IMMIGRATION MUST BE CHALLENGED

THERE IS AN UNDERCURRENT OF RESENTMENT in the country among the white working and lower middle classes toward immigration. Among such people, the fear of being called a racist has long since become a devalued currency. The problem has become so desperate that such name calling barely registers any more.

            Population projections for the middle of this century are positively alarming for such a small island as ours. Yet our leaders see no need to do anything other than tamper with immigration controls. The projected increase to our population over the next 40 years will leave this country with a populace of over 70 million people and still rising, despite what is being proposed to contain it by the Coalition.

            That great ‘villain’ of liberalism, Enoch Powell described, back in the 1960s, our immigration policy as madness, complimented by his now familiar observation that such a policy would lead to ‘the river Tiber foaming with blood’, as resentment grew toward the introduction of an immigrant population among British people.

            The Britain he knew then would never have tolerated the influxes that have prospered since. But to make matters worse, the ideology of multiculturalism has replaced that of Marxism as the Left’s favourite  cause. Capitalism, having seen off that old German fraud, now has to face his successor – Multiculturalism.

            Equally dystopian, Multiculturalism poses however a far greater threat. It does so because, in part, its foundations were dug by Western liberal guilt. Guilt is in the very nature of a liberal conscience; no more so than a British liberal’s guilt for their country’s colonial past: and so the doors were left open for all people from our former colonies who wished to live amongst us, to so do. This was then compounded by the unlimited entry of other European peoples who were members of the EU and entitled to unchallenged entry.

            But as former colonisers like ourselves, those countries within the EU like Portugal, who colonised such countries as Angola and Mozambique have allowed citizens from such of their colonies into Portugal, and consequently, into the rest of Europe.

           

YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES if you take a stand against the liberal folly of Multiculturalism. You can either suffer in silence or take the brick-bats and face persecution from the state under its hate crime laws if you seek to undermine the ideology. In other words we are just like Soviet Russia without a Siberian wasteland to transport us too; but this is one geographical detail that liberal Britain wishes it had at its service to brush us under the carpet.

            Immigration, its supporters will claim, has always been a vital ingredient of the rich fruit cake of British history. Well yes, but only if you believe in the Disney version of our island’s history. From the Romans and the Anglo Saxons, to the Viking raiders and the Norman conquests, these islands have fought each and every interloper at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

             Such intrusions have never been allowed to prosper without a fight. None of the conquests of these isles have been subjected to any kind of passive resistance of the type that Multiculturalism advances. Whenever this island has been faced with a conquest of its cultural identity, it has managed to at least challenge it militarily.

            The British liberal who now seeks to rectify the mistakes made under the British Empire by admitting all and every foreign national that seeks residence among us to so do, represents pure and unadulterated emotion over reason; and if in the future it leads to violence on our streets, it is no use blaming the BNP.

            Liberal guilt is this country’s greatest obstacle, and has been so for the past 50 years. It is such an overwhelming phenomenon that it has managed to place this country’s culture under a threat. Our British/English culture has been diminished to the point of being just another culture in the Multicultural paradigm created by liberalism.

            We as a nation have had, in the recent past, to suffer the slings and arrows of liberal guilt; demanding that our nation should admit and forever seek contrition for our colonial past by admitting countless immigrants from our former colonies. Which means we have living amongst us today some 1.5 million Muslims, at a time when Islam is asserting itself throughout the world, and whereby its British contingent has influenced government thinking to such an extent that it is frightened to offend such a minority - even to the point where our government fails to disclose the numbers of Taliban dead for fear of offending them.

            I do not believe that members of the chattering classes of any political persuasion, fully comprehends the amount of resentment that exists in the country outside of the metropolitan bubble that is London.

            What the politicians like to describe as British tolerance, is in fact resentment. Suppressed resentment, but resentment nevertheless. How much longer such an ill temper  can lay dormant before the pressure cooker explodes in society’s face, depends, I suppose, on how successful this Coalition is in restricting the numbers of future immigrants and sending back the 500,000 illegal ones – which, part of the Coalition, wishes to grant an amnesty to.

            The white working and lower middle classes want live in their own culture where, if they wish to live among us, ethnic minorities have to give first choice to the host culture and abandon elements of their own if they conflict with the laws and traditions of the host culture - when in Rome etcetera….

THERE IS ONE FORM OF Multiculturalism I do believe in; the Multiculturalism of different nations. If I chose to live abroad I would endeavour to live by the laws and customs of the nation I made my home. I would not expect the culture I brought with me to be given equal status with the host culture: and if I could not live with such an arrangement, then I would be expected to return home to the culture I left.

            Multiculturalism cannot work and should not indeed work. Nations have histories, often involving much sacrifice in the form of wars, civil wars and revolutions; it is to create a cultural identity that such sacrifices have moulded our and many other nation’s pasts.

            To have it diminished or taken away (by Multiculturalism) will, I hope, always meet with resentment and hostility. Under such a surge of antipathy, any government’s attempt to criminalise it in the form of producing hate crime legislation, will only encourage further resentment and who knows – even rebellion.

            We are a planet of nations and long may it remain so. For if a culture means anything, then it has to be part of a nation’s heritage. In such a context Multiculturalism is a liberal wet dream that promises to turn into a nightmare for the rest of us.

            Rather than bow to charges of being racist and of being accused of hate crimes, the British people must lay claim once more to their national sovereignty and protest vigorously against Multiculturalism and any further immigration.

THE POLITICIANS WILL QUICKLY get the message once they see that such a demand has a populist mandate; a mandate they instinctively know already exists, which is why they  used the rhetoric of immigration controls before the last election. But rhetoric is all it is. The new Coalition is deeply split on the subject. Vince Cable, for instance, insists that our business community demand the continuance of immigration into our country.

            Our business community does indeed wish to entertain any source of cheap labour they can get, irrespective of nationality; and our Vince supports them in their endeavours. But our business community must balance their need for profit with their obligation to pay a decent wage to British employees.

            I recently saw a report on the television where immigrant farm labour was treated disgracefully by certain farmers who employed them to pick their harvest. Their living conditions were appalling. Was it little wonder that the British refused such employment?

            Immigrant labour is used to undermine the level of wages that would be demanded from a British worker. No wonder the business community side with Vince Cable.

            Multiculturalism has allowed such an almost Dickensian state of affairs to exist and the ideology and its supporters must be ashamed of themselves.

            

THE SPIN IS DIZZYING

THE WRETCHED COALITION has made the stinker of all decisions by signing a military pact with France, and for no other reason than to save money. The spin however will be more complex and heart-warming (as if centuries of mutual loathing could so easily be swept under the carpet).

            David Cameron , speaking in parliament said that the arrangement was “ in the long-term interests of both our countries.        

“To those who worry that this might in some way lead to sort of European armies - that is not the point. The point is to enhance sovereign capability by two like-minded countries being able to work together.”

            You note the prime minister does not deny that such a military alliance will lead to some “sort of European armies”. He just sweeps such a suggestion aside by telling us it will enhance the sovereign capability of “two like-minded countries able to work together”.

            What would have enhanced the sovereign capability of this nation would have been to  chose the right priorities when making the necessary cuts to our crippling deficit. But instead ring fencing our defence budget, we prioritised both health and the oversees aid budgets, followed by a £425 million yearly increase to our EU contributions.

            If we had chosen the right priorities, this silly arrangement with France would never have been necessary; which leads me to think that it was intended all along. If anyone has been made a fool of by this decision then it is Mr Cameron’s Eurosceptic back-benchers and the Conservative commentators who, since last May’s election, have propped up the Coalition and poured  large quantities of statesmanship over the prime minister’s head.

            I hope the French people will not take this lying down, as the British public certainly will: I hope , as they have done over the past two weeks, they will take to the streets once more. This time for something more important than adding two years to their retirement age.

            The road to  Euro-federalism  has just taken a deliberate turn toward its realisation. The Emerald City is now much closer to becoming a reality thanks to the signing of this historically significant document.

            The Conservative Party (if the name still remains appropriate) has been cheated in the same way as New Labour cheated Old Labour. Desperate for power, the Conservatives, just like Labour in 1997 have taken power by sacrificing all that it once stood for in a desperate need for power after the drought of defeat.

I CAN IMAGINE THE following conversation between Nick Clegg and David Cameron on the subject of Europe:

CAMERON:  “Nick, we both want the same ends, but you must trust me on the best way of attaining them”.

CLEGG: “Dave, you know this county’s best interests are served by being part of Europe. You have to…”

CAMERON: “Remember Nick, I am the leader of the British Conservative Party. It’s like turning an oil tanker around; it may take another generation until all the old farts are six feet under, and a new generation in the party comes round to our way of thinking.

            “Two steps forward and one step back – that’s the Conservative way. This deal with the French can be sold to the party as a means by which we keep a semblance of a navy afloat. They won’t like it…but they will like a Labour government even less”.

CLEGG: “Don’t forget that I’ve also got problems with my lot. They don’t like this business with Housing Benefit for instance. They have the sulks and are raring to deliberate…”

CAMERON: “Surely they can see where this agreement with the French will lead?”

CLEGG: “I’m not so sure it will be enough…but I’ll stand by our promise to each other in May”.

CAMERON: “That’s all I ask Nick”.

BACK ROOM DEALS are often scorned upon, and rightly so. For they seek to finesse a change which the politicians know will result in opposition from the public whom they are supposed to serve.

            This agreement with the French will prove unworkable, especially once Sarkozy leaves the political stage. As opponents of such an arrangement have pointed out, it can only make sense if it is intended to further the cause of federalism. The economic reasons for such a coalition are threadbare.

            The British and the French have always been better off fighting each other than trying to form alliances, which usually lead to tragedy for both nations.

            The apparent eagerness of Sarkozy for such an arrangement tells me something about who got the better deal. Usually our mutual distrust of each other, causes the French to review and analyse every sentence, dot and comma of any document presented to it by the British over many months.

            Then we find that French carrier the Charles de Gaulle, the very ship we would have to depend upon under the arrangement, is in fact unseaworthy: on top of which I read that a leaked French government document of two years standing disclosed that most of France’s tanks, helicopters and jet fighters were unusable and “falling apart”.

            We are assured that our most successful of allies, the United States is happy with this agreement. It may be true that the Democrats have given it the nod, but how will Republican presidents react to it in the future. Will they continue to offer us the latest military technology, as they did in the Falklands, and will we remain, with Israel, the most trusted recipients of such technology as we were with both Trident  and the purchase of cruise missiles.

            We have made, if not a fatal error, then one which will bring us much grief in the future, just as such arrangements with the French have done so in the past.

            The trouble with the current generation of politician, is that they see their historical illiteracy as a bonus in reconnecting with this islands’ ancient enemies.

            The French nation deserves our respect for their determination to hang on to that most vital component of any nation’s culture – its language. While English, either in its pure form or in its American hybrid, dominates the world of business, the French rightly despairs of such an understanding.

            What seems to rile with the British people is that the French are allowed to pick and to chose from those parts of the European menu they wish to partake of, while we in the UK stick to implementing those parts of European legislation, that the British people find unpopular - like for instance the European Human Rights Legislation.

THIS MILITARY PACT WITH the French could have only been conceived of in desperation. The dispiriting fact is, is that it was not a Lib-lab pact, but one involving the Conservative Party.

            The Conservative party must now think seriously about the meaning of the word Conservative; just as, in the past New Labour abandoned Socialism, the Conservative rank and file must now examine their innate traditionalism, and decide whether to abandon it in favour of  becoming another European Christian Democratic party, which is where David Cameron wishes to lead you.

            This military treaty with France represents the outcome of deliberately and irresponsibly abandoning our defence budget. This Coalition comprises Europhiles who would deliberately, in the name cutting the deficit, use it as an excuse in the creation of a Federal Europe; and by abandoning the Defence Budget in favour of ring fencing the Oversees Aid Budget, they have sought to bring European Federalism that bit nearer.

           

           

           

THE DAILY MAIL TELLS IT AS IT IS

WHAT DELIGHTS ME ABOUT  the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, is knowing how much both tabloids are loathed by the Left. The paper’s headlines are so deliciously provocative to liberal sensibilities, that the challenge they bring to the smug self-regarded liberals, have, for their own self-righteous certainties, brought about a kind of limp-wristed disdain from them, culminating in their usual dismissive response  of  “It’s just the usual Daily Mail stuff”. Like an unpleasant eruption from someone’s bowls in public, the Daily Mail and its sister paper are treated by liberals as being both bad mannered and anti-social.

            To me the Daily Mail digs out the stories that liberal Britain would sooner have had swept under the carpet. For the paper has rightly sought to undermine all of the so called “good work” that liberal Britain has expedited over the past 45 years, with Comprehensive Education, Multiculturalism and a somewhat dystopian attitude to crime and the criminal justice system.    

            What the Daily Mail does is to trawl for those stories that undermine liberal thinking; stories that the liberal media deem examples of prejudice and not representative of their reality.

            The Daily Mail is a conservative newspaper in the same way that the Guardian is a liberal one. But the extraordinary thing is, is that despite the fact that every cultural institution in this country has a liberal bias and is usually supported by the tax payer, the vast majority of people are, I suggest, small ‘c’ conservatives.

            Compare for instance the numbers of Daily Mail readers with those of the Guardian. The strength of the liberal power base in this country is far outweighed by the numbers who hold a contrary view, but are rendered helpless because, from Parliament to the BBC, and any other publically financed entity, the liberal ethos dominates, and acts contrary to the innate conservatism of the British people.

            In today’s liberal climate the Daily Mail represents the mouth-peace of the most radical approach to all aspects of society’s problems. Problems that have, in the main part arisen from the well intended solutions of a liberally directed social culture.

             In other words the remedies and solutions to our many social problems have, for the past 40 years, lain within the remit of, in one form or other, a liberal perspective. Our teaching departments within our universities have been primed toward impregnating a liberal prospectus into the minds of our children.

              Social science departments have also helped in the crowning of the liberal hegemony; resulting in political correctness. A political correctness that even permeates our police force, where the rights of all minorities are put before those of the majority indigenous population.

LIBERAL’S SEE the Daily Mail as a hindrance to their multicultural dystopia. If only the Daily Mail would go away, all cultures, numbering over a hundred in our society, would live quietly, unperturbed by Daily Mail prejudice, side by side.

            Liberal’s also see the Daily Mail as a hindrance to their ‘progressive’ criminal reform. If only the Daily Mail would not bring the public’s attention to the plight of a pensioner so brutally attacked by some yobs. Or, in another instance, the act of a publically spirited citizen who challenged the behaviour of feral youths who threatened his home and family, but suffered the consequences when he challenged such behaviour and died as a consequence.

            Almost every day throughout this country liberal laws are being exploited by, as in some cases, mere children, who rightly see themselves as being above such laws simply because they no longer fear them - only because there is nothing left for them to fear. They no longer fear them because liberalism has intervened on the criminals rather than their victims behalf.

            Liberalism seeks a formula whereby criminal nature can be mollified by the latest academic thinking into improving human behaviour and thus reducing our prison population.          Such a prospect however is undermined by human history. If nevertheless liberal academics wish to pursue their age old thesis then let them do it at their own expense instead of the public’s. Human nature remains the same as it has always done despite the intrusion of man-made speculation in the form of philosophy.

            Conservatism has traditionally sought a junction with human nature and required at least an understanding. The Left, on the other hand, has sought a radical departure from human nature and in so doing has tried to revolutionise it into a paradigm for liberal tolerance.

            The liberals little understand human nature simply because they are at heart idealists. They see only the good in man and obfuscate the bad. This is not however a time for idealism but for pragmatism.

            The Daily Mail speaks for conservatism and not idealism. As a conservative entity, the Daily Mail is in perfect synchronisation with the beliefs and wishes of the British people. For the British people believe in the continuance of their island nation as a sovereign state protected by their armed forces.

THE DAILY MAIL TODAY is the only truly radical mouthpiece of the British people whose only ambition is to remain a nation free from Europe and multiculturalism. For these are the two forces retarding our national sovereignty and culture. It is because the paper exposes the many failures of liberal Britain from education and crime, to the over promotion of minorities via system of political correctness and human rights laws imposed on us from Brussels, that it is despised and patronised by the Left.

            Long may the Daily Mail continue to cause the liberal-Left much discomfort. To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington on another occasion : “We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested [by the liberal].”

            

LISBON REVISITED?

THE LISBON TREATY MAY once more climb the domestic political agenda following France and Germany’s request to reopen the treaty in order to change various elements following the Greek financial crises earlier this year, when Europe’s strongest economies (notably Germany)  picked up the tab for Greece’s economic incompetence.

            Any amendments to the Lisbon Treaty will give an opportunity to those of us who thought the British people should have had a say in its imposition on them in the form of a referendum, to once more advance their arguments.

            First of all, both Angela Merkle and Nicolay Sarkozy are right to seek a revision to the treaty. Why, after all, should a successful wealth creating nation bolster the failings of an unsuccessful one? The German people, and the German people only, deserve the rewards of their efforts in creating a vibrant economy. They should not be obliged to bail out a still mainly agrarian economy by keeping it afloat with public subsidy. The Greek economy had a large imbalance in favour of the public sector with a retirement age of 53: and considering the economic demographics, such a system can only be kept going by handouts in the form of subsidies from richer nations.

            This wastefulness has to stop and this is what both Merkle and Sarkozy are seeking to do with their review of the Lisbon Treaty. At the moment in Europe, both Spain and Portugal threaten the same fate for Germany as did Greece. The richer nations of Europe (usually in the North) are becoming the milch cows for those in the south. Billions of Euros have poured from the north into the south over the decades since the founding of the Common Market in 1953.

            This siphoning of wealth can no longer continue, especially with so little return either to the investor or to its recipient. Money, in the form of investment, must incur profit for either partner if it is to succeed. In other words investment must provide a productive benefit.          Public spending is never an investment only a safety net; it however becomes a drain on a nation’s economy once the public sector becomes so bloated that it challenges the wealth creating private sector; and this is what has happened with Greece and threatens the same fate for the rest of Europe, unless we produce the pruning shears.

WHAT IS NOW UNFOLDING is the concept of a United States of Europe instead of a Common Market where free trade was the only component. The concept was, in the first place, created as a “solution” to Europe’s historical tribal wars that culminated in the Second World War.

            However, after the ending of the Second World War, the United States newly found world hegemony became the unspoken reason for the existence of a European Union. Even though the European continent was effectively liberated by America, the continent itself felt like the people of the colonies they once ruled. They resented American hegemony and sought to overcome it. They authorized American airbases on their territory to help defend them from Soviet power, while in so doing allowing themselves to spend the money they would have had to on national defence, or on welfare and health.

            The concept of a United States of Europe was and still is, frighteningly, a dystopian vision of an end to nationhood and its replacement by unelected overseers of what they perceive as the continent’s interests.

WE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE BEEN given the opportunity to once more demand from our leaders the same privilege as both Germany and France are demanding. Both nations seek, rightly, to challenge the Lisbon Treaty. We British also seek such a challenge, but to the treaty’s very existence; and if Germany and France succeed with their own challenge, then David Cameron must do what the British people have always been in favour of. He must give the British people the chance of a vote on the Lisbon Treaty itself.

            In opposition he made the right noises in order to regain election for the Tories - be it, as it turned out, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. However when the polls told him that he would be left in control of a majority in government for the Tories, David Cameron dangled above his supporters heads (the majority of whom were Euro-sceptics) the possibility of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

            To Cameron such a possibility would, in the event of gaining power, be finessed into a retreat, which is what happened: and it happened because Cameron himself was as much a Europhile as that old instigator of the whole project in Britain, one Ted Heath.

            David Cameron has bought into Euro-federalism. He has been drawn toward what he believes is its inevitability; as if it were a law of nature inseparable from the will of man. It is in other words our nation’s destiny, outside of which there is no other. This is the nature of our modern politician’s thinking in all parties towards Europe.

            I hope in the coming weeks Cameron’s Eurosceptics will assert themselves and do the British people a favour by challenging their leader on the issue of a referendum. Both Sarkozy and Merkle have reopened this issue in the interests of their own people, and Cameron should do the same on behalf of his people.