Wednesday, 31 May 2006

Vote the b*ggers out!

On 23 March 2009, The Daily Star reported thus:

“BRITAIN IS SITTING ON AN IMMIGRATION TIMEBOMB AS EXPERTS PREDICT UP TO 500 FOREIGN NATIONALS WILL POUR INTO THE COUNTRY EVERY DAY. THEY WARN MILLIONS WILL FLOCK HERE TO MAKE THIS EUROPE’S MOST POPULATED COUNTRY, as environmental problems ravage their own lands.

According to new United Nations figures, MORE THAN 174,000 MIGRANTS WILL COME TO THE UK EVERY YEAR.

THAT IS ALMOST 500 NEW PEOPLE EVERY DAY, AND WILL SEND THE POPULATION SOARING TO 72MILLION BY 2050.

THE MASSIVE INFLUX WILL DEVASTATE OUR TRANSPORT, ENERGY AND HOUSING SYSTEMS, experts have warned.”
Did you vote for this?

You don’t have to have what the PC Crowd in parliament want, you know. All you have to do is to vote the b*ggers out.That's all you have to do if you want your country back.Just vote them out of office.

On 24 March 2009, The Daily Telegraph reported thus:

“A CENTURY OF IMMIGRATION HAS SEEN THE NATION'S DICTIONARY OF NAMES DRASTICALLY ALTERED TO INCLUDE A HOST OF FOREIGN ONES, the study said.

It found that WITHIN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE NAMED AHMED, SINGH AND ALI, HAS INCREASED BY MORE THAN 1,000 PER CENT EACH.

THE NAME ZHANG WAS FOUND TO BE THE FASTEST GROWING NAME, HAVING RISEN BY 4,718 PER CENT IN POPULARITY IN JUST 13 YEARS.

PEOPLE NAMED SINGH AND PATEL WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE AT A RECORD HIGH, WITH 95,203 AND 53,295 OF THEM RESPECTIVELY CURRENTLY LIVING IN BRITAIN.

AN INFLUX OF SURNAMES FROM THE ASIAN SUBCONTINENT, CHINA, AND SOUTHERN AFRICA – SUCH AS ASLAM, KIM, XU, NDLOVU AND NCUBE – WAS ALSO NOTED by the researchers.

The study was carried out partly by Experian, the credit agency, which used its database to find out which names were found most frequently in different parts of the country.”
Who voted to import the Asian hordes into our country?

I didn’t. Who voted to give them more rights than us once they got here? I didn’t. Who voted to give them our council houses as soon as they arrived?
I didn’t. Who voted to whack us with all the made up bogey words (racist, fascist, Nazi, bigot) if ever we complained? I didn’t.

Who voted to criminalise us with all the anti-British, pro-immigrant race laws if ever we complained too articulately and too often? Who will keep on voting for our treacherous, Brit-loathing politicians until we are all gone?

Some will, you can be sure of that. I won’t. You can be sure of that as well.

On 25 March 2009, The Daily Mirror reported thus:

“AN AL-QAEDA DIRTY BOMB ATROCITY COULD BE IMMINENT, Jacqui Smith said yesterday. The Home Secretary's stark warning came as she outlined the Government's updated anti-terror strategy, Contest Two.

The report said THE RISK OF A CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, NUCLEAR OR EXPLOSIVE ATTACK ON THE UK HAS SOARED IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

Asked if there was a greater risk of a dirty bomb strike, Ms Smith replied:

‘THERE IS THE POTENTIAL, GIVEN THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION, WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE ASPIRATIONS OF TERRORISTS, THAT IT COULD BE.’

The report noted the threat to the UK came from four main sources: al-Qaeda; groups affiliated with al-Qaeda; self-starting groups; and terrorist groups following a similar ideology to al-Qaeda. It said: ‘TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO NEW TECHNOLOGY AND MAY BECOME CAPABLE OF CONDUCTING MORE LETHAL OPERATIONS.’

But Ms Smith told MPs the main threat came from al-Qaeda supporters on the Pakistan-Afghan border. She said: ‘WE KNOW THE THREAT IS SEVERE. WE KNOW AN ATTACK IS HIGHLY LIKELY AND COULD HAPPEN, WITHOUT WARNING, AT ANY TIME’.”
Who brought the 'terrorists' here?

I didn’t. Who voted to give the 'terrorists' more rights than us once they got here? I didn’t. Who voted to give the 'terrorists' our council houses as soon as they arrived? I didn’t.

Who voted to whack us with all the made up bogey words (racist, Fascist, Nazi, bigot) if ever we complained about the 'terrorists?' I didn’t.

Who voted to criminalise us with all the anti-British, pro-immigrant race laws if ever we complained about the 'terrorists' too articulately and too often? I didn’t.

Did you vote for 'an Al-Qaeda dirty bomb atrocity?' I didn’t. But that is what the Jacqui Smiths, the Tony Blairs, the Gordon Browns and the rest of the bought politicians have landed us with, isn’t it?

Why did they never do what we, who voted for them, wanted? Why did they always ignore what we said?

Because they’re politicians, I guess. And politicians lie. That’s how they get voted into power. That’s why we vote for them.

Time, after time, after time, enough of us choose to believe their lies because it suits us to do so. And so we are where we are now. Stuck fast in the melting pot with all the Ahmeds, Singhs, Alis, Zhangs, Patels, Aslams, Kims, Xus, Ndlovus, Ncubes and dirty bombs.

As the wise man once said:

“If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got”.
Next time you vote, you should try to remember what the wise man said.

And vote the b*ggers out.

On 23 July 2005, just 16 days after four Muslims murdered 52 people in the London bombings, The Daily Telegraph told us that:

“ONE IN FOUR MUSLIMS SYMPATHISES WITH MOTIVES OF TERRORISTS”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1494648/One-in-four-Muslims-sympathises-with-motives-of-terrorists.html

Extrapolated to the entire Muslim population of the UK, this means that more than 400,000 of them 'sympathises with motives of terrorists'.

According to the YouGov survey upon which this estimate was based, six percent, or 100,000, of the Muslims resident in this country 'think the bombings in London on July 7 were justified' and thirteen percent (216,666) had 'a lot' of sympathy for the bombers.

These findings, of course, only express what those questioned were prepared to admit to.

The YouGov survey can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8067153/YouGov-British-Muslim-Online-Survey

According to the 1901 census, there were 14 Ahmeds; 53 Alis; 32 Patels; 60 Singhs and no Zhangs at all living in Britain.

If you want your country back, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to have stop voting for those who stole it.

It's as simple as that.

A New World Order jobsworth and fairness to all?

On April Fool's Day 2009, The Daily Mail reported thus:

"Gordon Brown has made an overtly religious call for a NEW WORLD ORDER based on the 'deep moral sense' shared by all faiths. Making the first speech by a serving Prime Minister at St Paul's Cathedral in London, he quoted scripture as he urged people to unite to forge a new 'GLOBAL SOCIETY'.

The Prime Minister argued that through all faiths, traditions and heritages runs a 'single powerful modern sense demanding RESPONSIBILITY FROM ALL AND FAIRNESS TO ALL'.

He quoted the Christian doctrine of 'DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU' and highlighted similar principles in JUDAISM, ISLAM, HINDUISM AND SIKHISM.

'They each and all reflect a sense that WE SHARE THE PAIN OF OTHERS, and a sense that we believe in something bigger than ourselves - that WE CANNOT BE TRULY CONTENT WHILE OTHERS FACE DESPAIR, CANNOT BE COMPLETELY AT EASE WHILE OTHERS LIVE IN FEAR, CANNOT BE SATISFIED WHILE OTHERS ARE IN SORROW,' he said."
The brute hypocrisy of the man is breathtaking.

'Responsibility from all,' he says. Without a hint of irony. Does that include your banker pals, Gordon?

Elsewhere in his speech (unquoted by The Mail) he states:

"Instead of a global free market threatening to descend into a global free for all, we must reshape our global economic system so that it respects the values we celebrate in our everyday lives."

Firstly, Gordon, would you mind telling me why it took you twelve, long years to figure out that a grubby bunch of trough-gobblers were going to gobble when you stuck the trough right under their snouts? I mean, they got to hog the trough in the Thatcher years, didn't they? Were you not watching? I mean, for goodness sake, when you were in opposition you were always up in arms about sleaze! How come everything changed as soon as you got into power? Did you think that greedy financiers would, all of a sudden, not behave like greedy financiers because it was you and St Tony who were trusting them not to do so?

And as for the 'global free market THREATENING to descend into a global free for all,' it isn't threatening, Gordon, the threatening was done years ago. The free market was 'threatening to descend' when your hair was long, your shirts all frilly and Thatcher and her monetarist chums were sharpening their cutting tools. By the time you took over, the 'global free for all' was in full swing and, hey, let's be honest for once, you didn't just let it carry right on swinging, did you? You gave it an extra push!

Gordon continues:

"I believe that both markets and governments have a responsibility to serve the public interest, that the poor are our shared responsibility and that wealth carries unique responsibilities too."
If this is what you really believe, Gordon, how come you have served 'the public interest' so very badly up to now?

I mean you and your obscenely avaricious banker pals have just saddled us with two lifetime's worth of debt. How can that possibly be in the interest of the public? And this when we've just paying off the Yanks for the deeply disgusting 'lend-lease' debts of WWII!

Oh, and how come you've waited this long to remind the wealthy of their 'unique responsibilities' to the rest of us? Shouldn't you have been reminding them of that all along? And this 'fairness to all' thing. You and Tony Blair haven't been all that fair to the indigenous Brit, now have you, Gordon? I mean, you both kept on importing immigrants into the country when you knew for a fact that we didn’t want any more piling in on top of us. And then, once they got here, you gave them all but 10 per cent of our jobs! And, just in case your immigrant-partial behaviours upset us, you upped the race-law ante such that now, if we give vent to any righteous anti-alien anger, we face the prospect of spending seven long years behind bars!

If any of this was 'fair,' I'm an old woman's bunion.

And, hey, wasn't it you who you robbed the pension funds almost as soon as you got into power? The pension funds that decent, hard-working and thrifty people set such store by? And now many of those once healthy funds are worth next to nothing or don't exist any more? And then you sold all that gold at the bottom of the market! I mean, Gordon, what is it, precisely, that you did that was so wonderful?

And as for being fair to the English, well, you and your Scots-Irish predecessor both employed Scots out of all proportion to their incidence in the population in your Cabinets and Ministries, didn't you? That wasn't very fair now was it? Why did you do that? How on earth do you imagine you can get away with calling yourself 'fair' when you both chauvinistically promoted Scots way up the greasy pole and, thus, prevented the appropriate number of Anglos from progressing?

The majority tribe have, as a result of your sectarian bias, been governed, largely, by the non-English for a very long time now. Can you show me where it says that such a carry-on is fair in your big book of 'fair to all' fables?

You are not a fair man, Gordon. You are a foul man. You’re a psychopathic Anglophobe who has spent all of his time at the top of the tree sucking up to a rich and powerful elite and ignoring those the Labour Party was formed to represent.

What did you do with our industry? You kept on disappearing it, like your best pal, Thatcher! What did you do with the hospitals and our childrens’ education? You did your best to privatise the one whilst you politicised and dumbed-down the other.

How many have died of C-diff and MRSA and all the other bugs on your watch, Gordon? How many have died because your imported doctors and nurses didn’t do their jobs properly? Who put the wants and needs and attitudes of foreign children before those we elected you to nurture and educate? Why are so many of our kids feral now? Who turned them to drink, drugged them up and indebted them massively if they decided to push on to university?

My God, 'fair to all?' Massively over-fair to your immigrant, your wallet-stuffing banker and parliamentary pals and monstrously unfair to the rest. That's how it seems to me.

"Do to others what you would have them do unto you."
I beg your pardon? Does that mean we get to screw you like you screwed us? No thanks, Gordon. That might be something that might interest the parliamentary pansy but such things have rarely been on the menu down our way.

"We share the pain of others."
Yeah, you inflict it and we suffer it. Such sharing we can do without.

"We cannot be truly content while others face despair, cannot be completely at ease while others live in fear, cannot be satisfied while others are in sorrow."

Gordon, you are one sick, New World Order jobsworth! You and Tony Blair gloried in sticking it to the less well off and morally decent native inhabitants of this country for more than twelve, terrible years. Can you possibly imagine that, somehow, we didn’t notice? You are hated, mate.

Hated!

If you, and the great traitor that preceded you, don’t die at the end of a rope I will go forth from here an unhappy man. I pray to all the Gods of those whose behinds you sniffed so obsequiously in St Pauls that the men, women and children you treated so foully in the beast years of Blair and Brown are revenged, to the maximum, upon you both!

Gordon Brown said what he said on 31 March.

I wonder why the globalist joker didn't wait until the day after?

On 2 April 2009, at the G20 summit, Gordon Brown told us all that 'a new world order is emerging.'

He's taken to boldness, has our Gordon, in respect of this particular bogey phrase. He's used it quite a few times recently. Not as often as 'globalisation' and its derivatives but enough to let us all know that the NWO elite don't think much of our rag-taggle army of bitter no-hopers. Perhaps he's a believer in Goebbels maxim that, if you tell a big lie often enough, we ordinary folk will, eventually, come to believe it.

What Gordon and his top table chums truly believe is this: despite outnumbering THEM by tens of millions to one, THEY have ninety nine percent of the power. And THEY can, therefore, afford to take the p*** out of the rest of us whenever THEY wish.

You keep on looking at your Brave New, broken World out of that dull, sightless eye of yours, Gordon. Seeing only what you want to see, never noticing the things that come out of the dark on the blind side.

That's the way a no-hoper likes it.

England doesn't exist!

On 16 April 1975, Margaret Thatcher said this to the Conservative Group for Europe:

“It is a myth that our membership of the Community will suffocate national tradition and culture.”
By 26 August 1997, however, The Daily Mail was saying this:

“The European Union has a map showing Britain divided into areas such as the European Region of Scotland with ENGLAND NO LONGER SO-CALLED, but divided into four 'European regions'."
On 15 April 1999, The Sun added:

“The EU has mapped out its dream of the future - a Europe without England. A chart sent to businesses, schools and libraries shows Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as parts of Europe. But cheeky Eurocrats, hell-bent on a federal superstate, HAVE NOT MARKED ENGLAND. Instead it is simply represented by nine regions.”
On 13 November 2001, The Wirral Globe, no less, chipped in patriotically:

“THE ENGLISH NO LONGER EXIST, according to the European Commission's publication of maps of the United Kingdom.

They show Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, BUT NOT ENGLAND AS AN ENTITY OR COUNTRY. Instead, it shows where England used to be - from Northumbria to Cornwall as nine different 'regions of the European Union'.

ENGLAND AND THE ENGLISH HAVE BEEN ETHNICALLY, RACIALLY AND NATIONALLY CLEANSED WITHOUT A SINGLE SHOT BEING FIRED.”
http://archive.wirralglobe.co.uk/2001/11/13/7224.html

The EU denied these accusations thus:

"The regions used by the European Union for Statistics for maps ARE CHOSEN BY MEMBER STATES. In the case of the UK, the EU uses the regional division CHOSEN BY THE UK GOVERNMENT…

The regions of England are referred to as Economic Planning Regions as PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY THE UK GOVERNMENT. If England was designated as a separate regional entity (as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are) BY THE UK GOVERNMENT, then it would have been mentioned on the map. The internal administrative boundaries of a Member State IS A MATTER FOR EACH MEMBER STATE to determine.”
http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth49_en.htm

Which denial says just one thing to me: our own treacherous politicians are as happy as the EU Eurocrats to have old England gone.

The Liberation Magazine tells us this:

“The abolition of The United Kingdom by the European Union is… set for May 2009.In 1998, a court case prosecuting Tony Blair, the Queen and 3 former Prime Ministers, under the Treason Acts, was coming to a conclusion. The charge was that as they had illegally signed 4 treaties abolishing our nation, they were guilty of treason and faced life imprisonment.

Shortly before the final hearing, the laws of treason were repealed under the Crime and Disorder Act section 36.3 and the case was dismissed. In 2002 the Queen signed a fifth treaty. The sixth and final one, meaning the abolition of Britain, is scheduled for May 2009. This final treaty will adopt the EU Constitution.”
http://www.liberation-mag.org.uk/outofeu.html

So, according all of the above, the abolition of Britain is almost complete and England doesn’t exist. Well, I do seem to recall hearing that 80 per cent of our laws now originate in Brussels, so we know that the nameless, faceless folk have a lot more power over us than they ought to have, but abolition? Well, the good ship Britannia didn't exactly sail off the edge of the world in May 2009 but with the Humman Rights Act and the bail outs and the must-take-more-migrant edicts, it might as well have.

As for England, I don't remember hearing that our green and pleasant land had been done away with. We all know they don't like us writing 'English' on government forms and the government jobsworth uses the word 'England' as little as possible these days but have 'England and the English,' as The Wirral Globe claims, really 'been ethnically, racially and nationally cleansed without a single shot being fired?'

This is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us:

“Despite the political, economic, and cultural legacy that has secured the perpetuation of its name, ENGLAND NO LONGER OFFICIALLY EXISTS AS A COUNTRY. Unlike Scotland and Wales, which have their own departments of state and Cabinet ministers, and Northern Ireland, which has self-government in domestic affairs, ENGLAND ENJOYS NO SEPARATE POLITICAL STATUS WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM.”
http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5006_45_245.html

“CONSTITUTIONALLY, ENGLAND DOES NOT EXIST. It is not mentioned in the title of the sovereign who rules the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have certain governmental institutions of their own, but ENGLAND, HAVING SUBSUMED OR CREATED THOSE INSTITUTIONS AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, NEEDS NO SPECIAL MENTION”.
http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/micro/micro_192_73.html

Pop down to your local library and look up 'England' in the aforementioned tome, ladies and gentlemen.

As the men say, 'you couldn't make it up' and 'I don't belieeeeve it!'

Check out, 'Do you know the Truth About the EU?' here:

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/

This is not the country I fought for!

On 21 November 2009, The Tony Rennell article, 'This isn't the Britain we fought for' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII’, was published by The Daily Mail.

This cited many of the comments of WWII veterans, as they surveyed what the world they fought so hard for had become, as featured in the book, The Unknown Warriors by Nicholas Pringle.

Here is what a Commando who took part in the disastrous Dieppe raid (4,000 men were lost) thinks of New Labour:

“MORE OF A SHAMBLES THAN SOME OF THE ACTIONS I WAS IN DURING THE WAR”!
He added:

“THOSE COMRADES OF MINE WHO NEVER MADE IT BACK WOULD BE APPALLED IF THEY COULD SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS TODAY. THEY WOULD WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD THEY FOUGHT SO DAMNED HARD FOR.”
A former Durham Light Infantryman wrote:

“OUR BRITISH CULTURE IS DRAINING AWAY AT AN EVER INCREASING PACE,' 'AND WE ARE ALMOST FORBIDDEN TO MAKE ANY COMMENT.”
A widow from Solihull blamed the Thatcher years “when WE STARTED TO LOSE ALL OUR INDUSTRY AND PROFIT BECAME THE ONLY AIM IN LIFE'.

Speaking of her husband, a veteran of Dunkirk and Burma, she said:

“It is 18 years since I lost him and AS I LOOK AROUND PARTS OF BIRMINGHAM TODAY YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW YOU WERE IN ENGLAND… He would have hated it. He also disliked the immoral way things are going. I don't think people are really happy now, for all the modern, easy-living conveniences.

I DISAGREE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGES… RUBBISH TV PROGRAMMES, SO-CALLED CELEBRITIES AND, MOST OF ALL, UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION. I AM VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS BEING TRANSFORMED.

I go nowhere after dark. I don't even answer my doorbell then.”
A Desert Rat who fought at El Alamein and in Sicily, Italy and Greece added:

"THIS IS NOT THE COUNTRY I FOUGHT FOR. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, LACK OF DISCIPLINE, COMPENSATION MADNESS, UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION - THE ‘DO-GOODERS’ HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR.”
A former 'Land Girl'had this to say:

"In my day, DRUGS WERE UNKNOWN, FAMILIES REMAINED TOGETHER, DIVORCE WAS A RARITY AND CHILDREN FELT SECURE. WE'RE NOW CONTROLLED BY GERMANY AND FRANCE. WHAT A SAD IRONY! WERE OUR SACRIFICES MADE SO HOOLIGANS MAY RUN WILD AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR BE ACCEPTED AS THE NORM BY TV INTERVIEWERS AND SOCIETY IN GENERAL?”
Here’s the rest of the article:

“Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out. She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand. Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her.

As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort. Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and sacrifice.

Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally. But WAS IT WORTH IT? Her answer - and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding NO.

THEY DESPISE WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE BRITAIN THEY ONCE FOUGHT TO SAVE. IT'S NOT OUR COUNTRY ANY MORE, THEY SAY, IN SORROW AND ANGER.

Sarah harks back to the days when 'PEOPLE KEPT THE LAWS AND WERE POLITE AND COURTEOUS. WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH MONEY, BUT WE WERE CONTENTED AND HAPPY. People whistled and sang. There was still the United Kingdom, OUR COUNTRY, WHICH WE HAD FOUGHT FOR, OUR FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY. BUT WHERE IS IT NOW?!'

The feelings of Sarah and others from this most selfless generation about the modern world have been recorded by a Tyneside writer, 33-year-old Nicholas Pringle. Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences. He rounded off his request with this question:

'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is THEIR VEHEMENT INSISTENCE THAT THOSE WHO MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE IN THE WAR WOULD NOW BE TURNING IN THEIR GRAVES…

'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I ever tried.'

'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-serviceman.

In the Mail this week, Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity to the war generation'. But the truth that emerges from these letters is that THE SURVIVORS OF THAT WAR GENERATION HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR HIS GOVERNMENT. They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'BETRAYED’…

Nor can David Cameron take any comfort from the elderly. His 'hug a hoodie' advice was scorned by a generation of brave men and women now too scared, they say, to leave their homes at night. Immigration tops the list of complaints.

'PEOPLE COME HERE, GET EVERYTHING THEY ASK, FOR FREE, LAUGHING AT OUR EXPENSE,' was a typical observation.

'We old people struggle on pensions, not knowing how to make ends meet. If I had my time again, would we fight as before? Need you ask?'

MANY WRITERS ARE BEWILDERED AND OVERWHELMED BY A MULTICULTURAL BRITAIN THAT, THEY SAY BITTERLY, THEY WERE NEVER CONSULTED ABOUT NOR FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.

'OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO FOREIGNERS WHILE WE, THE GENERATION WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM, ARE HAVING TO SELL OUR HOMES FOR CARE AND ARE BEING REFUSED MEDICAL SERVICES BECAUSE INCOMERS COME FIRST.'

But then POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS ANOTHER THING THEY TAKE STRONG ISSUE WITH, ALONG WITH POLITICIANS GENERALLY - 'LIARS, INCOMPETENTS AND SELF-AGGRANDISING CHARLATANS' (WITH THE REVEALING EXCEPTION OF ENOCH POWELL).

The loss of British sovereignty to the European Union caused almost as much distress.

'NEARLY ALL VETERANS WANT BRITAIN TO LEAVE THE EU,' wrote one.

Frank, a merchant navy sailor, thought of those who gave their lives 'for King and country', ONLY FOR BRITAIN TO BECOME 'AN OFFSHORE ISLAND OF A EUROPE WHERE FRANCE AND GERMANY HOLD SWAY. IRONIC, ISN'T IT?'

As a group, THEY FEEL FURIOUS AT NOT BEING ABLE TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS. THEY SEE THE LACK OF DEBATE AND THE DAMNING OF DISSENTERS AS RACISTS OR LITTLE ENGLANDERS AS DEEPLY UPSETTING AFFRONTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH…

It is the fundamental change in society's values which they find hardest to come to terms with.

BRING BACK BIRCHING AND HANGING, the sanctions they grew up with, they say. Put more bobbies back on the beat.

'WE WERE RIGIDLY TAUGHT GOOD MANNERS AND RESPECT FOR OLDER PEOPLE,' said a wartime WAAF, 'but the nanny state has ruined all that. Television programmes are full of violence and obscene language. THIS LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY IS IN REALITY A LAND OF YOBS, DRUG ADDICTS, DRUNKARD YOUTHS AND TEENAGE MOTHERS WHO THINK THEY ARE OWED ALL FOR NOTHING.'

Aged 85, she has little wish to go on living.

A crofter's son from Scotland who served on the Arctic convoys taking supplies to Russia found the immediate post-war years hard.

'In those days we had no welfare support from any source. It was as though WE HAD SERVED OUR COUNTRY TO THE FULL AND WERE THEN FORGOTTEN. However, we were very resilient and determined to make a go of it, and many of us, including myself, succeeded. How TIMES HAVE CHANGED NOW, WITH THE COUNTLESS MANY CLAMOURING TO GET WELFARE BENEFITS FOR THE ASKING.'

A medic who made it through Dunkirk and D-Day thought THE FALLEN WOULD BE APPALLED BY THE LACK OF MANNERS IN MODERN LIFE AND THE WORSHIP OF CELEBRITIES, PLUS 'THE PATENT DISHONESTY OF POLITICIANS'…

A grandmother, the widow of a Royal Marine who took part in the D-Day landings, felt the National Health Service had descended into chaos but… just being alive was a bonus. 'Although I hate what is happening to our country, I am so happy to be here, grumbling, but remembering better, happier days,' she wrote.

But one of the bitterest complaints of the veterans was that THEIR TRENCHANT VIEWS ON MANY OF THE MATTERS AIRED HERE WERE CONSTANTLY IGNORED BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY. THEIR LETTERS OF COMPLAINT TO COUNCILLORS AND MPS WENT UNANSWERED. IT WAS AS IF THEY DIDN'T MATTER, EXCEPT WHEN WHEELED OUT FOR THE RITUALS OF REMEMBRANCE DAY…

The overall impression any reader of the letters gets is that THIS GENERATION FEEL UNHEARD, UNWANTED AND UNIMPORTANT…

They may be deemed beyond their sell-by date… but, by their deeds of 60-plus years ago, they have won the right to be listened to and their disillusionment noted with respect.

In one letter in this collection, an RAF mechanic quoted a poem about comrades who fell in battle:

'I mourned them then, But now surviving IN A WORLD, INDIFFERENT TO THEIR HOPES AND DREAMS, I GRIEVE MORE FOR THE LIVING’.”
I grieve for the living too.

We want our country back, don't we? If you want it too, ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to have to stop voting for those who stole it!

It’s as simple as that.

Spare me the tears of the White working-class!

On 5 January 2009, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, opined thus in The Independent:

“SPARE ME THE TEARS OVER THE WHITE WORKING CLASS. Their kith and kin, it seems, have turned against incomers AS SELF PITY OVERWHELMS THEM. A new government report finds that they feel ‘betrayed’ and abandoned. Ruined by 'ethnic minorities' THEY CRY INTO THEIR ANTIMACASSARS AND THREATEN TO VOTE FOR FASCISTS...

Parliamentarians, the media, even the people who claim to speak for immigrants… are flocking TO INDULGE THE ALWAYS-WRETCHED AND COMPLAINING CLASSES...

Criticise them and they, who detest PC, bring down the wrath of Alf Garnett on your head... What they believe – HOWEVER STUPID OR VICIOUS – must be awesome...

One writer, Liz Jones... sees through the cultural protectionism. Responding to beer-swilling blokes in Wibsey Working Men's Club, in Bradford, who said on television that they had lost their place as the backbone of the nation because Asians were overtaking them, she wrote:

‘A SNAIL WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WOULD OVERTAKE THIS LOT'."
Here's an interesting thing, Yasmin, no matter how 'stupid' we are, no matter how 'self-pitying,' 'always-wretched and complaining,' 'vicious' and 'beer-swilling,' people like you keep on flocking here in order to live alongside of us, don't they?

Now why would that be, I wonder?

Alibahai-Brown adds:

"We are blameless citizens and residents."
Are you really? Take a look in the mirror, Yasmin. Do you not see a hate-filled enemy of the British people? What about the contents of the Rogues' Gallery? Check them out and tell us, are they not just a little blameworthy? How much harm do you think the Gallery's occupants have done to the British people over the years? How many British people have been murdered, raped, prostitued and drugged-up by that little lot?

What about the 7/7 bombers? Don't such as them count in your blameless equation? Alibhai-Brown adds:

"Many of us would not live elsewhere".
Oh we do know that, Yasmin. No matter how many times you condemn us, you wouldn’t want to live in a land where your own kind predominate, would you? I wonder why that should be?

"I hope one day we can truly belong, our rights and responsibilities no different from those who arrived and laid claims long before us on these MONGREL, OFT-INVADED ISLES".
The last significant invasion of these islands, other than the recent invasion of the immigrant hordes, took place in 1066.

William the Conqueror declared war on us back then, our own government declared war on us in 1948 when the Windrush colonists were not sent straight back where they came from. THEY have been at war with us ever since.

Ladies and gentlemen, Alibhai-Brown’s snarling, insanely ungrateful and hate-filled dismissal of the plight of the indigenous Brit might give you a bit of a clue as to why some of us are so disenchanted with the Multicult.

Consider this: during the 4 June 2006 edition of Dateline London, the woman who penned the sneering commentary cited above was asked this question by presenter, Gavin Essler:

"What's wrong with white guys, by the way?"
To which she replied:

"I don't like them. I WANT THEM TO BE THE LOST SPECIES IN 100 YEARS".
No one, not the BBC, not the police or the judciary, certainly not the media, the politicians or the PC Crowd, not even the long-suffering British public, has ever questioned the right of this pathologically ungrateful Muslim refugee from Idi Amin's Uganda to want the white man gone.

I guess that's why she gets to preach genocide (never mind 'racial hatred') without fear of the consequences.

If you're not British and native-born, there just aren't any.

Go here to view The forces of hate are still with us

Tuesday, 30 May 2006

Aspartame: Donald's Very Own WMD

Marketed as Nutrasweet, Equal and Spoonful, almost all "low-calorie, diet or no-added sugar drinks" now contain the artificial sweetner, Aspartame.

Since it was introduced in 1981, Aspartame has been the subject of a great many of the complaints reported to the adverse reaction monitors of the US Food and Drug Administration. Coca-Cola knew of the dangers of Aspartame because it originally opposed approval by the FDA. It said that it was inherently unstable and breaks down into methyl alcohol, formic acid, formaldehyde and other toxins.

And yet, Aspartame is now to be found in every diet coke can.

When news leaked out alleging that G.D.Searle, who owned Aspartame, had falsified test results, congress pledged $60,000,000 for the prosecution of the firm's Chairman. However, the Reagan administration closed ranks and prevented the trial of one of their own from taking place.

The chairman of G.D. Searle at the time was none other than DONALD RUMSFELD, George Bush's infamous Defence Secretary and one of the leading Neoconservative 'hawks' that forced Gulf War II upon the world.

G.D. Searle is now a subsidiary of MONSANTO.

Anyone out there think I'm a conspiracy theorist? You do? Well, check out what Roger Williams, the Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, had to say on the floor of the House of Commons on 14 January 2005:
“For almost a year, I have been looking into the safety of the artificial sweetener, Aspartame, and I was truly horrified by what I discovered. When I began my research, I was unconvinced by the off-the-wall internet conspiracy theories. I am a man of science, not of the internet. However, a number of eminent academics from the UK and further afield have persuaded me beyond doubt that Aspartame represents a serious health problem.

There is strong scientific evidence that the components of Aspartame and their metabolites can cause very serious toxic effects in humans. There is also a wealth of subjective evidence that suggests a range of adverse neurological reactions to Aspartame… long-term Aspartame use causes cancer in rodents. The world health organisation recognises such findings in rats as highly predictive of carcinogenic risk for humans.

The history of Aspartame's approval is mired in controversy, not least because of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld ‘calling in his markers’ to get it approved. The science that supported its approval was biased, inconclusive and incompetent. Aspartame is in a higher category of risk than Sudan 1, the UK's fastest recalled food substance. However, bad science, bad regulation and bad politics have left the bigger of those two threats in everyday products on our supermarket shelves.

Aspartame is consumed every day by an average of one in 15 people worldwide, most of whom are children. How many children in Britain do not consume walker's prawn cocktail crisps, orbit or airwaves chewing gum, Robinson's fruit squash, Lucozade or Diet Coke? Aspartame is even found in Centrum Kidz Multivitamins, Lemsip cold and flu sachets for children, and Nurofen Meltlets for children. Those are the very products that are designed to cure our children when they are sick.

The economic reality of a sweetening agent that costs one third of the price of sugar means that it is present in no fewer than 6,000 foods, drinks and pharmaceutical products in our supermarkets. The history of the approval of this ubiquitous product puts public health regulators and politicians to shame. Crucial questions that have been largely repressed since the early '80s hang over Aspartame's safety.

When journalists attempted to tackle those questions, their newspapers were threatened with intimidating letters from the industry's lawyers. I am duty-bound by the immunity afforded to me under parliamentary privilege — and as a servant of the public — to initiate a debate that has been silenced for over two decades.

I believe that Aspartame should never have been licensed for use as a low-calorie sweetener in foods and drinks, and that there is compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market…

The chemical breakdown of Aspartame reveals three basic components: a methyl ester and two amino acids; phenylalanine and aspartic acid… when aspartic acid enters the bloodstream… (it) becomes an excitotoxin, a toxic molecule that stimulates nerve cells to the point of damage or death…

If both of the amino acids in Aspartame are potentially very harmful to humans, the third component—methyl ester—is the most harmful and potentially lethal component. As soon as it is ingested, the methyl ester is metabolised by the body into methanol. Methanol is a well-known poison.

In the United States, the environmental protection agency defines safe consumption of methanol as no more than 7.8 mg per day. That means that anyone drinking three cans of a drink sweetened with Aspartame is consuming about 56 mg of methanol, eight times the EPA limit… then comes the alarming part: methanol is unstable in the human body and so gets converted into formaldehyde… Let us be clear that formaldehyde is a class a poison, which was used to prevent dead bodies from decaying.

Do we really want our children exposed to an embalming fluid? Some of the formaldehyde accumulated in the body will be converted into formic acid, a potent toxin, which can cause central nervous system depression and, in sufficient quantity, coma and death. Many human studies show the adverse effects from chronic, low-level formaldehyde exposure. Crucially, in 1998, Trocho demonstrated that, even when consuming small doses, severe problems occur from the gradual accumulation of formaldehyde in the body, which cannot be excreted.

A working group looking into the toxicity of chemicals in humans found that exposure to formaldehyde induced leukaemia—a cancer of the white blood cells—and cancer of the nose and throat. Surely, if Aspartame metabolites have been shown to cause cancer in humans, we should be more concerned about the safety of the entire product. How can the government, faced with those facts, still hope to reassure regular consumers of Diet Cola and other products containing Aspartame that they do not run a significantly higher risk of developing cancer as a result of drinking them?…

Hon. Members will no doubt remember the scandal in February this year, when Sudan 1 dye found in food in the UK led to possibly the biggest and fastest ever food recall that this country has ever known. A human being would have had to consume 3 tonnes of Worcestershire sauce every day for two years for potentially harmful effects to occur from tiny doses of Sudan 1 in foods. Despite that minimal risk, however, it was removed immediately.

Sudan 1 was found to be carcinogenic in 1975, but despite that it was placed in the least dangerous of the three who categories of carcinogenic substances. Aspartame, which is found in 10 times more products is, on the basis of the ground-breaking Ramazzini study, in who category 2, which is potentially far more dangerous to humans.

The Ramazzini study, to which I will return in depth later, revealed a repeated incidence of malignant tumours in rats after moderate regular consumption. Will the minister explain why the treatment of Aspartame, which is still in 6,000 supermarket products today, has been so different from that of Sudan 1?

The toxicity of Aspartame's individual components is surely sufficient for us to be alarmed about its widespread use in the products that we and our children consume every day. But consumers and scientists alike have shown there is cause for concern from the regular consumption of products containing Aspartame. The us food and drug administration website lists more than 9,000 Aspartame-related health complaints, but this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Health professionals are often unable to diagnose a case of Aspartame toxicity when they see one—after all, doctors are not currently trained to recognise it—and a number of cases have been misdiagnosed. A number of independent studies have shown that Aspartame toxicity mimics conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, panic disorder, lupus, diabetes, lymphoma, depression and other psychological disorders…

The conclusions of the Ramazzini study deserve painstaking dissection… This vast study demonstrated that Aspartame administered at varying levels in feed causes a statistically significant increase of lymphomas and leukaemias, malignant tumours of the kidneys in female rats and malignant tumours of peripheral and cranial nerves in male rats. Such tumours occurred even in two of the doses that were well below the acceptable daily intake recommended by regulatory authorities in the eu and the us.

There has been a wealth of compelling and rigorous research showing Aspartame to be harmful, which culminated in last month's comprehensive Ramazzini study. How has the industry responded to such an overwhelming volume of sound science? I met industry representatives in October and if they were not scientifically illiterate, they were certainly very misinformed as to the credentials of the Ramazzini study, which they presented as worthless, unpublished and un-peer-reviewed.

Holland sweetener, Ajinomoto and Nutrasweet must think that they are very convincing when they claim that Aspartame is the safest product on the market by virtue of the 500 studies attesting to its safety. One can test a product 4,000 times, but if the tests are badly conducted and planned in such a way as to yield the desired results, its safety will always be questionable. In reality, the contrast between the quality of the science in the ramazzini study and the industry studies could not be more clear or more damaging to the industry.

Serious doubts have been raised that suggest links between the results of scientific research and the body responsible for funding it. Professor Ralph Walton, who is present today, demonstrated in 1996 that of the 166 studies conducted on Aspartame's safety deemed relevant to humans, 74 were sponsored by the Aspartame industry and 92 were independently funded. Of the 92 non-industry sponsored studies, 92 per cent. Identified one or more problems with Aspartame's safety. The industry-sponsored studies, on the other hand, found unanimously in favour of Aspartame's safety…

On the question of who to trust on the competing scientific tests—be they on diabetes or aspartame safety—the track record of the industry should leave us in no doubt. The history of aspartame's approval is one in which sound science and proper regulatory and political independence seem to be notable by their absence. Aspartame was first licensed in the United States in 1981. Searle, the chemical company that discovered it, submitted a host of tests to the FDA in the hope of getting it approved. It was granted a provisional licence in 1974. However, when flaws were revealed in the science behind another Searle product —Flagyl — later that year, aspartame's impending licence was brought into question.

The FDA set up a task-force to investigate 15 of the key aspartame studies submitted by Searle. Dr. Bressler was commissioned to investigate three of those studies. Due to insufficient funds, the FDA submitted the other 12 studies to be analysed by a body called universities associated for research and evaluation in pathology, which was under contract with Searle and which unsurprisingly declared all 12 studies to be authentic. Aspartame was recommended for approval.

Meanwhile, dr. Bressler reported to the FDA in early 1976. He found no fewer than 52 major discrepancies in Searle's clinical conduct of its toxicological studies. They included no clear record being kept of the doses fed to rats; antibiotics being given to animals showing symptoms but not being reported; tumours contracted by rats during the experiment being surgically removed before dissection and not reported; and, above all, no clear record of death. One record shows an animal was alive, then dead, then alive, then dead.

Yet despite the 52 major discrepancies, FDA scientists were overruled by the FDA's administration, which seems to have been more concerned with safeguarding the institution's reputation after having been initially misled by unreliable data…

It is quite clear that Searle's scientists breached even the most basic understanding of sound laboratory science. However, the real tragedy is that it was on those 15 deeply flawed studies that the final decision to approve Aspartame in the US was made, and many other countries soon followed suit. Today, those same highly questionable studies still underpin the science attesting to Aspartame's safety.

Aspartame's approval incorporates not just bad science but bad politics. On the political scene, Donald Rumsfeld was instrumental in securing its approval. As chief executive officer of Searle from 1977, he publicly pledged to call in his markers to get it approved…

When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president in 1981, Donald Rumsfeld was on his transition team. President Reagan sealed the lid on the Aspartame controversy. On the very day of his inauguration, Reagan personally wrote the executive order suspending the FDA commissioner's powers on Aspartame. Reagan replaced the commissioner one month later with Arthur Hayes jr., who granted the official licence for Aspartame.

The history of its approval is littered with examples showing that if key decision-makers found against its safety, they were discredited, ignored or replaced by industry sympathisers, who were in turn recompensed with lucrative jobs…

I have raised some of the most important questions about Aspartame's safety ever discussed in this place. There is solid evidence to suggest that its regular long-term use can cause cancer and a range of other health problems. Emergency action is now needed to remove the toxin from our own and our children's diets.

Aspartame has caused concern among the public and the scientific community for more than 30 years. Better information or better product labelling simply is not enough at this point. Today, I am giving the government a chance to set right what previous British, European and international health authorities have so dismally failed to do. A total ban is the only way to protect the British public.”
Nine years on, Aspartame is still to be found in many of our 'foods, drinks and pharmaceutical products'.

The politicians never did ban it.

Blair tricked us into war!

On 13 December 2009, Fern Britton interviewed Tony Blair for the BBC.

During the interview, she posed this question:

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?"
Blair replied:

"I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO USE AND DEPLOY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE THREAT.”
We know, Tony.

No matter what we wanted, you would have 'deployed' whatever argument you thought might get us into Iraq alongside you best buddy, George, wouldn't you? In the end, you and the smirking chimp knew so much better than the rest of us, that’s the real point, isn’t it? In a democracy, the elite just can’t afford to let the people decide. They might just do something that doesn’t suit the suits.

Blair continued:

“I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons in charge.”
Saddam may have been a monster but, if he had still been in charge, and Bush and Blair hadn‘t invaded, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today who are now dead.

I guess even a consummate liar like Tony B would have to admit the dead would have been 'better' off.

“That's why I sympathise with the people who were against it for perfectly good reasons and are against it now”.
Pardon me?

I seem to remember you sneering at the peaceniks. Didn’t you say this the day after two million Brits marched in protest against the looming war in Iraq:

"I read the anti-war sites and listen to the protesters and I realise that they haven't a clue, or worse, they just don't give a damn."
Blair continued:

“This was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind. THE THREAT TO THE REGION.”
The region?

You mean Israel, don’t you, Tony?

“Also the fact of HOW THAT REGION WAS GOING TO CHANGE AND HOW IN THE END IT WAS GOING TO EVOLVE AS A REGION and whilst he was there, I thought and actually still think, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE CHANGED IT IN THE RIGHT WAY."
The right way?

That would the way Israel and the US Neocons (most of whom were Jewish) wanted it, I suppose? If anyone out there is unaware of the real motivation of those who forced Gulf War II upon the rest of us, check out what the honest Israeli journalist, Ari Shavit, said in the 5 April 2003, edition of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz:

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, MOST OF THE JEWISH, who are pushing President Bush TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY."
On 14 December 2009, in response to the self-justfications cited above, Ken Macdonald QC, who was Tony Blair’s Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003 to 2006 and Gordon Brown’s until 2008, presented the accusatory essay, INTOXICATED BY POWER, BLAIR TRICKED US INTO WAR, in The Times.

This is it:

“The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. THIS WAS A FOREIGN POLICY DISGRACE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that TONY BLAIR ENGAGED IN AN ALARMING SUBTERFUGE WITH HIS PARTNER GEORGE BUSH AND WENT ON TO MISLEAD AND CAJOLE THE BRITISH PEOPLE INTO A DEADLY WAR THEY HAD MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR THEY DIDN’T WANT, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible.

Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?…

BLAIR’S FUNDAMENTAL FLAW WAS HIS SYCOPHANCY TOWARDS POWER… WASHINGTON TURNED HIS HEAD AND HE COULDN’T RESIST THE STAGE OR THE GLAMOUR THAT IT GAVE HIM. IN THIS SENSE HE WAS WEAK AND, AS WE CAN SEE, HE REMAINS SO. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating THE SELF-REGARDING MANTRA THAT ‘HAND ON HEART, I ONLY DID WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT‘. But THIS IS A NARCISSIST’S DEFENCE AND SELF-BELIEF IS NO ANSWER TO MISJUDGMENT: IT IS CERTAINLY NO ANSWER TO DEATH. ‘Yo, Blair‘, perhaps, was his truest measure…

Ominously for the former Prime Minister, his growing distance from power appears to be loosening some well-placed Whitehall tongues. It seems that the contempt felt by some mandarins for his fancier footwork around the weapons of mass destruction is finally showing in a belated settling of scores….

Yet the position of the inquiry panel is uncertain. So far, apart from some interventions by Sir Roderic Lyne, the former ambassador in Moscow, ITS QUESTIONING HAS BEEN UNCHALLENGING. If this is born of a belief that it creates an atmosphere more conducive to truth, it seems naive… A great and brave struggle against instinct will be necessary. IN BRITISH PUBLIC LIFE, LOYALTY AND SERVICE TO POWER CAN SOMETIMES COUNT FOR MORE TO INSIDERS than any tricky questions of wider reputation. IT’S THE REGARD YOU ARE HELD IN BY YOUR PEERS THAT REALLY COUNTS, SO THAT STEADFASTNESS IN THE FACE OF ATTACK AND THREATENED EXPOSURE BRINGS ITS OWN RICH HIERARCHY OF HONOUR AND REWARD. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure…

IT IS PRECISELY THIS PRIVATELY ARRANGED NATURE OF BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT POWER, STUBBORN BEYOND SYMPATHY FOR YEARS IN THE FACE OF THE MODERN WORLD, THAT HAS BROUGHT OUR POLITICS SO LOW. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt. This would be a serious blow to the integrity of the State. It would not restore trust…

THE TAX ON DISHONESTY IS RISING… CITIZENS BELIEVE DEEPLY IN A DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO KNOW AND THEY NO LONGER ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR UNWORTHINESS TO ENJOY ITS NOURISHMENT. Naturally, THIS IS A LESS COMFORTABLE WORLD FOR PEOPLE IN POWER, BUT IT’S A MUCH BETTER WORLD FOR EVERYONE ELSE. The real tragedy of Iraq, beyond all the danger and the terrible loss, is that it rendered any affair of the heart between government and people no more than a wisp, like A LIE IN THE WIND. It broke faith…

We have seen enormous acts of courage on the part of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most heart-rending sacrifices have been made… But none of this sprinkles, as he might once have hoped it would, any starlight on Tony Blair. On the contrary, it is entirely the work of WARRIORS THRUST CARELESSLY INTO DEATH’S WAY BY A PRIME MINISTER LOST IN SELF-AGGRANDISEMENT and a governing class too closed to speak truth to power.”
The rats are leaving the establishment ship at a wonderfully alarming rate, are they not?

If anyone out there thinks I’m being harsh, associating MacDonald with the bringers of the Black Death, answer this: why did he not speak out when it mattered? Was he really 'tricked into war?' Were the parliamentarians and the press who lusted for it at the time equally 'tricked?'

Ladies and gentlemen, many thousands of us knew the score. We knew why the war was being fought and in who’s behalf. But the mainstream media did not allow us a voice. The establishment, of which Ken MacDonald was an integral part, was banging the drum for war and it didn’t want those unworthy of the 'right to know' afforded the 'nourishment' of any truth contrary to the Blairite spin.

Many of the elite characters slavering for a great slaughter at the time will, indeed, have been 'tricked,' in so far as they chose not to question what they ought to have been questioning. In so far as they did not investigate in any depth what they should have.

MacDonald was one of those who went along with 'a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions.' He wasn’t interested in challenging and/or exposing Tony Blair’s 'sycophancy.' He, with many others, aided and abetted Bush and Blair as they 'went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want.'

The MacDonalds were much better placed to know what the reality was than the many, outside the loop, who protested. And, if they were not aware of the full facts, they would easily have been able to find out what they were if they had chosen to do so.

They didn’t. A great many concerned British citizens, who believed 'deeply in a democratic right to know,' did. That’s why I say Ken MacDonald is a bit of an old, murine ship-leaver.

Nevertheless, if his belated condemnation helps to nail Tony B Liar to the cross, I’d forgive him the long silence on these matters. Maybe.

What MacDonald was up in arms about here has all been known for a very long time, you know. Let me cite a few examples of things that were being said a few years back.

On 14 March 2003, 4 days before the invasion, John Pilger wrote this in The Daily Mirror:

"THE BLAIR GOVERNMENT HAS KNOWN, ALMOST FROM THE DAY IT CAME TO OFFICE IN 1997, THAT IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE ALMOST CERTAINLY DESTROYED FOLLOWING THE GULF WAR. Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation.

Two weeks ago, a transcript of a United Nations debriefing of Iraqi general Hussein Kamel was obtained by the American magazine, Newsweek, and by Cambridge University analyst, Glen Rangwala (who last month revealed that Blair's 'intelligence Dossier' on Iraq was lifted, word for word, from an American student's thesis).

General Kamel was the West's 'star witness' in its case against Saddam Hussein. He was no ordinary defector. A son-in-law of the Iraqi dictator, he had immense power in Iraq; and when he defected, he took with him crates of secret documents on Iraq's weapons programme. These secrets have been repeatedly cited by George W Bush and his officials as 'evidence' that Iraq still has large quantities of deadly weapons of mass destruction, and that only war can disarm it. Bush, his officials and leading American commentators, have frequently lauded General Kamel as the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons. The Blair government has echoed this.

In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons. For example, General Kamel says categorically:

'I ORDERED DESTRUCTION OF ALL CHEMICAL WEAPONS. ALL WEAPONS - BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, MISSILE, NUCLEAR - WERE DESTROYED.' All that remains, he says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches.

NEWSWEEK SAYS THAT THE CIA AND BRITAIN'S MI6 WERE TOLD THIS; AND BLAIR AND BUSH MUST HAVE BEEN TOLD THE TRUTH. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS LIKELY THAT IRAQ HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DISARMED FOR AT LEAST EIGHT YEARS."
In May 2003, Tony Benn said this on LBC Radio:

"I believe THE PRIME MINISTER LIED TO US AND LIED TO US AND LIED TO US. THE WHOLE WAR WAS BUILT UPON FALSEHOOD AND I THINK THE LONG-TERM DAMAGE WILL BE TO DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. YOU CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH TELLING LIES FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES."
On the Panorama programme of 20 March 2005, Robin Cook, the Former Foreign Secretary, said:

"He (Tony B) saw the evidence. He probably saw more of the intelligence than any other single person in government. Therefore HE WAS WELL PLACED TO JUDGE HOW THIN IT WAS… What surprised me, astonished me, about the September dossier was how one sided it was. IT WAS PROPAGANDA, IT WAS NOT AN HONEST PRESENTATION OF INTELLIGENCE".
Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House of Commons (its longest-serving member) until he retired in 2005, had a habit of telling the truths the establishment didn't want told.

On 18 March 2003, the day of the great Iraq debate in parliament, I sent a couple of e-mails to some of the most anti-war MPs, which contained information that I thought might undermine the shiny-eyed zealot and those that were spoiling for a fight. I also tried to pass this stuff on to Mr Dalyell, to my mind the most honourable man in parliament, but, unfortunately, he had no e-mail facility. However, I got a surprise that night. The phone rang. It was Tam Dalyell.

As a consequence of our little chat, I promised to post a written copy of the information that I had at my disposal to his home address. I asked Mr. Dalyell a simple question before I hung up and he gave me a simple answer.

My question was:

"How many Kurds, do you believe were killed at Halabja?"
He replied:

"About 400".
Whenever Halabja was mentioned by the British and American warmongers, they always categorically pronounced that the number of people killed was 5,000. I knew this to be a lie and Mr. Dalyell confirmed it for me during our brief conversation.

A little while after that, I sent him a much larger document than the one I had sent to Glenda Jackson and George Galloway. In total, I provided him with 80 foolscap pages of damning information. However, I never heard from him again and the information that I sent to the other anti-war MPs was not used in that final debate.

I e-mailed the same information to a good many journalists, specifically, to those whose newspapers seemed to be making an effort to stop the war in Iraq before it began. None ever replied.

Interestingly, however, a few months later, Tam Dalyell suggested that several members of Chairman Blair’s entourage were a part of a 'Jewish cabal,' intent on stoking up the fires of war. He first made these opinions known in the US magazine, Vanity Fair. He echoed his accusations on Radio 4's World at One programme, saying that the government of the US was, '… being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers… There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States.'

He went on to describe some of the 'neoconservatives' who comprise the enormously influential advisory body, JINSA.

"The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs - I was thinking of Wolfowitz, Deputy Defence Minister Perle, Bolton, Assistant Secretary of State, Feith, Adelman, Abrams and Fleischer. Those people drive this policy…

I am worried about my country being led up the garden path on a Likudnik (Ariel) Sharon agenda... Straw, Mandelson and Co. are leading a tremendous drive to sort out the Middle East".
Mr. Dalyell also said that he had 'picked out one person about whom I am extremely concerned, and I have to be blunt about it. That is Lord Levy… I believe his influence has been very important on the Prime Minister and has led to what I see as this awful war and the sack of Baghdad.'

So, I guess it is possible that he didn’t just chuck my 80-page non-dodgy 'dossier' into the bin when he discovered its worryingly off-piste revelations.

The document that I e-mailed to various anti-war MPs on 18 March 2003 may be found here:

http://www.iamanenglishman.com/page.php?iCategoryId=88&iParentId=87

On 7 June 2002, 10 months before Gulf War II began, The Telegraph reported thus:

"Tam Dalyell, the veteran Labour MP, last night said Tony Blair was a worse leader than Margaret Thatcher and consigned him to last place when he ranked the eight Prime Ministers he had known in his parliamentary career… Even Michael Foot was rated a more effective leader by Mr Dalyell, despite presiding over Labour's disastrous election defeat in 1983.

Mr Dalyell condemned Mr Blair's ‘presidential’ style… The MP for Linlithgow said Mr Wilson, Mr Callaghan, John Smith, Hugh Gaitskell, Mr Foot and Neil Kinnock were all better leaders."
On 27 March 2003, The Guardian featured an interview with Tam, in which he said:

"My constituency Labour party has just voted to recommend that Tony Blair reconsider his position as party leader… I agree with this motion. I also believe that… HE SHOULD BE BRANDED AS A WAR CRIMINAL and sent to The Hague."
On 18 January 2004, The Sunday Telegraph told us this:

"Mr Dalyell confided to me that he had changed his opinion of Mr Blair. ‘He is not the worst,’ said Mr Dalyell last week. ‘HE IS BY FAR THE WORST.’

Mr Dalyell, 71, announced last week that he would retire at the next election after more than 40 years at Westminster. Mr Blair, perhaps thankful that his adversary was quitting, led the tributes to him.

‘Fiercely independent, Tam's persistence in pursuing causes close to his heart is legendary,’ Mr Blair told the House. The kind remarks by the Prime Minister cut little ice with the member for Linlithgow who, as the longest-serving MP, is also Father of the House…

‘Tony should go,’ he declared."
Suffice it to say, when the time comes for the traitors to be called to account, there is one politician who will be allowed to stir the pot as opposed to occupying it.

It won't be Ken MacDonald.

Black + White = Good - Brit + Brit = In-Breeding!

On 27 May 2009, the alternative "comedian", Eddie Izzard was quoted thus by The Daily Mirror:

"Last time, 65 years ago, people from around the world got together to fight fascism. But this time, UNLESS WE STOP THEM, THE FASCISTS will be democratically elected. THE RACIST BNP needs only a small swing in some areas, and at a time of unprecedented national anger with the mainstream parties…

WE ALL KNOW THE BNP IS A RACIST PARTY AND RACISM IS ACTIVE HATRED. THE BNP TALK ABOUT RACIAL PURITY, A CONCEPT THEY LEARNED FROM HITLER. But the idea was always false. IF THE SAME GENETIC PEOPLE HAVE KIDS WITH EACH OTHER, WE ALL KNOW WHERE THAT LEADS. IT'S CALLED IN-BREEDING. IT IS THE BLEND OF YOUR GENES THAT MAKES YOU POWERFUL AND MAKES US, AS A COUNTRY, STRONG.

IF YOUR MUM'S FROM ENGLAND AND YOUR DAD'S FROM UKRAINE, THAT'S A GOOD THING. IF YOU'RE BORN IN HAWAII, YOUR MUM'S A WHITE WOMAN FROM KANSAS AND YOUR DAD'S A BLACK MAN FROM KENYA, YOU COULD BE PRESIDENT OF THE US…

I was in the US for the elections and witnessed HOPE'S GREAT VICTORY. Yet now, in Britain, WE ARE ABOUT TO ELECT RACISTS TO REPRESENT US IN EUROPE. I WAS BORN IN YEMEN but, whatever the place of my birth, I FEEL I AM A BRITISH EUROPEAN. I BELIEVE IT'S A WEAKNESS OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT TO HATE PEOPLE. And I am lucky because I have already seen what Hope can do.

I AM TAKING MY INSPIRATION FROM BARACK OBAMA, but I am also taking it from the hundreds of students, workers, housewives, activists, trade unionists, doctors, teachers, mums and dads who have been uniting these past weeks under the banner of Hope Not Hate. Today, I will be in Manchester with the Hope Not Hate bus, meeting veterans and HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS and hearing their stories of the horrors that occurred when fascism almost triumphed 65 years ago.

JUNE 4, 2009, IS OUR D-DAY and we owe it to that great generation to simply walk to the ballot box. If you believe in humanity, in our modern, diverse country, I ask you to reject the politics of hate. On election day, I WILL BE VOTING LABOUR.”
Thus spake a make-up caked, Brit-loathing, PC perv.

“I believe it's a weakness of the human spirit to hate people”, states the sanctimonious twerp. And yet the Izzards positively bristle with hatred for anyone who dares to speak up for the indigenous “people” of these islands in these fashionably anti-British times.

"Unless we stop them, the Fascists will be democratically elected", he says. Izzard seems to suggest that "democracy" shouldn't have to apply to anyone who doesn't think like him. It shouldn't have pertain to those he likes to think of as "Fascists", for example.

Almost all of whom, unlike him, were born right here. That the PC Crowd is hypocritical and dishonest would be a bit of an understatement to say the least.

“I believe it's a weakness of the human spirit to hate people”, states the sanctimonious twerp. And yet the Izzards positively bristle with hatred for anyone who dares to speak up for the indigenous “people” of these islands in these fashionably anti-British times.

"Unless we stop them, the Fascists will be democratically elected", he wails. is he suggesting that "democracy" shouldn't have to apply to those he likes to think of as 'Fascist?' Almost all of whom, unlike him, were born right here. That the PC Crowd is hypocritical and dishonest would be a bit of an understatement to say the least.

Well, I've never been a member of the BNP but hey, if you're on the side of a bloke who wants you to think to be British is to be in-bred, DO NOT vote for me!

Difficult Outcomes and Flawed Regimes

On 3 November 2009, the New Labour MP, Kim Howells, wrote the following in The Guardian:

“Seven years of military involvement and civilian aid in Afghanistan have succeeded in subduing al-Qaida's activities in that country, BUT HAVE NOT DESTROYED THE ORGANISATION OR ITS LEADER, Osama bin Laden. Nor have they succeeded in eliminating al-Qaida's protectors, the Taliban. THERE CAN BE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS WILL BRING SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER SUCCESS…

It would be better… TO BRING HOME THE GREAT MAJORITY OF OUR FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN and concentrate on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, EXPAND OUR INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS ABROAD, CO-OPERATE WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, and counter the propaganda of those who encourage terrorism…

WE WOULD NEED TO REINVENT OURSELVES DIPLOMATICALLY AND MILITARILY. Treaties and international agreements would have to be renegotiated. In particular, relationships with our Nato partners, ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMERICANS – our most trusted and valued allies – would alter fundamentally.

LIFE INSIDE THE UK WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. THERE WOULD BE MORE INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE in certain communities, MORE POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREETS”.
Would it just be the Muslims you’ve been importing for more the forty years now that the boys-in-blue and the Thought Police would be watching, Mr Howells?

Or would the native population fall foul of your intrusive surveillance as well. Thought so. Howells continued:

“If media reports are true, the British public is becoming increasingly hostile to the notion that any of our service personnel should be killed or wounded in support of DIFFICULT OUTCOMES AND FLAWED REGIMES IN FARAWAY COUNTRIES”.
The 'British public' has always been 'hostile' to the predictably 'difficult outcomes' foist upon them by their parliamentary betters, Mr Howells. Seven years too late such as yourself have decided to take notice of that hostility. Howells continued:

“THE SIZE OF THE AFGHAN CONFLICT MIGHT GROW, RATHER THAN DECREASE… I doubt whether the presence, even of another 40,000 American troops… will guarantee that the Taliban and their allies will no longer be able to terrorise and control significant stretches of countryside, rural communities and key roads. Recent attacks in Kabul and other centres suggest that THE PRESENT BALANCE OF TERRITORIAL CONTROL IS AT BEST LIKELY TO REMAIN – OR, MORE LIKELY, TO SHIFT IN FAVOUR OF THE TALIBAN…

I had hoped that by now a degree of stability might have returned to Afghanistan. I ASSUMED, WRONGLY, THAT A DESIRE AMONG ORDINARY AFGHANS FOR PEACE WOULD PREVAIL over the prospect of continued war and the spectre of being ruled by a tyrannical theocracy in one of the world's poorest and most backward countries…

In a Commons debate some months ago, I expressed the view that a deadly combination of ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, CORRUPTION AND THE PROXIMITY OF SAFE PAKISTANI HAVENS FOR TERRORISTS ALL MILITATED AGAINST THE NOTION THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE CONVINCING THE BRITISH PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD PREPARE THEMSELVES FOR A ‘30-YEAR’ CAMPAIGN.”
The 'anti-democratic Islamic fundamentalism, corruption and the proximity of safe Pakistani havens for terrorists' were all there in 2001, Mr Howells. You know, when you and the other New Labour and Tory warmongers voted to go slaughter the Afghans. Howells continued:

“They are the views of someone WHO SUPPORTED THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR FORCES TO AFGHANISTAN. I was convinced that, given the opportunity offered to them by the UN-led intervention, the Afghans would display the resolve, skills and courage to tackle the problems that have blighted Afghanistan for so long".
The 'problems that have blighted Afghanistan for so long' are the foreign powers that keep on invading their country and blowing their world to bits. The Afghans have 'displayed' the same 'resolve, skills and courage' against the coalition forces that they’ve shown numerous times during the last three centuries against all the previous invaders of their country.

Thing is, Mr Howells, as I've already said, the 'outcome' was as predictable in 2001, when you voted to make war upon them, as it is now. The Russians couldn’t beat them. We couldn’t beat them when Britain was the most powerful nation on earth. The clue was in the 'Islamic fundamentalism, corruption and the proximity of safe Pakistani havens for terrorists' , Mr Howells. Pity you didn’t pick up on it back when it mattered. A lot of innocent people would have been alive to day if you had.

Howells continued:

“Sooner rather than later A PROPERLY PLANNED, PHASED WITHDRAWAL OF OUR FORCES FROM HELMAND PROVINCE HAS TO BE ANNOUNCED. If it is an answer that serves, also, to focus the minds of those in the Kabul government who have shown such A POVERTY OF LEADERSHIP OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, then so much the better."
Who installed the 'Kabul government?'

The Bushes, the Blairs, the bought media and the US-Jewish Neoconservatives who instigated and guided the whole process. That’s who.

Kim Howells is a longstanding member and a former Chairman of New Labour Friends of Israel.

He is also a former representative of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
As was his father. Howells was in charge of the NUM's Pontypridd office during the miners' strike. Taxi driver David Wilkie was killed during it.

Two striking miners dropped a concrete block off a bridge onto his taxi as he took a non-striker to work. On being told of the incident, Howells immediately destroyed a large number of relevant papers. He was afraid the cops might raid the Union's offices and unearth something that might be used in evidence against him, one presumes.

Howells was a Minister of State at the Departments for Transport and Education and Skills in Tony Blair's government. He now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee.

In February 2009, the former Communist pictured below was appointed to the Privy Council.

Multiculturalism Promotes an Empty Tolerance

On 29 May 2009, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, was quoted thus by The Daily Telegraph

“Hard on the heels of the financial crisis, we have a political one. People were just coming to terms with BETRAYAL by one trusted group – the bankers, custodians of our hard-earned savings. Now The Daily Telegraph has revealed that POLITICIANS, TOO, HAVE BEEN CYNICALLY MANIPULATING THE SYSTEM to gain maximum financial advantage: an advantage denied to others because of legislation enacted by the very people who were flouting it...

WHAT IS NEEDED IS MORAL AND SPIRITUAL RENEWAL. WE SHOULD BEGIN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A CULTURE BUILT ON THE EXPECTATION OF ENDLESS GROWTH – REGARDLESS OF ITS EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE PERSON AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS – IS NOT THE WAY”.
Very good.

“Not only have we witnessed THE SOMETIMES DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF A MORAL FRAMEWORK FOR OUR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE IN BRITAIN, BUT WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE STEADY EROSION IN THE FORMATION OF CHARACTER.”
Excellently said.

“The number of people coming to live and work in Britain must be limited to what the social and economic fabric can sustain.”
Honest men have been saying this for the last forty years and the PC Establishment sneered at them for doing so.

“If The Daily Telegraph has revealed anything fundamental about our political masters, it is THE WOEFUL LACK OF THAT CHARACTER BUILDING, WHICH LEADS US TO BEHAVE WITH INTEGRITY AND PUT SERVICE TO THE NATION BEFORE SELF… We have to admit that THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF EMPHASIS ON THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE AND MORAL AWARENESS IN THE NATION. ONCE, RESPONSIBILITY, TRUST, TRUTH-TELLING AND HARD WORK CHARACTERISED WHAT WAS BEST ABOUT US”.
It did, Michael, it did.

“ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE MULTI-CULTURALISM THAT HAS BEEN FOISTED ON US BY A SECULARIST ELITE IS THAT IT SEEKS TO PROMOTE AN EMPTY ‘TOLERANCE’. THIS LEADS TO ISOLATED COMMUNITIES WHICH KEEP GROWING APART AND CAN FALL VICTIM TO MUTUAL HOSTILITY”.
So true.

“What should not have been done was to have pretended that THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN HAD NO VANTAGE POINT, NO MORAL OR SPIRITUAL TRADITION, FROM WHICH THEY COULD ENGAGE WITH NEWER ARRIVALS”.
Quite.

“I hope that this newspaper's investigation leads… to a national catharsis, A PURGING OF ALL THAT IS UNWORTHY”.
I hope so too.

“If we are looking for moral and spiritual renewal, this will mean that new people, and new kinds of people, will appear in the political life.”
Oh yes.

Decent people are needed in politics. Get rid of the self-servers and the politically correct and, for once, get someone in who is on the side of the British people!

“A CHRISTIAN MORAL AND SPIRITUAL FRAMEWORK WOULD LEAD, INSTEAD, TO GENUINE HOSPITALITY TOWARDS THOSE ARRIVING TO SHARE OUR FREEDOMS”.
Oh?

We must be nice to those who come here knowing that we don’t want them to come? Bishop, you disappoint me. For a moment there I thought you were on our side. Thing is, I’ve heard the do-gooder spouting this suicidal b***ocks for the last fifty years. And look where the nice, kind, fair-minded and tolerant British people are now. At the bottom of the heap in their own land!

“So when we ask ‘What would Jesus actually do?’, the answer is clear. He would INCLUDE ALL in the embrace of his Father's love, and so change them that they BEGIN TO LIVE FOR OTHERS, TO MEET THE NEEDS OF STRANGERS and to work for a just and compassionate society."
Oh dear.

Typical bleeding-heart claptrap. Wag your tail at everything alien and God will let you into heaven.

“THE POLICIES ADVOCATED BY THE BNP ARE CONTRARY TO OUR BELIEF that all human beings, regardless of race or colour, have a common origin and are made in God's image… There can be no compromise about such values… The Christian value of hospitality DEMANDS that those who come LEGALLY ARE WELCOMED. Providing refuge for the genuinely persecuted is also a long-standing British tradition, and must be upheld.”
How about providing some refuge for the poor, downtrodden, unrepresented British people, Mike?

No one ever seems to bother about their wants and needs.

Michael Nazir-Ali tells us he would like to see some good folks in parliament. But it would appear that they are going to have to be be the kind of good folks who will carry right on NOT giving the British people what they really want.

What do they really want? NO MORE BLOODY IMMIGRANTS!

The Bishop of Rochester is an immigrant himself.

He was once a Pakistani Muslim.

I am Proud of My Country and its People!

On the eve of the Battle of Britain in 1940, Spitfire pilot, Bill Millington, wrote this to his parents:

“Being British, I AM PROUD OF MY COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLES, proud to serve under the Union Jack AND REGARD IT AS AN ENGLISHMAN’S PRIVILEGE TO FIGHT FOR ALL THOSE THINGS THAT MAKE LIFE WORTH LIVING: FREEDOM, HONOUR AND FAIR PLAY.” (The Daily Express - 27 August 2009)
Bill made the ultimate sacrifice.

His plane was shot down during the conflict.

Leo McKinstry commented thus on the patriotic statement above:

“His words beautifully encapsulate the spirit of patriotism that galvanised the British people during the Second World War. It was the same deep love of our island home which inspired the soaring rhetoric of Winston Churchill, drove men to fight on the beaches of Normandy and the deserts of north Africa, compelled exhausted bomber crews to fly on missions for night after night over Germany, and enabled the British public to survive the Blitz so stoically.

PATRIOTISM IS ONE OF MAN-KIND’S MOST NOBLE IDEALS, an extension of THE NATURAL LOYALTY WE FEEL TO OUR FAMILIES, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURHOOD. In its highest form, it requires us TO LAY DOWN OUR LIVES TO PROTECT OTHERS, just as a devoted husband might risk all to defend his wife or children.

But IN OUR MODERN AGE, PATRIOTISM IS DESPISED RATHER THAN ADMIRED. FOR THE MARXIST IDEOLOGUES WHO NOW RUN BRITAIN, LOVE OF COUNTRY IS A VICE, NOT A VIRTUE. As a result we are now encouraged to learn entirely the wrong lessons from the Second World War. Instead of being presented as a magnificent defence of our native land against a savage aggressor, THE CONFLICT IS NOW PORTRAYED AS A TRIUMPH FOR THE FORCES OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AGAINST RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM.

In this warped narrative the Second World War has been transformed into a gigantic crusade against xenophobia, while our soldiers, sailors and airmen are regarded as armed outreach workers in a vast anti- racism project. It is a bizarre paradox of our times that, THANKS TO THE PREDOMINANCE OF MULTI-CULTURAL DOGMA, THE PATRIOTIC INSTINCT THAT LED TO NATIONAL SALVATION IN 1945 IS NOW TREATED AS A THOUGHT CRIME.

THE SENSE OF UNIFYING NATIONAL IDENTITY THAT ONCE MOTIVATED MILLIONS OF BRITONS TO DEFEND THEIR HOMELAND IS HELD TO BE SUSPECT BY A POLITICAL ELITE OBSESSED WITH CULTURAL DIVERSITY. WE ARE TOLD THAT OPPOSITION TO MASS IMMIGRATION IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SIDING WITH THE NAZIS...

It is impossible to imagine the Britain of 2009 enjoying the same sense of patriotic cohesion that existed in 1940 if our very existence came under threat. IN OFFICIAL CIRCLES, THE CONCEPT OF BRITISHNESS IS A SOURCE OF EMBARRASSMENT AND SHAME. WE ARE A NATION WHOSE SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN SURRENDERED TO BRUSSELS AND WHOSE UNITY HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THE COLLAPSE OF OUR BORDERS.

The Second World War has been dragooned into service by the political zealots as a battering ram against our national identity. The Government’s own educational quango, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, boasts that HISTORY TEACHING SHOULD BE A TOOL FOR ‘VALUING DIVERSITY AND CHALLENGING RACISM’ BY GAINING INSIGHTS ‘INTO ISSUES AROUND HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY AND MIGRATION.’

EVERY MUSEUM RELATED TO THE SECOND WORLD WAR FOCUSES OBSESSIVELY ON THE ROLE OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE CONFLICT, EVERY EU BUREAUCRAT STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AS A MEANS OF OVERCOMING DANGEROUS NATIONALIST SENTIMENTS…

The supreme irony is that we fought in 1940 to defend our national independence from German aggression, yet almost 70 years later we are now subsumed within a German-dominated continental bureaucracy.

I recently spoke to a D-Day veteran from the West Midlands. With anger and regret, he told me that HE DID NOT FIGHT IN ORDER TO END UP AS AN ALIEN IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. Even more insulting, he said, was BEING TOLD BY POLITICIANS THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS SOCIETY WAS THE IDEAL FOR WHICH HE HAD GONE INTO BATTLE.”
Who is at war with the British people now, ladies and gentlemen?

Whose side would Bill Millington be on now, do you reckon? Would he be thinking, like the D-Day veteran from the West Midlands, that he had fought so selflessly just 'to end up an alien in his own country?' Would he too be insulted by those politicians who assured the nation that 'the destruction his society was the ideal for which he had gone into battle?'

I think we all know the answers to these question, with exception perhaps of the dumbed-down and the drugged up. Ever wondered why the bad guys drugged up and dumbed us down? Oh, yes, ladies and gentlemen, THEY are at war with us alright. There aren't very many who don't know this now.

Trouble is, where once the Bill Millingtons were in the majority, nowadays they're thin on the ground. That's why precious little gets said.

And nothing gets done.

Living Amongst One's Own Kind is Good for Our Health!

On 4 September 2009, Reuters reported thus:

"LIVING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE OF SIMILAR ETHNIC BACKGROUND MAY HAVE SOME HEALTH BENEFIT, hints a new study from the United Kingdom.

In the study, FEWER ACTIVITY-LIMITING LONG-TERM ILLNESSES WERE REPORTED BY PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN NEIGHBORHOODS THEY FELT WERE MORE THAN HALF MADE UP OF PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY SHARED A COMMON ETHNICITY.

This effect was seen among white (primarily of British and Irish ancestry), Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and African race and ethnic groups… Dr. Mai Stafford, from University College London, told Reuters Health in an email correspondence.

A HEALTH BENEFIT OF LIVING IN NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PEOPLE OF THE SAME ETHNIC BACKGROUND WAS EVIDENT FOR ALL ETHNIC GROUPS - except those of Caribbean ethnicity."
“Except those of Caribbean ethnicity”.

Perhaps this is why, over the last 61 years, the West Indian has proved so determined to live alongside us? As opposed to living alongside their own, that is?

Anyway, it looks like the indigenous, white 'racists,' 'Nazis,' 'Fascists,' bigots,' 'dinosaurs' and 'little Englanders' were right all along, doesn’t it? No one actually wants to be enriched by all manner of other peoples and cultures. We all want to live amongst our own kind.

And yet, over the last 44 years, the politicians have built up an enormous body of race law to ensure that the possibility of so living, for the native, white majority of these islands, was diminished to the point of impossibility.

At the same time, of course, all the governmental and most of the media propaganda has been of the happy-clappy, cohere-with-the-alien, be-enriched-by-the-Multicult, variety. Oh yes, the politicians and the bought media have been playing a very sinister game with the British people over the course of the last fifty years.

On 12 April 1994, the Criminal Justice And Public Order Bill was debated in parliament.

During this debate, Harry Cohen, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, said this:

"In 1985, I INTRODUCED THE RACIAL HARASSMENT BILL under the ten-minute rule. IT WAS THE FIRST BILL PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT TO MAKE RACIAL ATTACK A CRIMINAL OFFENCE...

The state, especially, must make its anti-racist position absolutely clear in the law… One other reason for such a law is the rise of the British National Party… IT IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AND I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO BANNING IT... If the Government say that there would be civil liberties problems in banning the BNP, THEY NEED TO MAKE ITS ACTIVITIES ILLEGAL… That is why a new law is so important… RACISM EQUALS DEATH. IT IS IN MULTICULTURAL, MULTIRACIAL SOCIETIES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE TOGETHER THAT ONE HAS HARMONY; THOSE SOCIETIES EQUAL LIFE.

We need a law; we need the state to come out firmly to say that racism will not be tolerated."
Apart from Cohen's desire to have an organisation banned which is entirely legal, above board, does not commit mass murder on London buses or within the Underground system, has never marched unhindered throughout the streets of England waving placards calling the 'faithful' to 'murder' and 'behead,' and, in its ethnic composition, happens to be entirely British, Cohen preposterously asserts that it is 'in multicultural, multiracial societies where people live together that one has harmony.'

The facts, as the University College study 'hints' at, are these: throughout all history, whenever unassimilable immigration has occurred, tension and chaos have resulted. No indigenous population has ever wanted to be colonised by another, let alone many others as the British have been. Human beings, along with the rest of the animal kingdom, want to live amongst their own kind, with those whose behaviour they recognise and understand, they don’t wish to live alongside those they do not know or care for. That is an absolute lesson of history.

During the same 1994 debate, Gerald Kaufman, MP for Manchester, Gorton, said this:

"If you attack someone, that is odious, but IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR AN ASIAN OR CHINESE OR A JEW, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…

The racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people… because you committed that crime, which had a racial concommitant, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE, TO TEACH YOU and to send a message to the ethnic minority communities that… THEY SHALL HAVE SPECIAL PROTECTION’… IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE, THAT IS ODIOUS, BUT IF YOU ATTACK SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR AN ASIAN OR CHINESE OR A JEW, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…

Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that PARLIAMENT HAS A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THEM.
In other words, as Orwell might have said, if he'd been a creep like Kaufman, 'people are equal, but some people, especially ethnic minorities, are more equal than others.'

Barbara Roche, who was the MP for Hornsey and Wood Green at the time of the above debate, said this:

"The racial element carries with it an additional punishment, to say to people, ‘YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME… BECAUSE YOU COMMITTED THAT CRIME, WHICH HAD A RACIAL CONCOMITANT, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE’."

Sir Ivan Lawrence, MP for Burton, added:

"We believe that… AN ASSAULT MOTIVATED BY RACISM IS MORE SOCIALLY DIVISIVE AND CORROSIVE OF THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR TOLERANT SOCIETY AND, FOR THAT REASON, IS ITSELF MORE SERIOUS… The Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations are in favour of the measure… There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, PARTICULARLY FROM THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS."

The bill that Gerald Kaufman tried to foist on the British people was defeated.

However, many of those who have, latterly, risen to the top of New Labour's parliamentary pole voted for it. These include:

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Geoff Hoon, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Robin Cook, Clare Short, Alstair Darling, Chris Smith, Nick Brown, Ian McCartney, Frank Dobson, Margaret Beckett, Ron Davies, Paul Boateng, Estelle Morris, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Gavin Strang, Ann Taylor, Paul Murphy, Andrew Smith, Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

All of the above would, subsequently, rise to Cabinet rank in Tony Blair's government with the exception of Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he decided to give the job of Europe Minister to Vaz. Which is interesting. You see, he is an African Asian. Not exactly the kind of man most of us would have chosen to represent the will of the vast majority of those whose ancestors are buried in Europe, I wouldn‘t have thought.

Blair would make Barbara Roche Immigration Minister when he came to power. In this position, she was the first ever person to tell us that we NEEDED another 150,000 LEGAL immigrants entering the country every year in order to help us out. It's pretty easy to see why Roche would have little sympathy for those who wanted to keep Britain British. Her grandparents were a fascinating mixture of Polish, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese.

Keith Vaz, himself, said this:

"We live in a multicultural society… We must today send out, not just to the black and Asian community but to the country at large, the message that WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO NOTHING. Action must be taken to protect our fellow citizens."
The MP, Diane Abbott, who is black, said this during the debate:

"Racism is a phenomenon, a social and political manifestation, that OUR SOCIETY WILL NOT TOLERATE. Racial attacks ought to be singled out in the way set out in the new clause because of what they represent politically -- A THREAT TO THE STABILITY OF SOCIETY THAT NO AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL ATTACKS ON ELDERLY, POOR OR DISABLED PEOPLE COULD EVER REPRESENT."
If anyone out there thought that New Labour might have undergone some politically incorrect Damascene conversion because the 'new Study' referred to by Reuters was prepared, principally, by Dr Mai Stafford, whose research is funded by New Labour's Department of Health, well, as recently as 29 July 2008, The Daily Mail was telling us this:

"In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer… should be offered new partial defences of PROVOCATION. They include those 'SERIOUSLY WRONGED' BY AN INSULT. Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours… Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction."
Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused the Government thus in The Mail's article:

"By creating all these special categories, THE GOVERNMENT ARE MAKING SOME PEOPLE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS before the law. It seems SOME LIVES ARE WORTH MORE THAN OTHERS."
And then there was this:
On 14 July 2009, Gordon Brown’s 'Cohesion' Minister, Shahid Malik pronounced thus in the House of Commons:

"Fairness is what the Department for Communities and Local Government, my Department, and the Government are all about, BUT FAIRNESS DOES NOT MEAN TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY; it means addressing the different needs of different people."
Malik seems to be suggesting that the needs of one lot (the British) can be treated with less fairness than another lot. (Gypsies)

I’ll remind you one last time of what George Orwell was saying in 1945:

"All animals are Equal but SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS".
I think you’ll agree that New Labour is nothing if not Orwellian.