News Feed

Wednesday, April 28, 2010


It says something about the state of the UK when over ten million of its adult population choose to spend an hour of their time watching three virtually identikit politicians regurgitate three almost interchangeable responses to a series of preset questions and go wild with excitement. The media claimed the next day that the American-style format ‘leaders debate’ had ‘electrified’ voters and galvanised a previously lacklustre campaign and made the previously unelectable Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg the viewers’ favourite, a bit like the X-Factor, though with Peter Mandelson taking Simon Cowell’s role, Brown playing Subo and Clegg and David Cameron doubling up as Jedward. So far there’s all to play for, though, whoever wins, the loser will be the UK and its people.

Since the ousting of Margaret Thatcher as leader of the Conservative party in 1990, British politics began the process of morphing from nasty to nice and from nice to bland and from bland to banal. Firstly, the inability of the Labour Party to mount a credible campaign against the Conservatives kept them out of office for over eighteen years, necessitating the creation of New Labour and the election of a media-savvy leader in the form of Tony Blair. Secondly, Blair transformed Labour’s fortunes to such an extent that the Conservatives in turn became unelectable and ensured that New Labour has had thirteen years in office, a feat almost unimaginable a decade ago.

Blair’s triumph was that he was able to tap into the psyche of New Britain in a way that no one else, except perhaps Simon Cowell, could and, in doing so, stymied the opposition to such an extent that it was effectively dead. So dead, in fact, that the Conservatives have, rather than reinvent themselves as a credible alternative to New Labour, sought to become New Labour, Right. The Liberal Democrats in turn, have slowly moved from a party of ban the bomb, lentil-eating greenies to a slightly fadish and more socialist version of their previous selves and become, in effect, New Labour, Left. Blair, ironically, had admired Thatcher and her strength in sticking to her beliefs, something Blair, to his credit, did over Iraq but, to their shame, our opposition have no sense of. To them, belief is what they think voters want or what their focus groups tell them we want or, worse, is a watered down, or beefed-up version of an existing Blair or New Labour policy. If it worked for Blair then it will work for us. Radical ideas, like radical politics, are out. British politics is now lite and trite. 

Now Blair’s Dauphin, Gordon Brown, the anointed one and his chosen successor is seeking to carve out his own niche and to wear the crown of elected office, something that has so far eluded him in his sham role as unelected Prime Minister and saviour of the world. Likewise, Clegg and Cameron are seeking the voters’ approval so that they too might savour elected office and yet they offer nothing. No new ideas, no new initiatives, no nothing. We have weak men, appealing to a weak electorate with neither able or willing to accept or utter the truth that our country is teetering on the abyss; financially, socially and morally.

Now, our would-be leaders feed and nurture belief that the worst is behind us that by some clever trickery and word manipulation, printing money became quantitative easing for instance, that they have all but conquered the recession. That we can avoid any hurt by cost cutting ‘savings’, by making our public services more efficient. This is against a national debt that is increasing by half a billion a day, which currently stands at £776bn and which, according to the governments own figures, is due to reach £1,406bn by 2014/15. Further, if government spending continues at current levels then as a percentage of GDP it will rise from 70pc now to 500pc of GDP by 2040 with the interest alone equaling 27pc of GDP. These figures are from the Bank of International Settlements the body for the world’s central banks and are contained within a report called The Future of Public Debt: prospects and implications. What they mean is that the UK is bankrupt and borrowing like a man possessed, with the report showing that, aside from Japan, which has higher savings, UK public spending is the highest in the world, totally out of control and heading for disaster.

Yet, our three main political parties are now virtually interchangeable, sub-Blair clones, scared of offending, scared of losing and scared of being different. Not for these men the hard choices and true cost cutting that hurts, that will bring protest and pain yet ultimately might go some way to averting disaster. No, what we have instead is inaction and inertia, the politics of fudging and prevarication, of sound bites and friendly chats on TV sofas, all driven by the politics of needing to be liked. Gone is the genuine passion of the convicted politician whose ideal’s drive him and in has come the need me, like me, fay politicians of today, the X-Factoresque Tweedle Dee’s and Tweedle Dum’s who will dance to almost any tune provided enough of us can hum it. Men and women whose message is vote for me because I’m nice and leave the nasty stuff to someone else.

Leaving the nasty to someone else is fine of course, provided that whatever bogey man is lurking in the wings stays away. We all like the nice and calm but, by and large, we don’t elect politicians to be nice and, more to the point, it’s usually the nasties that we ultimately remember and respect. Churchill’s demands to rearm and resist Nazi Germany weren’t exactly popular at the time as most of the electorate dismissed his dire warnings as warmongering. Thatcher was almost universally loathed when she tackled the Trade Unions and government overspending. In the US, Reagan was shot and mocked for his stand against communist Russian but all three politicians had stood up for what they believed to be right and more importantly had done what they knew had to be done at a time what doing so made them reviled by many.

Are Brown, Clegg or Cameron prepared to be reviled for tackling this countries spiraling debt? No, though they may well be reviled later for being nice and delaying the pain. But right now, they want to be liked so much that they’re not even admitting the extent of the problem. They’re lying, in fact; lying because they’re still spending and promising to do what we can’t afford; lying by printing money; lying by hoping that inflation will magically reduce the debt and, most of all, they’re lying because they all refuse to address our debt honestly and by doing so they cheapen and discredit our democracy, devaluing it to the point that one day soon someone might just kill it off and put it out of its misery ...

Thursday, April 8, 2010


Nothing symbolises England more than the swan, the beautiful, graceful white bird that has been protected in law for over 400 years; a law that has, barring the odd violation, been upheld and respected by UK citizens without question. Equally, nothing symbolises England’s decline and its current pitiful state more than the news that stateless migrants, who have been illegally camping in fields and woods alongside the river Nene in Cambridgeshire, have taken to killing and slaughtering the birds to eat around their camp fires. 

In the nearby Cambridgeshire town of Peterborough, people have also had to deal with migrants setting up camps in their gardens, sleeping in their sheds and defecating on their lawns. These charming garden visitors have, in some cases, been in residence for over five months and counting, with the house owners being told by members of our useless politically-driven police force that migrants are a civil matter and consequently not something that they can deal with. The police did however warn house owners against hurting the garden squatters or forcing them off their land as this would infringe the migrants ‘human rights’, in which case the police would intervene against the house holders. The swans too, it seems, are also to be sacrificed on the alter of human rights and political correctness, as left-leaning officials are dismissing reports of swan-eating as ‘incitements’ to racism.

England 2010. A country in transition, its people cowed, its symbols mocked, its countryside bulldozed and its rulers too weak to do anything but connive in its ongoing demise. Forget too any nonsense that the English can only be pushed so far and that, like the symbolic lions that guard Nelson’s statue at Trafalgar and which decorate so many of our nation's other emblems, we will eventually rise up and roar. Now, all we are likely to see and hear is the bleating of a nurtured and beaten creature that is not so much ready to lay down its life for its country but rather one whose life has already been taken by its country.

For nearly twenty years the parties that govern the UK have allowed a poisonous cocktail of politically driven, Marxist-inspired doctrine and human rights dogma to allow immigration on a scale that will either destabilize or radically alter communities, cities and eventually the UK as a whole. Yet, still the powers that be shirk the issues its polices create, dismissing criticisms of their utopian plans as ‘racist’, or ignorant or, as is often the case now, enacting and evoking new ‘gagging’ laws that criminalize and deter criticism altogether.

The truth is that the UK is being subjugated and colonized, not so much by outsiders intend on conquest, but by insiders intent on change. This is not immigration as invasion or attack as some would see it, but rather immigration as manipulation and exploitation. In the nineteen fifties and sixties, immigration was primarily driven by our need for labour, in the seventies and eighties it was driven by our old colonies and by refugees fleeing crises in places like Uganda and Bangladesh. In the nineties, the relaxation of border controls and war in the Balkans began to change the dynamics of immigration, though it wasn't until the early noughties that UK politicians actively began to change the actuality of immigration itself to suit their own agenda and to see and exploit the movement of peoples for their own political ends.

For the last decade, immigration has accelerated with peoples moving to the UK, not for colonial reasons or fleeing conflict, but other reasons often at the behest or with the tacit connivance of UK ministers. The main reason, though, being that they could. They could, and our politicians acquiesced in the process, lowering regulations and raising expectations in terms of housing, schooling, health, and work and thereby making the UK the choicest option to move to.

Our politicians played the race card inversely because with the new century came a new vision, as was admitted recently by the former government adviser Jack Nather, 'that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'. And that from 2001 onwards the Labour Party 'set about a deliberate policy of encouraging mass third world immigration, to socially engineer a multicultural society. With the alleged principle political aim of undermining the base of their opponents, the Conservative Party and to get rid of traditional conservative British culture'. To effectively swamp the country in diversity, whether we like it or not.

At the route of this are our leaders who see immigration as a means to an end, the end being the creation of a multicultural socialist utopia that, once in place, will be unassailable and unquestionable. Their reasoning a mixture of benevolence and malevolence as they seek to change society, as they see it, for the better, whilst rendering all opposition to their vision either powerless, usurped, or destroyed and, in that, they have been incredibly effective, though at a price.

Immigrants and, in particular, immigration that is visible and which brings with it new religions, new ideas and new votes, will naturally gravitate to the political party most likely to benefit it and its people and so in this Labour has done well. Furthermore, if the numbers of immigrants reaches a high enough level then at some stage their influence will be such that no political party will be able to ignore their wishes if they want their vote.

Yet our politicians are playing with fire as, on the one hand they exploit immigrants for their own ends using them as a kind of human chattel in their quest for votes and to cement their multi-cultural nirvana while, on the other hand, many immigrants exploit them and actively work against the planned diversity dream. Many would seek to create a society that is not only at odds with our politicians' utopian plans but which would in fact destroy it. Yet talk of Caliphates, of extremism, and intolerance is dismissed as the words of a few extremists, which will be overcome by further embracing Islamic or foreign culture and diversity. Dissing difference is not on the agenda. Likewise, rises in gang culture, inter-ethnic violence, honour killings and other less desirable aspects of immigration are masked by being absorbed into our wider crime statistics, leaving any direct criticism free to be dismissed as racist or discriminatory.

Race and Racist. The new taboo words. The words that have launched a thousand laws and as many lawsuits. Yet, how can one discuss immigration without mentioning race? You can't. Yet this is what our Machiavellian leaders would have us do and to make sure they have created a whole plethora of new 'race' laws to help enforce their racial state. No matter that the cracks in their scheme are beginning to show, that our services from housing to health are overloaded and that there is a simmering anger among many communities. For the government, to speak ill of multi-culturalism is racial blasphemy, and as such the language of the heretic.

If people cannot speak or voice their fears without fear of prosecution then what are they to do? It's all very well for the government to parade their multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, culturally diverse, non-discriminatory utopia but, if it's so good, why does it need so many laws to protect it? 

The government have begun the process of transforming this nation, of reshaping its religious and racial balance without consultation, without debate and with all redress denied. They have, in effect, set up a sort of racial dictatorship where all dissent is crushed. Yet, the government should remember that most dictatorships, revolutions or social movements are driven by the motivation of the people, good or bad, not clandestine government initiatives enforced by Civil Servants. As such they really are playing with fire, in which case our swans won't be the only creatures sacrificed in the name of racial diversity.