BNP. The establishment does this regularly. Somebody or other of ’significance’ will be talking about Muslim terrorism and they’ll introduce the BNP into the conversation, as if there’s some sort of equivalence between the two.

The clear intention is to damage the BNP by association, but there’s also an element in this of the establishment using the BNP as a sort of shield from behind which they feel more able to say things that Muslims may not like. It’s as if they use the BNP to balance any ‘criticism’ (actually it’s never as strong as criticism) they make of Muslim behaviour. It’s like they’re saying “…you Muslims have your baddies but we have our baddies also so don’t feel bad if we criticise your baddies because we criticise our baddies too.” It’s not their intention of course, but by allocating (albeit incorrectly) the BNP a place in the ‘we’ they legitimise the party in a backhanded sort of way. It is another unintended consequence. Everyone knows that the establishment sees the BNP as the baddie but equally everyone knows that the BNP is not the British equivalent of Muslim suicide bombers.

This editorial is a perfect illustration of the establishment’s timidity when dealing with Muslims. The writer defines Choudary’s views as “vacuous” when viewed alone yet cranks them up to “repugnant” when viewed in the same frame as the BNP. Vacuous is empty-headed tending to harmless; repugnant is distasteful tending to harmful. So which is it?

It seems to me that this was a case of having to say something but not wanting to say anything, so the Sunday Times turned it into a joke, or rather it turned Choudary into one. It’s like having someone slap you across the face and then laughing it off because you’re too afraid to respond in kind. The Sunday Times’ desire to have us laugh in the face of adversity (or should that be diversity?) is another way of avoiding the issue; the Sunday Times hopes its readers will be laughing too much to notice.

It was Choudary that said the thwarted car bombings in London and the terror attack against Scotland’s busiest airport were “completely justified.” Are you laughing yet? Hilarious isn’t it? Choudary again: “It would be easy for us to declare Jihad in Britain and each one of us could become a time-bomb waiting to go off…” Yet the Sunday Times and by extension the rest of the establishment think we shouldn’t take this too seriously.

But why not?

If it’s not serious why did the Sunday Times bother to tell us it wasn’t worth taking seriously? Clearly the establishment wants to play down the threat. The more seriously people view the likes of Choudary the greater will be the demand that the establishment does something about them. But this problem like every other that we face in society is a function of liblabcon equality thinking and Choudary et al are here because of that thinking. Therefore any solution to these problems must begin with a rejection of that logic. But the hands of the Sunday Times and the rest of the establishment are tied to that thinking; they are where they are because of their adherence to it. When it falls they fall.

So they pretend the threat doesn’t exist. “Choudary’s a joke. Islamic terrorists aren’t Islamic terrorists, they’re criminals. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, etc…” If the problem is defined in any other way the establishment will be compelled to act and the equality house of cards will fall. They downplay the problem and define it merely as something that a bit of old-fashioned British piss-taking will solve.

Anjem Choudary is aware of the establishment’s discomfiture and plays on it. He and his kind constantly test the boundaries. He uses tolerance against itself. He uses our fairness as a weapon against us. The Sunday Times articulates the predicament; “…a free society gives ammunition to the enemy if it is provoked into a breach of its own revered principles.”

Well yes, but… This is of course a cop-out. What happened to those ‘revered principles’ when Britain illegally bombed Iraq and Serbia? Revered principles are as much a refuge of the scoundrel as is patriotism and those that refer to them tend to want them applying specifically rather than generally.

But the real issue which the Sunday Times and the rest of the establishment do their best to cloud is Choudary’s views rather than his right to express them. What do those views mean for Britain, British society and British people? Choudary is articulating stated Muslim aims for Britain; why can’t we discuss them?

The establishment would have us believe that Choudary and his ilk represent only a minute fraction of an otherwise ‘peaceful Muslim community’ and so we need not even consider his threats. But if that’s the case why does the government spend millions pacifying those communities with grants for one thing after another? Why the need to pacify the peaceful?

On the same page in the same edition of the same newspaper editor John Witherow was worrying about the situation in Afghanistan, “I fear there will be many more years of young British soldiers putting their lives at risk.” At risk from people with the very same mindset as Choudary but living 3500 miles away – why do we need to take them more seriously than we do the likes of Choudary?

Choudary’s way of thinking is an assault on British and European tradition and belief, and it is supported by hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in Britain (and by millions across Europe). Choudary wants the imposition of sharia law in Britain and for it to apply to the whole population, and according to polls about a third of Muslims living in Britain agree with him. That’s really amusing, isn’t it? And that number will grow along with immigration and the radicalisation of Muslims in Britain which the government is spending desperate millions in order to prevent. I’ll bet your sides are splitting.

The Sunday Times makes the same mistake that all the establishment liblabcons make; they assume everyone thinks like them. Ridiculing Choudary and his ‘views’ may very well amuse Sunday Times readers, but what will Muslims in the mosque make of it? Will they be laughing too? Will they conclude also that Choudary is nothing more than a sick joke? Or will they support a fellow believer?

The Sunday Times labels Choudary vacuous, but can there be anything more empty-headed than this? The paper urges us to laugh when what’s needed is a cold and hard-headed look at the realities of Islam and their meaning for Britain, its society and its people.

By Joe Priestly. It seems like every day brings with it a new and significant development and always more evidence of the conspiracies and cock-ups of Brown and co. It’s impossible to keep pace with events – this feels like meltdown. Nothing works and nothing makes sense; reality is catching up with the liblabcon fantasy.

Over the past sixty years or so the liblabcons have been spinning a web of lies to justify the destruction of British culture and the genocide of the British people. Their common purpose is to remake Britain as a society consisting of peoples and cultures from every corner of the earth. The responsibility for putting in place the final pieces of this multicultural jigsaw fell to the New Labour government, ably supported of course by the ‘opposition’. The economy was the key. It was essential that people had money to spend on the latest distractions. Hence the government-sponsored credit boom; it was a smokescreen behind which they hid our demise.

They didn’t want us to trouble ourselves with concerns about immigration, Islam, asylum, education, crime, the EU… just in case we came to the wrong conclusion. So they gave us easy credit and unbridled consumerism and added the big match and the soaps to stop us thinking about what really matters.

But a financial storm blew away their easy-money smokescreen and left the liblabcons with nowhere to hide. People are now counting their pennies and thinking less about hi-tech toys and the latest Big Brother controversy and more about the state of the nation and its impact on their lives and futures. They’re waking up to the mess that the liblabcons have made of this country.

The establishment is ideology-led and has convinced itself that nature can be moulded to fit its plan. And it’s this thinking that’s brought Britain to its sorry state. But perhaps it had to come to this. Maybe nothing short of crisis would have woken us from our slumber – that is the British way isn’t it? It seems to me though that we’re waking up now. What’s that they say about the problem being the catalyst for its own solution? And we can see it in action in the increasing number of people who are making the connection between the ideology and its manifestations.

The establishment is founded on a lie so monumentally absurd that it’s spent all its life lurking between the lines and only ever appearing as hint and suggestion. Stripped of all its camouflage the bare-faced lie is that the genocide of the British people is good for the British people – little wonder they had to sugar-coat it with a billions tending towards trillions credit boom.

But that alone wasn’t enough. It was necessary also for them to rework every aspect of society to discourage dissent and to encourage the British people’s acquiescence in their own genocide. It worked for a long time and that and the booming economy encouraged the liblabcons to think that the good times would last forever and that their transformation of Britain would proceed unnoticed.

That was then; the party finished a while back. Post party, in the cold light of a looming depression, the changes imposed on Britain are not all that their liblabcon architects had painted them to be. What they said would be utopia looks increasingly like chaos – and that’s before the lights start going out. The consequences of the lie are beginning to be felt and it’s dawning on British people that the reality of the lie is their destruction.

And as Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels* observed, “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political (and) economic… consequences of the lie.” And he should know. The British political and media establishment used the credit boom to soften the impact of its ideology on the population; they encouraged people to focus on personal gain while they got on with the job of creating 21st century multiracial multicultural Britain. But the boom has turned to bust and their lie is there for all to see.

Politicians, power brokers, celebrities, and mainstream media-types have staked their reputations (read fortunes) on their sick lie and its bastard child multiracial multicultural Britain. The maintenance of the lie is all that separates them from ruin; without it they’d be irrelevant. They are the status quo and everything they do is aimed at holding that position; they have no choice but to maintain the lie. But now the spend fest is over. The cupboard is bare and winter approaches; the liblabcons have run out of the means to shield the British people from the consequences of the lie. The reality of mass third world immigration is upon us.

If we take fact as truth then a lie is a deliberate distortion of fact. In respect of mass immigration and its impact on British society the establishment distorts the facts so as to paint a positive picture of its creation the multiracial multicultural society. But the nearer a disaster looms the more it is recognised for what it is, irrespective of official explanations. Ignoring facts doesn’t make them go away nor does it diminish their truth.

The establishment lost the argument years ago and their position now is entirely dependant upon those members of the population that remain indifferent to politics and politicians until they impact on them personally. But the collapse of consumerism and the maturation of the multiracial multicultural society is encouraging even the formerly indifferent to pay attention to the shenanigans of people in power. The establishment sold out for short term advantage and the short term is almost up; the theft of a nation from under the noses of its people isn’t something that can go unnoticed forever. The British people are waking up to the liblabcons’ crimes.

Having distorted the facts for six decades the British establishment is in no position to face them. Facing facts will expose the lie and their world will come crashing down. Britain is a multiracial multicultural society because the establishment ignored the facts; in spite of the fact of the chaos of third world multiracial multicultural societies, Britain’s political and media elite facilitated the importation of millions of third world aliens into our midst as part of a plan to make Britain into such a society. Now the predictable is happening; multiracial multicultural chaos is playing on our streets.

Of course they never would have predicted it. Their world view, their equality dogma, prohibits any such prediction. And whereas a growing number of the rest of us are coming to believe that the liblabcons were negligent in failing to anticipate the chaos that would accompany mass third world immigration, the liblabcons continue the charade of the multiracial multicultural society as utopia – in the face of growing evidence to the contrary. You’ve got to laugh.

The liblabcons put me in mind of a kind of circus act that I saw on TV years ago but haven’t seen since. I don’t know what it’s called but it involved spinning plates (crockery) on canes. Those that know what I’m talking about please hum along for a moment while I explain for those that don’t… A number of canes (at a guess about 50) is set vertically and fixed at the lower point, the ‘artist’ gyrates each cane in turn and sets a plate spinning on the upper point so that it balances under its own momentum, he does the same with each cane until each has a plate spinning on it. He then attempts to maintain this equilibrium by moving from one cane to another to tend to those plates in danger of slowing beyond the critical and crashing to the floor. In a short while his movement has become a rush from one cane to another as the plates lose momentum faster than he can maintain it. And then the inevitable happens. First one plate then another and another until almost in unison the rest crash to the floor.

Their situation is analogous to that of the circus artist upon the realization that the inevitable is, well, inevitable. The plates haven’t yet all crashed to the floor but they’re going to. Like the circus artist the liblabcons have created something that can’t be maintained but unlike him they can’t just throw up their hands and walk away from the crashing plates; they’ve got far too much invested in keeping things spinning for as long as possible.

But in a meltdown everything goes wrong. And the liblabcons’ frantic effort to keep their metaphorical plates spinning merely draws attention to the illogic of setting them spinning that way in the first place. Our economy and our society aren’t working because they’re founded on an ideological fallacy, universal equality and the theory of the interchangeability of man. Yet the liblabcons’ solutions to the problems caused by their way of thinking is yet more of the same; they’re trying to solve society’s problems with the same thinking that created them. And they’re beginning to look ridiculous because of it; every time they open their mouths they contradict themselves. Their world view is in meltdown, and yet it looked so good on paper – or so they used to say.

To paraphrase Karl Marx, Marxism is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. There’s so much going wrong now in this country that our establishment and its idiotic thinking are permanently under the spotlight and both are being revealed as barrels of contradiction. That’s why no liblabcon type will ever stand his ground – they haven’t got a coherent argument so they avoid argument. It’s a variation on the no-platform theme. Even establishment media persons are shuffling their feet away from liblabcon egalitarianism. The lie is being found out and every time an establishment mouthpiece attempts a cover up they succeed only in shoving their foot further down their throat. Everything they do is founded on a lie and the lie is being undone by its own contradictions.

British society today is a manifestation of liblabcon equality ideology. The alienation that we feel is a consequence of society following the incoherent ideology of egalitarianism, which quite literally doesn’t make sense. It is smoke and mirrors and it’s survived to this point, since WWII, on a combination of bullying, bullshit, and brass neck. It’s bullied, bullshit, and brass necked its way to intimidating the rest of us into going along with its world view. But in spite of the power of its ‘followers’, equality ideology has never convinced more than a committed few. Tolerance of its ‘inherent contradictions’ requires a dedication far beyond the means of most people; the majority of those that go along with equality ideology do so because it’s the direction of least resistance.

The reality is that equality ideology has a fundamental weakness; it lacks continuity. Its argument is riddled with inconsistencies and so its proponents always seek refuge in vagueness. These people need plenty of room for manoeuvre.

Yet their room for manoeuvre is shrinking. It’s becoming clearer by the hour that the problem is the liblabcons and their equality thinking – the logical conclusion of which is the state of Britain today, economically, socially, and spiritually. Having created this mess, the establishment is now in the unfortunate position of not only having to defend it but to promote it as well. And so naturally incoherence features in every aspect of everything that the establishment does and says. Whatever the policy, whatever the department, whatever the statement, you know it won’t make sense. There are countless examples of the idiocy of liblabcon thought in action; three which immediately come to mind are free movement of labour, the incarceration of immigrants, and the Afghanistan ‘war’.

In their blind pursuit of ‘equality’ the liblabcons sanctioned the free movement of labour and in so doing signed away this country’s right to favour its own workers on its own soil over foreign workers on its soil – surely the most treasonable act ever committed. I wonder if they think they’re going to get away with that one forever. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, from the liblabcons’ long term health point of view that is, by severing their commitment to their own population they sort of compound their problems by effectively making themselves redundant. If they’re not there to represent our interests what exactly are they for? Is that what they mean by an unintended consequence, or was it intended and part of a conspiracy of extreme subtlety? I can never work out whether their determination to have us see them as lying, idiotic, thieving, hypocritical, treacherous cowards is due to incompetence or whether it’s part of a cunning plot that’s beyond my wit to understand.

It seems to me they’re paying the price of living a lie and the lie is coming back to haunt them.

Having said that, I’m sure I could put the case for the liblabcons better than they do. Consider the gaga they offer in explanation for the statistical over-representation of ethnic minorities in prisons and in secure mental health institutions. You don’t need me to tell you what it is – they parrot the Marxist line, that these inequalities of outcome are a consequence of the racism of the criminal justice and mental health systems. Any other explanation would set in motion a train of thought that leads back to the source of the problem, equality dogma and its application; the Marxists’ intention is to set the train of thought on a wild goose chase after whites as the cause of the problem. It’s the easy option and it’s the only one that doesn’t question their insane world view.

But there’s a nice irony in this; their explanation is a perfect example of the inconsistency it was intended to disguise. For them the problem is not the equality idea but opposition to the idea. And so every explanation they offer for any of society’s problems must always be tailored to protect the easily bruised equality idea. It’s this that has them tripping over their own feet.

Ethnic minorities are over-represented in prisons and mental hospitals either because they’re more inclined to criminality and mental health problems or because they’re not treated the same as the majority population. If it’s not one it’s the other. And that’s a no brainer for the establishment whose equality dogma dictates that ethnic minorities can never be the cause of any problem. The problem therefore is the majority population. It’s that catch-all again, racism, the only explanation that doesn’t question the equality idea.

But it’s here they get their wires crossed. According to them the criminal justice system is racist because it treats ethnic minorities differently from ethnic Britons, and the mental health system is racist because it treats ethnic minorities the same as ethnic Britons and fails to take into account cultural and ethnic difference in behaviour when diagnosing mental illness. Doesn’t that just sum up these gibbering liblabcon wrecks? The criminal justice system is racist because it discriminates; the mental health system is racist because it doesn’t discriminate.

They’re less concerned with the soundness of their argument than they are with arriving at the right conclusion; equality ideology must never be seen to be a problem. All their roads lead to racism.

The “racism” accusation began as a tactic, it developed into a strategy, and now it looks increasingly like a last ditch effort. You can tell they’re no longer comfortable with it, it’s like they’re suddenly aware that British people are sick to death with the accusation and contemptuous of its argument. But when liblabcon backs are against the door – it’s either racism or the admission that their thinking has been wrong all along.

Nothing they say makes sense because their argument is founded not on hard facts but on wishful thinking. Their explanations run contrary to the facts and as the facts become clearer so do the holes in the explanations. That’s what’s happening now; the reality of the multiracial multicultural society is hitting home and the liblabcons’ equality/diversity sweet talk is at such odds with the facts that it’s encouraging the scepticism it’s designed to stop.

Consider the conflict in Afghanistan: The establishment is putting our soldiers’ lives on the line in Afghanistan allegedly to protect Britain from terrorism yet at the same time it keeps Britain’s borders open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who cares to cross them. Anybody else see the contradiction here? Yet the liblabcons don’t get it – their idiotic ideology won’t allow them to.

 They’re in denial. It’s a common response to overwhelming collapse. They’re taking the only option open to them, they’re burying their faces in their comfort blankets and singing nursery rhymes about joy and diversity. Liblabcon thought is reaching its logical conclusion – illogicality. They’re in meltdown.

By Joe Priestly — I could never decide if Hazel Blears got the job of Secretary of State for Communities because of her brass neck or because she was the only one stupid enough to accept the offer.

But then after reading an interview of Blears by Isabel Oakshott in the Sunday Times the other week about her responsibility of ensuring that “…the recession doesn’t tear communities apart,” my mind was finally made up. The interview confirmed Blears as one of those people whose confidence far outweighs their ability, hence the ease with which she talks balls with absolute conviction – and if that’s not the primary requirement of the Secretary of State for Communities then I don’t know what is. It seems the job demands both brass neck and stupidity.

According to Oakshott, Blears is worried that “… as the downturn bites, simmering tensions between the white working classes and immigrants on Britain’s estates could boil over.” Blears says “… it could go either way. You either end up as a fragmented society or you come out of it stronger.”

Hang on a minute! Isn’t Ms Blears one of those that is always going on about diversity having only one outcome – and I don’t recall it having anything to do with “simmering tensions”. Don’t Blears and her friends say diversity brings only joy?

Of course Blears doesn’t see the contradiction – she’s incapable of following the logic that far, in fact being able to do so would be a hindrance in the execution of her job.  She follows the “diversity is a joy” line slavishly and views deviation as a consequence of at best misunderstanding.

Blears puts these “simmering tensions” down to envy; she says there’s resentment of what she terms “energetic immigrants” who are in work and doing well. In other words idle whites are to blame; instead of getting off their backsides and finding a job they’d rather criticise “energetic immigrants” for their get up and go. Now isn’t that a surprise?

And the solution? With infinite stupidity and no little brass neck Blears thinks it lies in getting whites on council estates back to work.

According to Oakshott Blears believes that work will show whites “…that there is a better life to lounging on benefits, and thereby prevent the resentment of energetic immigrants who are in work.”

Curiously Blears’ definition of the problem as unemployed whites’ resentment of energetic immigrants contradicts her general description of the situation as one of “…simmering tensions between the white working classes and immigrants.” In that context tension suggests a kind of pulling between two points, as if the issue was the relationship between indigenous and immigrant. Yet Blears tells us she is concerned primarily with the attitude of “idle whites” to “energetic immigrants”; in her analysis the immigrant is the passive victim.

Blears says, “What worries me is that some people are no longer active participants in their own lives… We’ve done a lot of physical regeneration, estates have changed… but it’s the people bit. I just worry that the sense of ambition people had, it’s not there.” What self pitying arrogance. Secretary Blears clearly believes that the “lower orders” owe her and the rest of the liblabcons some sort of gratitude – no doubt best expressed by strict adherence to the “diversity is joy” theme.

Blears says she’s concerned that white people who live in council houses don’t get out enough, that their “…world is too small and that some never venture more than ten streets from their home.” In other words if only poor whites got out more they’d learn to love the wonderful one world Britain that the liblabcons have so kindly created. Add patronising to stupid and brass neck.

Oakshott: “Blears believes a sense of fairness about entitlement is essential to undermine myths about foreigners (sic) receiving preferential treatment and maintain harmony…” Translated this presumably means, once again, that whites are to blame; ignorant estate-dwelling benefit-scrounging whites adversely effect community relations by thinking foreigners receive preferential treatment. Now why would they think that? Blears shows what she’s all about when she lets slip her intention to “undermine” these so-called myths rather than challenge them.

Boost white ambition, get them back into work and thereby eliminate resentment of foreigners, and the multiracial multicultural society will live happily ever after. Simple, eh?

It’s simple all right. White people who live on council estates and exist on benefits are the least of Blears’ worries. She’s not particularly concerned about their plight and doesn’t have to be; they don’t flex their muscles and tend not to vote so they don’t exercise political power. Blears is interested only in the opportunity their weakness affords her of using them for her own interest. That’s what the Communities Secretary does.

Blears links the economic downturn with the potential for inter-communal conflict but offers no explanation for the connection. Precisely why would an economic downturn encourage people who claim benefit and live in council accommodation to develop misconceptions about foreigners and resentment of the success of “energetic immigrants”? She doesn’t address such matters but then why should she – she’s not really interested in poor whites. She’s merely taking advantage of their relative weakness as a group and using them as a vehicle for the propaganda and behaviour modification functions of the Department for Communities and Local Government which she aims at whites in general.

She’s attempting via her use of straw men, whipping boys, and bogeymen to cultivate the notion that failure to appreciate the joys of diversity is a shortcoming restricted to those who live on council estates and exist on benefits. She’s aiming to smear criticism of diversity by associating it with a “white underclass”. Her brief is to discourage any thinking that doesn’t comply with the world as viewed by the likes of her. She wants whites to feel that if their perception of diversity doesn’t match hers it somehow relegates them to “the lower orders” – only ignorant lazy people who live in council houses on benefits are unable to appreciate the wonders of diversity. Blears wants criticism of diversity to be seen as an expression of envy.

If poor whites only knew how important they really are! They’re the straw men on whom Blears hangs her absurd arguments about deteriorating community relations; they’re the whipping boys whom she blames for her own failures, and they’re the bogeymen she conjures when necessity demands.

Blears’ alleged concern that the recession may “tear communities apart” is nonsense. Communities are apart; they’re defined by their difference and exist only in relation to each other. Is this not a readily observable fact in her world? Or is she just ignoring it like she and her cohorts do every other fact of life that doesn’t fit their twisted world view?

So what’s really on her mind? “The evidence is that where resources are scarce, then unless you make the attempts to bring people together, to get information out, for people to understand entitlement and who gets what, then these myths can grow up and become received wisdom. The far right use it to get (sic) divisions between people.” Ah yes, the far right. I was wondering when they’d make an appearance.

Blears’ incisive analysis arrives at its conclusion thus: Unemployed whites, who live in council houses, who exist on benefits, and who never stray more than a few yards from their sofas are responsible for Britain’s “simmering inter-racial tensions”. Their envy of industrious immigrants has led to myths about preferential treatment for immigrants becoming received wisdom. And the far right makes use of that received wisdom to “get” divisions between people.

If Blears was as concerned as she says she is that an economic depression may exacerbate race relations then she’d do something about it. But uppermost in liblabcon minds is that an economic depression may lead to questions being asked about their management of this nation and about the course they’ve been steering these past fifty years or so. They’re worried that calls for change will become so loud that they can’t be ignored; and they’re worried that the BNP is increasingly being seen as leading those calls. It’s not the simmering tensions between ethnic groups or the attitudes of poor whites to immigrants that’s keeping them awake at night; it’s the thought of the BNP as a viable political opposition.

The liblabcons are no longer having things all their own way. In spite of all their power they can’t avoid having to respond to growing disquiet about their management of Britain.

Recently there’s been contrition for “having been careless over immigration”. How euphemistically they put these things, but surely the point is that had it not been necessary for them to make the admission they wouldn’t have made it. Of course they’ll minimise their role if they can get away with it but what they can’t do is deny it. In reality their ‘carelessness’ over immigration makes them culpable for the entire gamut of problems that have arisen out of that carelessness – so their confession has some way to go.

And Hazel Blears made a sort of apology in the Sunday Times interview – she thinks the government could have eased community tensions by doing more to get the long term unemployed back into work. If only the straw man would get off his sofa and find a job.

Blears’ is an utterly disingenuous apology but it is still a concession, a recognition that the other has a point so obvious that it can’t be totally ignored: government policy has exacerbated community tensions, fact. The issue yet to be decided is the extent of it’s culpability. Maybe that explains Blears’ efforts to limit the government’s error to a lack of vigour in getting the long-term unemployed back to work.

But even if she wanted to, Blears wouldn’t be able to get long term unemployed people back to work because there aren’t any jobs for them. And any ambition she has for them extends no further than them remaining comatose on the sofa – she knows only too well that were the white ‘under class’ to motivate itself into action it would be unlikely to act in her favour. Poor whites are merely a tool to Blears to be otherwise best left alone.

Communities Secretary Blears is part of a not so subtle liblabcon offensive aimed at undermining the development of the BNP. And her assault on Britain’s poorest whites is in effect a sideswipe at anyone who doesn’t share her take on diversity. The Labour Party started out as champions of the British working classes; now they’re contemptuous of them. Instead of screaming ‘nazi’ when someone questions the status quo Blears accuses them of behaving like council-house dwelling layabouts who lack ambition and who are resentful of immigrants and jealous of their success.

Presumably the tactic is designed to discourage people from questioning diversity on the premise that they won’t want to be associated with society’s untouchables, which Blears is in the process of creating out of Britain’s poorest white working class. And no doubt this is part of the liblabcon strategy to discourage people from proceeding along the chain of thought that leads to the BNP.

We should take this as encouragement. If the BNP wasn’t making progress and if the liblabcons weren’t concerned at our political potential then we wouldn’t be near the top of their agenda – second only to feathering their own nests. They wouldn’t waste their energy attempting to undo us if there was no point in it.

I suppose also we should be encouraged by the sight of Hazel Blears stepping forward as their champion. It says a lot about the rest of them that they’re prepared to hide behind this woman’s skirts.

I know I’m a bit late with these comments about the Peter Oborne article, and I’m sure some of what I have to say has already been said – but for what it’s worth, here’s my take.

Like the majority of readers here I was outraged by Peter Oborne’s recent article on Islam in Britain. But it was no great surprise. He was saying more or less the same thing in the Daily Mail way back in October ’06. Then he linked his ‘defence’ of Muslims with his objection to the increasing vocalisation of opposition to immigration. “Those who spoke out publicly (Enoch Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech is the notorious example) were ostracised. Political parties which raised the issue were thrust beyond the outer margins of debate – the fate of the National Front and the BNP. This self-restraint has now vanished.”

Self restraint indeed! Ostracised and thrust beyond the outer margins of debate for speaking out isn’t practicing self restraint, it is being oppressed. But then Oborne’s thinking is skewed, as we shall see.

In the same 2006 article; “Practically every day for the past two weeks, another minister has insulted the customs, habits or religious beliefs of Britain’s Muslim minority.” Oborne was critical of Jack Straws musing at the appropriateness of Muslim women wearing a full veil during visits to his constituency surgery, “…Jack Straw’s comments have liberated the media to follow suit. It seems every day now brings forth news of an outrage allegedly perpetrated somewhere by a Muslim.”

‘Allegedly perpetrated,’ Mr Oborne?

Back then he wrote “…this litany of condemnation has turned into an anti-Islamic crusade.” In July this year the crusade has morphed into a phobia, Oborne is now arguing that “Islamophobia is Britain’s last remaining socially respectable form of bigotry and we should be ashamed of ourselves for it.”

Heavy!

I wonder if he was shaking with self righteous indignation as he tapped out the words on his keyboard. Methinks he doth protest too much. Who’s he trying to convince, his readers or himself?

It’s not easy to pigeonhole Oborne. He’s been called a neocon, but that’s not consistent with his attitude to America which he thinks ‘…is the greatest threat to world civilisation’ – whatever that is. Wikipedia has him down as a ‘paleoconservative’ but then its own definition of it rules him out; “…anti-authoritarian right wing movement that stresses tradition.” Oborne’s encouragement of Islam in Britain is anti-tradition. He says he’s “…a practicing member of the Church of England” (I find it curious that he doesn’t define himself as a practicing Christian) but I’d like to know what he thinks about the tradition of Britain as a Christian country. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover he’s involved in some sort of ‘Inter-Faiths’ group – and some of the things he writes are so bizarre that they put me in mind of Common Purpose. Or maybe he’s going to be the first high profile convert to Islam.

Oborne is an internationalist and so naturally he’s socially left wing and economically right wing.

His recent accusation that Britain is Islamophobic is a condensed version of ‘Muslims under Siege,’ a pamphlet he’s co-authored with TV journalist James Jones. And here’s the interesting bit, the pamphlet is published by Democratic Audit, “…an active research organisation which audits democracy and human rights in the UK and internationally.” Democratic Audit is an NGO Attached to the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex, the home of luminaries such as Prof Geoff Gilbert, Editor in Chief of the journal of refugee law. The usual suspects eh?

Oborne’s argument is that British society in general is Islamophobic. And he’s not just talking about ‘ignorant ethnic Britons’. He says the establishment is guilty of it too, even liberals, and to back his claim he quotes grand dame of liberalism Polly Toynbee, “I am an Islamophobe and proud of it.”

He says Islamophobia is “…the bigotry of the politically correct,” which is laugh out loud stuff. What on earth is he on about?

If Islamophobia is the bigotry of the politically correct does it not then follow that Islamophobia is politically correct? Or does he mean that Islamophobia is a product of politically incorrect politically correct thinking! He accuses the BNP of Islamophobia; does that mean the BNP is pc? Back to the drawing board Peter old lad…

What was his intention? Surely he can’t have thought that by labelling Islamophobia as ‘politically correct’ he’d have legions of the politically incorrect joining his defence of Islam – can he? Or was he hoping that the unpopularity of political correctness would rub off on what he terms Islamophobia but which the rest of us would term defence of our own way of life.

It’s hard to say what he hoped to gain by associating Islamophobia with political correctness; it’s even harder to imagine anyone being convinced by it. Political correctness is a tool used to facilitate the expansion of immigrant communities in Britain. Islamophobia is a term coined by the politically correct to discredit criticism of the impact of Islam on the British way of life.

In his article in 2006 Oborne accused the media of hyping up stories that reflect badly on Muslims, and he made the same point in this recent article. He was especially critical of a ‘conservative columnist’ for writing, “There are widespread fears that Muslim immigrants reinforced by political pressure and ultimately by terrorism will succeed where Islamic armies failed and change irrevocably the character of European civilisation.” Oborne thinks that in “…these disturbing times …Muslims are seen as fair game for any mischief or mendacity,” and he is concerned that there are some, “…who make the case that Muslims are invading, infecting, and destroying the British way of life.”

He argues that most of the rest of us are psychologically flawed, though clearly it’s him that’s off his rocker.

According to Oborne most of us are suffering with a phobia. He’s not interested in those who are scared of spiders in the bath, or in those who daren’t go out the door; he’s only bothered about those who are scared of Islam. The Islamophobes.

He’s not concerned about Islam but about the reaction to it. And he’s worried that what he calls “This dangerous demonising of the country’s Muslim inhabitants…
will magnify the very threat it presumes to address.”

So now you know. It’s your fault, as if you haven’t already guessed. Your reaction to the growth of Islam in Britain (and Europe) is irrational, your fear is a phobia, and your concern is a self-fulfilling prophecy – according to ‘thinker’ Oborne. And it gets worse. As if it wasn’t bad enough carrying this phobia that Oborne hangs round our necks, he condemns sufferers as bigots who should be ashamed of themselves.

What bizarre and emotive logic Oborne employs. A phobia is an irrational response to a particular stimulus; it’s not something one does by choice otherwise it wouldn’t be a phobia. And by labelling concern about and opposition to the Islamisation of Britain as Islamophobia Oborne effectively absolves sufferers from responsibility for their condition. Yet still he concludes that the afflicted are bigots and should be ashamed of themselves. It doesn’t make sense.

But then making sense isn’t the real aim. Oborne regrets the ‘loss of self restraint’ and his intention is to recreate it, or rather to again ‘ostracise’ and ‘thrust beyond the outer margins of debate’ those who dare to speak out about the impact of Islam on the British way of life. Oborne’s pamphlet is crude propaganda dressed up as an academic inquiry. You’re opposed to the Islamisation of Britain and the destruction of the British way of life? You’re a phobic. You’re not thinking rationally. You’re perception is all wrong. And you’re a bigot too, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

The term Islamophobia is a form of camouflage intended to prevent us seeing the true ideology of Islam. But not even an Islamophile like Peter Oborne can do that. He says that those critical of the Koran, “…ignore its overwhelming message of peace,” yet even he must conclude ominously, “…Islamophobia will backfire on us and magnify the very threat it presumes to address.” But what about Islam’s overwhelming message of peace Mr Oborne?

I used to be a Question Time watcher. But I got fed up with the same tale week after week; the same evasions and double-talk. It’s theatre masquerading as politics. On paper the public questions informed opinion; in reality it’s a game.

Its purpose is more to reinforce the status quo than it is to address the political issues of the day. The audience is carefully selected and the questions even more so. The so-called ‘political spectrum’ consists of a panel of establishment spokespeople who, from whichever faction, always focus on the trees so as not to notice the wood.

And one night after coming close to putting my foot through the screen I concluded I’d be better off watching children’s television – I know the message is the same but at least the characters are nicer. So I switched the damned thing off.

But having said that I feel obliged to confess that the other week my resolve weakened; I just couldn’t resist the lure of the ‘Mayor of London special’ featuring mayoral candidates Livingstone, Johnson, and Paddick, and chaired as usual by David Dimbleby. The temptation to turn to the telly was too great. In fact I couldn’t wait! Well, sort of. I was looking forward to it as a child might look forward to the clowns at the circus, with a sort of nervous anticipation; the slapstick’s fine but there’s something not quite right about those guys.

I’d intended to settle down with a glass or two of red and watch the three contestants prove why none of them was worthy of our vote. But something cropped up and I missed it and the election went by and I sort of forgot about Question Time. But then after watching Richard Barnbrook’s stirring post-election speech and seeing his despicable opponents scurry off stage in retreat my mind turned to the programme I’d missed and I decided to take a closer look at the ‘big three’.

Three hours later I was still watching the same programme. “Get a life!” advised my wife. Mmmm, I suppose she did have a point. But I often think when listening to liblabcons talking off the cuff, as opposed to them talking in well rehearsed sound bites, I’d like to hear that again. Watching television via the web you can rewind and go over things again or pause to gather your thoughts. I suppose you can do the same with digital television but this household hasn’t gone down that road yet.

Anyway, the programme had barely run beyond the intro and I was already rewinding. Had I heard that right? That the programme was coming from Westminster, London? Yes. Then why are there so few ethnic minorities in the studio audience?

I returned to the opening shot of the audience that had attracted my attention; it focused on somewhere between a third and a half of the audience and was generally representative of the whole. I counted 72 people and of those, on facial appearance alone, at most 6 were ethnic minorities. That works out at about 8% – and it doesn’t add up.

Depending on which figures you go by, London has an ethnic minority population of about 35%. Had the BBC reflected this fact in its selection of the audience there would have been about 25 ethnic minority faces amongst those 72 and not just 6. I’d love to know what the BBC’s explanation is for this curiosity.

There’s an article in that issue alone. But there’s not the space here to consider the machinations of Question Time producers, the BBC, and of the establishment media in general, interesting though it is. It’s just that the racial composition of the audience was the first thing that I noticed about the programme and the flexibility of on-line viewing gave me the opportunity to take a closer look at it. And I thought that what I found was worthy of mention.

That aside I want to focus my attention on the performance of the big three, Ken, Boris, and Brian in the context of the show rather than on the show itself, on the content rather than on the structure. As far as Question Time is concerned I work on the premise that it’s a fix and designed to reinforce the equality dogma that rules the BBC.

With that proviso it seems to me this was an important edition of Question Time and it illustrated more than any other I’ve seen just how desperate the political situation is in this country. It was verging on the symbolic! A televised hustings featuring Livingstone, Paddick, and Johnson, the Lib, the Lab, and the Con, and each one a caricature of the party he represents; Labour’s loony-lefty, the Tories’ braying toff, and the LibDems’ gay cop. What a cast. What a farce.

It was supposed to be a debate about their fitness for the office of Lord Mayor of London but it could just have easily been about the fitness of their respective parties to run the country. They were after all the Lib, Lab, and Con representatives. Presumably the intention was to illustrate how they differ from each other – the outcome was that they proved identical in all but packaging.

The programme consisted of eight pre-arranged questions with supplementary questions at the discretion of the chairman. Actually Dimbleby’s a lousy chairman. He talks too much and he encourages the panellists to follow tangents. Although only three parties were represented on the podium there’s no doubt that the spirit of a fourth was present in the studio. The BNP wasn’t allowed to take the stage but it still had more of an impact on proceeding than did any of the establishment groupies, and most of the first half of the programme was devoted to questions relating directly to the BNP or to issues with the BNP in the near background.

Question one was a bit of a throwaway to get proceedings going; a couple of points about the candidate’s relationship with his party and a laugh or two. Question two: “With the BNP fielding candidates in this year’s election how will you tackle racism in London?” A not so subtle attempt to link the BNP with one of the establishment’s taboo words, ‘racism’. Of course none of the candidates was either honest or sharp enough to raise the point.

Boris Johnson, “…whoever is elected I am sure will be pursuing policies in city hall that reflect the glorious diversity of Londoners and will want an administration that reflects that diversity.”

“…whoever is elected I am sure…” Johnson says it all; the candidates are expected to be as one on this issue. So much for difference. And note how he goes into establishment mode when things get awkward – ‘glorious diversity’ indeed. Johnson likes to be known for his irony but I trust there was no irony there.

Paddick frothed right on cue, “I spent thirty years in the police service in London and one of my top priorities was fighting racism.” Maybe that’s one of the reasons crime’s running out of control.

Curiously chairman Dimbleby didn’t pose the question to Livingstone. Why? I wanted to know what he had to say. Instead, after Paddick, Dimbleby accepted a supplementary from the audience, “Talking about the BNP; wouldn’t it have been fairer if they actually were represented on stage as well?”

Interesting. If the liblabcons are as confident of their position as they’d have us believe, why won’t they argue their case?

But interesting as this question is, Dimbleby posed it only to Livingstone. I wanted to hear Johnson and Paddick deny the BNP a platform – but Dimbleby didn’t allow it. Here’s how Livingstone explained it, “…there’s a difference between legitimate parties that aren’t associated with violence and when the BNP opened their HQ in Welling in the early 1990’s that’s when we had five racial murders in the area…”

And that’s his best shot! It had to have been. This was an opportunity to articulate his long-held refusal to debate with the BNP, and the best he could come up with was garbled nonsense.

What was he on about? It was as if no thought whatsoever had gone into his decision to ‘blank’ the BNP and that when asked for an explanation he couldn’t come up with anything that quite made sense. Either that or he was hiding the real reason – like for example he’s afraid he’d come second in the debate. There was no argument or reasoning from Livingstone; it was just dogma. Note the juxtaposition of buzz words in his response – his single intent was to transmit the chain of thought: ‘BNP – violence – no platform’ as a means of justifying the no-platform stance.

And as they raised no objections one must conclude Johnson and Paddick share Livingstone’s ‘thinking’ – or were they just happy to say nothing about the matter?

The next question, “Is it a good thing or bad thing that 32% of the London population was born outside the UK?”

This was turning into the BNP show.

Ken Livingstone; “Can I just say that this is the only city in Europe that matches American levels of productivity and competitiveness. I think it’s because we are open. A lot of other countries are talking about raising barriers against China and India, keeping people out; the people who have come to this city have come to make a life for themselves. If you take the richest 25 people in this city 15 were born abroad. They came here; they built modern industries and commercial enterprises, and ½ a million Londoners work for foreign firms. If we go down the route of raising walls we will suffer.”

More dogma from Livingstone, but is it a yes or a no? I suppose it’s a yes; he sort of justifies it without actually saying so. Why didn’t he say unequivocally “Yes I believe it is a good thing that 32% of the London population was born outside London”? Reptilian to the end. But what was holding him back – maybe it was the pressure of serving competing constituencies.

Johnson suffers from the same inability to be so precise that there is no doubt as to what he means – or is it not an inability but a skill? As an adjunct to the issue of London’s foreign born, Dimbleby says to him, “You’re in favour of an amnesty for people who have been here illegally for a long time…”

Johnson replies “Let me make this absolutely clear. I am not in favour of an amnesty because of the moral hazard that raises. What I have said, and anyone who has been an MP will know this, there are people who have been in this country for a long time who there is no reasonable hope of sending them back to their country of origin. I think it is sensible in such cases to regularise their position and allow then to enter the economy and pay tax like everybody else.”

That sounds very much like an amnesty to me. But Johnson’s convolution had a purpose. He was trying to speak to two different constituencies at the same time and to give each a different message. He wanted those who favour an amnesty to think that he favours one, and he wanted those who oppose an amnesty to think that he opposes one. Typical liblabcon doubletalk.

On the issue of the foreign born population Johnson digs himself a deeper hole, “I don’t mind immigration. I think immigration is a great thing, as I say; my family are beneficiaries of immigration. The issue is quite how many are coming in without being properly counted by the Government. There is uncontrolled immigration going on at the moment, it is greatly to the detriment of London councils who are asked to cope with the influx to fund the education of immigrant children, to look after their mental health care, social services and who don’t get adequate funding from central government. That’s the problem, that uncontrolled immigration has been caused by this Government.”

Incisive analysis from the old Etonian.

Again Johnson tries to say two different things to two sets of people at the same time – hence the nonsense.

Dimbleby searches for clarification. “Uncontrolled meaning that there is too much immigration?

Johnson, “I mean that they’ve lost control of it in the sense that they don’t know how many are coming in.”

Dimbleby, “Does that mean too many? Do you think that it is at too high a rate at the moment? That too many people are coming in?”

Johnson, “There are too many people that the government isn’t funding in London. That’s the point.”

Dimbleby, “But that’s a slightly different point.”

Johnson, “It’s the essential point.”

Dimbleby, “It’s not the numbers that are coming in, it’s the way they are handled that matters to you?”

Johnson, “In classical economic theory it doesn’t matter whether you have one more immigrant or one more eighteen year old entering the economic system. What does matter is whether the government has got a grip on the numbers coming in and whether or not they are funding it properly”.

Well at least he made one thing perfectly clear, he has a typically liblabcon view of people and sees them in purely in economic terms – man as nothing more than a unit of production. As for the rest, it was gobbledegook – Johnson was reduced to incoherence by his own dishonesty. Like Livingstone and the rest of the liblabcon establishment, Johnson touched on the race/culture issue and tied himself in knots of contradiction. It must be said though that the audience found him very funny, even when he was trying to be serious.

And Paddick made just as little sense. “Of course there are controls and the government is counting the people in, they’re not counting them out – but that’s another issue.”

But there was one message of which there was no doubt; the big three are all in favour of immigration and agree that the problems that accompany it are a function of the lack of government (that is taxpayers’) money rather than of immigration itself.

Dimbleby allowed one supplementary question from the audience, “I don’t think it’s just a question of immigration though. I mean, is there a point when people have to say this city has grown enough. And even in terms of productivity, where is everyone going to live, how are we all going to fit on the tubes, we’ve got the Olympics coming up, what’s going to happen then, with the numbers of people coming into the city, do we say enough is enough at some stage?”

Again Dimbleby let two of the three off the hook and put the question to just one panel member. I said at the beginning that there wasn’t the space in this article to go into the peculiarities of Question Time, but it’s impossible not to at least draw attention to this odd behaviour from chairman Dimbleby. Why doesn’t he get every panellist to answer each question? I thought that was supposed to be the point of the programme.

Anyway, as it was Livingstone got to speak for all of them, “Borough councils haven’t had enough funding and I’ve worked with the Tory council leaders to actually put a joint case to the government. But that’s why we’ve got the government giving us £39billion to expand the capacity of our transport system by 20 to 30%… and the government is giving the mayor who’s elected on May 1st £4billion to spend in 3 years to build 50,000 affordable homes and I will appoint myself to the chair of the committee to do that because that’s the biggest housing project we’ve had in this city since the 1970’s…”

Livingstone was on autopilot here. In a very polite, English, and roundabout sort of way the question had expressed concern at the growth in London’s population and wondered if perhaps it may have grown too large. Livingstone responded by listing what he’d done to help ameliorate the effects of over-population. Over-population is too close to immigration and the race/culture/religion issue for the establishment to discuss it in any meaningful way and so they always define it as an economic problem rather than a social one.

And of course Johnson and Paddick breathed a collective sigh of relief when Dimbleby relieved them of the task of answering. But they’d have said more or less what Livingstone said. They’d have employed the very same thinking – that the problem was an economic one and could be resolved with a cash injection. That’s their answer; race, culture, religion, and population problems are the function of a lack of money: it’s not less immigrants that we need but more money.

And that’s where the interesting stuff came to a close. There followed a bit of sniping about personal lives and of course Paddick had to bring his ‘sexuality’ into it patting himself on the back for ‘coming out and being honest’. But there was nothing noteworthy in the second half of the programme and it faded away gently to its inevitably ‘light-hearted’ final question. The significance of the programme was in those early questions, two of which referred directly to the BNP, and two of which referred to demographics, an issue close to the BNP’s heart.

I spoke earlier of the ‘symbolism’ of this edition of Question Time and I suppose I ran the risk of sounding pretentious. But if I do overstate the case it’s not by much. I was led by the facts.

Three caricature politicians representing the three main establishment political parties in the London mayoral elections were brought together on establishment television’s showcase political debate programme ostensibly to argue their case – which they didn’t do and which the chairman colluded in ensuring they didn’t do.
Arguing one case relative to another necessarily involves points of difference, otherwise it’s not an argument it’s an agreement. Yet for the kernel of this edition of Question Time the Lib, Lab, and Con representatives did all they could to prove they were identical liblabcons.

The race/culture/religion issue transcends party politics. And so naturally the four questions that caused the most confusion and consternation amongst Ken, Boris, and Brian were all related in some way or another with that issue. The standard response was to turn it into a matter of economics – which explains why they never really made sense when they’re talking about it. It’s a battle of ideas that the liblabcons are reluctant to join.

And here’s where the BNP comes in useful. The establishment lumps together ideas that it has difficulty with under the initials BNP so that by demonising the BNP they can demonise the ideas associated with it without having the bother of debating them. And it’s worked to a point, but it had the unintended consequence of seeding in the public’s mind the idea that the BNP is the opposition to the liberal establishment.

This programme was symbolic in that it was the clearest statement yet by the liblabcons that they too are beginning to see the BNP as the opposition, albeit reluctantly. Of course there was no official BNP presence in the studio but the BNP still set the agenda. The party’s progress and the changing circumstances in society are compelling the liblabcons to at least give the impression of addressing the issues that the BNP has been raising for years.

This Question Time was supposed to be about the Lib, Lab, and Con candidates for the position of Mayor of London yet it set aside a significant amount of its time for the candidates to present a united front in opposition to the progress of the BNP and to the BNP’s challenge in the London elections.

But Ken, Boris, and Brian’s efforts to rebuff the BNP backfired. They couldn’t answer the questions. And their failure emphasised just how ill equipped they are to deal with the realities of 21st century Britain and it reinforced just how strong the BNP’s position has become. These ego maniacs love appearing on Question Time and pontificating about nothing, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty they’re bereft of answers. And it is answers that people want.

By Joe Priestly — It’s the question that’s on everyone’s lips, especially establishment lips. And the LibLabCons are getting their knickers in a terrible twist as they struggle to answer it: What does it mean to be British?

But since when did they give a damn about what it means to be British? The political elite have been leading us away from Britishness since the end of the Second World War, and post war politicians have been consistent in favouring the international over the national.  It was the LibLabCons that gave away our independence by signing us up to the UN and to the EU, and they paved the way for this betrayal by attacking and ridiculing the idea of Britishness. Their insane fantasy was and still is to turn us British into ‘citizens of the world’.

Yet now they have the audacity to fly the flag and call for patriotism. Can you imagine anything more absurd – or ironic – than the liberal establishment flying the patriotic flag? When Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel he was of course talking about the patriotism of convenience, the very sort practiced by LibLabCon traitors.

Mention of flag and nation now even has the likes of left wing warbler Billy Bragg wiping a tear from his eye. No, don’t laugh. It really was a tear, honest. Billy’s written a book about it, The Progressive Patriot – a search for belonging. And then there’s his eagerly awaited new album Red, White, Black ‘n Blue in which “…he movingly explores the dynamics of the new patriotism from the perspective of international socialism in the context of the multiracial multicultural society as viewed from an isolated mansion on the Devon coast.” Must get that one.

Although it wasn’t his intention, Bragg’s scribbling illustrates the establishment’s Alice in Wonderland thought processes with a remarkable precision; The Progressive Patriot is a sort of autobiographical musing during which Bragg searches for “…a sense of belonging that is accessible to all.”

Those are the words, aren’t they? They could just as easily have come from a Labour Government Minister, or a member of the Opposition front bench, or a back bencher from either side of the House. They could be the words of a leading Civil Servant, a newspaper editor, or of a local councillor (though not BNP). It’s the sort of thing you find printed at the bottom of headed paper from the council, or from any government department – it could even be the title of an essay that one of your children is asked to write at school.

The phrase encapsulates perfectly the witlessness of the liberal establishment’s grand design – all together now, in new-speak of course, “Working towards creating a sense of belonging that is accessible to all”.

A country is defined by its exclusivity; it is a product of the peculiarities of its people. Britain isn’t France because its people aren’t French. And to anyone with an ounce of common sense a country that’s ‘accessible to all’ won’t be a country for very long; accessibility and social cohesion are mutually exclusive. But our establishment didn’t see it like that. Blinkered by equality dogma and seduced by dreams of utopia, it saw exclusivity as an obstacle to its long term goal, a stateless world governed according to the theory of universal equality. So naturally patriotism was a bit of a problem.

Love of country is love of its history, tradition, and way of life, and, dare I say it, love of its people. Patriotism is an expression of exclusivity, of belonging, of commitment, and its whole essence is ‘us’ and ‘them’. But Britain’s ruling elite are cosmopolitan and global; they rejected the reality of nation in favour of an ideal, universal equality, and in so doing they set themselves in opposition to exclusivity, patriotism, and even their own people. And with increasing fervour over the years the establishment has employed every arm of state to pervert and demean the expression of patriotic feeling so that it was seen as legitimate only in respect of sporting events.

The intellectuals and their friends in the entertainment industry have alternated between ridiculing patriotism and associating it with mass murder. The education system has taught its pupils to be ashamed of being British. And the British political system and bureaucracy act as though the rest of the world has a higher priority than the British people do. Two or three national newspapers have with varying degrees of effort attempted to resist this trend, but in the main patriotism has been presented as at best ‘…something that polite people don’t do,’ at worst ‘…something that Nazis do.’

And of course if the intention is to radically change the nature of a country, undermining the population’s support for it is a pretty good place to start. The cohesiveness of 1950’s Britain is what first hits whenever newsreels from the time appear on television. But that cohesiveness got in the way of the LibLabCon plan. So British people were made to feel bad if they felt good about their country and about who and what they were. Only if they felt bad about those things could they feel good about themselves – that’s how it works in Orwellian Britain. The intention was to make ethnic Britons psychologically incapable of resisting the changes the LibLabCons intended to force on them. It was the liberal elite’s precise intent to bring us to this sorry state where so many of us now no longer know who we are. 

It was treason on a vast scale. The people whom we gave the responsibility to act in our best interests have reduced us to the status of rats at a research facility. Our own establishment has used us as the subjects in their experiment to create The New Britain according to their theory of equality. They wanted a Britain that was “…accessible to all” and that’s what we’ve got.

Yet now our leaders want us to fly the flag and love our country. Suddenly it’s OK to be patriotic. What’s changed?

Two factors combine to fuel this LibLabCon change of direction. The first is that we’ve arrived! New Britain is accessible to all by virtue of the governing elite’s commitment to immigration, to the UN, to the EU, and ultimately to World Government. They had us commit national suicide on the altar of equality and out of the cremated remains they constructed New Britain. So naturally they want us to support it.

The second factor is that the imposition of the multiracial multicultural society on ethnic Britons has raised the thorny issue of belonging. And in so doing it has highlighted the fault lines of ethnicity, culture, and religion that are running through new, accessible, New Britain. Even woolly-minded liberals are waking up to that one. Their solution though is the same sort of head-in-the-clouds wishful thinking that got us into this problem in the first place. They want to create a new sense of belonging for Britain’s patchwork of cultures; a special something that ‘unites us in diversity’. This is how these idiots’ brains work.

But haven’t we already got that special something that ‘unites us in diversity’ – it’s called chaos and it goes hand in hand with multiracial multicultural societies.

By a process of a thousand cuts the LibLabCons succeeded in suppressing the expression of and respect for British culture to facilitate their importation into our midst of millions of inassimilable and potentially hostile aliens. They wanted to construct heaven on earth in Britain; instead they created hell.

We have a situation now where an increasing number of ethnic Britons are unhappy with the changes imposed on our society by the establishment in its quest for paradise. And as a direct consequence of those changes Britain has a growing and aggressive Muslim population that demands to have its own say on what it means to be British. And the LibLabCons are playing an uncomfortable game of piggy in the middle.

So the search is on for a Britain that all groups will happily to subscribe to; the LibLabCons are (desperately) “Working towards creating a sense of belonging that is accessible to all.” They want a new meaning to being British.

Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is concerned that there is “less belonging” than there used to be. Now fancy that! I wonder if it’s got anything to do with the policies promoted by the likes of Goldsmith et al in their eagerness to use mass immigration as a means of changing Britain. The great Lord’s solution is an oath of allegiance to be introduced into Britain’s schools. This idea has as its long term goal the theft of our children’s birthright. It aims to catch ethnic British children young, to brainwash them into giving their allegiance to the multi-mishmash nightmare created by Goldsmith and his ilk, and to have them think of themselves as ‘one of a nation of immigrants’.

Not long ago Goldsmith was arguing for a change in the words of the National Anthem so that it was more, wait for it, inclusive. Minister of Culture (sic) Margaret Hodge is similarly angst-ridden about the lack of inclusiveness; witness her recent attack on the Proms for its failure to represent properly our modern, diverse, and vibrant society. Couldn’t space be found in the programme for gangsta rap?

And let’s not forget Gordon Brown’s proposal of a national holiday to celebrate ‘Britishness’ – and that without first deciding what Britishness is.

These people have deliberately undermined the notion of Britain and now they’re struggling to put something in its place that both fits their world view and is sufficiently inclusive to attract mutually exclusives. More pie in the sky anyone?

Writing recently in the Sunday Times magazine, allegedly about the issue of ‘no-go Britain’ but in reality putting the case for diversity, establishment historian John Cornwell unintentionally illustrated the LibLabCons’ confusion; “In a class of third years (at a school in Essex)… with only one white pupil and four veiled Muslim girls… It struck me listening to these articulate pupils, British yet widely diverse in culture, ethnicity, and religion…”

“British yet widely diverse in culture, ethnicity, and religion…” So what exactly is it that makes them British? According to Cornwell’s thinking, and that of the rest of the establishment, being British is not about culture, ethnicity, or religion – it is about perceiving the world through the same eyes as the LibLabCons. 

The vision of British citizenship for the 21st Century is, according to Prime Minister Brown, “…one founded on a unifying idea of rights matched with responsibilities.” In other words anyone can be British, irrespective of their culture, ethnicity, and religion, provided they concur with the establishment’s idea of rights and responsibilities. As usual Brown and the LibLabCons lack the wherewithal to follow their argument through to its logical conclusion: Compare a Somali immigrant to this country who accepts without reservation the establishment’s rights and responsibilities argument with an ethnic Briton who disputes it – according to the establishment the former is more British than the latter. That’s another fine mess you’ve got us into Mr Brown. Or is it a calculated effort to deprive us of our country?

Having created this multicultural mess the LibLabCons are now grappling with what they call ‘the progressive dilemma’ – the conflict between solidarity and diversity. This problem is entirely of their making; they purposely introduced diversity in order to undermine our solidarity and our resistance to the changes they intended to impose. But societies without solidarity tend to exist in a permanent state of tension, as the LibLabCons are discovering – hence their efforts to create some sort of solidarity behind a new patriotism.

The establishment favours the kind of diversity brought about by mass third world immigration – otherwise they’d not have done what they’ve done and they’d stop doing it now. So having created accessible-to-all Britain they now want us to put our support behind it. They’re motivated also by the realisation that something is needed to fill the vacuum left behind by their eradication of the old patriotism. And their solution, Ladies and Gentlemen, is (drum roll) ‘progressive patriotism’.

It’s a modern sort of patriotism designed for the 21st century globalised world. A non-patriotic patriotism where literally anyone can join; it’s the sort you know the LibLabCons will just love. Whereas ‘old fashioned’ patriotism was founded on solidarity, exclusiveness, love of country, of its history, tradition, way of life, and people, progressive patriotism is founded on diversity, inclusiveness, contempt for country, history, tradition, way of life, and people. 

Present day diverse Britain is a result of the practical application of the equality theory – and the LibLabCons are working to achieve a situation where literally anyone can be British; where the only condition on acceptance is support for diversity. They want us to rejoice in the fact that this country has been so ‘tolerant’ these past sixty years that it has tolerated its own destruction.

‘New Britain is founded on equality, its greatest achievement is its tolerance, and its people are bound together in their acceptance of certain fundamental rights and responsibilities.’ Well that’s the theory, that’s the ideal that the LibLabCons would have us believe – and they slant everything within their power to that effect. Having demolished Britain their aim is to rebuild it from top down.

They want to redefine what it means to be British so that it is consistent with the Britain they’ve created. But precisely what is it they have created – now there’s a question!

Their search for “…a sense of belonging that is accessible to all” is recognition of the problems associated with defining what it means to be British in multiracial multicultural Britain. On the face of it the LibLabCons are big on diversity but just beneath the surface they’re in a life and death struggle to resolve the problems that accompany it. Yet all the while they fluctuate between minimising those problems and denying their existence. Oh what a tangled web they weave…

They’ve bitten off more than they can chew.

What now passes for the British people is in fact a collection of unrelated, competing, and often antagonistic communities that just so happen to live on British soil. The only thing that binds them is their proximity. So how does one define them as a whole?

Over the years the LibLabCons have employed the tactic of minimising difference in order to facilitate its imposition. Their intention was to have us believe difference made no difference, though curiously they also want us to celebrate it. But now even they have woken up to the realisation that difference means a lot more than a preference for spicy food.

Conspiracy theorists go on about everything according to a plan, but surely not even the LibLabCons would have intentionally dug themselves into such a hole. They talk about ‘the banality of evil’ but where this lot are concerned ‘the incompetence of evil’ is more appropriate.

The LibLabCons have never really valued difference. To them it was merely a tool; a technique for undoing British society so that something else could be put in its place. And they worked on the assumption that after a limited period immigrants would drop their own cultural preferences for those on offer in an internationalised western liberal democracy; and if that’s not cultural chauvinism I don’t know what is. But much to the establishment’s horror Muslim immigrants in particular haven’t taken the bait. The political establishment encouraged the growth of Islamic culture as part of its effort to remake Britain. It didn’t anticipate that Islam would take on a life of its own to such an effect that it now presumes to challenge the LibLabCon hegemony.

And in a frantic effort to stop these centrifugal forces spinning out of control the LibLabCons are trying to cobble together a new definition of what it means to be British. It seems like only yesterday that they were saying there’s no such thing. What an incredible about turn.

Yet defining “…a sense of belonging that’s accessible to all” is no easy matter. Indeed, is it possible? Brown has talked about ‘rights and responsibilities’ but he hasn’t gone so far as to say what rights and what responsibilities. He must know there’s a lot of trouble down that road; how much common ground is there between mutually exclusives? There’s talk of tolerance coming into it, oh yes, and equality too – naturally. But there’s no meat on those bones either. And it’s unlikely the LibLabCons will put any on them; the establishment have a problem with precision. It’s a philosophical thing. They believe in a world without boundaries, irrespective of whether they are boundaries between nations or between individuals, and they’ve modelled Britain according to that.

And as for the inconvenient truth that we define ourselves according to our differences – that’s under the carpet, where the LibLabCons have swept it.

Consider for a moment the concept of tolerance and the idea that it should be used as a means of uniting the nation. Apparently Britain’s tolerance is something that we all can be proud of and that we should all celebrate. But even if this were true, which it is not, tolerance could only help unite the nation if we all had the same appreciation of it. We don’t: The LibLabCons favour tolerance because they want us to tolerate the chaos they’ve inflicted on us; the liberal-minded favour tolerance because it makes them feel good about themselves; the immigrants favour tolerance because it makes them feel secure; and as for the rest of us, before we commit ourselves we want to know who’s asking us to tolerate what!

The establishment’s shaky reasoning is also evident in its ‘patriotic’ appeal for us to celebrate diversity because diversity is our strength. Patriotism is the antithesis of diversity; the former is exclusive by way of its unity, the latter is inclusive by way of universality. What they really want is us to celebrate being made un-British; they want us to celebrate our demise.

They deliberately undid Britain’s cohesion by introducing radical difference and then blithely labelled the chaos they’d unleashed ‘the progressive dilemma’. With breathtaking effrontery they defined the problem they created ‘progressive’ and called the resultant social strife a ‘dilemma’. And then, as if to rub the dirt in our faces, the LibLabCons put the cause of the growing discontent in society down to a lack of patriotism. These people really must be taken to task.

Being British cannot help but mean different things to different people in multiracial, multicultural, multifaith Britain – you’d have to have your head in the sand to deny it. From the point of view of free thinking Britons, Britain as it is today is an aberration; from the point of view of liberal minded Britons it is something to be celebrated; from the point of view of immigrant communities it is a free-for-all in which they seek to advance their specific interests relative to those of ethnic Britons. And from this the LibLabCons are going to forge a new nation? Of course they are.

[display_podcast]

I don’t suppose Richard Littlejohn was the first to suffer but he was one of the first and he remains one of the most prominent. And as he’s been loudly exhibiting the symptoms for years, and making a damned good living out of it, it seems fitting that the syndrome should carry his name.Of course he’s not the only one. Peter Hitchens, Leo McKinstry, Melanie Phillips and Minette Marrin display similar symptoms, and there are others, and their number grows. And they’re not confined to the written mass media, although that’s where the symptoms first began to express themselves. Now we see evidence of them in politicians, and members of the public are showing signs too. Something’s catching.

Littlejohn made his mark as a critic come satirist of liberal-left thought processes. And he played an important part in making criticism of political correctness socially acceptable, and he continues to play it. The others I’ve referred to might not necessarily walk in step with him but they take the same route and they too undermine pc by questioning its logic.

It’s not that opposition to pc is symptomatic of the Littlejohn Syndrome – although I’m sure there are plenty of liberals and lefties who’d argue that it’s a sign of ill health. But pc is the opposite of what’s natural so it’s healthy to oppose it. What one can’t do is oppose political correctness whilst supporting the logic that underpins it – that’s irrational. And as my granddad used to say, “Tha can be one thing or t’other; tha can’t be both.” The Littlejohn Syndrome is characterised by this behaviour; it is a function of the struggle to compromise the fact of political correctness and the theory of universal equality.

Pc is the result of a way of thinking; it is universal egalitarianism in action. And opposition to it leads logically to opposition to the world view that brought it into being. Yet for all their opposition to pc and the liberal mindset, perversely, Littlejohn et al are unwilling to make the connection between it and its purpose. They confine themselves to the safe side of the argument. They attack the symptoms, political correctness, yet accept the virus, egalitarian thinking; it’s textbook Littlejohn Syndrome.

Littlejohn is an ‘acceptable extremist’, and not far behind him are Peter Hitchens, Leo McKistry, and Melanie Phillips, and then Minette Marrin with her middle class common sense – no doubt you have others to add to the list. These people have made a success out of being politically incorrect. Isn’t Littlejohn one of the highest paid in journalism?

And that’s odd. You’d think the highest paid journalists would be those most in tune with convention. In the age of the internet newspapers are struggling to balance their two functions – earning a living and maintaining the status quo. Simply, the stuff they report on doesn’t gel with their explanation of it; the facts contradict their theory. One would have thought that the highest paid journalists would be those with the ability to most mirror reality in terms that are consistent with the liberal elite’s explanation of it.

But apparently not. The most handsomely rewarded amongst establishment journalists are those who, on the face of it, do most to undermine the establishment’s grip on society.

How can this be explained? Is it an example of freedom of the press? Is it about readership and money? Are Littlejohn and the others safety valves? Or is it a matter of credibility; newspapers can’t completely ignore reality even if they’d like to.

Each of these factors plays its part, but do they explain the paradox? Do they fully explain the venom and cutting accuracy in particular in Littlejohn’s and Hitchens’ assaults on the status quo? These people get paid for saying what others could get fired for. Their assaults on political correctness call into question its foundations; if the action is nonsensical then so is the thinking that inspired it. And the thinking that inspires pc is the thinking that underpins society, a belief in universal equality that the newspapers themselves subscribe to and have a vested interest in maintaining.

Perhaps we’ve reached a position where newspapers can only maintain credibility by attacking their own world view – or at least the politically correct manifestations of it. Maybe this explains the contrast between their comment and news sections; whereas columnists must at least go some way towards reflecting reality, the news is what the establishment wants us to know, no more no less.

Nevertheless there’s been a shift in thinking and now hardly anyone wants to be seen as ‘politically correct’. Pc thinking is losing credibility. Even liberals distance themselves from certain aspect of political correctness, but of course they still talk equality talk.

And that’s their biggest problem – how to disassociate the equality cult from its manifestations.

But the self styled no nonsense brigade in the press that has built a career on telling it like it is has a funny way of telling it. Their skill is in convincing their readership that a conclusion has been reached when in fact they’re only half way down the road to it. It’s a skill the newspapers are prepared to pay for, but it must take a toll on its practitioners; it’s like they’re avoiding finding what they can’t stop looking for.

It’s bizarre. But then behaviour characterised by the Littlejohn Syndrome is bizarre.

Sufferers are in a state of denial. They can’t admit the illogic of their stance because then their position becomes untenable. So they deny the obvious. In severe cases such as that of Littlejohn himself the denial borders on hysteria.

The problem with assaults on political correctness (and allied disciplines) is that they attract the wrong kind of people, the ‘unmentionables’. Members of the BNP, its supporters and others tending towards its understanding of society are more likely to read the ‘acceptable extremists’ than they are to read anyone else in the establishment media. Their writing comes closest to articulating a lot of what the BNP believes in.

And this is a pretty uncomfortable position for members of the establishment to be in. So every now and again the ‘acceptable extremists’ make a token effort to distance themselves from the conclusion that their writing points to. In the case of Richard Littlejohn a good half a dozen times a year he launches into an absurd tirade against the ‘knuckle-dragging BNP’, presumably in the hope that somehow it will erase the fact that much of what he says is compatible with much of what the BNP says.

Littlejohn uses the party also as a means of drawing a line under the discussion. He develops his argument up to a point and then some sort of trip switch is activated and the next thing he’s screaming gibberish at the BNP. It’s his way of saying the argument stops here. The next day the process will start over again and he’ll be back to giving pc absurdities a good kicking. And you’ll be waiting for another Littlejohn anti-BNP outburst.

Similarly with Peter Hitchens. This periodic ‘cleansing’ is pure charade. Littlejohn et al know perfectly well that their assaults on their audience have no effect and that the same people will continue to read what they write because it’s what they want to read. It’s odd. They’re denying the connection between what they write and who reads it; if they don’t like who their writing attracts maybe they should write something else.

So every now and again they put on a show of putting distance between themselves and that section of their readership they consider (publicly that is) undesirable, safe in the knowledge that just so long as they continue writing what they’re writing the same people will continue reading it and their all important readership numbers will be maintained.

The Littlejohn Syndrome isn’t confined to journalists of a certain outlook. It’s just that the symptoms are more pronounced there than anywhere else. Political correctness has arrived at its logical conclusion – a parody of itself that only the wilfully blind fail to see. It defies common sense. Few want to be associated with it yet all must offer public support for the thinking that brought it about or suffer the consequences.

But although it’s become acceptable to criticise political correctness the establishment is working flat out to ensure that criticism of the equality idea remains strictly taboo. 21st Century Britain is founded on universal equality and the establishment has no choice but to defend it to the death.

The absurdities of pc are impossible to ignore because they intrude on every aspect of our lives. Even the establishment must acknowledge their existence and criticises their excess. Yet criticism of pc cannot help but lead to criticism of the equality cult.

Much of the establishment and most of the people are struggling with this dilemma. Political correctness makes no sense; most everybody says so – even establishment people, and openly too. Yet the idea that spawned it, ethnic equivalence, is beyond question; everybody says so. The facts of the multiethnic multicultural society must never be brought to bear on the thinking behind it.

For instance, note how often politicians soften any criticism of political correctness with criticism of the BNP or what they term ‘the extreme right’. For credibility’s sake they must be critical of political correctness, but for their career’s sake they’ve got to be politically correct. A couple of days ago I listened to some bigwig from local government taking a swipe at political correctness – now that’s a laugh! Local government is the essence of pc, yet it too struggles with the contradiction between the realities of political correctness and the theory behind it. Politically correct isn’t logically correct.

Significantly television remains remarkably free from the Littlejohn Syndrome. There are no telly equivalents of the press’s ‘acceptable extremists.’ Jeremy Paxman has a bit of a reputation for speaking his mind, but he’s politically incorrect in attitude only. Comedians sometimes poke fun at pc but there’s never any cutting satire from them – and it’s not as if there’s a shortage of material. Littlejohn is funnier, and closer to the mark. TV doesn’t have its own Hitchens. It doesn’t even have its own Minette Marrin – it doesn’t have anyone who come close to questioning liberal orthodoxy.

Television works to convince us that all is well in the world of pc -it’s clear that that’s its primary function. It acts as though there’s no conflict between the establishment’s theory of universal equality and its practical application. Television is primarily a conduit for promoting political correctness; whatever the subject matter the common denominator of all television programmes is support for the equality idea. The Littlejohn Syndrome is the result of unresolved conflict between fact and theory. But as television is concerned more with theory than with fact, the conflict remains outside its sphere of reference and so TV is immune to its effects.

Not so with the general population who are very much in touch with the realities of political correctness. Our lives are as they are because of it. It defines our relationships with state and employer and with each other and it has shaped society. That’s its purpose. And there is a growing dissatisfaction with the product of its endeavours.

Political correctness is coming under increasing attack, and more importantly people are beginning now to criticise its effects. They’ve gone from poking fun at pc stupidities like ‘ethnic minority, disabled, lesbian, outreach worker’ to criticising the impact that mass third world immigration and the subsequent development of multiculturalism has had on British society. The one logically leads to the other and people are beginning to make the link. People’s experience of this brave new world that the liberal elite have created clashes with the liberal elite’s description of it.

The establishment is concerned that this line of reasoning leads ultimately to liberal society’s foundation stone, the idea of universal equality, and it is doing all it can to halt its progress. Television, radio, and the education system endlessly inculcate in the population a support for the idea of universal equality which they reinforce with a guilt-induced aversion to questioning it. The law has been shaped to protect the idea from criticism, and every arm of the state (and most of industry too) projects itself as if universal equality was a readily observable fact.

And it’s got to be said that thus far the establishment has been successful in its objective. People generally are afraid to follow their own reasoning to its logical conclusion. A psychological barrier has been constructed between the symptoms, which are pc and everything allied with it, and their cause, which is belief in universal equality, and most people are as yet unwilling to proceed beyond it.

There’s a snowball rolling here. The increase in pc creates resentment of pc which threatens the equality cult which increases the pc… Snowball!? Or melt-down?

The legal system and bureaucracy both play a part in defending universal egalitarianism, but self censorship is the major bulwark. Pc is concerned primarily with the consequences of mass immigration: The law makes criticism of immigration and its effects difficult, government agencies favour immigrants over the indigenous population, and a climate of guilt has been created to make people feel bad at questioning ‘diversity’.

Political correctness is an assault on the British way of life. It seeks to limit our expression of our culture in our country so as to create space for the expression of other cultures within our own, and it justifies this, in a round about way, by arguing that our country is not our own. So as you’d expect, pc is starting to get on people’s nerves. People are complaining about it.

But that’s all the vast majority of them are doing, complaining about political correctness in isolation. They’ve not gone that one step further to examine the thinking behind pc, why it’s being used against them, and what its ultimate purpose is. It would be a natural step to take – hence the establishment’s all-out effort to condition us not to take it.

They’re working hard to have us believe that it’s ‘racist’ to take that step, that you’re a ‘hater’ and a ‘fascist’ if you allow the realities of 21st Century multicultural Britain to colour your appreciation of universal egalitarianism. And their efforts do have an impact. How many times have you heard an ethnic Brit open a sentence with “I’m not a racist but…”, and then refer to an example of the racism (in whatever form) that ethnic Brits are subject to in their own country? The establishment’s mind games have got some people thinking it’s racist to be white and to perceive it!

This is classic Littlejohn Syndrome, where people refuse to think clearly and logically about matters to do with culture and ethnicity. In the case of the ‘acceptable extremists’ their reluctance to follow their own line of reasoning to its logical conclusion has a lot to do with self preservation. But in the case of most of the rest it’s because they’ve been ‘schooled’ that way. It’s like Pavlov’s dog but in this case the stimulus is race and culture, the reflex action is an immediate halt to the discussion, and the anticipated reward is feeling good about oneself. We’ve been taught to feel good when bowing to liberal orthodoxy.

The question is how long this tension can be maintained before something gives. Orthodoxy exists only for as long as it can answer the questions asked of it. The orthodoxy of universal egalitarianism acts as if it’s beyond question, but that’s bravado – the reality is it’s hiding from questions. The liberal elite have a strict policy, no platform for anyone who questions them – which is a measure of the confidence they have in their own thinking. It makes you wonder how many of them are just going along for the ride.

Universal egalitarianism might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but universal egalitarianism in practice, that is the multiethnic multicultural society sustained by political correctness, tends to make one question the theory behind the practice. And in a desperate effort to keep those awkward questions at bay, the liberal elites were forced to erect a legal, bureaucratic, and psychological barrier behind which their seriously flawed idea could hide.

But the hiding place is temporary respite. All theories are undone eventually by questions that they themselves prompt; universal egalitarianism is no different. And whatever its effort the liberal elite will not be able to shield its world view from the harsh stare of reality.

We’re witnessing the collapse of a world-defining idea. Egalitarianism has given us political correctness and the multicultural multiethnic state, and in spite of the massive pretence, everyone can see it’s falling apart. The practical application of egalitarianism doesn’t work therefore egalitarianism is flawed. And the more the liberal elite argue otherwise the more idiotic they become. Egalitarianism has had its day; a paradigm shift is taking place and the rug is being whipped from under the establishment’s feet. This shift is causing confusion which manifests itself as the Littlejohn Syndrome.

We’re still at the stage where the majority are denying the relationship between the malign influence of political correctness and egalitarianism. It’s hard to leave the security of accepted belief; it requires a complete evaluation of who we are and what we understand to be true. And some have more difficulty with it than others do. Most people prefer the simple life and would rather not have to struggle with grand ideas. But grand ideas are being forced on them. The collapse of the multiethnic multicultural model and the tyranny of political correctness lead inescapably back to the idea of universal egalitarianism. It doesn’t require any analysis, it’s as clear as day, everyone can see it – it’s just a matter of admitting it to ourselves for it to become immediately obvious. And once that step’s been taken there’s no going back.

Egalitarianism is on the slide.

The Littlejohn Syndrome is part of the process of coming to terms with the demise of a grand idea. It’s a sort of half way house if you like. It’s an attempt to compromise the realities of life with a theory of life that they contradict. And it seems a perfectly natural thing to do. We tend to prefer that which we know. But there comes a time when the realities of life demand a reappraisal of accepted beliefs. And it’s this reappraisal that terrifies the life out of the establishment. That’s why they’re so keen to keep people stuck at the Littlejohn stage – not knowing which way to turn.

One of nature’s optimists.

I was in one hell of a state the other night. Crying, throwing up, and most bizarrely of all, I was laughing at the same time and a great big belly laugh it was too. And before you ask, no, I’d not been on the scrumpy. Nor had I been smoking strange herbs or mistaking toadstools for mushrooms.

It was more mind-altering than that I’d been reading about the young pretender David Cameron and I found myself not knowing whether to laugh or cry, but I was certain of one thing – Cameron made me want to puke.

We were supposed to be impressed that he hadn’t used notes during his recent Tory conference speech ‘triumph’, the inference being that he was speaking deep felt beliefs and didn’t need reminders. He failed to impress, other than maybe in his ability to remember his lines, for he was clearly reciting a script. And it was a script that had been carefully written to say nothing; like its reader, the speech had the substance of a wet paper bag.

Cameron asked his audience, What do I believe? and answered, I am by nature an optimist. That’s politicians for you they won’t even answer their own questions. That aside one must assume his answer meant, I believe that everything will turn out well in good time.

Just what we need, another bloody optimist. British politics has been plagued by optimists and wishful thinkers since the end of WWII and look at the country today. It was optimists that said millions of third world aliens would make our lives better and Britain a better place; incredibly some are still saying it and David Cameron is one of them.

Like every other establishment politician Cameron’s primary concern is himself; his political career comes first. And whatever the minutiae that allegedly separates the Libs, Labs, and Cons, every one of them has exactly the same opinion on one particular feature of British society. David Cameron in his conference speech said it for them all, I think our diverse and multi-racial society is a huge benefit for Britain. Anything less and it’s more than his job’s worth and that’s all he’s really bothered about.

Cameron’s an optimist about the ultimate conclusion of British society (that is when it becomes sufficiently multiracial to satisfy the equality zealots) because it is a primary qualification for the job he’s after. Prime Ministers don’t question liberal ideology; they’re integral to it.

But you’d have thought that of all people senior politicians and Prime Ministers would be the first to realise how vulnerable you are to a kick up the backside when your head’s buried in the sand. Apparently not.

So Cameron is saying only what he thinks is necessary to get him elected rather than what’s necessary to turn the country round. Political correctness, ambition, and cowardice prevent him from addressing the real problem affecting our society, and there is only one problem from which all others stem, and instead he looks for an easy way out. He hopes to convince us that if we to join him in believing things will turn out well, hey presto they will turn out well.

It’s pitiful. Someone should let him in on the secret; things work out well only when done well.

Optimists can’t solve problems that optimists have created. They sort of thought the multiracial multicultural society would work out fine because they, er, sort of thought that it would. And even though their utopia is rapidly becoming a nightmare, the optimists are still optimistic that multiracialism will be marvellous.

Buzz-words

According to the Daily Telegraph, Cameron’s speech at this year’s Tory conference explained in detail his vision of how to change Britain. But it did nothing of the sort.

It was the same tripe that we always get from establishment politicians.

They go on about changing this and changing that, but they never get to the point. They’re going to change what into what, and why and how? They never let us in on the secret. Maybe there’s no secret and maybe it’s just more evidence that our alleged leaders haven’t got a clue and they’re fumbling in the dark’ hoping something will turn up.

Change and establishment politicians are mutually exclusive. What they call change is more of the same in a different guise. And when they start talking about change what they really mean is that they’re about to engage in a repackaging exercise. They’ve set us on this course and they’re determined to see it through, and there will be no change until establishment liars, cowards, and parasites have been replaced by people for whom self interest is not the prime motivating factor.

Outlining his vision Cameron told the conference, We need change for the long term, hope for our country and optimism for the next generation it’s pathetic, isn’t it? No substance, just buzz-words, change long term hope our country optimism next generation, but where was the detailed’ description of his vision for the future that the Telegraph praised? The only thing he told us with any certainty was that he supported mass immigration, I think this country has benefited immeasurably from immigration; a benefit so immense it’s beyond measurement.

Now that is some benefit!

So if immigration isn’t the problem, what is? Cameron explained, I want to tell you what’s wrong with our country and I want to explain what I am going to do to put it right. He continued, if we really want to tackle crime, if we really want to make our society stronger then you have got to make families stronger and society more responsible we must make our country safer and greener and give people more freedom and control of their lives

Cameron says that our major problems are crime and the strength (or rather lack of it) of society. And he says that if we make families stronger, society more responsible, and our country safer and greener, and if we give people more freedom and control over their lives, crime will fall and society will be stronger. families stronger responsible our country safer greener freedom yet more buzz-words strung together with little meaning and even less intelligence. The hypocrisy is so blatant it jumps out and slaps you across the face. The vast majority of the population does not see British society through the same eyes that Cameron does.

Very few indeed share his view that immigration has benefited Britain immeasurably’ and most people were they sufficiently free’ would say so. And had the same people sufficient control over their lives Britain would not have become the multiracial hell hole that Cameron loves so much.

What he really means is that he wants people to be free to say what he wants them to say, and to have control over their lives so that they can manage them in the way that he wants them to. His knee jerk response to Patrick Mercer and more lately to Nigel Hastilow talking out of line tells us all we need to know about Mr. Cameron’s attitude to people’s freedom.

A new kind of Tory

Cameron is too attached to the gravy train to ever be honest. In his 68 minute long conference speech allegedly about British society he didn’t once refer to this country’s Christian traditions or to the threat that Islam poses them. He didn’t want this most intractable issue of all to detract from the optimistic’ picture he paints of future Britain. And we mustn’t forget the Tories’ covetous eye on Labour’s Muslim vote without a large slice of which they won’t win an election this side of the dissolution of the Union.

Given the choice Cameron wouldn’t have mentioned immigration. He finds it a nasty subject, and the Tories don’t want to be seen as the nasty party, they’ve said so. But the immigration issue won’t go away and the politicians can’t ignore it. So Cameron did what they all do, he sidestepped. He interpreted the growing concern about immigration as a concern about the impact immigration has on services, education, health, housing, etc. And he ignored the much more important impact immigration is having on British society and culture and how it damages the quality of life of ethnic Britons.

Having fed the dwindling band of traditional Conservatives a couple of sops to keep them happy, he enthused about a matter much closer to his heart persuading ethnic minorities that they too can be Tories. He told the conference that they must, get out amongst Britain’s ethnic minority communities and find the brightest, the best and the most talented and get them in.

According to Cameron, one of …the brightest, the best and the most talented members of Britain’s ethnic minority communities is Dewsbury lass Sayeeda Warsi, or should I say Baroness Warsi, no less.

In fact he was so impressed by Mrs Warsi that he wanted her on board at any price. And when she failed to make it via the tradition route (she lost to Labour’s Shahid Malik in the 2005 general election in the Dewsbury Constituency) Cameron had her made a Baroness and thereby obtained for her a place in Parliament so the nation could benefit from her wisdom. She’s now minister responsible for cohesion’. We’re in safe hands. He told the conference, I am proud that I can stand here with the first Muslim woman of a Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet in Sayeeda Warsi who will be a great talent for our party and our country.

The Spectator’s James Forsyth writes, “Warsi’s rise makes Cameron’s ascent from freshman MP to leader in four years look almost sedate. In just two years she has gone from failed parliamentary candidate to being responsible for, perhaps, the most sensitive portfolio in opposition politics.

Baroness Warsi is a former immigration lawyer. She was involved with Operation Black Vote and the left wing pro-immigration Joseph Rowntree Trust. Last year she was co-author of a report that made the case for allowing refused asylum seekers to come out of the shadows and enter the official economy – and then vote for the Conservative party perhaps?

Votes is what counts

In May this year Cameron wrote in the Observer about two days he’d spent in Birmingham with a Muslim family to help him learn how to build a more cohesive Britain. He learnt that, we must be careful about the language we use. Many Muslims I’ve talked to are deeply offended by the use of the word ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ to describe the terrorist threat we face today.

Cameron explained, Indeed, by using the word ‘Islamist’ to describe the threat, we actually help do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign.

Cameron’s argument that otherwise peaceful Muslims can be persuaded to embrace terrorism by the mere association of the words Islamist’ and threat’ is either absurd or the ultimate in unintentional truths.

Careful to alienate as few potential Tories as possible, Cameron shifts the blame, Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. Indeed, they see aspects of modern Britain which are a threat to the values they hold dear – values which we should all hold dear. It’s our fault, again. I should have guessed.

He goes further, Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around. And to help shift society in this direction Cameron set up the Conservative Muslim Forum, a sort of Tory equivalent of the National Black Police Association, which advises’ the Conservative Party on how best to ingratiate itself with Britain’s Muslim population.

The CMF wants the compulsory history curriculum in schools changed to give full recognition to the massive contribution (sic) that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation”. Presumably the Tories are about to instruct us on how grateful we must be there are votes in it! And just the other week Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari head of the Muslim Council of Britain was calling for Britain to adopt Islamic customs and labelling us a Nazis for daring the question the infinite benefits of Islam. Ah, good old Tory values. Conservative common sense a la Cameron concludes that British society is in a state of collapse because it’s not sufficiently Asian. Thus Cameron doesn’t expect the minorities to do all the work.

He thinks that it should be a two way thing and that we have just as much of a responsibility to change to accommodate immigrants/minorities as they have to fit in here. He’s made this perfectly clear which is why the likes of the Conservative Muslim Forum and the Muslim Council of Britain feel confident enough in demanding that Britain change to take account of their ways and to sing the praises of their achievements.

Cameron is chasing votes. Votes are all that matter to him and his kind. He doesn’t care who’s casting them or why they’re casting them, just as long as they are casting them in his favour. And if that means at the expense of increasing the influence Islam has on this country then so be it; ambition is all and principle is a fool’s concept.

Like his opposite number in the Labour Party, Cameron will do anything to secure the premiership and to hell with the long term consequences.

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.

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.

One law for them.

On Sunday 17th of September this year a group of Muslims held a demonstration outside the Roman Catholic Westminster
Cathedral in London in response to the Pope quoting 14th century Manuel II of the Byzantine Empire saying that the Muslim prophet Mohammed introduced ‘things only evil and inhuman’. As the Christian congregation left the Cathedral it was met by chanting Muslim protesters some of whom carried placards saying, “Pope go to Hell”, and “Jesus is the slave of Allah”.

Afterwards complaints were made to the police about protest organiser Anjem Choudary who had threatened anyone who insulted Mohammed with “capital punishment”.

Choudary explained; “Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam.”

Needless to say the police took no action against either Chowdary’s threats or his demonstration.

Now imagine this situation as the reverse of what it was, although I accept it takes a lot of imagining. Suppose a group of Christians had decided to stage a protest in response to recent outrages perpetrated by Muslims on Christians in the Muslim world. And suppose they planned to hold their demonstration outside an important mosque after Friday prayers in one of Britain’s major cities. And here’s where I ask you to stretch your imagination to breaking point, suppose also that the local Chief Constable had given his blessing to this Christian demo, “.in the interest of free speech.”

Finally, suppose that on the day of this hypothetical demonstration some of the Christians carried placards that were as offensive to Muslims as the Muslim-designed placards “Pope go to Hell” and “Jesus is the slave of Allah” were to Christians.

How do you think the Chief Constable would have viewed those placards? Would he have taken the decision to let them have their say ‘in the interest of free speech’ as was done with the placards carried by the Muslims at their demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral? Or would he have argued that the Christians’ placards were irresponsible and gratuitously offensive, and would he have threatened arrests in order to prevent actions likely to cause a breach of the peace?

The rule of law and the multicultural society

One of the pillars of British democracy is the rule of law, a guiding principle of which is equality before the law, where everyone, no matter whom, is equally subject to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts.

The rule of law means there are no distinctions. And you’d think that given the establishment’s avowed commitment to equality its adherence to the rule of law would be absolute – because the rule of law, if it is anything, is equality in action.

Yet ironically, in a society whose watchword is equality, the rule of law in Britain has been undermined by none other than the egalitarians themselves. There are two motivating factors behind this; firstly, many members of the liberal establishment would find themselves behind bars were the rule of law to be applied strictly; and secondly, the multicultural society and the rule of law have been found to be mutually exclusive necessitating much liberal tinkering. It is this latter factor that I want to focus on here.

A people’s culture is the amalgam of its religious belief, its music, art, and literature, its philosophy and politics, its architecture and codes of dress, its science and technology, and its social relationships and law. It is a product of a people’s interaction with nature.

And because different peoples interpret nature differently cultures differ. It’s as simple as that.

Ideally a people will have its own living space in which to express itself according to its own way of seeing the world – the form of that expression is its culture. But in multicultural Britain, British culture is compromised by the need to consider the world views of the other peoples that reside here. And the further apart the various peoples are in terms of their world views the more difficult it is to compromise their belief systems.

Mass third world immigration and the multicultural society are consequences of the establishment’s ‘commitment to equality’, yet, paradoxically, the multicultural society and the principle of equality before the law are incompatible.

In multicultural Britain different laws are applied to different peoples and the same law is applied differently to different peoples. The principle of the rule of law has been weakened in the process of maintaining the multicultural society to such an extent that we now have a system of legal pluralism; there’s now no such thing as the ordinary law of the land.

Legal pluralism in act and action

British law should be an expression of the British people, like the other facets of our culture it should be a reflection of how we are. But it’s not like that.

For example, the British people recognise a responsibility to animals and so naturally we’ve enshrined in our law the right of animals to live free from cruelty. Man’s duty to exercise this right on behalf of animals is defined in law, our method of slaughter is designed to comply with this law, and we have forces of law whose function is to ensure that compliance.

But cultures differ in their world views and thus they differ in their relationship with nature, and as we are discovering, occasions arise in multicultural societies when those differences become mutually exclusive. The liberal establishment has dealt with this predicament by in effect creating parallel codes of law where certain laws are applied according to the culture of the subject.

This is most obvious in the case of ritual slaughter, where it is perfectly legal for instance for Muslims to slaughter animals by bleeding them to death whereas for ethnic Britons it would be a crime punishable by imprisonment. Muslims have their own understanding of animal welfare; they see things in their own way not in ours. Ritual slaughter is a non-negotiable mutually exclusive – that is it is fundamental to the Islamic belief system and diametrically opposed to our own. The choice for the liberal establishment was stark: Respect for Muslim beliefs or respect for British tradition and the rule of law. The liberals came down on the side of Islam and gave Muslims the right to ignore aspects of the law that the rest of us are bound to obey.

And this is how the agents of the law behave also. They too tend to interpret their responsibilities according to the culture of the subject. I began this article by referring to the Muslim demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral on a Sunday after Mass and wondered how the police would react to its Christian equivalent. All the evidence suggests that the police force, rather like the law itself, would be harsher on the Christians than on their Muslim counterparts. The establishment prefers to accommodate Islam rather than enforce the rule of law.

Consider for instance the lack of police response* to the placards carried by Muslims at the anti-cartoon protests in London earlier this year: “Freedom go to hell”; “Europe you will pay – 9/11 is on its way”; “Behead those who insult Islam”; “Butcher those who insult Islam”. And compare it with the arrest of peaceful Christian campaigner Stephen Green, who was charged with “offensive and insulting behaviour” for including a quote from the Bible, “Turn from your sins and you will be saved” in a leaflet he was handing out at Cardiff’s Mardi Gras gay and lesbian festival.

Consider also the response of the police to the aggressive nature of those Muslim anti-cartoon demonstrators and compare it to its response to the equally aggressive pro-hunt demonstrators in London in 2004. Whereas the police smiled benignly as Muslims incited violence against all who offended their way of life, they cracked the skulls of ethnic Britons for defending their traditions.

The examples of this are legion, where parliament and the forces of law and order are more severe in their attitude towards ethnic Britons than they are in their attitude to minorities, particularly Muslim minorities. We have two codes of law, a liberal code for Muslims and a more severe code for ethnic Britons.

What is the law for?

The law can have only one legitimate purpose: To act in the best interest of that which created it. And since the law is a function of a people’s interaction with nature, it stands to reason that the law should be an expression of that people’s way of viewing the world.

But because of its belief in the theory of equality and more recently because of the necessity imposed on it by the multicultural society, the establishment sees British law in abstract terms of ‘universal equality’ and ‘absolute objectivity’. And now it is as if the link between British law and the British people has been severed, where for instance the law sees no contradiction in putting the interest of Afghan hijackers (and countless other ‘asylum seekers’ and immigrants) before that of the indigenous British.

The Libs, Labs, and Cons are all guilty of supporting multiculturalism, and they’ve all gone out of their way to sing its praises and silence its doubters. It’s only very recently that they’ve changed tack, and then only because the writing is on the wall.

But in their initial eagerness to construct the multicultural model and latterly in their desperation to hold it together, the politicians enshrined cultural relativism in law: in a multicultural society no culture can be seen to be superior to any other. Of course it was complete nonsense, and it was only a matter of time before it was exposed as such. And now they’re backtracking and talking in wishful thinking terms about British values as the mortar which binds Britain’s diversity.

The British judiciary lags behind the politicians’ re-evaluation of multicultural values. Contemptuous of ordinary Britons and full of its own self importance, the judiciary has disregarded its true reason for existing, which is the wellbeing of the nation, and instead it has gone off in pursuit of a fantasy – absolute objectivity.

Consisting in the large of pompous and self righteous ideologues, the judiciary fools itself and tries to fool the rest of us that it’s an objective arbiter dealing exclusively in the currency of pure reason. In reality its decision making is a function of the increasingly absurd Marxist notion of worldwide egalitarianism, as laid down by such as the European Court of Human Rights.

This has created a tension between parliament and judiciary, especially in the law relating to asylum, immigration, ethnicity, and culture. The judiciary’s constant ruling in favour of migrants both thwarts Parliament’s (admittedly nervous) response to the growing disquiet amongst ethnic Britons and encourages further disquiet. This was inevitable. Limits on immigration and asylum and the defence of British tradition carry with them a belief in the ideas of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, which are antipathetic to the judiciary’s commitment to absolute objectivity.

But the politicians have only themselves to blame. They complain that the judiciary takes advantage of ambiguity so as to interpret the law in a manner contrary to that that was intended. But that’s because politicians are themselves so cowed by equality dogma that they’re reluctant to ‘draw a line’, which in turn has created the ambiguity that undermines the original intention. Lawyers and judges feed on the margins; and if there’s no line it’s all margin.

British law should serve the interests of the ethnic British people; if it doesn’t it ceases to be British law and becomes something else.
The universal egalitarianism of Lib, Lab, and Con politicians and the absolute objectivity of the judiciary are two sides of the same fantasy. They are both theoretical concepts that don’t exist in the real world; nothing is equal to anything else and there is no such a thing as an absolutely objective point of view.

This is not to say that the two ideas are of no use in politics and law, rather that they should be employed only in issues involving ‘like’ with ‘like’, where both parties subscribe more or less to the same world view. When parties differ radically in their world views then at best their understanding of equality and objectivity will be radically different, at worst they may not even acknowledge their existence.

The mistake our politicians and judiciary have made is that instead of employing equality and objectivity subjectively, which they would do were they to accept the ‘inner: outer’ duality, they employ them universally. This is rather like refusing to differentiate between members of one’s own nuclear family and everybody else; and the consequence is the same too – you end up losing control of your own house.

Politicians and judiciary have made British politics and British law no longer British, since neither exclusively serves the interests of ethnic Britons. The British have been pushed to the back for the benefit of ‘mankind’.

Liberals, Muslims and the law

The establishment’s fundamental contradiction is that whilst they regard all peoples as equals they also believe that were all those peoples blended into one the resulting melange would be greater than the sum of its parts. And the fundamental hypocrisy is that when liberals say that all people are the same, what they really mean is that people should be the same as them with the same aspirations.

Yet different peoples respond to the same things differently – that’s what tells us they’re different. And to their horror the liberal establishment are finding out that not everyone wants to be a middle class liberal, especially not Muslims who have their own way of viewing the world which, they believe, is superior to that advocated by Western liberals.

The conceit and insolent pride of the liberal establishment led to mass third world immigration, to the development of the multicultural society, and to the fracturing of our society along ethnic and cultural lines. As always hubris leads to nemesis.

The willingness of the liberals to undermine our (and their) way of life for an idea may very well have been an innocent expression of their egalitarianism. Perhaps they really did believe that they could create a better way of living from the top storey down.

At the beginning the liberals were in charge; they had it in mind to make British society into a precursor of worldwide egalitarianism. It was idealism gone mad. They invited millions of third world immigrants to live here and then changed our way of living so as to take into account the newcomers’ religious and cultural sensitivities. But in so doing they gave immigrants the confidence and moral authority to justify the existence and expansion of their own cultures within our culture. The establishment’s plan has backfired. Instead of being in charge they now cling to a tiger’s tail.

They made compromises of their own volition, initially. But that was when they were blinded by egalitarianism and when they were doling out concessions to immigrant communities in the belief that it would ease their transition to becoming fully fledged middle class Western liberals.

But now the establishment has lost the initiative. Its position has shifted from one where it made concessions as a means of moulding society to one where it makes concessions as a means of stopping society from running out of control. Laws were made and applied out of respect for other cultures; now they are made and applied out of fear of them. In multicultural and multiracial Britain the vigour with which the law is enforced is in inverse proportion to the vociferousness of the community on which it is applied. Thus a pacifist Christian is banged-up for upsetting homosexuals whilst a threatening Muslim is given carte blanche to intimidate the wider community.

It’s not the offence that matters so much as who is committing it – so much for the rule of law in multicultural and multiracial Britain.

Why didn’t the police remove the placards carried by Muslims on their recent demonstrations? They were threatening and offensive, as were the chants and behaviour of the demonstrators – one of the event organisers was even quoted making threats, yet the police let things go ahead without intervention*. What’s so special about Islam and Muslims that they should be handled with kid gloves?

The issue, obviously, is one of response – could it be anything else? How would Muslim worshippers respond to a Christian demonstration outside an important Mosque on a Friday after prayers? How would Muslim worshippers respond to placards offending their beliefs? Would they turn the other cheek? How would Muslim demonstrators respond to the police behaving towards them as they’d behaved towards the countryside marchers, and how would the wider Muslim population in Britain respond to news footage of these events?

The establishment is wary of the negative impact that Muslim reaction to the fair and equal application of British law would have on the ethnic Briton’s perception of the multicultural society. And no doubt they’re also worried that things could spiral out of control – so they go easy. They say that all people and cultures are essentially the same, but their actions suggest otherwise. Why else treat Muslim demonstrators differently?

The Libs, Labs, and Cons first made allowances for Muslim beliefs as a way of integrating the Muslim way of life with ours, but the medium term consequence of that has been that Muslims are now more separate than they were when they first arrived here in the early 1950’s. Now they’re making allowances for Muslims as a means of maintaining the increasingly unstable society that 60 years of mass third world immigration has created, but in doing so they can’t help but alienate a growing proportion of ethnic Britons.

The establishment rode to power on the back of the false ‘feel-good’ universal equality argument that peaked sometime in the mid 1990’s. It was the sort of idea that had an immediate appeal for idealists on the make, and so it’s no coincidence that a significant section of today’s political, judicial and media elites consists of former communists and their brothers in arms. But the habit of seeing only that which one wishes to see is not confined to the liberal establishment; sometimes the facts are hard to face whatever one’s position.

And by the same token, no one, no matter who, can put off facing the facts forever; all we can do is delay it for a while, and very often make things worse in the process.

We’re at the stage now where the liberals are being forced to face the facts. And it is the establishment’s relationship with Britain’s Muslim minority that more than anything else is exposing the contradictions in the equality of man idea; Liberalism is being pushed into crisis by Islam.

n.b. Some of the Muslim demonstrators have since been prosecuted ‘after an investigation’, but this rather proves my point – the arrests took place after the demonstration so as to minimise the chance of an unfortunate response.

Home Secretary John Reid arrived with the intention of smoking the pipe of peace; when he left the tepee was in flames. His peace mission to the Muslims of Leyton in Waltham Forest London had backfired magnificently.

Within a few minutes of taking the podium the Home Secretary had been intimidated and shouted down by Abu Izzadeen the well known black radical Muslim, and by the time he’d finished Reid had unintentionally offended and patronised his audience of Muslim parents by suggesting that they must watch their children closely for terrorist tendencies.

Afterwards Reid said, somewhat unconvincingly, how much he’d enjoyed the experience and mumbled something about the cut and thrust of politics. But if that’s the case then what’s the explanation for the distinctly uneasy smile he wore throughout Izzadeen’s tirade – it was hardly the smile of someone having a good time.

Some commentators have tried to put a positive spin on Reid’s foray into Muslim territory as confirmation of his tough guy credentials. The Daily Mail saw it like this: “Reid faces down hate preachers – Flashpoint as he talks tough in a Muslim heartland,” and “Reid pulled no punches.” If Reid really was punching his weight then he obviously doesn’t pack much of a punch – in response to Izzadeen’s invective Reid offered his cheek and had it slapped, he offered the other cheek and had that slapped too, and then offered it to be slapped again.

And anyway, that interpretation of Reid’s performance as straight talking is for the benefit of ethnic Britons only. Reid’s other face, the one he presented to his Muslim audience, was the face of appeasement. As Izzadeen fired insults and accusations at him Reid tried to cosy up to his abuser, calling him “My friend” on a number of occasions.

This is a perfect example of the establishment’s predicament where now they must serve two increasingly competitive constituencies ‘equally’. Thus in his dealing with the problems created by Muslim communities Home Secretary Reid needs to appear to be tough in the eyes of ethnic Britons and to appear to be understanding and sympathetic in the eyes of Muslims. Hence the abject failure of his mission – you can’t serve two masters at once.

Surrender

The Times was closest to reality: “Reid’s message to Muslims is drowned out by radicals.” But like the Mail its attention was on the theatre rather than on the script. It was doubtless entertaining to see Reid show himself up for the coward that he is by refusing to meet Izzadeen head on, but the curious thing is that Izzadeen was allowed to behave as he did. Why was security so lax?

In an open letter to the Home Secretary, Muslim apologist George Galloway wondered about this too, “The man who harangued you – Abu Izzadine (Galloway’s spelling) – is a well-known and violent extremist from an organisation your own government has proscribed. Yet he was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary. How ? Why ?”

Galloway thinks there is one of two possible explanations, “Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.” Galloway comes down on the side of incompetence.

According to the Home Office, while Izzadeen was not invited to the meeting, it is “in the nature of an open community meeting… that some people who were not invited ended up attending.”

The meeting had a number of aims: To get ‘moderate Muslims’ on board; to convince the rest of us that Reid was doing something to tackle the growing threat of Islamic terrorism in Britain; to show Muslims that the government was sympathetic to their plight; to show the rest of us that not all Muslims are carrying a bomb. Reid was walking a tightrope.

He will have been acutely aware that this was a tough call to make; there was a lot that could go wrong. But above all he had to guard against damaging easily bruised egos. And the most likely explanation for the lack of security is the fear of it being interpreted as provocative, by for instance casting aspersions on Islam’s supposedly peaceful intent.

Of course Reid still had his armed guards, but they were dressed in ‘civvies’ and know all about adopting a low profile. But there was an absence of the posse of uniformed and armour-plated police officers that usually accompany senior politicians when they venture into the real world. Reid appeared happy to leave policing to a couple of black security guards who ushered Izzadine out (once he’d said what he had to say) as gently as they could. In fact the only visible police presence in the meeting room was that of a diminutive officer of indeterminate gender and ethnicity – a declaration of surrender if ever there was one.

Sauce for the goose

John Reid’s spin had the Leyton meeting as just another political event; senior politician meets the public sort of thing. And he said that Izzadeen’s rant was nothing new and not confined to Muslims. “It happens all the time,” he said, “.it is part of the political process.”

What political process is that? Senior politicians have an aversion to meeting the public, especially when there is a strong likelihood that the public will be afforded an opportunity to heckle. This meeting was an exception rather than the rule.

The establishment is worried that Muslim alienation will destabilise the multiracial/multicultural society. The establishment is also worried about the alienation of a growing proportion of the ethnic British community and the consequences it may have for society. Yet for some reason senior government ministers are more willing to meet the former than they are the latter.

John Reid says that there are always people who refuse,”…to take part in a dialogue, (and) who will try to intimidate and shout down,” and he should know, he’s one of them.

If the establishment is anxious to engage in dialogue with Muslims to discuss their disenchantment with the status quo, why is it not similarly anxious to engage in dialogue with ethnic Britons to discuss their disenchantment with the status quo? If it’s necessary to meet the Muslims of Waltham Forest, why isn’t it just as necessary to meet the ethnic Britons of Barking and Dagenham?

But can you imagine John Reid organising “.an open community meeting” for ethnic Britons where “.people who were not invited ended up attending”? No, neither can I.

When he was being heckled by Izzadeen, Reid referred to freedom of speech, meaning that it was a give and take thing. That if Izzadeen expected to be heard he should give others the opportunity to be heard too.

It’s highly significant that Reid should take this stance with a black radical Muslim. For while he was prepared to listen to Izzadeen’s claim that Muslims were suffering at the hands of the liberal establishment, it is beyond belief that he’d be prepared to listen to such protests from ethnic Britons. In the latter case Reid and the rest of the establishment are more likely to bleat ‘no platform’ than they are to engage in debate; their usual response to the concerns of ethnic Britons is with the epithets ‘Nazi, fascist, and racist,’ shouted from afar.

And if a miracle did happen and an ethnic Briton got the opportunity to put the case for the British people to the Home Secretary, and he argued his case with the same forcefulness that Izzadeen did for the introduction of Sharia law, how would Reid respond? It’s hard to imagine he’d be as courteous as he was with Izzadeen; “.let the gentleman deal with the authorities,” he said as the heckler was ushered outside.

Clash of cultures

Following the Home Secretary’s address, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said, in an unusually candid fashion, how “extraordinarily difficult” it was to clamp down on Islamic extremism without offending large groups of Muslims.

Unfortunately Commissioner Blair didn’t expand; I’d like to know how difficult extraordinarily difficult is. But what he appears to be saying is that it’s next to impossible to address Islamic extremism without exacerbating it. There’s another fine mess liberalism has got us into.

Reid bent over backwards. He cut his security to a minimum. He smiled pleasantly, if somewhat uneasily, while being harangued by Abu Izzadeen, “.a violent extremist from an organisation (the Labour Government) has proscribed.” He said nothing in reply to being called a murderer and a tyrant, and an enemy of Islam. And when he was told, “How dare you come into a Muslim area.” Reid’s response was almost apologetic, “There is no part of this country from which any of us are excluded.” Especially Muslims, eh Home Secretary?

And then, to cap it all for the hapless John Reid, the audience of ‘moderate Muslims’ took umbrage when he asked them to keep an eye on their children to ensure they weren’t brainwashed into terrorism. I’ll wager Reid needed a large tumbler of scotch after that meet! He did everything he could to portray Muslim youngsters as innocents and emphasised that the problem was the extremists who sought to seduce them away from righteousness towards terrorism, and still the parents took offence!

What a result – for everybody but Reid that is!

But did he really think it would work? Is he that naïve, this former hard drinking communist who dragged himself up by his own boot straps? I do believe he is. Hiding behind that allegedly tough veneer is a wishful thinking liberal.

Reid is keen to dismiss the idea of a clash of cultures because it undermines everything he believes; he ignores the evidence and refuses to recognise that it’s happening now. And he attempts to explain it away by arguing that the ‘meaning of Islam has been hijacked by extremists who are using it to sustain a violent and indiscriminate war.’ According to Reid the people who bomb, threaten, and kill are not Muslims “in the true sense of the word.” So now Dr Reid is a self-appointed expert on who is and who is not a Muslim – I can’t see that going down too well in the Muslim world.

That the Home Secretary tried to enlist Britain’s Muslim communities to do more to combat the extremists in their midst is an indication of his lack of understanding of the situation. He makes the mistake of believing that everyone aspires to see the world through the liberal looking glass. It is self delusion of the most dangerous kind. Muslims view the world according to the dictates of their own beliefs; their truths and realities are not the truths and realities of Western middle class liberals. All Muslims have as their long term aim the subjugation of the world under an Islamic theocracy – “Muslims do not need British values. We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day.”

Reid and the rest of the utterly gutless creatures that constitute the liberal establishment are trying to appease themselves out of a predicament with Islam that is entirely of their own making. They refuse to recognise that to the Muslim mindset appeasement and diplomacy as signs of weakness to be taken advantage of; Reid’s interventions are encouraging the very clash of cultures that they are designed to deny.

When he was Home Secretary, so-called ’straight talking’ David Blunkett called for “An honest debate on immigration.”

His successor so-called ‘political heavyweight’ Charles Clarke did the same. And the current Home Secretary John Reid, the so-called ‘bruiser’, called for it too. Yet we’re still waiting for this debate.

When it comes to the thorny subject of mass third world immigration it seems the establishment’s straight talkers, political heavyweights and bruisers aren’t quite as straight talking and fearless as they’d have us believe. Even talking a good fight is a bit too risky for them; the most they dare do is talk about talking about one.

Former commie John Reid has tried to give the impression that he’s a hard man, and the establishment media has been backing him on this one. But his stance on immigration is timid. He conveniently sidesteps the real threat, mass third world immigration and Britain’s growing Muslim communities, and instead focuses attention on migrant workers from the EU. Some tough guy.

As with Blunkett and Clarke before him, Reid is a coward. And like all cowards his primary concern is his own self interest, which in his case is the maintenance of his membership of the political elite and the enjoyment of the benefits that come with it. Thus Reid took the route of least resistance, the one least likely to threaten his position. Poles as White Europeans are an easier target for him than are third world Muslims; Poles can’t scream ‘racism’, they don’t have the political clout that Muslims do, and they don’t have the same potential for upsetting the egalitarian apple cart.

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Ruth Kelly is in a similar and closely related predicament, and her efforts to get out of it illustrate even more clearly than Reid’s do just how serious that predicament is. They’re both looking for the same miracle – a way to resolve society’s problems without actually addressing them.

Mass third world immigration led to the multicultural society and to the need for the liberal establishment to redefine Britain. They put their muddled heads together and came up with the idea of multiculturalism – which they subsequently promoted with no expense spared. But it didn’t work.

To make matters worse for them, ethnic Britons in increasingly significant numbers have begun to voice their concerns about mass immigration and about its adverse effects on British society. Stir into that the strident demands being made by Muslims that our society (they now call it theirs) tailors itself to the Islamic way of thinking and you are left with a very potent brew.

John Reid is responsible for managing immigration; Ruth Kelly is responsible for managing its effects. And just as Reid called for ‘an honest debate’ on immigration, so Kelly has called for ‘an honest debate’ on integration and cohesion as an alternative to multiculturalism.

‘Independent’ Commission

The machinery that provides the driving force for multiculturalism is still in place and functioning in local and central government, in education, academia, and in the media, and the reality of the multicultural society is all around us. This makes the executive’s belated efforts to change direction all the more difficult – much of its own bureaucracy is working against it. Many people have a vested interest in the multicultural idea and they’re not going to let go without a struggle, yet at the same time there’s a growing awareness that multiculturalism is turning out to be another word for Balkanisation.

It was the LibLabCon party’s commitment to multiculturalism that legitimised the existence and aided the expansion of minority communities and cultures in Britain. Minorities were encouraged to play their part in society from the point of view of their own culture – that’s what multiculturalism is all about – and Muslims in particular took the establishment at its word. But things haven’t worked out as they’d wished and the establishment is now feeling threatened by the very communities it helped create – the forlorn hope now is that those communities will be willing to dilute themselves in the name of integration and community cohesion. Fat chance!

Desperate measures are required. Enter Ruth Kelly as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who on 24th August ‘06 delivered a speech launching her Commission on Integration and Cohesion. You can always tell when things are getting difficult for the politicians, they call for a quango.

Ruth Kelly’s response to the crisis of the effects of immigration is the same as John Reid’s is to the crisis of immigration. Reid’s solution is to get someone else to make the decision. He thinks a non governmental body consisting of businessmen should decide on immigrant numbers according to the needs of business. He wants to take the politics out of immigration – it’s a bit too risky for him to deal with. Ruth Kelly’s the same. She wants the Commission on Integration and Cohesion to tell her what to do, that way it’s easier to duck responsibility for the fiasco that’s bound to ensue. She wants to take the politics out of the effects of immigration, even though immigration and thus its effects are the direct result of post WWII politics and politicians.

Like the rest of the LibLabCon party, Reid and Kelly are worried about being taken to task for the mess that they and their predecessors have made of Britain.

According to the blurb “The independent Commission will consider innovative approaches looking at how communities across the country can be empowered to improve cohesion and tackle extremism,” and it will report back sometime in June ‘07 to Ms Kelly with its recommendations for making Britain better.

So how independent will the Commission on Integration and Cohesion actually be?

Chairman of the Commission is Darra Singh and six of his thirteen commissioners are ethnic minorities. Of the remainder, Professor Michael Keith is a former Labour leader for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets “.where he helped transform the borough marked by social polarisation to a position where it was awarded Beacon status for Community Cohesion in 2003-2004.” Leonie McCarthy manages Peterborough’s New Link New Arrivals Partnership, a government-funded pro-asylum seeker organisation which “.won the 2005 UK National Housing Award for Excellence in Promoting Community Cohesion.” Frank Hont is the North West Regional Secretary of UNISON and a member of the Board of the Migrant Workers North West organisation. Ed Cox works for the Local Government Information Unit on cohesion. Harriet Crabtree is Deputy Director of the Interfaith Network for the UK. Sam Tedcastle is Managing Director of The Participation – a Burnley ‘company’ that focuses its work on building meaningful dialogue between different groups “.in order to improve services and community life.” The seventh member of the non-minority group is Superintendent Steve Jordan an operational police commander in Northwest Birmingham, “.an area of very mixed ethnic and religious make-up.”

So there’s no change there then. As per usual ethnic Britons are to be ignored unless they concur with the liberal establishment. We weren’t asked when they opened our borders to mass immigration and when they subjected us to multicultural social engineering, and they’ve no intention of asking us about enforced integration either.

Honesty or deceit

Ruth Kelly talked about the need for honesty, “I believe it is time now to engage in a new and honest debate about integration and cohesion in the UK. (The debate) will have considerably more value if we can be open and honest about the challenges we face.” And like John Reid she played to an increasingly anti-PC audience, “We must not be censored by political correctness, and we must not tiptoe around important issues. I agree with the Home Secretary; it is not racist to discuss immigration and asylum.”

Yet for someone who refuses to be censored by political correctness Kelly remains remarkably constrained by it. She opened her speech, “I want to start by saying that I believe that Britain’s diversity is a huge asset to our country. Immigration has helped transform our economy, supporting growth and boosting productivity. Immigration has helped enrich our cultural life. the capital’s diversity (is) now commonly acknowledged to be one of its key attractions. migrant workers have been vital to supporting our public services. I believe that we should celebrate and clearly articulate the benefits that migration and diversity have brought.” She may not think it racist to talk about immigration and asylum, but it appears she thinks it’s racist to say anything but good about it.

Kelly’s deeply ingrained political correctness dictates that she praises the ‘benefits of immigrants and immigration’ – though predictably nowhere does she specify precisely what those benefits are, and her dishonesty ensures that she ignores their costs. But doesn’t the need for her Commission indicate that indeed there are costs?

Commission Chairman Darra Singh is similarly in denial, “.what we are experiencing now is an increasingly complex picture of diversity. It brings significant benefits economically and culturally. But it can bring tensions.” Note that. He was happy to mention “.significant benefits” but he couldn’t bring himself to talk about “significant costs”, preferring instead the word “tensions” which shifts responsibility away from immigrants to share it with the host population; tension being a two way thing.

Ruth Kelly studied politics, philosophy and economics at Queen’s College, Oxford, followed by an MSc in economics at the London School of Economics. Her first job was as an economics reporter for the Guardian and then she moved on to the Bank of England where she was deputy editor of the quarterly inflation report. You may not like her ideas, but you’d still expect her to be able to string a few coherent sentences together and her speeches to follow a consistent thread.

And if she can’t do these things, it either means she’s not as bright as her qualifications and experience suggest or that she’s trying to make sense out of nonsense and isn’t doing a very good job of it. Or maybe it’s a combination of the two.

But if nothing else Kelly’s speech showed how proficient she is at talking out of both sides of her mouth at once, “It is also clear that our ideas and policies should not be based on special treatment for minority ethnic or faith communities. to make sure everyone can be treated equally, there are some programmes that will need to treat groups differently.” What is it about these liblabcons that blinds them to such obvious contradictions? Didn’t she read through her speech before she delivered it? Didn’t she do a dry run beforehand to make sure it made sense? It is inconceivable that she didn’t, yet still she put forward mutually exclusives as compatible. Is it any wonder the country is in chaos when people like Kelly are running the show?

Honesty from the liblabcons? They wouldn’t know honesty if it came up and slapped them across the face.

Liblabcon problems

Kelly’s task and that of the rest of the liblabcons is to deal with the problems caused by mass third world immigration without identifying mass third world immigration as a problem. She’s tops when it comes to praising, “.we should celebrate.the benefits that migration and diversity have brought,” but not quite as forthcoming when it comes to criticising, “.but while celebrating that diversity we should also recognise that the landscape is changing, changing rapidly. And we should not shy away from asking – and trying to respond to – some of the more difficult questions that arise.” Unfortunately she shies away from telling us what she thinks those “difficult questions” are; she daren’t even commit herself to saying what prompted them, they just “arise” as if out of the ether. Is this woman really going to sort out this mess?

“I believe it is time now to engage in a new and honest debate about integration and cohesion in the UK. If we are to have an effective, progressive response to these issues, then we must be honest about the challenges we face and be prepared to meet these head on with renewed energy and impetus.” But what issues is she referring to?

She talks about ‘questions’ and ‘issues’ but doesn’t define them. She’s ducking and diving.
And even when Ms Kelly does specify a problem the language she uses seeks to absolve its cause of responsibility; for her the conflicts on our streets between various ethnic minorities in Britain have nothing to do with open-door immigration policies. According to her they’re caused by “.increased global interconnectedness” and “.global tensions being reflected on the streets of local communities.” She explains, “New migrants protect the fierce loyalties developed in war-torn parts of Europe. Muslims feel the reverberations from the Middle East. Wider global trends have an impact.” But if liblabcons like Kelly hadn’t invited ‘migrants’ here in the first place their conflicts wouldn’t be playing out on our streets. Yet still we should “.celebrate the benefits that migration has brought.” Remind me again, what are those benefits?

The other side of the equation is occupied by an increasing number of discontented ethnic Britons. Kelly articulates it thus, “.there are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see the shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse.

Detached from the benefits of those changes, they begin to believe the stories about ethnic minorities getting special treatment, and to develop resentment, a sense of grievance.” Damned right we’re not comfortable with this change!

Note how Kelly words it. She says that we “.do not feel comfortable with change,” rather than saying we do not like the changes that have been foisted on us without as much as a by your leave. She says that we see our “.neighbourhoods becoming more diverse,” rather than saying we have become alienated from our neighbourhoods because of their increasing diversity. She says we are “Detached from the benefits of those changes,” as though our inability to appreciate those alleged benefits is a shortcoming rather than a natural response to a change for the worse. She says we believe “.the stories about ethnic minorities getting special treatment,” as if there is no truth to them.

But she’s right about one thing; we are developing resentment and a sense of grievance, although it’s not directed at the ethnic minorities. It’s directed at the double-talking double-dealing traitors that constitute the liberal establishment and of which Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Ruth Kelly is a prime example.

Just listen to this. Is it self-delusion or a calculated lie? Kelly, “.we have moved from a period of uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism.” Uniform consensus! What consensus! There’s never been a consensus.
Multiculturalism was forced on the British people by liblabcon politicians. We couldn’t have consented to it because we were never asked. Kelly’s rationale is transparent. She’s making a desperate effort to convince the rest of us that we’re equally culpable for the chaotic mess that the LibLabCon party has made of this country.

And after years of liblabcon sponsored mass third world immigration Ruth Kelly thinks that now, “. we need a controlled, well managed system of immigration.” Not because mass immigration has brought the country to its knees, but to, “.counter exploitation from the far right,” – by which one must presume she means the BNP.

It is obvious that we’ve reached a ‘tipping point’ for the liberal establishment. Things have gone beyond their control and from now on they’ll be forever playing catch up. And in their efforts to catch up they become increasingly absurd – illustrated by the absurd Commission for Integration and Cohesion.

What is to be done?

The liblabcons have an inability to think outside the box. And so any solution they propose can only mean more of the same and thus can only make matters worse for ethnic Britons – Kelly’s Commission will be no different.

The official website of the Dept. for Communities and Local Govt. says that the aim of the Commission is to “empower” local communities to move towards being cohesive and more integrated, which suggests some measure of choice in the matter. This is disingenuous; in reality there will be no choice, as Chairman Darra Singh confirms, “.integration is not just an issue for minority ethnic communities.” In other words ethnic Britons will be compelled to integrate with minorities. The liblabcons plan to combine the disparate parts into a united whole – the ethnic British community is just as much of an impediment to their evil design as are minority communities.

In a feeble attempt to justify this enforced integration Kelly cites, “.evidence at a national level, via the regular Government Citizenship Survey, (which) consistently shows that people who live in the most ethnically diverse areas are the ones that have the most positive perceptions of ethnic minorities.” Her argument is that the more integrated we are the more positive our perception of minorities and by implication the better we’ll get on and the happier we’ll be. But according to the 2005 Government Citizenship Survey, “People living in London were less likely to have positive views of their neighbourhood” – the very same London of which Kelly fantasises, “.the capital’s diversity (is) now commonly acknowledged to be one of its key attractions.” Acknowledged by whom?

The Commission intends to examine the issues that raise tensions between different groups in different areas that lead to segregation and conflict. As if they need examining. The causes are there for anyone who cares to look – the segregation is a consequence of people choosing to live with others of their own kind, the conflict is a consequence of competing cultures occupying the same living space. What the Commission really means is that it will look for an explanation that diverts our attention away from these readily observable facts.

In addition the Commission has been asked to suggest “.how local community and political leadership can push further against perceived barriers to cohesion and integration.” But what if local communities wish to maintain those barriers to cohesion and integration, ‘perceived’ or otherwise? What of we don’t want to integrate? What if we want to maintain our Western way of viewing the world? Are community and political leaders intending to deny their constituents their democratic and human rights to live as they so choose?
Apparently they are – so much for the liblabcons’ commitment to democracy and human rights.

Singh believes that the solution is to brainwash our children. The way forward, “.must be based on those local ideas that have national potential – such as school twinning, and projects aimed at bringing young people of different backgrounds together.”
So there it is in a nutshell. Even before this ludicrous Commission has begun its phoney investigation the conclusion has already been made. The plan is to force our children to mix with the children of immigrants and asylum seekers. Our children will be made to question their own way of life and weaken their cultural ties so as to pave the way for ‘integration’; they are to be sacrificed at the altar of egalitarianism to save the liblabcons.

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion is the establishment’s pitiful response to the fracturing of our society along racial and cultural lines. They and their predecessors sponsored mass third world immigration in the belief that they’d create an egalitarian utopia; instead they got aggressive Muslim communities and Islamic terrorism. The liblabcons are way out of their depth. They are too cowardly to deal directly with this assault on our way of life and so look for an easy way out; their desperate plan is to enforce mixing in the hope of surreptitiously watering down the Islamic threat.

Off its perch

“Multiculturalism is dead. Long live interculturalism,” squawk the parrots. It’s official. Multiculturalism is off the twig. It’s kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible; it is an ex-ism.

In their report ‘Engagement with Cultures: From Diversity to Interculturalism’, which they launched on the 7th of July ‘06, researchers Bill Law, Tim Haq and Asaf Hussain conclude that “.multiculturalism has failed.” The report details a ‘unique experiment’ carried out in Leicester to test whether or not interculturalism works. Bill Law is a regional director of the East Midlands Economic Network, Tim Haq is a consultant on inward investment, Asaf Hussain is an Honorary Visiting Fellow at the University of Leicester’s Centre for the History of Religious and Political Pluralism. All three are members of the Society for Intercultural Understanding (SICUL). Ah yes, the usual suspects.

Interculturalism? Don’t mock. It’s the latest idea from the ideas people. They define it as, “.a sharing of cultural experiences with people from a different culture. It contrasts with multiculturalism which celebrates diversity.” And guess what, the three intrepid researchers discovered that interculturalism does indeed work! Now fancy that.

Published by the Institute of Lifelong Learning at Leicester University, the report covers the setting up and observation of various events which encouraged contact between ‘communities’, and guess what, “.the results proved the success of interculturalism”.

This, say the researchers, “.sounds the death knell on the policy of multiculturalism which has seen communities develop separately in cities and co-exist with parallel lives. It was a concept and a social re-engineering policy with the best of intentions, but with little debate at the grass roots. It failed to recognise or ignored the dangers of religious fundamentalism with deadly consequences. It was yesterday’s message conveyed by yesterday’s men and women. Our message is simple. Britain’s population has to become integrated.”

Tomorrow’s message from yesterday’s man

It’s interesting that Law, Haq, and Hussain should be so cruelly dismissive of multiculturalism and its proponents, “.yesterday’s message conveyed by yesterday’s men.”, yet at the same time invite one time high profile advocate of multiculturalism Ted Cantle to write the foreword to their report.

Cantle is a 1970’s sociology graduate (say no more) and former lefty housing officer who successfully climbed the greasy pole and now has a finger in many pies. A very useful idiot, he was at the forefront of the imposition of multiculturalism on the British people until his investigation into the race riots in Burnley, Bradford, and Oldham in 2001 (and the subsequent Cantle Report) after which he began to shift his feet and the concept of ‘community cohesion’ took root.

In an interview with the Guardian (21.09.05), Cantle admitted that during a 30-year career in local government, spanning housing officer to chief executive, he was guilty of promoting this ” .now outdated model of race relations. We built community centres for Bangladeshis and other groups, but what we forgot to do was to find common bonds between them.” It just sort of slipped his mind.

Shortly afterwards, writing in the Times (18.10.05), Cantle further exposed the limits of his thinking, “The events of recent years, stretching back to the race riots and the atrocities of September 11 in 2001 to the London bombings in July, have shattered our multicultural consensus. We had expected that our communities would be growing together, not becoming more distant.” In other words, he and the other ’scientists’ managing the multicultural experiment got it wrong, big style. Cantle has been undone by his own reckless naivety; while he and his ilk were doing all they could do to encourage diversity they were doing it with the expectation “.that our communities would be growing together.” Duh! How on earth did he miss that contradiction? If ever there was an example of a man promoted to the height of his incompetence it is that of Professor (sic) Ted Cantle.

The multiculturalism that he and the liberal elite once promoted “. was a concept and a social re-engineering policy with the best of intentions, but with little debate at the grass roots.” There was no debate, the liberal establishment just took the decision to “re-engineer” British society on multicultural lines and then called it a “consensus”, and on his admission Cantle took the lead in this – so much for his democratic credentials. Of course it was all done with the best of intentions – and thus Cantle et al paved the way to hell.

Yet in spite of his short sightedness and stupidity, instead of being laughed out of existence, the Prof (as he no doubt likes to be known) has been put in charge of “re-engineering” British society, again. He’s already “re-engineered” it once and he made a complete balls-up. Where’s the evidence to suggest it will be different this time?

Oh yes, I forgot, the evidence comes from the men from the Society for Intercultural Understanding. They proved it with their research, interculturalism does work – no, it really does. And Cantle is going to lead us away from multiculturalism towards social cohesion by way of interculturalism. Now why didn’t I think of that?

The Cantle Empire

Ted Cantle and the organisations he fronts occupy a powerful position. On matters race, culture, and community they are the experts. And by virtue of this alleged expertise, they have been given roles in policy making and in its implementation.

The Cantle Empire consists of a research wing, the University of Coventry-based Community Cohesion Institute which he chairs, and an executive wing, the IDeA (Improvement and Development Agency – a sort of supra local government organisation) where he is Associate Director. The Community Cohesion Unit defines race/culture/community problems, and advises central government of their solutions in order to inform policy. The IDeA advises local government on ‘best practise’ in the implementation of that policy, ‘best practice’ being the promotion of egalitarian ideology.

It seems that the IDeA was created to ‘guide’ local government in its transition from multiculturalism to interculturalism. With breathtaking arrogance, Executive Director Lucy de Groot writes, “As community leaders, local authorities have a crucial role to play in ensuring community cohesion principles are embedded into local life.” In 2004, along with the CRE, Home Office, The Inter Faith Network, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (that must have been some party – you really couldn’t make this up) the IDeA helped write ‘Community Cohesion – an action guide for local authorities’.

It’s all very neat. After his report on the 2001 riots the concept of “community cohesion” was subsequently adopted by the government and Ted Cantle was asked to chair the panel that advised ministers on its implementation. Five years later Ted has the Community Cohesion Institute saying what he’s been saying ever since he ditched multiculturalism, that communities now need to be brought together, and he has the IDeA making sure it happens by getting local government to play it by his community cohesion book.

“Community cohesion”

That the liberal establishment can gloss over their multicultural mess and change direction as though the mess had nothing to do with them is a measure of their contempt. They act as though multiculturalism just happened and they appear oblivious to its relationship with the ideas they’ve been promoting and the policies they’ve been implementing since the end of WWII.

The Leicester University study “Engagement with Cultures: From Diversity to interculturalism” is little more than a rose-tinted view of the effect of inter-cultural events on what has been termed community cohesion. interculturalism brings cultures together and thus aids community cohesion – it’s obvious, innit?

This is their big idea. It’s going to get us out of the hole that they’ve been digging for the past fifty odd years, they hope.

All you have to do, they say, is bring together groups of people from different ethnic/religious/cultural communities and engage them in joint activities such that each will learn more about the other and in consequence each will understand the other better and thus like them more. Is this puerile rubbish the best that academia can do?

In practical terms they seek to encourage for example such events as Pakistani women getting together with British women for joint chapatti and Yorkshire pudding making sessions, the rationale being that while they’re together they’ll see how much they have in common – provided of course all the ingredients conform to Muslim dietary requirements.

But nowhere in all their blather is there any evidence to show that knowing someone better necessarily makes them more likeable. It’s just more wishful thinking from the airhead ideas people. The more I learn about Ted Cantle the more I dislike him; where once I saw him merely as a useful idiot I now see him as an egotistical, self righteous, and dangerous fool. And I don’t doubt for one second that the more he were to find out about me the more he’d dislike me too. So where does that leave the interculturalism/social cohesion thesis?

Forward to the past

Cantle’s investigation into the cause of the 2001 race riots was an exercise in fudge. They didn’t need investigating; their cause was obvious. They were the natural result of competing cultures occupying the same living space. But of course Ted Cantle couldn’t arrive at that conclusion. It questions the logic of mass third world immigration and through that questions the logic of egalitarianism. He might have changed his mind about multiculturalism, but he still believes in the equality of man.

It was a difficult call for him. After all, he helped devise the multicultural agenda.

Yet there’s no getting away from it, diversity does exactly what it says on the tin; it divides. Cantle’s solution attempted to unite the best of both of his worlds – he proposed a sort of ‘united diversity’ and called it community cohesion, and he kept his face straight too!

It is a measure of the establishment’s multiculti predicament that they latched onto the community cohesion idea so uncritically. Had they given it a second thought they’d have seen it for the nonsense that it is. The term ‘community cohesion’ tends towards the tautological; if it’s not cohesive, it’s not a community. And anyway, since Cantle means it in the sense of the connectedness of communities it would have been more accurate to use ‘communities cohesion’ rather than community cohesion, although you can well imagine that the liberals who put this together would be the sort of people to baulk at the plural because of its ‘divisiveness’.

Yet the term is now part of the politicians’ lexicon, and it’s beginning to influence policy too. Just a couple of weeks ago I was talking with one of our BNP councillors Colin Auty who told me about a community cohesion project his council was setting up. I phoned the council and asked whether its adoption of the community cohesion idea meant that it now regarded multiculturalism as passé. Nope, multiculturalism is still de rigueur in Kirklees.

This highlights the mess that the establishment is in. The essence of the administration of local and central government is still multicultural, yet the executive wants to replace this with the community cohesion idea. interculturalism is their new theory for happy ever after. But the effort invested in maintaining the multicultural ideal has been so massive that these great bureaucratic machines continue to be driven by it; the inertia is proving difficult to overcome. Community cohesion got the official green light in 2001 yet it’s only just breaking the surface.

To make matters worse for the community cohesion converts, they appear to have missed the obvious: Multiculturalism and the multicultural society are not one and the same.

The multicultural society preceded multiculturalism. Third world immigrants arrived in such numbers that third world cultures became sustainable within our own culture. The multicultural society is a consequence of mass immigration and it represents the failure of integration. Multiculturalism is the establishment’s attempt to cover up that failure and it was born of the establishment’s need to legitimise the transformation of Britain into a multicultural society. Do they really think that the multicultural society will disappear just because they announce the demise of multiculturalism? Maybe they do – after all, self delusion is their greatest attribute.

It seems we’ve been here before. Ted Cantle says he’s not an ‘integrationist’ yet according to the research that his foreword endorses, “Britain’s population has to become integrated.” And Cantle’s idea of community cohesion is in the final analysis an exercise in integration; it seeks to increase the connectedness of communities and by so doing to diminish the differences between them. That’s integration isn’t it? If it fails to work, again, has anyone any idea what plan ‘B’ is?

In the name of freedom and equality

“The streets must be made safe. Criminals should be locked up. We need to build more prisons.”

Such is the logic of the new tough-talkers. Not long ago a good many of these very same tough-talkers could be heard going on about prison not working and about how we should be more “creative” in our approach to criminality. Their solution then was non-custodial sentencing.

Sections within the LibLabCon party still believe in community sentences for all but the most serious crimes; Tory leader David Cameron for instance wants us to cuddle people wearing hoodies. Yet the tide has turned; the incarceration option has become acceptable amongst the great and the good. What’s happening?

Liberals used to view control as incompatible with freedom and equality, and thus as something to be relaxed. And they extrapolated from this the idea that punishment was unnecessary and counterproductive. In their eyes criminal behaviour was a function of inequality; thus they concentrated on ‘eliminating inequality’ and they let the behaviour more or less take care of itself.

And now they want to build more prisons!

Our equality-befuddled liberal establishment has always had a problem with the concept of control. In their perfect world it would be unnecessary, but paradoxically they’ll not achieve that ‘perfection’ without it.

This tension is illustrated in the attitude of the establishment to ‘thought criminals’ such as Nick Griffin and Mark Collett relative to its attitude to criminals in general. The former it regards as products of too little control, the latter of too much.

But back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s when liberalism was at its most confident and rampant, the focus was on letting go. And our traditions and our identity and our way of seeing things were obstacles to the realisation of the establishment’s egalitarian utopia, so they set about destroying them with gay abandon. They encouraged alien cultures to develop in our midst, they undermined our religion and made space for others, they ‘revolutionised’ education, they opened our borders, and they went soft on crime – all in the name of freedom and equality.

Criminals – the soft target

But their ‘wishfulthinkingness’ betrayed them; they ignored the causal relationship between relinquishing control and losing control and instead trusted to luck. And now the alien cultures they encouraged to grow threaten to bite the hand that feeds them. Our own religion is now so dilute its adherents believe in either anything or nothing, yet alien faiths grow apace. Illiteracy and innumeracy approach third world levels. Immigration and asylum run out of control. Crime stalks every street. And most importantly the natives are getting restless – and by natives I mean the indigenous British people. There lies the clue to the tough talk riddle.

The liberal establishment is faced with a dilemma: Although there’s a growing dissatisfaction with its failure to deal with society’s problems, and it knows something must be done, it can’t properly address those problems without revealing the part it played in their development.

It is clear that the threat posed by huge alien communities growing in our midst should have the highest priority, but the LibLabCons don’t want to spoil their picnic by disturbing that particular hornet’s nest. They and their predecessors are responsible in one way and another for the Balkanisation of Britain; for the past 50-odd years or so they’ve been telling us what a good idea it is. The last thing they want is for the population to start thinking about it.

The same can be said for crime of course. The criminals that the LibLabCons and their cohorts in the media now want to put behind bars are the spawn of LibLabCon policies and ideas; they are the bastard children of the “prison doesn’t work/crime as illness/prisoners’ rights” lobby and the egalitarian fantasists.

But there’s a significant difference between the two, and it’s that that encourages the establishment to act tough on the problem of crime yet turn a blind eye to the problem of aggressive and demanding alien communities.

That difference is power.

In the grand scheme of things criminals as a group are powerless, whereas the power of Britain’s third world communities is on the increase – in some parts of Britain the LibLabCons are now dependent upon third world support to maintain their position. And anyway, they’ve already learnt to tiptoe carefully around the ever so delicate sensibilities of our ‘minority communities’. And given that the LibLabCons’ number one priority is their own self interest, it’s hardly surprising that they chose crime and criminals as the focus of their new ‘get tough’ straight talking approach and decided to leave minorities to their own devices*.

A good idea at the time

This gibberish about the need to build more prisons is the establishment’s knee-jerk reaction to the increase in disorder in British society and to the rumblings of discontent that can be heard coming from the British people.

The establishment hopes that it can regain some credibility by seeming tougher, and it hopes it can head off the public’s growing anger by appealing to its more punitive instincts.

But it’s a knee-jerk reaction don’t forget. It’s not a revolution in thinking – which is what is needed. The establishment still worships at the altar of freedom and equality, and so nothing of any significance will come of their get tough approach. This change in tack is about one thing only, prolonging the lifespan of the liberal establishment. Their ‘build more prisons’ brainwave is a good idea in a panic – it’s the answer to their problem because that’s what they hope it will be.

And like every other problem in society, increasing lawlessness is a consequence of egalitarianism. If you act on a false premise you shouldn’t be surprised if things don’t turn out as you’d intended. Universal equality doesn’t lead to a better life; it leads to anarchy. Yet in spite of all, equality remains society’s frame of reference.

Building more prisons doesn’t solve problems, it merely avoids the question. It doesn’t tackle criminal behaviour, it caters for it. And when their new prisons are full of new prisoners, what then?

Prison doesn’t work

The establishment’s support for mass immigration and asylum seekers obviously impacts on law and order in Britain. The fact that our prison population has a disproportionately high number of third world immigrants, illegal migrants, and asylum seekers suggests an immediate solution to at least part of the problem – tighten up on our borders and deport those that have no right to be here. But of course both those actions run contrary to liberal orthodoxy.

Immigrant issues aside, prison fails because its operation is governed by equality cult dogma and because of the liberal establishment’s problematic and guilt-ridden relationship with punishment.

While prison does have a responsibility to educate and to improve, primarily it exists to hold those individuals who by way of their actions have lost the right to live freely in society. Prison punishes by restricting rights.

As you’d expect, that reality doesn’t go down too well with the liberal way of thinking. It is as if the liberal feels a need to compensate the prisoner for the punishment he receives by making his incarceration as comfortable as possible. Thus liberals concentrate on the welfare role of prisons rather than on their punishment role; hence the emphasis on ‘prisoners’ rights’.

The problem is prison isn’t working; both crime and recidivism are on the increase. And if prison does work, why do we need to build more?

Prisoners’ rights

Liberals see welfare and punishment as mutually exclusive, and in spite of their tough talk their world view ensures they still see criminals** as victims of the inequalities in society. And because of this obsession with equality and thus with prisoners’ ‘rights’, the punishment role of prisons has been rendered impotent and prison has become ineffective.

The liberal’s argument that ‘prison doesn’t work’ is a self fulfilling prophesy; liberals haven’t allowed it to work.

Contrary to liberal ideology, welfare and punishment go hand in hand, and the welfare aspect of prison life can only work when the punishment aspect is working too. Criminals are effectively out of control and the purpose of prison is to bring them back under control. If that control is undermined by ‘rights’, then prison loses its purpose and thus its effectiveness.

The issue of illegal drug use in prison illustrates my point. The establishment line is that nothing can be done about drugs in British jails, but what they mean is that they have neither the will nor the desire to do anything about it.

Drugs are brought into prison by prison visitors and on occasions by corrupt officials. So where’s the problem? Tighten up on visiting procedures and vet staff more closely, problem solved, or if not further tighten procedures and vetting.

The establishment’s get out is that it can’t interfere with prisoners’ visiting rights without violating human rights. But the harsh reality is illegal drug use is not seen as a problem in prison. The very opposite; without the narcotic effects of illegal drugs, under the egalitarian regime, prisons would be virtually ungovernable.

In its current form prison can’t do the job it’s meant to do, which is to punish, deter, educate, and rehabilitate. The key is control; a prison must be in control of its population if it is to be effective. But prisons aren’t in control – they function only by ‘buying’ prisoners’ co-operation.

Punish, deter, educate, rehabilitate

We don’t need more prisons. We need a change in thinking. The underlying problem, not just with law and order but with every aspect of British life, is the establishment’s adherence to the ‘equality idea’.

A prisoner should have no rights, which is not to say that prison has no responsibility to maintain his wellbeing. Far from it; it is only when the prison is in control that it can look after the prisoners’ welfare and prepare him for a constructive life in society.

The first function of prison is to punish serious transgressions of the law by withdrawing from the transgressor the freedoms and rights enjoyed by the rest of society. This is an essential part of the process of taking control without which prison must fail. And it is utterly counterproductive to compensate the prisoner for his plight by allowing luxuries such as television in cells, a menu choice at mealtimes, extensive leisure time, etc.

Whether such luxuries should be ever allowed is debatable; prison isn’t meant to be amenable, and if it is its secondary function of deterrence is undone. The idea surely is to discourage those from committing crime who otherwise might be tempted. Any luxury that the prisoner is afforded must be earned; if it comes as of right then deterrence is undermined.

Sentence remission for good behaviour is a luxury that puts the cart before the horse. It shouldn’t be necessary to reward good behaviour, it should be expected. And bad behaviour should be punished. Remission should be earned only by productive labour – say for example every day spent in productive labour reduces the sentence by one day.

Prison is responsible for taking control of the prisoner’s life through punishment and deterrence, and it has the task of returning that control through education and rehabilitation. The one can’t happen without the other.

No change in direction

But it’s not going to happen is it? Like every other establishment initiative, the ‘get tough on criminals’ scheme will be characterised by waste and incompetence. Blinded to the contradictions of their approach by the rose-tinted spectacles they’ve got welded to their heads, like so many madmen the establishment will continue doing the same thing over again in the belief that this time it will be different. It won’t.

The rise in crime is a function of the prevailing world view. The arguments for mass third world immigration, for putting ‘asylum seekers’ before our own people, for the denigration of our culture and standards, all are of the same order as the argument for giving prisoners control over their own lives. They are all based on the equality of man idea. And because that idea is a falsehood, anything founded on it is doomed to failure.

The assault on our culture, open door immigration and asylum policies, trendy teaching, the loss of authority, easy-going jail, and the list goes on; all in their own way have contributed to the rise in crime. ‘Equality thinking’ has thrown our system of law and order into confusion, and our prisons have been rendered ineffective by it.

Building more prisons and tightening up on the regime may have some effect on the rising tide of crime, but without addressing the other factors involved any effect is likely to remain marginal.

In order to solve a problem that has a number of causes one looks for a common denominator. In this case one doesn’t have to look very far; the common denominator is ‘equality thinking’. But it would require the sort of conversion that occurred on the road to Damascus for the establishment to consider the part its cornerstone has played in the demise of our nation – and it’s not going to happen. Commitment to universal egalitarianism is a prerequisite of success in the world of the LibLabCons, and they are fully committed to it, that’s why they’re where they are! And it’s unlikely they’ll turn their backs on it at this late hour, for what would they be looking at then?

* PM Blair said just last week that the Muslim community must root out its own terrorists
** This of course does not include thought criminals who are pursued with the utmost vigour

“The streets must be made safe. Criminals should be locked up. We need to build more prisons.”

Such is the logic of the new tough-talkers. Not long ago a good many of these very same tough-talkers could be heard going on about prison not working and about how we should be more “creative” in our approach to criminality. Their solution then was non-custodial sentencing.

Sections within the LibLabCon party still believe in community sentences for all but the most serious crimes; Tory leader David Cameron for instance wants us to cuddle people wearing hoodies. Yet the tide has turned; the incarceration option has become acceptable amongst the great and the good. What’s happening?

Liberals used to view control as incompatible with freedom and equality, and thus as something to be relaxed. And they extrapolated from this the idea that punishment was unnecessary and counterproductive. In their eyes criminal behaviour was a function of inequality; thus they concentrated on ‘eliminating inequality’ and they let the behaviour more or less take care of itself.

And now they want to build more prisons!

Our equality-befuddled liberal establishment has always had a problem with the concept of control. In their perfect world it would be unnecessary, but paradoxically they’ll not achieve that ‘perfection’ without it.

This tension is illustrated in the attitude of the establishment to ‘thought criminals’ such as Nick Griffin and Mark Collett relative to its attitude to criminals in general. The former it regards as products of too little control, the latter of too much.

But back in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s when liberalism was at its most confident and rampant, the focus was on letting go. And our traditions and our identity and our way of seeing things were obstacles to the realisation of the establishment’s egalitarian utopia, so they set about destroying them with gay abandon. They encouraged alien cultures to develop in our midst, they undermined our religion and made space for others, they ‘revolutionised’ education, they opened our borders, and they went soft on crime – all in the name of freedom and equality.

Criminals – the soft target

But their ‘wishfulthinkingness’ betrayed them; they ignored the causal relationship between relinquishing control and losing control and instead trusted to luck. And now the alien cultures they encouraged to grow threaten to bite the hand that feeds them. Our own religion is now so dilute its adherents believe in either anything or nothing, yet alien faiths grow apace. Illiteracy and innumeracy approach third world levels. Immigration and asylum run out of control. Crime stalks every street. And most importantly the natives are getting restless – and by natives I mean the indigenous British people. There lies the clue to the tough talk riddle.

The liberal establishment is faced with a dilemma: Although there’s a growing dissatisfaction with its failure to deal with society’s problems, and it knows something must be done, it can’t properly address those problems without revealing the part it played in their development.

It is clear that the threat posed by huge alien communities growing in our midst should have the highest priority, but the LibLabCons don’t want to spoil their picnic by disturbing that particular hornet’s nest. They and their predecessors are responsible in one way and another for the Balkanisation of Britain; for the past 50-odd years or so they’ve been telling us what a good idea it is. The last thing they want is for the population to start thinking about it.

The same can be said for crime of course. The criminals that the LibLabCons and their cohorts in the media now want to put behind bars are the spawn of LibLabCon policies and ideas; they are the bastard children of the “prison doesn’t work/crime as illness/prisoners’ rights” lobby and the egalitarian fantasists.

But there’s a significant difference between the two, and it’s that that encourages the establishment to act tough on the problem of crime yet turn a blind eye to the problem of aggressive and demanding alien communities.

That difference is power.

In the grand scheme of things criminals as a group are powerless, whereas the power of Britain’s third world communities is on the increase – in some parts of Britain the LibLabCons are now dependent upon third world support to maintain their position. And anyway, they’ve already learnt to tiptoe carefully around the ever so delicate sensibilities of our ‘minority communities’. And given that the LibLabCons’ number one priority is their own self interest, it’s hardly surprising that they chose crime and criminals as the focus of their new ‘get tough’ straight talking approach and decided to leave minorities to their own devices*.

A good idea at the time

This gibberish about the need to build more prisons is the establishment’s knee-jerk reaction to the increase in disorder in British society and to the rumblings of discontent that can be heard coming from the British people.

The establishment hopes that it can regain some credibility by seeming tougher, and it hopes it can head off the public’s growing anger by appealing to its more punitive instincts.

But it’s a knee-jerk reaction don’t forget. It’s not a revolution in thinking – which is what is needed. The establishment still worships at the altar of freedom and equality, and so nothing of any significance will come of their get tough approach. This change in tack is about one thing only, prolonging the lifespan of the liberal establishment. Their ‘build more prisons’ brainwave is a good idea in a panic – it’s the answer to their problem because that’s what they hope it will be.

And like every other problem in society, increasing lawlessness is a consequence of egalitarianism. If you act on a false premise you shouldn’t be surprised if things don’t turn out as you’d intended. Universal equality doesn’t lead to a better life; it leads to anarchy. Yet in spite of all, equality remains society’s frame of reference.

Building more prisons doesn’t solve problems, it merely avoids the question. It doesn’t tackle criminal behaviour, it caters for it. And when their new prisons are full of new prisoners, what then?

Prison doesn’t work

The establishment’s support for mass immigration and asylum seekers obviously impacts on law and order in Britain. The fact that our prison population has a disproportionately high number of third world immigrants, illegal migrants, and asylum seekers suggests an immediate solution to at least part of the problem – tighten up on our borders and deport those that have no right to be here. But of course both those actions run contrary to liberal orthodoxy.

Immigrant issues aside, prison fails because its operation is governed by equality cult dogma and because of the liberal establishment’s problematic and guilt-ridden relationship with punishment.

While prison does have a responsibility to educate and to improve, primarily it exists to hold those individuals who by way of their actions have lost the right to live freely in society. Prison punishes by restricting rights.

As you’d expect, that reality doesn’t go down too well with the liberal way of thinking. It is as if the liberal feels a need to compensate the prisoner for the punishment he receives by making his incarceration as comfortable as possible. Thus liberals concentrate on the welfare role of prisons rather than on their punishment role; hence the emphasis on ‘prisoners’ rights’.

The problem is prison isn’t working; both crime and recidivism are on the increase. And if prison does work, why do we need to build more?

Prisoners’ rights

Liberals see welfare and punishment as mutually exclusive, and in spite of their tough talk their world view ensures they still see criminals** as victims of the inequalities in society. And because of this obsession with equality and thus with prisoners’ ‘rights’, the punishment role of prisons has been rendered impotent and prison has become ineffective.

The liberal’s argument that ‘prison doesn’t work’ is a self fulfilling prophesy; liberals haven’t allowed it to work.

Contrary to liberal ideology, welfare and punishment go hand in hand, and the welfare aspect of prison life can only work when the punishment aspect is working too. Criminals are effectively out of control and the purpose of prison is to bring them back under control. If that control is undermined by ‘rights’, then prison loses its purpose and thus its effectiveness.

The issue of illegal drug use in prison illustrates my point. The establishment line is that nothing can be done about drugs in British jails, but what they mean is that they have neither the will nor the desire to do anything about it.

Drugs are brought into prison by prison visitors and on occasions by corrupt officials. So where’s the problem? Tighten up on visiting procedures and vet staff more closely, problem solved, or if not further tighten procedures and vetting.

The establishment’s get out is that it can’t interfere with prisoners’ visiting rights without violating human rights. But the harsh reality is illegal drug use is not seen as a problem in prison. The very opposite; without the narcotic effects of illegal drugs, under the egalitarian regime, prisons would be virtually ungovernable.

In its current form prison can’t do the job it’s meant to do, which is to punish, deter, educate, and rehabilitate. The key is control; a prison must be in control of its population if it is to be effective. But prisons aren’t in control – they function only by ‘buying’ prisoners’ co-operation.

Punish, deter, educate, rehabilitate

We don’t need more prisons. We need a change in thinking. The underlying problem, not just with law and order but with every aspect of British life, is the establishment’s adherence to the ‘equality idea’.

A prisoner should have no rights, which is not to say that prison has no responsibility to maintain his wellbeing. Far from it; it is only when the prison is in control that it can look after the prisoners’ welfare and prepare him for a constructive life in society.

The first function of prison is to punish serious transgressions of the law by withdrawing from the transgressor the freedoms and rights enjoyed by the rest of society. This is an essential part of the process of taking control without which prison must fail. And it is utterly counterproductive to compensate the prisoner for his plight by allowing luxuries such as television in cells, a menu choice at mealtimes, extensive leisure time, etc.

Whether such luxuries should be ever allowed is debatable; prison isn’t meant to be amenable, and if it is its secondary function of deterrence is undone. The idea surely is to discourage those from committing crime who otherwise might be tempted. Any luxury that the prisoner is afforded must be earned; if it comes as of right then deterrence is undermined.

Sentence remission for good behaviour is a luxury that puts the cart before the horse. It shouldn’t be necessary to reward good behaviour, it should be expected. And bad behaviour should be punished. Remission should be earned only by productive labour – say for example every day spent in productive labour reduces the sentence by one day.

Prison is responsible for taking control of the prisoner’s life through punishment and deterrence, and it has the task of returning that control through education and rehabilitation. The one can’t happen without the other.

No change in direction

But it’s not going to happen is it? Like every other establishment initiative, the ‘get tough on criminals’ scheme will be characterised by waste and incompetence. Blinded to the contradictions of their approach by the rose-tinted spectacles they’ve got welded to their heads, like so many madmen the establishment will continue doing the same thing over again in the belief that this time it will be different. It won’t.

The rise in crime is a function of the prevailing world view. The arguments for mass third world immigration, for putting ‘asylum seekers’ before our own people, for the denigration of our culture and standards, all are of the same order as the argument for giving prisoners control over their own lives. They are all based on the equality of man idea. And because that idea is a falsehood, anything founded on it is doomed to failure.

The assault on our culture, open door immigration and asylum policies, trendy teaching, the loss of authority, easy-going jail, and the list goes on; all in their own way have contributed to the rise in crime. ‘Equality thinking’ has thrown our system of law and order into confusion, and our prisons have been rendered ineffective by it.

Building more prisons and tightening up on the regime may have some effect on the rising tide of crime, but without addressing the other factors involved any effect is likely to remain marginal.

In order to solve a problem that has a number of causes one looks for a common denominator. In this case one doesn’t have to look very far; the common denominator is ‘equality thinking’. But it would require the sort of conversion that occurred on the road to Damascus for the establishment to consider the part its cornerstone has played in the demise of our nation – and it’s not going to happen. Commitment to universal egalitarianism is a prerequisite of success in the world of the LibLabCons, and they are fully committed to it, that’s why they’re where they are! And it’s unlikely they’ll turn their backs on it at this late hour, for what would they be looking at then?

* PM Blair said just last week that the Muslim community must root out its own terrorists
** This of course does not include thought criminals who are pursued with the utmost vigour