Brexit Betrayal - A Once Great Nation Destroyed by The Ruling Elite

Conservative Members of Parliament are threatening to resign and bring down their own government if taking Great Britain out of the European Union under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules becomes an option. This speaks volumes about the integrity of the ruling political elite and their fanatical dedication to the EU nation building project.

Led by Anna Soubry, an ill-tempered, intolerant elitist, this cabal of dedicated Europhiles were elected on a promise to implement the result of the Brexit referendum. They were also Members of the Parliament that authorized the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which officially started the two-year leaving process.

Since the referendum result, they have insulted and smeared their colleagues, and the constituents that voted them into office, and done everything in their power to block Great Britain’s exit at every turn.

If they carry out their threat, they are fully aware that this will destroy the Conservative Party and hand political power to the communist led Labour Party. Most experts agree that their policies will crash the economy, but they too want to ignore the Brexit referendum and keep the British people locked inside the corrupt and failing EU.

To Soubry and the Europhiles this disaster is obviously a price worth paying to keep their nation building project alive.

As a measure of their dishonesty and total lack of integrity, these Europhile extremists will bring down their own government for implementing the official party policy on which they stood for in the election and subsequently voted into office.

Although they are as rare as rocking horse droppings, any honest politician who disagreed with official party policy would have said so at the time, not campaigned for it during the election only to abandon it when they took office.  

As these Europhiles know, a successful and prosperous Great Britain free from the shackles of the Brussels bureaucracy will encourage other nation states to question the benefit of EU membership and encourage them to leave thus ending their dream of a centrally controlled superstate.

Such is their fanatical loyalty to their United States of Europe, Soubry and her fellow collaborators are prepared to let Great Britain be destroyed rather than let it succeed and their superstate dream fade.

If they are successful in securing a second referendum to overturn the result of the first and Brexit is blocked it will signal an end to democracy, Parliament and government with the consent of the governed. It will divide the country to such an extent that all semblance of a United Kingdom will be lost.

If this comes to pass the sleeping dragon will awaken and the yellow vest protests that have engulfed France and other parts of the EU will seem like a vicar’s tea party.

I will conclude with a quote by one of the most unjustly reviled politicians in recent British history:  

“As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood" – John Enoch Powell MBE

Update: An interesting article on the Conservative Party split here

Rivers Of Blood - Was Enoch Powell Right Or Wrong?

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech, made by British Member of Parliament, Enoch Powell, on the 25th April 1968, is remarkable for several reasons, including the fact that it was prophetic. There are not many speeches that have resonated for so long or have been distorted so much by unscrupulous political activists. The speech is still used today as a smear on anyone who questions the mass immigration agenda.

It also demonstrates the fact that even back then there was a huge disconnect between the political class and the people they are supposed to represent.

Briefly, the much maligned Enoch Powell was a classical scholar of Welsh descent, who possessed such a towering intellect that he made his contemporaries of the day look like village idiots, and in particular, his party leader Edward Heath.

Heath was an inadequate, self loathing loner who was the original disciple of the European project which included cultural replacement via mass immigration. He lived in fear of Powell's superior intellect and he knew that he would lose by a country mile in any debate on his traitorous agenda.

He needed an excuse to get rid of Enoch Powell not just from the government and the Conservative party but from British political life entirely.

The speech itself was rather benign and was not, as it has been portrayed, a call to violence against immigrants. It was a reaction to complaints from some of Powell's constituents who complained about the transformation of their communities into immigrant dominated ghettos. It also served as a warning that uncontrolled immigration would lead to violent conflict some time in the future.

Powell never used the words 'rivers of blood', but being a classical scholar he merely quoted a few words from a line in Virgil's poem 'Aeneid'.

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood".

Seizing his chance, Heath distorted the speech, sacked Powell from government and mobilized the like minded traitors from all the political parties in his tawdry enterprise. They used every dirty trick in the book to demonise and smear their intellectual superior who was acutely aware of their ultimate aim of Great Britain's subjugation.

The sacking and deliberate vilification of Powell provoked a furious reaction from the ordinary people who lived outside the incestuous Westminster latrine and it also demonstrated the disconnect between politicians and the people.

Dockers from the East End of London and Tilbury went on strike immediately on news of his sacking and marched to Parliament in support of Powell as did the porters from Smithfield markets.

By April 25th he had received thirty thousand letters of support and by early May that had increased to forty-three thousand in addition to seven hundred telegrams.

A Gallup poll showed that seventy-four percent agreed with Powell with fifteen percent disagreeing. Sixty-nine percent disagreed with Heath's sacking of Powell.

Politicians of Powell's intellect are non-existent today and as a consequence the people are stuck with agenda driven career bureaucrats who have no experience of anything outside of party politics.

Regardless of party, modern politicians are all clones of each other who are only capable of repeating slogans and soundbites fed to them by spin doctors and who possess the intellectual level of a cockroach and the morals of a feral tom cat.

These parasitic low lifes still portray Powell as a racist and they still demonise and smear anyone who exposes their dirty tricks. They still smear anyone who has the temerity to tell the truth and who are not afraid to put his speech into its proper context.

The question one is bound to ask is - was Enoch Powell right when he predicted bloodshed on the streets of Great Britain due to mass immigration or not?

The answer is so simple that even the smallest of intellectual pygmies will not be able to deny the truth.

Since Enoch Powell's speech in 1968 the 'rivers of blood' include:

The Chapelton race riots in 1975, 81 and 87

The Notting Hill race riot 1976

The Southall race riot in 1979

The St Paul's race riot in  1980

The Brixton race riot in 1981

The Toxteth race riot in 1981

The Mosside race riot in 1981

The Handsworth Race riot in 1981

Despite an inquiry and an injection of tens of millions of taxpayer money there followed more race riots in Brixton in 1985

Another race riot in Handsworth in 1985

The Broadwater Farm race riot in 1985 which saw the horrific beheading of Police Constable Blakelock.

The Dewsbury race riot in 1985 (The home town of Baroness Warsi)

They love a good riot down there in South London so they kicked off again in Brixton in 1985 for third time.

The Bradford race riot in 1985

The July 7th bombings in 2005 which wreaked death and destruction on the London Transport system....... and so on it goes with the latest being the London riots in 2011 which started when the police sent an armed, self confessed ghetto gangsta to meet his maker.

One would have thought that the sight and sound of two blood soaked Muslim jihadists, still armed with butchers knives and meat cleavers, ranting in public about the will of Allah while behind them is the lifeless body of a British soldier lying in a river of his own blood might make the politicians recant on the vilification Enoch Powell, but they didn't.

Powell does not have an equivalent politician today who has the spine to stand up and state publicly what they acknowledge in private, that blood will be spilled on the streets of Great Britain at some time in the future as a consequence of mass immigration.

Regardless of the evidence before their eyes and despite the hundreds of millions of taxpayer money already spent, politicians of all parties including Labour and UKIP are still calling for open borders and an influx of Syrian refugees.

The rivers of blood that have stained British streets up until now will turn into a raging torrent when the young battle hardened jihadists, trained in the latest terrorist techniques, return to Great Britain from the war zones around the world and turn their attention to their home turf.

These jihadists are fanatics who hate England with a passion, their blood lust is insatiable and they will not settle back into routine life when they return from the battlefield.

There are British and other European based jihadists fighting in Muslim wars all over the world including hundreds in Syria.  The British people need to be organised and prepared, ready for their return and the war against Britain they have publicly sworn to start.

This is a re-edited post from  last year.

Rivers Of Blood Speech - Rioters and British Jihadists Confirm It Was Right

The 'Rivers of Blood' speech, made by British Member of Parliament, Enoch Powell, on the 25th April 1968, is remarkable for several reasons, including the fact that it was prophetic. There aren't many speeches that have resonated for so long or have been distorted so much by unscrupulous political activists so that it can still be used as a smear on anyone who questions their warped agenda.

It also further demonstrates that even back then there was a huge disconnect between the political class and the people.

Briefly, the much maligned Enoch Powell was a classical scholar, of Welsh descent, who possessed such a towering intellect that he made his contemporaries of the day look like village idiots, and in particular, his party leader Edward Heath.

Heath was an inadequate, self loathing loner who was the original disciple of the European project which included cultural replacement via mass immigration. He lived in fear of Powell's superior intellect and he knew that he would lose by a country mile any debate on his traitorous agenda.

He needed an excuse to get rid of Enoch Powell not just from the government and the Conservative party but from British political scene entirely.

The speech itself was rather benign and was not, as it has been portrayed, a call to violence against immigrants. It was a reaction to complaints from some of Powell's constituents about the transformation of their communities into immigrant dominated ghettos and it also served as a warning that uncontrolled immigration would lead to violent conflict some time in the future.

Powell never used the words 'rivers of blood', but being a classical scholar he merely quoted a few words from a line in Virgil's poem 'Aeneid'.

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood".

Seizing his chance, Heath distorted the speech, sacked Powell from government and mobilized the like minded traitors from all the political parties in his tawdry enterprise. They used every dirty trick in the book to demonise and smear their intellectual superior who was acutely aware of their ultimate aim of Great Britain's subjugation.

The sacking and deliberate vilification of Powell provoked a furious reaction from the ordinary people who lived outside the incestuous Westminster latrine and it also demonstrated the disconnect between politicians and the people.

Dockers from the East End of London and Tilbury went on strike immediately on news of his sacking and marched to Parliament in support of Powell as did the porters from Smithfield markets.

By April 25th he had received thirty thousand letters of support and by early May that had increased to forty-three thousand in addition to seven hundred telegrams.

A Gallup poll showed that seventy-four percent agreed with Powell with fifteen percent disagreeing. Sixty-nine percent disagreed with Heath's sacking of Powell.

Politicians of Powell's intellect are non-existent today and as a consequence the people are stuck with agenda driven career bureaucrats who have no experience of anything outside of party politics.

Regardless of party, modern politicians are all clones of each other who are only capable of repeating slogans and soundbites fed to them by spin doctors and who possess the intellectual level of a cockroach and the morals of a feral tom cat.

These parasitic low lifes still portray Powell as a racist and they still demonise and smear anyone who exposes their dirty tricks, who has the temerity to tell the truth and who are not afraid to put his speech into its proper context.

The questions one is bound to ask is firstly, was Enoch Powell right when he predicted bloodshed on the streets of Great Britain due to mass immigration?

The answer is so simple that even the smallest of intellectual pygmies will not be able to deny the truth.

Since Enoch Powell's speech in 1968 the 'rivers of blood' include:

The Chapelton race riots in 1975, 81 and 87

The Notting Hill race riot 1976

The Southall race riot in 1979

The St Paul's race riot in  1980

The Brixton race riot in 1981

The Toxteth race riot in 1981

The Mosside race riot in 1981

The Handsworth Race riot in 1981

Despite an inquiry and an injection of tens of millions of taxpayer money there followed more race riots in Brixton in 1985

Another race riot in Handsworth in 1985

The Broadwater Farm race riot in 1985 which saw the horrific beheading of Police Constable Blakelock.

The Dewsbury race riot in 1985

They love a good riot down there in South London. They kicked off again in Brixton in 1985 for third time.

The Bradford race riot in 1985

The July 7th bombings in 2005 which wreaked death and destruction on the London Transport system....... and so on it goes with the latest being the London riots in 2011 which started when the police sent an armed self confessed ghetto gangsta to meet his maker.

One would have thought that the sight and sound of two blood soaked Muslim jihadists, still armed with butchers knives and meat cleavers, ranting in public about the will of Allah while behind them is the lifeless body of a British soldier lying in a river of his own blood might make the politicians recant on the vilification Enoch Powell, but they didn't.

Powell does not have an equivalent politician today who has the spine to stand up and state publicly what they acknowledge in private, that blood will be spilled on the streets of Great Britain at some time in the future as a consequence of mass immigration.

Regardless of the evidence before their eyes and despite the hundreds of millions of taxpayer money already spent, politicians of all parties including Labour and UKIP are still calling for open borders and an influx of Syrians.

The rivers of blood that have stained British streets up until now will turn into a raging torrent when the young battle hardened jihadists, trained in the latest terrorist techniques, return to Great Britain from the war zones around the world and turn their attention to their home turf.

These jihadists are fanatics who hate England with a passion, their blood lust is insatiable and they will not settle back into routine life when they return from the battlefield.

There are British and other European based jihadists fighting in Muslim wars all over the world including hundreds in Syria.  The British people need to be organised and prepared, ready for their return and the war against Britain they have long publicly sworn to start.

Mass Immigration Disaster - Progressive Political Apologists Claim It Was An Accident

The Saturday Essay by 'progressive' do gooder, David Goodhart, in the Daily Mail is the latest in a series of speeches and musings by the remote ruling elite, admitting that mass immigration may have been an error.

This essay follows hot on the heels of Red Ed Miliband's admission that the Labour Party's immigration policy may have been misguided and Nick's Clegg's admission that his Lib Dem party's long standing policy on amnesty for illegals is now suddenly wrong.

At the time of writing, Conservative Ministers, MEP'S and Honourable Members worried about their imminent annihilation in the coming European Elections, are urging their leader 'Call Me Dave' Cameron to make a major speech on the follies of mass immigration.

The sad thing about this sudden outpouring of faux concern and speech making, is that they think the people don't know what they are up to. The people are well aware that if there were no election looming and UKIP were not gaining ground, there would be no concern, no speeches and no sham essays.

Since Prime Minister Edward Heath sacked his Shadow Cabinet member Enoch Powell for warning about the economic burden of mass immigration, it has been obvious that transforming Great Britain into a multi-cultural society has been a long planned cross party policy. Powell's sacking and his subsequent hounding out of office gave an indication that the government and the craven Establishment would adopt a zero tolerance to dissent, no matter how small.

This zero tolerance is still in evidence today by the smearing of anyone, including law abiding ladies from Rochdale, who dare to raise the question of mass immigration or multi-culturalism. Politicians and the Establishment are determined to socially engineer the multi-cultural country that their 'progressive' ideology demands, with or without the consent of the British people and in this case it is most definitely without their consent.

The patronising arrogance of this 'progressive' elite renders them incapable of understanding the hopes, aspirations or wishes of the majority of the people. They are under the delusion that they are always right and that they know what is best for the British people.

As is always the case, these elitists are immune from the consequences of the ideology that they force on other people.

Perhaps if they were made to leave their exclusively white havens in Hamptsead and forced to live in the ghettos they have created in Mosside, Manchester or Broadwater Farm, Tottenham, or the monocultural cesspits in Bradford, Leicester, Bristol, Wolverhampton, Rochdale, Rotherham etc. ad nauseum, they wouldn't be so keen on mass immigration.

The self confessed 'left leaning Hampstead liberal' David Goodhart is one such patronising elitist who championed mass immigration as a vehicle for social engineering, together with the imposition of a multi-cultural dystopia on the the people, and for the simple reason that he knows best.

This so called essay, like Cleggs speech, is a carefully crafted piece of propaganda designed to give the impression that a)  a multicultural society is already here so get used to it, b) in many places the diverse communities are living in peace and harmony c) Britain is a livelier and more dynamic country and d) mistakes were made but the mass immigration policy is the right one but perhaps it happened a tad too fast.

David Goodhart condescended to come down from planet Progressive and spent 18 months touring the country in order to reach his pro multi-cultural conclusions. Those who have spent decades living with the appalling consequences of mass immigration and who have reached very different conclusions are routinely dismissed as inward looking little Englanders and racists.

He states that the race lobby, of which he is a member, "have been slow to recognise that strong collective identities are legitimate for majorities as well as minorities, for white as well as black".

Goodhart also states that "existing citizens must have special rights over non citizens. Immigration must be managed with their interests in mind". If anyone outside of his elite circle said this they would, without a doubt, be smeared as racists.

He thinks that by pretending to sympathise with the majority who are against mass immigration and multi-culturalism, that he can spike the guns of UKIP on behalf of his political masters. The polls indicate that the defection away from the legacy parties is strong and irrevocable so his 18 months travelling among the plebs will be in vain.

Goodhart goes on to state the shocking fact that more immigrants arrive on British shores in a single year than arrived in the whole period from 1066 to 1950. As he well knows, this was a deliberate, well planned policy but he is trying to absolve his 'progressive' friends from blame by claiming it was an 'accident'.

In 1948 the government gave the right to Empire and Commonwealth citizens the to live and work in Great Britain and to their horror hundred of thousands turned up unexpectedly. They tried this line again with the Eastern Europeans in 1997 when a projected influx of 16,000 turned into 1.5 million.

According to Goodhart, by the time of the next census in 2021 the non white population will have trebled to 20% and white Britons will be a minority by 2066. He correctly states that in some towns and cities this is already the case.

He claims there was no discussion in the 'New' Labour Cabinet about this influx or about the pressure this would put on public services. As a magazine editor and Financial Times correspondent, how would he know what was discussed in the Cabinet? Not even senior government Ministers knew what Blair was discussing with his secretive inner circle.

The arrogance of these people is on full display as Goodhart goes on to admit that they, including him, are deep into "a huge social experiment" and to give it a chance of working we must slow down.

Who gave the political class, and people such has Goodhart, permission to be indulging in social experimentation with the well being of the British people?  They don't have the right to alter peoples lives for the worse without their consent. The people are not guinea pigs in some kind of 'progressive' laboratory.

Goodhart States that "the whole post war process of immigration has been badly managed". He also states that the importation of people from the Indian subcontinent to the soon to close textile mills
"was a poor piece of social engineering". He then tests the credulity of the reader by trying to claim that "no one really engineered it. It just happened".

This is the second time in this so called essay that Goodhart tries to convince his readers that the mass immigration disaster was an accident and that the government was not to blame.

As Goodhart well knows, mass immigration and its disastrous consequences didn't "just happen". He admits himself that senior people were following a secret pre-planned agenda which had different priorities from those of the British people.

"There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite's views and those of the ordinary people on the street".  No kidding Goodhart. Among normal people this is known as 'stating the bleeding obvious'.

As we all do occasionally, Goodhart was dining at an Oxford college when an eminent person next to him, 'a very senior civil servant' said that "when I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration because I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare". He doesn't name this 'very senior civil servant' who should be made to explain his views to the British people. Its the people's money that he's giving away after all.

Another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country held similar views. "He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi that to someone in Birmingham". Goodhart fails to mention who this powerful television executive was, so that he can be held accountable for his views, especially if the television company was the publicly funded BBC.

This demonstrates, even to apologists such as Goodhart, that mass immigration and the creation of a multi-cultural society was no accident. Rather it was planned by a secretive powerful elite who excluded the British people and transformed their country, using their money and without their consent.

I could carry on fisking this excuse for an essay but the pubs are open and there are better things in life than reading a piece of propaganda that attempts to absolve the current political leadership of any blame for their disastrous policy of mass immigration and cultural replacement.

As the mood of the nation swings away from the legacy political parties and their 'progressive'  ideology, the British people can expect a lot more of this pseudo intellectual nonsense from all corners of the Establishment as they try to reverse the tide of change.

Hopefully the momentum toward a free and prosperous Great Britain will be unstoppable right up to the next election cycle where the current political order will get the kicking that they thoroughly deserve.