The people of the various nations that make up the European Union are constantly bombarded with propaganda that extols the virtues of this soviet style political union especially using collective action for achieving results for the benefit of all.
In reality this dangerous abomination would be more accurately described as a union for politicians rather than a political union. It should be obvious to everyone that the EU has been a complete and utter disaster for the people of Europe not just the impoverished Mediterranean countries but the rich countries as well. Everything the EU bureaucrats do in search of their beloved post democratic United States of Europe results in disaster for all the people who are not part of the Brussels elite.
The accent is always on using collective power to achieve results but it appears this does not include the appalling tragedy being suffered by the people of Syria where the British were left to wage war on it's own.
It's worth reminding ourselves of some of the issues and characters that make the EU such a blight on the cause of individual freedom, prosperity and peace.
With the adoption of a Constitution under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU gave itself all the attributes of an independent state including a President who would have such a high profile that he would 'stop the traffic in Beijing'.
President Herman von Rompuy couldn't stop the traffic in Legoland but he attracts a salary greater than that of President Obama. On the Syrian tragedy, von Rompuy states that there is no alternative to a political solution and is therefore working with the Russians, who support the Assad government.
This stance is echoed by the other President, a Mr. Jose Manuel Barrosso. Yes, the EU has not one President but two; and Barrosso is also calling for a political solution, while throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayers money at Syria and it's neighbouring countries.
The long suffering EU taxpayers, who have been reduced to penury in their own countries by EU imposed austerity packages, have already forked out some 800 million Euros in aid to Syria and are about to take another 400 million hit due to President Barrosso's generosity with their money.
It is not known what the 93 million unemployed people in the EU think about Barrosso's largesse or the unemployed youths of Greece and Spain among whom unemployment now stands at a disgraceful 50%+. It is not surprising that a self confessed Maoist like Barrosso feels nothing of other people's pain as he doles out their money in the oil rich Middle East who are more than capable of looking after their own.
While the Presidents of the EU warn against military action and seek a peaceful solution with one of the main supporters of the Assad regime, President Hollande of France is advocating arming the rebel forces.
It is now universally accepted, even by a large contingent of the French people, that President Hollande is a brick short of a full load who infamously called for a 75% tax rate during a recession triggering a brain drain and an associated flight of capital.
He wants to the arm the rebels who are fighting the Russian supported government. He also does not specify which of the rebel factions he wants to support or why. Is it the Saudi financed al Qeada rebels who stop and murder truck drivers because they are the 'wrong' Muslim sect, or is it the rebel group that kills government soldiers then cuts them open and eats their internal organs?
Unlike the rest of the world, President Hollande is obviously unaware that all of the warring factions are uncivilized savages who are yelling Allah u Akbar as they shoot each other down then enjoy the corpses for lunch.
Besides making the EU a legal entity, the biggest change that came about as a result of the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution was the creation of the High Representative Of The Union For Foreign Affairs And Security. The title by itself, let alone the salary and perks, indicates the exalted status of this super bureaucrat. This person alone should have been the one who deals with the whole issue of Syria, anti-government rebels, human rights abuses, regime change and, more importantly, Prime Minister Cameron's narcissistic warmongering.
Baroness Ashton is the archetypal EU bureaucrat in that she has never been elected to anything in her life and has no qualifications or experience to hold such a post and is reputedly bone idle. As a peacenik and former treasurer of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), a traitorous organization which advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the cold war, she also demonstrates her pro Soviet credentials.
With the European Defence Force, together with the whole EU diplomatic service at her disposal, the Syrian issue is what her exalted office was created for. This situation is what the bankrupt Greek, Irish and Spanish taxpayers are forking out their hard earned millions for.
There is no need for the Presidential twins von Rompuy and Borrosso to be bothering their heads about Syria, or for Prime Minister Cameron to be unilaterally bombing Syrians. In her position of High Representative blah blah blah......the Baroness Ashton's negotiating teams should be initiating talks with all the warring factions and their various supporters including Presidents Putin, Obama and Hollande.
The second highest paid female politician on the planet, after Christine Largarde of the IMF, the Baroness has been more than useless and her performance is coming under intense criticism from all quarters including brain dead French socialists.
The fact is that the global political class, who give themselves fancy titles such as President, Prime Minister and High Representative, are only career bureaucrats financed by corrupt bankers and corporations who only have their own interests in mind. There is not a single statesman among the whole sorry bunch.
One of the worlds most prestigious institutions has been on rocky ground for years, but with the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to a radical socialist, race baiter and community organizer who had only been in office for a matter of months and who is now advocating death and destruction, it is now a totally discredited laughing stock.
In conclusion, with Baroness Ashton's incompetence, President Obama's total ineptitude and Prime Minister Cameron's failed warmongering, the world will have no alternative but to send for the ultimate global peacemaker and all round 'straight kinda guy'. The Middle East Peace Envoy for the Quartet would have had this sorted out ages ago if let alone to get on with it. Tony Blair's fee is likely to be in the tens of millions but it will ultimately be money well spent.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
'British Are A Nation Of Surrender Monkeys' - Prime Minister's Mouthpiece Cuts Loose
It would be interesting to see the reaction if the author of this gross insult were to walk into room full of veterans who have faithfully carried out their duty when put into harms way. It would be similarly interesting to see the reaction of those who have lost loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country.
To be labeled 'a nation of crisp eating surrender monkeys' by someone who has experienced the heat of battle and been on the receiving end of weapons designed to kill or maim is one thing, but to be labeled as such by a more than useless journalist who has made no contribution whatsoever to the life of the nation is a bitter pill to swallow.
The low life in question is serial failure Toby Young, an author and journalist who has achieved nothing in life on his own merits and whos sole purpose on the planet is to act as a mouthpiece for the equally useless Prime Minister David Cameron.
Young was an utter failure at school but mysteriously managed to secure a place at Oxford University where he obtained the infamous Politics Philosophy and Economics degree which is the necessary qualification if one wants to join the cross party 'progressive' elite. At this point it's worth mentioning his impeccable 'progressive' pedigree. He is the son of a BBC Radio producer and a Labour Party life peer, the Baron Young of Dartington. This life long social reformer was one of those responsible for destroying Great Britain's education system which they replaced with the 'progressive' comprehensive system that is still trapping young people in mediocrity to this day.
Toby Young's insult formed part of the collective tantrum thrown by the warmongering wing of David Cameron's Conservative Party after they lost the House of Commons vote on using weapons of mass destruction on unspecified warring factions in Syria. It is beyond Young's capabilities to understand that the British people have no faith in the political class and wouldn't trust them with a schoolboys peashooter let alone a cruise missile.
Young's attack on the British people was pure spite, reflecting the chagrin of his master who desperately wanted a war in order to have something on his otherwise empty Curriculum Vitae and to give him an international reputation which is noteable only for his continual groveling to Germany's Angela Merkel and Herman von Rumpuy of the EU.
His insult does not even contain any accurate facts and is patent nonsense:
"no longer can we pride ourselves on standing up to tyranny".
Great Britain and the West have failed to stand up to tyrants and mass murder for years so why is Assad any different?
In his indecent haste to speak on behalf of his defeated master, Young shows his ignorance of contemporary politics:
"Gone is the special relationship that meant that Britain and America could always count on each other to commit blood and treasure to defending the principles of liberal democracy".
If Toby Young would take his head out of Cameron's backside for long enough to look around, he might have noticed that any special relationship went up in a haze of dope smoke with the election of the unreconstructed British hater Barack Obama. Young is obviously unaware that 'defending the principles of liberal democracy' doesn't appear to apply in countries like North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe etc. (see previous post)
Toby Young builds up to his hysterical finale with a double dose of bovine excrement:
"The message sent out by the mother of parliaments to tyrants across the world was: Do whatever you like. Gas your own citizens. Murder innocent children. Commit genocide. We won't lift a finger to stop you".
This nonsense is breathtaking in it's hypocrisy and double standards. Where was the mother of parliaments when Saddam Hussein was gassing Iranians and his own citizens prior to Gulf War l? Where is the mother of parliaments when Christian men, women and children are being mercilessly butchered in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and a host of other Muslim countries? Where was the mother of parliaments when Omar al Bashir was committing genocide in Sudan?
The mother of parliaments didn't lift a finger to stop those tyrants so why is Assad so different?
Toby Young insults the whole of the British nation because they refuse to give their media created Prime Minister a free hand to dish out death and destruction onto the Syrian people without making a case and without credible evidence.
He needs to inform the British people as to which of the various factions the Prime Minister should bomb. The latest reports are indicating that it was a Saudi financed, al Qaeda backed rebel group that used these weapons and nobody should be surprised if that were the case. Other reports are suggesting that the British government's own Ministry of Business, Innovation and Skills was party to supplying some of the materials that are required to manufacture these weapons.
British Prime Ministers and American Presidents have always turned a blind eye to tyrants when it has suited them to do so. Saddam Hussein met Toby Young's criteria for tyranny and mass murder but he was feted and supplied by the West while he was at war with Iran: when that conflict was over and he turned his attention to Kuwait his behavior suddenly became unacceptable.
The tyrant Bashir al Assad and American Secretary of State John Kerry, together with their families, enjoyed a friendly relationship until recently; what Toby Young doesn't explain is how Assad has suddenly became persona non grata without doing anything different from what he has done over the years. It must be remembered that Assad was just as bad a tyrant when Kerry was enjoying their friendship as he is now.
Apart from the insult thrown at the British people by a lickspittle like Toby Young, it is interesting to note the nonsense spewing forth from the other apologists for David Cameron's bloated ego.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne is supposed to be looking after the nations finances, which were devastated by the previous socialist government; not agitating for another war which will only mean more hardship for the long suffering British people. He is currently borrowing 120 billion per year and racking up such a massive debt it will take generations to pay off, if ever. How does he propose to pay for an arsenal of cruise missiles and other expensive ordinance when, as the outgoing Treasury Minister said, "there is no money left?"
Osborne shows himself up for the cynical, spin infested political charlatan that he is by waxing lyrical about Great Britain's place in the world. It is worth paying particular attention to what he said after the House of Commons vote:
"I think there will be a national soul searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that by being an open trading nation that I would like us to be or whether we turn our backs on that".
Of all the political double talk, spin and outright lies the people have to listen to from these awful people, this must rank up there with the most shameful.
Osborne must be off his rocker if he wants the people to take him seriously about "being an open trading nation" when he personally, together with his boss Cameron and his de-toxified Consevative party, are busy diminishing the country and destroying it as such by submerging it into the United States of Europe. George Osborne needs to explain to the British people how their country can possibly be an 'open trading nation' while at the same time exchanging its independence to trade globally for the supposed collective clout of the European Union bureaucracy.
If George Osborne seriously thinks he can get away with making comments about Great Britain as an 'open trading nation and turning their backs on the world', then he is not the strategist he claims to be. Great Britain and its Commonwealth partners were the ideal global trading partners until Osborne's predecessors 'turned their backs on the world' and dumped them in favour of the inward looking, disastrous collective in Brussels.
Great Britain is shackled to the same European dead horse that has ruined the economies of the Mediterranean countries together with Ireland and Portugal, but unshackled in the case of waging war where the EU has dumped Great Britain to go it alone.
Two issues need to be mentioned in conclusion:
Firstly: As he is an advocate of waging war, there is nothing preventing Toby Young from becoming a war correspondent and sending dispatches from the Syrian front line. As is traditional with modern day war correspondents he can embed himself with any number of factions, including the rebels who are fighting the tyrannical government he wants overthrown and punished.
Any armchair warmonger can advocate military action from the comfort and safety of a Daily Telegraph office so I would suggest that unless Toby Young is prepared to go there himself and report in person on the consequences of his advocacy, he should keep his insults to himself and his mouth firmly shut.
Secondly: If the British people do not need permission from EU bureaucrats like Herman von Rumpuy and Baroness Ashton to wage a destructive war, then surely they do not need permission to serve olive oil in a dipping bowl at restaurant tables, work more than forty eight hours per week, empty rubbish bins more than once a fortnight, deport foreign terrorists and criminals and to decide who gets welfare and who does not. There's not a bigger impoverishing tyranny on the planet than the European Union so Cameron could do the world a favour by raining his bombs down on Brussels.
To be labeled 'a nation of crisp eating surrender monkeys' by someone who has experienced the heat of battle and been on the receiving end of weapons designed to kill or maim is one thing, but to be labeled as such by a more than useless journalist who has made no contribution whatsoever to the life of the nation is a bitter pill to swallow.
The low life in question is serial failure Toby Young, an author and journalist who has achieved nothing in life on his own merits and whos sole purpose on the planet is to act as a mouthpiece for the equally useless Prime Minister David Cameron.
Young was an utter failure at school but mysteriously managed to secure a place at Oxford University where he obtained the infamous Politics Philosophy and Economics degree which is the necessary qualification if one wants to join the cross party 'progressive' elite. At this point it's worth mentioning his impeccable 'progressive' pedigree. He is the son of a BBC Radio producer and a Labour Party life peer, the Baron Young of Dartington. This life long social reformer was one of those responsible for destroying Great Britain's education system which they replaced with the 'progressive' comprehensive system that is still trapping young people in mediocrity to this day.
Toby Young's insult formed part of the collective tantrum thrown by the warmongering wing of David Cameron's Conservative Party after they lost the House of Commons vote on using weapons of mass destruction on unspecified warring factions in Syria. It is beyond Young's capabilities to understand that the British people have no faith in the political class and wouldn't trust them with a schoolboys peashooter let alone a cruise missile.
Young's attack on the British people was pure spite, reflecting the chagrin of his master who desperately wanted a war in order to have something on his otherwise empty Curriculum Vitae and to give him an international reputation which is noteable only for his continual groveling to Germany's Angela Merkel and Herman von Rumpuy of the EU.
His insult does not even contain any accurate facts and is patent nonsense:
"no longer can we pride ourselves on standing up to tyranny".
Great Britain and the West have failed to stand up to tyrants and mass murder for years so why is Assad any different?
In his indecent haste to speak on behalf of his defeated master, Young shows his ignorance of contemporary politics:
"Gone is the special relationship that meant that Britain and America could always count on each other to commit blood and treasure to defending the principles of liberal democracy".
If Toby Young would take his head out of Cameron's backside for long enough to look around, he might have noticed that any special relationship went up in a haze of dope smoke with the election of the unreconstructed British hater Barack Obama. Young is obviously unaware that 'defending the principles of liberal democracy' doesn't appear to apply in countries like North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe etc. (see previous post)
Toby Young builds up to his hysterical finale with a double dose of bovine excrement:
"The message sent out by the mother of parliaments to tyrants across the world was: Do whatever you like. Gas your own citizens. Murder innocent children. Commit genocide. We won't lift a finger to stop you".
This nonsense is breathtaking in it's hypocrisy and double standards. Where was the mother of parliaments when Saddam Hussein was gassing Iranians and his own citizens prior to Gulf War l? Where is the mother of parliaments when Christian men, women and children are being mercilessly butchered in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan and a host of other Muslim countries? Where was the mother of parliaments when Omar al Bashir was committing genocide in Sudan?
The mother of parliaments didn't lift a finger to stop those tyrants so why is Assad so different?
Toby Young insults the whole of the British nation because they refuse to give their media created Prime Minister a free hand to dish out death and destruction onto the Syrian people without making a case and without credible evidence.
He needs to inform the British people as to which of the various factions the Prime Minister should bomb. The latest reports are indicating that it was a Saudi financed, al Qaeda backed rebel group that used these weapons and nobody should be surprised if that were the case. Other reports are suggesting that the British government's own Ministry of Business, Innovation and Skills was party to supplying some of the materials that are required to manufacture these weapons.
British Prime Ministers and American Presidents have always turned a blind eye to tyrants when it has suited them to do so. Saddam Hussein met Toby Young's criteria for tyranny and mass murder but he was feted and supplied by the West while he was at war with Iran: when that conflict was over and he turned his attention to Kuwait his behavior suddenly became unacceptable.
The tyrant Bashir al Assad and American Secretary of State John Kerry, together with their families, enjoyed a friendly relationship until recently; what Toby Young doesn't explain is how Assad has suddenly became persona non grata without doing anything different from what he has done over the years. It must be remembered that Assad was just as bad a tyrant when Kerry was enjoying their friendship as he is now.
Apart from the insult thrown at the British people by a lickspittle like Toby Young, it is interesting to note the nonsense spewing forth from the other apologists for David Cameron's bloated ego.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne is supposed to be looking after the nations finances, which were devastated by the previous socialist government; not agitating for another war which will only mean more hardship for the long suffering British people. He is currently borrowing 120 billion per year and racking up such a massive debt it will take generations to pay off, if ever. How does he propose to pay for an arsenal of cruise missiles and other expensive ordinance when, as the outgoing Treasury Minister said, "there is no money left?"
Osborne shows himself up for the cynical, spin infested political charlatan that he is by waxing lyrical about Great Britain's place in the world. It is worth paying particular attention to what he said after the House of Commons vote:
"I think there will be a national soul searching about our role in the world and whether Britain wants to play a big part in upholding the international system, be that by being an open trading nation that I would like us to be or whether we turn our backs on that".
Of all the political double talk, spin and outright lies the people have to listen to from these awful people, this must rank up there with the most shameful.
Osborne must be off his rocker if he wants the people to take him seriously about "being an open trading nation" when he personally, together with his boss Cameron and his de-toxified Consevative party, are busy diminishing the country and destroying it as such by submerging it into the United States of Europe. George Osborne needs to explain to the British people how their country can possibly be an 'open trading nation' while at the same time exchanging its independence to trade globally for the supposed collective clout of the European Union bureaucracy.
If George Osborne seriously thinks he can get away with making comments about Great Britain as an 'open trading nation and turning their backs on the world', then he is not the strategist he claims to be. Great Britain and its Commonwealth partners were the ideal global trading partners until Osborne's predecessors 'turned their backs on the world' and dumped them in favour of the inward looking, disastrous collective in Brussels.
Great Britain is shackled to the same European dead horse that has ruined the economies of the Mediterranean countries together with Ireland and Portugal, but unshackled in the case of waging war where the EU has dumped Great Britain to go it alone.
Two issues need to be mentioned in conclusion:
Firstly: As he is an advocate of waging war, there is nothing preventing Toby Young from becoming a war correspondent and sending dispatches from the Syrian front line. As is traditional with modern day war correspondents he can embed himself with any number of factions, including the rebels who are fighting the tyrannical government he wants overthrown and punished.
Any armchair warmonger can advocate military action from the comfort and safety of a Daily Telegraph office so I would suggest that unless Toby Young is prepared to go there himself and report in person on the consequences of his advocacy, he should keep his insults to himself and his mouth firmly shut.
Secondly: If the British people do not need permission from EU bureaucrats like Herman von Rumpuy and Baroness Ashton to wage a destructive war, then surely they do not need permission to serve olive oil in a dipping bowl at restaurant tables, work more than forty eight hours per week, empty rubbish bins more than once a fortnight, deport foreign terrorists and criminals and to decide who gets welfare and who does not. There's not a bigger impoverishing tyranny on the planet than the European Union so Cameron could do the world a favour by raining his bombs down on Brussels.
Friday, August 30, 2013
British Say No To War - Arrogant Government Defeated By Its Own Double Standards
Waging war on another country is not something that should be entered into without having first explored all the facts in addition to analyzing every scrap of intelligence data. In a democracy those politicians who advocate war must then lay the facts before the country with a view to justifying their desire to dish out death and destruction and send military men and women into harms way.
The refusal of Parliament to give British Prime Minister David Cameron authority to wage war on Syria is momentous and worthy of further analysis in order to highlight the arrogance, hypocrisy and blatant double standards that is now so shamefully normal in British political discourse.
Either David Cameron and his close knit group of cronies have shorter memories than the British people or their arrogance is such that they expect them to forget the bitter experience they suffered under Blair and believe their spin without question.
As the people know to their cost, Tony Blair promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and wage war on Iraq before making his case and seeking authority from Parliament. David Cameron must be out of his tiny mind if he thinks that he can employ exactly the same tactic with President Obama without the people remembering the disaster that befell them as a result of Blair's treachery.
Cameron was taking the people for granted when he promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with Obama before making his case for war and before obtaining authority from Parliament. The case he did make was full of holes with rhetoric making up for hard facts.
The UN investigation is incomplete so Cameron has to inform Parliament that there is no smoking gun or definitive evidence that chemical weapons were used, and even if they were used there is no clear evidence that it was the Assad regime that used them. He goes on to say that nobody can be absolutely sure but it was 'highly likely' that it was the Assad regime that used these weapons. This is a dismal attempt at justification and not a reason to wage war.
It must be remembered that the factions fighting each other in Syria are mainly Muslim who worship death like civilised people worship life and therefore they are all capable of using chemical weapons; in which case, what faction or factions does Cameron plan to bomb?
Those who follow the political scene will notice that David Cameron is becoming more insufferable the longer he stays in office; his rhetoric displays his arrogance and more importantly it displays his contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. As the self appointed 'Heir to Blair' he has acquired the same belief that he alone has all the answers therefore the views of the people can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Cameron strongly believes that Britain must not seek prosperity on the backs of the worlds poor therefore he is doubling foreign aid against the wishes of the British people and ignoring the country's unsustainable national debt.
Cameron strongly believes in gay marriage despite the people's wish to preserve traditional marriage.
Cameron strongly believes that Britain's place is inside the European Union and refuses to give the people a say in their future.
Yesterday in Parliament he stated that he strongly believes in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons.
It is a great result for the British people that Cameron's strong beliefs finally came to a shuddering halt with yesterday's defeat in Parliament. The people can now live in hope that those politicians who re-discovered their backbones will keep up the pressure and either sack him or clip his wings for good.
It is on the issue of chemical weapons and the government's attitude to dictators that is most disturbing as it displays their unashamed hypocrisy and double standards. It goes without saying that chemical weapons are a blight on the human race but it must be understood that these weapons are only one out of hundreds of ways to kill people.
How does the three hundred and fifty people killed by these weapons in Syria compare with the one million killed by machetes in Rwanda?
How does it compare with the three million killed by the deliberate use of famine in North Korea?
Then there are the six hundred thousand deliberately killed by famine in Sudan.
Why is Bashir al Assad being singled out for special treatment? Why aren't the bombs and cruise missiles raining down on Gigali, Pyongyang and downtown Khartoum?
After all, the only differences between Omar al Bashir of Sudan and Bashar al Assad of Syria is black skin and a turban.
It would appear that it's not the actual number of people killed but the means by which they were killed that decides whether the bombs are dropped or not.
Why is waging war on Bashar al Assad so vital when he is only number five on the list of global dictators behind Kim Jong Un of North Korea, Isais Afewerki of Eritrea, Omar al Bashir of Sudan and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan?
Phillip Hammond, the Defence Secretary who incidentally, is the man responsible for gutting the British military, says "that the use of chemical weapons needs a clear and strong response". If that's the case then the use of the machete and famine to kill thousands more people needs an equally strong response; so where is it?
Cameron insisted that "Britain has a duty to do the right thing and intervene in the human catastrophe unfolding in Syria". Where is that duty and who does he suggest gets bombed to prevent the human catastrophe befalling Christian communities in Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt etc. where the death toll outstrips that of Syria by thousands.
Cameron's despicable use of emotive images of dead and dying children is about as low as it gets; he urges MP's "to force themselves to watch harrowing videos of small children suffering following a chemical attack".
By the same token, and in the interest of balance, Cameron should urge MPs to force themselves to look at the images of Christian children who were butchered in Nigeria. If he is serious about a clear and strong response to these tragedies then he should also urge Parliament to bomb Abuja and Lagos.
There is no consistency in Cameron's approach; how can the massacre of innocents be acceptable by a tyrant in one country but not in another?
From North Korea to Zimbabwe, dictators and tyrants are butchering their own citizens with impunity and with the full knowledge of the political classes who look the other way if it suits them to do so. Bashir al Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on his own citizens is no worse than Robert Mugabe using famine to kill millions of his political opponents in Zimbabwe.
It's worth noting that some of these Parliamentary idiots are worried that President Obama won't like the British anymore and that the special relationship with America is under strain. They are obviously unaware that President Obama has never made a secret of his hatred for the British. Apparently they abused his father in Kenya during decolonization. The fact that the abuse was carried out by President Jomo Kenyatta after the British departed doesn't seem to have assuaged the President's hatred.
One of his first acts after ascending to the Presidency was to return a bust of Winston Churchill because he found it offensive. It would appear that the special relationship will only be re-instated when this bitter and twisted President leaves the White House.
In conclusion it's worth noting that when it comes to trade, economics and interference in the minutiae of British life, the European Union is up front and in your face. Nothing is allowed to transpire without permission from the EU bureaucrats. The British are continually being told that they are weak and can no longer act alone; they are told that their interests are best served by using the collective clout of the EU.
If this is so why is Great Britain acting alone when it comes to military action, surely the combined military of twenty seven nations will make short shrift of Syria's divided and scattered forces.
Where is Herman von Rumpuy, Jose Manuel Borrosso and Baroness Ashton? Why are they not insisting that the EU acts as one? Their silence is deafening.
The refusal of Parliament to give British Prime Minister David Cameron authority to wage war on Syria is momentous and worthy of further analysis in order to highlight the arrogance, hypocrisy and blatant double standards that is now so shamefully normal in British political discourse.
Either David Cameron and his close knit group of cronies have shorter memories than the British people or their arrogance is such that they expect them to forget the bitter experience they suffered under Blair and believe their spin without question.
As the people know to their cost, Tony Blair promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Bush and wage war on Iraq before making his case and seeking authority from Parliament. David Cameron must be out of his tiny mind if he thinks that he can employ exactly the same tactic with President Obama without the people remembering the disaster that befell them as a result of Blair's treachery.
Cameron was taking the people for granted when he promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with Obama before making his case for war and before obtaining authority from Parliament. The case he did make was full of holes with rhetoric making up for hard facts.
The UN investigation is incomplete so Cameron has to inform Parliament that there is no smoking gun or definitive evidence that chemical weapons were used, and even if they were used there is no clear evidence that it was the Assad regime that used them. He goes on to say that nobody can be absolutely sure but it was 'highly likely' that it was the Assad regime that used these weapons. This is a dismal attempt at justification and not a reason to wage war.
It must be remembered that the factions fighting each other in Syria are mainly Muslim who worship death like civilised people worship life and therefore they are all capable of using chemical weapons; in which case, what faction or factions does Cameron plan to bomb?
Those who follow the political scene will notice that David Cameron is becoming more insufferable the longer he stays in office; his rhetoric displays his arrogance and more importantly it displays his contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. As the self appointed 'Heir to Blair' he has acquired the same belief that he alone has all the answers therefore the views of the people can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Cameron strongly believes that Britain must not seek prosperity on the backs of the worlds poor therefore he is doubling foreign aid against the wishes of the British people and ignoring the country's unsustainable national debt.
Cameron strongly believes in gay marriage despite the people's wish to preserve traditional marriage.
Cameron strongly believes that Britain's place is inside the European Union and refuses to give the people a say in their future.
Yesterday in Parliament he stated that he strongly believes in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons.
It is a great result for the British people that Cameron's strong beliefs finally came to a shuddering halt with yesterday's defeat in Parliament. The people can now live in hope that those politicians who re-discovered their backbones will keep up the pressure and either sack him or clip his wings for good.
It is on the issue of chemical weapons and the government's attitude to dictators that is most disturbing as it displays their unashamed hypocrisy and double standards. It goes without saying that chemical weapons are a blight on the human race but it must be understood that these weapons are only one out of hundreds of ways to kill people.
How does the three hundred and fifty people killed by these weapons in Syria compare with the one million killed by machetes in Rwanda?
How does it compare with the three million killed by the deliberate use of famine in North Korea?
Then there are the six hundred thousand deliberately killed by famine in Sudan.
Why is Bashir al Assad being singled out for special treatment? Why aren't the bombs and cruise missiles raining down on Gigali, Pyongyang and downtown Khartoum?
After all, the only differences between Omar al Bashir of Sudan and Bashar al Assad of Syria is black skin and a turban.
It would appear that it's not the actual number of people killed but the means by which they were killed that decides whether the bombs are dropped or not.
Why is waging war on Bashar al Assad so vital when he is only number five on the list of global dictators behind Kim Jong Un of North Korea, Isais Afewerki of Eritrea, Omar al Bashir of Sudan and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan?
Phillip Hammond, the Defence Secretary who incidentally, is the man responsible for gutting the British military, says "that the use of chemical weapons needs a clear and strong response". If that's the case then the use of the machete and famine to kill thousands more people needs an equally strong response; so where is it?
Cameron insisted that "Britain has a duty to do the right thing and intervene in the human catastrophe unfolding in Syria". Where is that duty and who does he suggest gets bombed to prevent the human catastrophe befalling Christian communities in Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt etc. where the death toll outstrips that of Syria by thousands.
Cameron's despicable use of emotive images of dead and dying children is about as low as it gets; he urges MP's "to force themselves to watch harrowing videos of small children suffering following a chemical attack".
By the same token, and in the interest of balance, Cameron should urge MPs to force themselves to look at the images of Christian children who were butchered in Nigeria. If he is serious about a clear and strong response to these tragedies then he should also urge Parliament to bomb Abuja and Lagos.
There is no consistency in Cameron's approach; how can the massacre of innocents be acceptable by a tyrant in one country but not in another?
From North Korea to Zimbabwe, dictators and tyrants are butchering their own citizens with impunity and with the full knowledge of the political classes who look the other way if it suits them to do so. Bashir al Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on his own citizens is no worse than Robert Mugabe using famine to kill millions of his political opponents in Zimbabwe.
It's worth noting that some of these Parliamentary idiots are worried that President Obama won't like the British anymore and that the special relationship with America is under strain. They are obviously unaware that President Obama has never made a secret of his hatred for the British. Apparently they abused his father in Kenya during decolonization. The fact that the abuse was carried out by President Jomo Kenyatta after the British departed doesn't seem to have assuaged the President's hatred.
One of his first acts after ascending to the Presidency was to return a bust of Winston Churchill because he found it offensive. It would appear that the special relationship will only be re-instated when this bitter and twisted President leaves the White House.
In conclusion it's worth noting that when it comes to trade, economics and interference in the minutiae of British life, the European Union is up front and in your face. Nothing is allowed to transpire without permission from the EU bureaucrats. The British are continually being told that they are weak and can no longer act alone; they are told that their interests are best served by using the collective clout of the EU.
If this is so why is Great Britain acting alone when it comes to military action, surely the combined military of twenty seven nations will make short shrift of Syria's divided and scattered forces.
Where is Herman von Rumpuy, Jose Manuel Borrosso and Baroness Ashton? Why are they not insisting that the EU acts as one? Their silence is deafening.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Unleashing Hell In Syria - What's The Hurry And Who's Side Are We On?
When it comes to unleashing weapons capable of such awesome destruction on people we know very little about it's best to take several steps back to make sure the reasoning is sound and the repercussions are well understood.
If the latest opinion polls are to be believed then there doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for war among the peoples of Great Britain and America and for good reason. Politicians, particularly modern day career politicians, are not known for their honesty; in fact they are notorious for their propensity for spin, deceit and outright lying, as the British people found out to their cost.
As the world knows, the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had already made the decision and committed the British people to war in Iraq long before he made the case to Parliament. When he did make that case it was a tissue of lies, exaggerations, 'sexed up' language and a media onslaught by his well oiled spin machine. Blair even ignored his own Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who was also a personal friend from student days, as to the legality of his military adventure with President Bush.
As was revealed in yesterday's article, Tony Blair is suffering from a recognized mental affliction called the 'Hubris Syndrome', which appears to affect the political class more than any other group of people. The people of the Middle East, and the world at large, deserve an explanation as why a mentally unstable man with an appalling record of warmongering was appointed Middle East peace envoy representing billions of people from the USA, the EU and Russia?
The British team in this latest military adventure is being led by the increasingly arrogant Prime Minister David Cameron and the American team is being led by Nobel Peace prize winning Messiah elect, Barack Obama; both of whom have little or no experience of the real world or its various peoples and cultures.
Who can possibly have faith in a forty seven year old career politician who's only experience of the world outside of party politics is as a Public Relations executive at a defunct television company and a fifty two year old community organiser with no experience whatsoever in anything other than radical socialist politics.
Watching and listening to these two perform it is obvious, even to the casual observer, that like Blair they are also guilty of narcissistic behavior and hold very high opinions of themselves and their views to the exclusion of everyone else's.
Their arrogance and dictatorial behavior over gay marriage, overseas aid and the European Union, are clear evidence of their belief in the righteousness of their causes, or put simply, their belief that only they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Prior to unleashing death and destruction on the Syrian people, there are several questions that need to be answered.
There are so many different factions involved it needs to be made clear which faction will benefit from western interference? What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of these factions despise the West and are openly engineering its downfall via violent jihad and various cultural replacement agendas.
It needs to be made clear what the mission goals are. Is it regime change and if so, in favour of who? At the moment the choice appears to be between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, al Qaeda or Hamas - all enemies of western civilization.
Will there be reprisal attacks by home grown Muslim jihadis in participating western countries? If so will the establishment and local authorities suspend the forced multi-cultural agenda?
To avoid another Afghanistan or Iraq, what is the exit strategy?
If Israel is attacked, what will the military response be? Will the mission be expanded to include bombing Syria's allies?
And the biggest question of all is why are western powers getting involved in an internal Middle Eastern conflict?
Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc. are all brimming with the latest western supplied military hardware and possess the expertise to use it.
Why don't these countries under the auspices of something like the Arab League sort it out for themselves? Or as Ms. Palin said, "let Allah sort it out".
David Cameron is using the humanitarian angle in order to justify his hurry to unleash hellfire on Syria.
"The West cannot standby and let this happen", claims Cameron in reference to the massacre of civilians using chemical weapons but the obvious response to this is, why not?
The West stood by while Hutu and Tutsi tribal members massacred almost one million of their compatriots in Rwanda. Who is to say that being hacked to death with a machete is less of a war crime than using chemical weapons. One of the beneficiaries of this horror is Rwandan President Paul Kigame who is now a favourite of Cameron's Conservative Party and is in receipt of hundreds of millions of taxpayers money via the overseas development aid scam.
The West stood by while Pol Pot murdered over one million citizens in the name of Karl Marx in Cambodia.
The West stood by while helpless, starving refugees were being massacred in their tens of thousands in Dafur, Sudan.
The West has stood by for over thirty years while Robert Mugabe has raped, tortured, murdered and plundered the Zimbabwean people into starvation and abject poverty.
The West has stood by for six decades while the Kim dynasty has brutalised, massacred and starved the North Korean people into submission.
The list goes on and on so it must be asked as to why Syria is being singled out by Cameron, Obama and the West for special treatment when the crimes of its rulers are mild by comparison to those dictators that went before?
In conclusion I would point out the insensitivity that can only come from an inexperienced elitist that has no idea whatsoever how real people think and react is on display with David Cameron. He is busy eviscerating the British military in preparation for it to be absorbed into the European Defence Force. This process includes giving serving soldiers their redundancy notices while they are on active duty in Afghanistan.
This media created abomination abuses and pours scorn on the history of the British military then has the gall to expect our brave men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line in a military adventure that is not the business of anyone outside the closed political circle in which Cameron and his cronies live.
Update: This deserves a wider audience. There's more to Phony Tony than meets the eye.
Thanks to Steve
If the latest opinion polls are to be believed then there doesn't appear to be much of an appetite for war among the peoples of Great Britain and America and for good reason. Politicians, particularly modern day career politicians, are not known for their honesty; in fact they are notorious for their propensity for spin, deceit and outright lying, as the British people found out to their cost.
As the world knows, the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had already made the decision and committed the British people to war in Iraq long before he made the case to Parliament. When he did make that case it was a tissue of lies, exaggerations, 'sexed up' language and a media onslaught by his well oiled spin machine. Blair even ignored his own Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who was also a personal friend from student days, as to the legality of his military adventure with President Bush.
As was revealed in yesterday's article, Tony Blair is suffering from a recognized mental affliction called the 'Hubris Syndrome', which appears to affect the political class more than any other group of people. The people of the Middle East, and the world at large, deserve an explanation as why a mentally unstable man with an appalling record of warmongering was appointed Middle East peace envoy representing billions of people from the USA, the EU and Russia?
The British team in this latest military adventure is being led by the increasingly arrogant Prime Minister David Cameron and the American team is being led by Nobel Peace prize winning Messiah elect, Barack Obama; both of whom have little or no experience of the real world or its various peoples and cultures.
Who can possibly have faith in a forty seven year old career politician who's only experience of the world outside of party politics is as a Public Relations executive at a defunct television company and a fifty two year old community organiser with no experience whatsoever in anything other than radical socialist politics.
Watching and listening to these two perform it is obvious, even to the casual observer, that like Blair they are also guilty of narcissistic behavior and hold very high opinions of themselves and their views to the exclusion of everyone else's.
Their arrogance and dictatorial behavior over gay marriage, overseas aid and the European Union, are clear evidence of their belief in the righteousness of their causes, or put simply, their belief that only they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Prior to unleashing death and destruction on the Syrian people, there are several questions that need to be answered.
There are so many different factions involved it needs to be made clear which faction will benefit from western interference? What is more worrying is the fact that the majority of these factions despise the West and are openly engineering its downfall via violent jihad and various cultural replacement agendas.
It needs to be made clear what the mission goals are. Is it regime change and if so, in favour of who? At the moment the choice appears to be between the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, al Qaeda or Hamas - all enemies of western civilization.
Will there be reprisal attacks by home grown Muslim jihadis in participating western countries? If so will the establishment and local authorities suspend the forced multi-cultural agenda?
To avoid another Afghanistan or Iraq, what is the exit strategy?
If Israel is attacked, what will the military response be? Will the mission be expanded to include bombing Syria's allies?
And the biggest question of all is why are western powers getting involved in an internal Middle Eastern conflict?
Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc. are all brimming with the latest western supplied military hardware and possess the expertise to use it.
Why don't these countries under the auspices of something like the Arab League sort it out for themselves? Or as Ms. Palin said, "let Allah sort it out".
David Cameron is using the humanitarian angle in order to justify his hurry to unleash hellfire on Syria.
"The West cannot standby and let this happen", claims Cameron in reference to the massacre of civilians using chemical weapons but the obvious response to this is, why not?
The West stood by while Hutu and Tutsi tribal members massacred almost one million of their compatriots in Rwanda. Who is to say that being hacked to death with a machete is less of a war crime than using chemical weapons. One of the beneficiaries of this horror is Rwandan President Paul Kigame who is now a favourite of Cameron's Conservative Party and is in receipt of hundreds of millions of taxpayers money via the overseas development aid scam.
The West stood by while Pol Pot murdered over one million citizens in the name of Karl Marx in Cambodia.
The West stood by while helpless, starving refugees were being massacred in their tens of thousands in Dafur, Sudan.
The West has stood by for over thirty years while Robert Mugabe has raped, tortured, murdered and plundered the Zimbabwean people into starvation and abject poverty.
The West has stood by for six decades while the Kim dynasty has brutalised, massacred and starved the North Korean people into submission.
The list goes on and on so it must be asked as to why Syria is being singled out by Cameron, Obama and the West for special treatment when the crimes of its rulers are mild by comparison to those dictators that went before?
In conclusion I would point out the insensitivity that can only come from an inexperienced elitist that has no idea whatsoever how real people think and react is on display with David Cameron. He is busy eviscerating the British military in preparation for it to be absorbed into the European Defence Force. This process includes giving serving soldiers their redundancy notices while they are on active duty in Afghanistan.
This media created abomination abuses and pours scorn on the history of the British military then has the gall to expect our brave men and women in uniform to put their lives on the line in a military adventure that is not the business of anyone outside the closed political circle in which Cameron and his cronies live.
Update: This deserves a wider audience. There's more to Phony Tony than meets the eye.
Thanks to Steve
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Tony Blair - Atheist Warmonger Turned Christian Peace Envoy Wants The Bloodletting To Begin
With the news that the life and death of thousands of soldiers and civilians in Syria lay in the hands of a defunct television company's Public Relations executive and a radical Community Organiser with no background at all, it must be reassuring that a global statesman of Tony Blair's calibre has taken time out from making himself millions to give his advise whether it was asked for or not.
Universally known as Phony Tony, this political lowlife, together with a cabal of close friends, is responsible not only for the wanton destruction of the tradition British way of life and culture but the unnecessary deaths of troops together with hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.
Tony Blair's usurpation of political power is a testament to the effectiveness of propaganda, the futility of tribal voting and the utter stupidity of large sections of the British electorate.
This man hailed from a privileged elite in Scotland where was exclusively educated, who has never soiled his hands with a days work in his entire miserable life and yet he declared himself a socialist then wangled his way to the leadership of the so called working mans Labour Party.
As he lied his way up the greasy pole Blair infamously wrote to then Labour leader Michael Foot that he had "come to socialism through Marxism" while simultaneously networking in preparation for his money making career post politics. Knowing what the British people know now Blair was lying through his teeth when he declared that:
"I am a socialist not though reading a text book that caught my intellectual fancy, not through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that , at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation not confrontation; for fellowship not fear. It stands for equality".
If anyone was under the impression that a privileged person who had 'had come to socialism through Marxism' would happily spend his time in the company of working people then they would be spectacularly wrong. By the way Blair sought out the company of millionaires and billionaires in their super yachts and mansions, it should have been obvious, even to his own dumbed down voters, that Blair despised the working classes with a passion and he would most likely shudder at the thought of their proximity.
Blair famously quoted through his mouthpiece, Alistair Campbell that they "did not do God" which is just as well by the way Blair meted out death and destruction to whoever made him look and feel invincible. In his first six years in power he sent British troops into battle on five occasions. Judging by this record of bloodletting he would be a racing certainty to purgatory, hell and damnation before his harp and wings got anywhere near the Pearly Gates.
While the media created PR man David Cameron and the Community Organiser, Barack Obama plan the bombing of Syria and the possible start of World War III, Tony Blair must be wondering what the hold up is; he must be asking himself why these two novices are dragging their feet. In Tony's day he would have produced his dodgy dossier, lied his way through Parliament, then got those planes fuelled up and spilling blood enough to swim in before Bashir Assad was out of bed.
It must be noted for the record that after he retired from politics Tony Blair saw the light and error of his ways, he decided that he did "do God" after all and joined the Catholic faith. The world is unsure whether his conscience got the better of him or the ghosts of his victims tormented him at night but a private audience with Pope John Paul II seems to have done the trick. Cynics were suggesting that as the Pope was on his way to meet his maker at the time, Phony Tony was laying down a marker as a possible replacement.
For reasons only known to the political elite, Saint Tony was made the Middle East peace envoy for the so called Quartet, who's members comprise of the UN, the USA, the EU and Russia. Such is his effectiveness that since his appointment there have been uprisings, civil wars and general bloodletting in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Lebanon and of course the six decade conflict between the Arab states and Israel is still unresolved.
One would think that this appointment would be a time consuming full time job and leave little room for any other activities but one would be wrong. Blair travels the world making a personal fortune out of the contacts that he made while in office, and who has recently purchased his seventh property which includes the stately home once owned by actor John Gielgud.
As the self nominated "straight kinda guy" and committed socialist this fortune should be redistributed in line with his political ideology but as we have noted on this site numerous times previously, redistribution of wealth to these hypocrites means other peoples not their own. ( See Glenys and Neil Kinnock)
Tony Blair, whatever the motivation, is calling for military action in Syria not from the Working Mens Club in his old constituency of Sedgfield, but from a luxury yacht once owned by multi- billionaire Russian oligarch Roman Abromavich after having flown to Sardinia in a private jet.
If the truth be known, Blair, according to his fellow champagne socialist Doctor David Owen, is not a well man, in fact he is not far short of a dangerous lunatic.
Before entering politics Dr. Owen was a specialist in neurology and psychiatry at the world renown St Thomas hospital, London. In his latest book 'The Hubris Syndrome' he informs us that those afflicted, including Tony Blair, are 'pathologically hubristic beyond the normal arrogance that afflicts most politicians'.
The good doctor informs us that Blair fell victim to a pathological obsession with his own political importance and righteousness.
Before quoting Doctor Owen further it's worth pointing out the disturbing similarities between Tony Blair, Barack Obama and David Cameron as they push the Middle East into a destructive conflict.
The Doctor informs us that sufferers; "have a narcissistic propensity to see the world primarily as an arena in which they can exercise power and seek glory. They have a disproportionate concern with image and presentation, and a messianic manner of talking about what they are doing".
He concludes this section by adding:
"They identify themselves with the State to the extent that they regard the outlook and interests of the two as identical. They have excessive confidence in their own judgment and contempt for the advise or criticism of others".
These passages are disturbing because they accurately describe the behavior of Tony Blair, Barack Obama and David Cameron. The parallels are there for all to see when the Doctor continues:
"They believe that instead of being accountable to the court of ordinary public opinion, they are accountable only to 'History or God', and that in that court they will be vindicated".
"Blair imagined himself to be walking with destiny, convinced that he alone has the answers to all the nations problems".
By his own admission Doctor Owen knew of this in 1997 when, after Blair had won power, he formed a "pattern of hubristic behavior which could legitimately be deemed to constitute a medically recognized syndrome".
The questions on the lips of every thinking person is why did Doctor Owen keep quiet about this until the damage was done and why is the political class still allowing an obviously mentally ill person like Tony Blair to have the power to travel around the world advocating war for no other reason than he believes he is the messiah.
Update: There's more to Phony Tony than meets the eye.
Universally known as Phony Tony, this political lowlife, together with a cabal of close friends, is responsible not only for the wanton destruction of the tradition British way of life and culture but the unnecessary deaths of troops together with hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.
Tony Blair's usurpation of political power is a testament to the effectiveness of propaganda, the futility of tribal voting and the utter stupidity of large sections of the British electorate.
This man hailed from a privileged elite in Scotland where was exclusively educated, who has never soiled his hands with a days work in his entire miserable life and yet he declared himself a socialist then wangled his way to the leadership of the so called working mans Labour Party.
As he lied his way up the greasy pole Blair infamously wrote to then Labour leader Michael Foot that he had "come to socialism through Marxism" while simultaneously networking in preparation for his money making career post politics. Knowing what the British people know now Blair was lying through his teeth when he declared that:
"I am a socialist not though reading a text book that caught my intellectual fancy, not through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that , at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation not confrontation; for fellowship not fear. It stands for equality".
If anyone was under the impression that a privileged person who had 'had come to socialism through Marxism' would happily spend his time in the company of working people then they would be spectacularly wrong. By the way Blair sought out the company of millionaires and billionaires in their super yachts and mansions, it should have been obvious, even to his own dumbed down voters, that Blair despised the working classes with a passion and he would most likely shudder at the thought of their proximity.
Blair famously quoted through his mouthpiece, Alistair Campbell that they "did not do God" which is just as well by the way Blair meted out death and destruction to whoever made him look and feel invincible. In his first six years in power he sent British troops into battle on five occasions. Judging by this record of bloodletting he would be a racing certainty to purgatory, hell and damnation before his harp and wings got anywhere near the Pearly Gates.
While the media created PR man David Cameron and the Community Organiser, Barack Obama plan the bombing of Syria and the possible start of World War III, Tony Blair must be wondering what the hold up is; he must be asking himself why these two novices are dragging their feet. In Tony's day he would have produced his dodgy dossier, lied his way through Parliament, then got those planes fuelled up and spilling blood enough to swim in before Bashir Assad was out of bed.
It must be noted for the record that after he retired from politics Tony Blair saw the light and error of his ways, he decided that he did "do God" after all and joined the Catholic faith. The world is unsure whether his conscience got the better of him or the ghosts of his victims tormented him at night but a private audience with Pope John Paul II seems to have done the trick. Cynics were suggesting that as the Pope was on his way to meet his maker at the time, Phony Tony was laying down a marker as a possible replacement.
For reasons only known to the political elite, Saint Tony was made the Middle East peace envoy for the so called Quartet, who's members comprise of the UN, the USA, the EU and Russia. Such is his effectiveness that since his appointment there have been uprisings, civil wars and general bloodletting in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Lebanon and of course the six decade conflict between the Arab states and Israel is still unresolved.
One would think that this appointment would be a time consuming full time job and leave little room for any other activities but one would be wrong. Blair travels the world making a personal fortune out of the contacts that he made while in office, and who has recently purchased his seventh property which includes the stately home once owned by actor John Gielgud.
As the self nominated "straight kinda guy" and committed socialist this fortune should be redistributed in line with his political ideology but as we have noted on this site numerous times previously, redistribution of wealth to these hypocrites means other peoples not their own. ( See Glenys and Neil Kinnock)
Tony Blair, whatever the motivation, is calling for military action in Syria not from the Working Mens Club in his old constituency of Sedgfield, but from a luxury yacht once owned by multi- billionaire Russian oligarch Roman Abromavich after having flown to Sardinia in a private jet.
If the truth be known, Blair, according to his fellow champagne socialist Doctor David Owen, is not a well man, in fact he is not far short of a dangerous lunatic.
Before entering politics Dr. Owen was a specialist in neurology and psychiatry at the world renown St Thomas hospital, London. In his latest book 'The Hubris Syndrome' he informs us that those afflicted, including Tony Blair, are 'pathologically hubristic beyond the normal arrogance that afflicts most politicians'.
The good doctor informs us that Blair fell victim to a pathological obsession with his own political importance and righteousness.
Before quoting Doctor Owen further it's worth pointing out the disturbing similarities between Tony Blair, Barack Obama and David Cameron as they push the Middle East into a destructive conflict.
The Doctor informs us that sufferers; "have a narcissistic propensity to see the world primarily as an arena in which they can exercise power and seek glory. They have a disproportionate concern with image and presentation, and a messianic manner of talking about what they are doing".
He concludes this section by adding:
"They identify themselves with the State to the extent that they regard the outlook and interests of the two as identical. They have excessive confidence in their own judgment and contempt for the advise or criticism of others".
These passages are disturbing because they accurately describe the behavior of Tony Blair, Barack Obama and David Cameron. The parallels are there for all to see when the Doctor continues:
"They believe that instead of being accountable to the court of ordinary public opinion, they are accountable only to 'History or God', and that in that court they will be vindicated".
"Blair imagined himself to be walking with destiny, convinced that he alone has the answers to all the nations problems".
By his own admission Doctor Owen knew of this in 1997 when, after Blair had won power, he formed a "pattern of hubristic behavior which could legitimately be deemed to constitute a medically recognized syndrome".
The questions on the lips of every thinking person is why did Doctor Owen keep quiet about this until the damage was done and why is the political class still allowing an obviously mentally ill person like Tony Blair to have the power to travel around the world advocating war for no other reason than he believes he is the messiah.
Update: There's more to Phony Tony than meets the eye.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Sir Winston Churchill A Drunken Bullsh*tter - BBC Helps To Re-Write History
".........is involved with the news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit the Party doctrine for propaganda purposes".
This quote describes the function of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984, which was written as a warning about the reality of socialist totalitarianism into which the world was drifting after World War II.
This quote also describes to the letter, the British Broadcasting Corporation, better known as the BBC. This taxpayer funded mouthpiece for the Labour Party is touted, along with the death inducing NHS, as one of Great Britains best loved institutions. In reality the BBC is run by Common Purpose trained political operatives as an efficient purveyor of 'progressive' propaganda.
The revolving door between the Labour Party and the BBC is legendary and even its own staff unashamedly admit that the corporation is hideously biased.
A recent publication by an obscure Professor rewriting the history of Sir Winston Churchill's wartime leadership, and particularly the public reaction to his speeches, is unlikely to have sold many copies outside of his limited academic circle or the cabal of self loathing 'progressive' Britain haters. That is until the BBC steps in to give the professor's book free publicity on a scale that would be denied to any non 'progressive' authors of books extolling the virtues of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.
The professor's rewriting of history includes the assertion that Winston Churchill "was not a decisive influence on the nations willingness to fight on against Hitler when Britain was on its knees in 1940".
He makes this assertion but fails to tell us what did the influence the people to fight on when all appeared lost in 1940. It wasn't his deputy, the discredited appeaser Neville Chamberlain or that modest little man Clement Attlee.
He also claims that Churchill's famous 'finest hour speech' "lacked impact because people thought that he was drunk".
It's no secret that Churchill had a speech defect which was apparent when he was drunk or sober. He also enjoyed a tipple and was often three sheets to the wind in the House of Commons; whether these had any negative affect on his wartime leadership or the reception of his speeches, is not proven.
In his desperation to justify these assertions this professor claims that his research revealed that when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942 one Londoner said that Churchill's rallying speech was "f*****g b******t and a f*****g coverup". The professor doesn't enlighten us on what the other eight million Londoners had to say.
This is obviously a rewriting of traditional history that paints Churchill as a great war leader and his speeches as inspirational oratory that kept the morale of the nation high during the dark days of Hitler's blitzkrieg across Europe, when Great Britain stood alone. Churchill possessed all the characteristics and values that self loathing 'progressives' despise. Patriotism, Christianity, Imperialism, free enterprise etc. The combative content of his speeches are enough to send any socialist, hippy, peacenick, or CND supporter into fits of apoplexy.
'Progressives' are in the ascendency and on a roll so there is no better time for rewriting history in order to change the facts to fit their doctrine for propaganda purposes, and who better than the BBC to act as the Ministry of Truth.
The debunking of Churchill is no small matter. To enhance the chances of succeeding the BBC wheels out one of its big guns to act as propagandist in chief. The award winning Andrew Marr is eloquent and well versed in using the media to push the 'progressive' agenda.
The BBC is supposed to be an impartial public service bringing the news to the people without opinion but its leading light, Andrew Marr, is a skilled a propagandist and despite his affability he is a committed radical socialist.
Like all radical socialists he is a total hypocrite with a wealthy background and an exclusive education. By his own admission he was a raving leftie at University known as Red Andy. Normally people tend to grow up after leaving the Students Union bar but Red Andy remained a Troskyite and could be one still.
As a measure of his dedication to authoritarian socialism and his suitability to run the Ministry of Truth it is worth quoting an article published in the Guardian during the smoking ban debate:
"the final answer is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilizing influence for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off".
No 'nudge units' or 'behavioral insight teams' for Red Andy, just good old fashioned nightsticks and jackboots.
He goes further with the cultural replacement agenda:
"The police are first in line to be burdened further , but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too".
Faced with a fanatic with beliefs like that Churchill's reputation is bound to take a hit.
Being a 'progressive', Marr is also an authoritarian who doesn't believe in freedom of speech or the press and he has a particular disdain for political bloggers. If he had his way, only the likes of himself and the BBC would be allowed to report the news or have a world view.
"Political bloggers are socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower nosed young men sitting in their mothers basements and ranting. They are very angry people".
I will give him the benefit of the doubt that there could be a hint of satire in his description but it nevertheless displays a certain arrogance that comes naturally to an elitist who, like our political leaders, has little worthwhile contact with people in the real word. He is an appalling snob.
Andrew Marr is the wrong person to be calling other people inadequate or seedy. Marr is a sex pest and adulterer who cheated on his long time wife, Guardian journalist Jackie Ashley. The sleazy slime ball was also caught on tape drunkenly groping, harrassing and trying to kiss a female colleague.
His enemies, myself included, had a reason to laugh when, after the injunction against reporting his adulterous behavior was lifted, it was revealed that he had been paying maintenance for a child he thought he had fathered. DNA testing revealed that Andrew Marr was not the only one parking his car in his lovers' garage. It is unknown if she paid the money back or was taking both the mugs for child maintenance. Hilarious.
In conclusion, I would add that it is not surprising that at this particular time when 'progressives' are emboldened and in the ascendency, some university professor, aided and abetted by the BBC, has chosen to rewrite history with a view to trashing the reputation of one of Britain's greatest heroes. Needless to say that compared to Winston Churchill, the professor and Andrew Marr are maggots feeding on the fetid dung heap known as the BBC.
When this parasitic pair are turned to dust Sir Winston Churchill's reputation will remain stamped across history like the giant he was.
The British people say goodbye to Sir Winston Churchill
This quote describes the function of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984, which was written as a warning about the reality of socialist totalitarianism into which the world was drifting after World War II.
This quote also describes to the letter, the British Broadcasting Corporation, better known as the BBC. This taxpayer funded mouthpiece for the Labour Party is touted, along with the death inducing NHS, as one of Great Britains best loved institutions. In reality the BBC is run by Common Purpose trained political operatives as an efficient purveyor of 'progressive' propaganda.
The revolving door between the Labour Party and the BBC is legendary and even its own staff unashamedly admit that the corporation is hideously biased.
A recent publication by an obscure Professor rewriting the history of Sir Winston Churchill's wartime leadership, and particularly the public reaction to his speeches, is unlikely to have sold many copies outside of his limited academic circle or the cabal of self loathing 'progressive' Britain haters. That is until the BBC steps in to give the professor's book free publicity on a scale that would be denied to any non 'progressive' authors of books extolling the virtues of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.
The professor's rewriting of history includes the assertion that Winston Churchill "was not a decisive influence on the nations willingness to fight on against Hitler when Britain was on its knees in 1940".
He makes this assertion but fails to tell us what did the influence the people to fight on when all appeared lost in 1940. It wasn't his deputy, the discredited appeaser Neville Chamberlain or that modest little man Clement Attlee.
He also claims that Churchill's famous 'finest hour speech' "lacked impact because people thought that he was drunk".
It's no secret that Churchill had a speech defect which was apparent when he was drunk or sober. He also enjoyed a tipple and was often three sheets to the wind in the House of Commons; whether these had any negative affect on his wartime leadership or the reception of his speeches, is not proven.
In his desperation to justify these assertions this professor claims that his research revealed that when Singapore fell to Japan in 1942 one Londoner said that Churchill's rallying speech was "f*****g b******t and a f*****g coverup". The professor doesn't enlighten us on what the other eight million Londoners had to say.
This is obviously a rewriting of traditional history that paints Churchill as a great war leader and his speeches as inspirational oratory that kept the morale of the nation high during the dark days of Hitler's blitzkrieg across Europe, when Great Britain stood alone. Churchill possessed all the characteristics and values that self loathing 'progressives' despise. Patriotism, Christianity, Imperialism, free enterprise etc. The combative content of his speeches are enough to send any socialist, hippy, peacenick, or CND supporter into fits of apoplexy.
'Progressives' are in the ascendency and on a roll so there is no better time for rewriting history in order to change the facts to fit their doctrine for propaganda purposes, and who better than the BBC to act as the Ministry of Truth.
The debunking of Churchill is no small matter. To enhance the chances of succeeding the BBC wheels out one of its big guns to act as propagandist in chief. The award winning Andrew Marr is eloquent and well versed in using the media to push the 'progressive' agenda.
The BBC is supposed to be an impartial public service bringing the news to the people without opinion but its leading light, Andrew Marr, is a skilled a propagandist and despite his affability he is a committed radical socialist.
Like all radical socialists he is a total hypocrite with a wealthy background and an exclusive education. By his own admission he was a raving leftie at University known as Red Andy. Normally people tend to grow up after leaving the Students Union bar but Red Andy remained a Troskyite and could be one still.
As a measure of his dedication to authoritarian socialism and his suitability to run the Ministry of Truth it is worth quoting an article published in the Guardian during the smoking ban debate:
"the final answer is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilizing influence for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off".
No 'nudge units' or 'behavioral insight teams' for Red Andy, just good old fashioned nightsticks and jackboots.
He goes further with the cultural replacement agenda:
"The police are first in line to be burdened further , but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too".
Faced with a fanatic with beliefs like that Churchill's reputation is bound to take a hit.
Being a 'progressive', Marr is also an authoritarian who doesn't believe in freedom of speech or the press and he has a particular disdain for political bloggers. If he had his way, only the likes of himself and the BBC would be allowed to report the news or have a world view.
"Political bloggers are socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower nosed young men sitting in their mothers basements and ranting. They are very angry people".
I will give him the benefit of the doubt that there could be a hint of satire in his description but it nevertheless displays a certain arrogance that comes naturally to an elitist who, like our political leaders, has little worthwhile contact with people in the real word. He is an appalling snob.
Andrew Marr is the wrong person to be calling other people inadequate or seedy. Marr is a sex pest and adulterer who cheated on his long time wife, Guardian journalist Jackie Ashley. The sleazy slime ball was also caught on tape drunkenly groping, harrassing and trying to kiss a female colleague.
His enemies, myself included, had a reason to laugh when, after the injunction against reporting his adulterous behavior was lifted, it was revealed that he had been paying maintenance for a child he thought he had fathered. DNA testing revealed that Andrew Marr was not the only one parking his car in his lovers' garage. It is unknown if she paid the money back or was taking both the mugs for child maintenance. Hilarious.
In conclusion, I would add that it is not surprising that at this particular time when 'progressives' are emboldened and in the ascendency, some university professor, aided and abetted by the BBC, has chosen to rewrite history with a view to trashing the reputation of one of Britain's greatest heroes. Needless to say that compared to Winston Churchill, the professor and Andrew Marr are maggots feeding on the fetid dung heap known as the BBC.
When this parasitic pair are turned to dust Sir Winston Churchill's reputation will remain stamped across history like the giant he was.
The British people say goodbye to Sir Winston Churchill
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Skilled Professionals Leaving, Welfare Dependents Arriving - The Destruction Of Great Britain Gathers Pace
It's long been an assertion on this site that the reason why British governments of all shades refuse to close the borders to mass immigration is that they are pursuing a deliberate policy of cultural and demographic replacement. The reasons for this destructive policy are partly historical, partly political but mainly ideological.
It is not a coincidence that the same policy is being pursued in the USA. The battle is raging over immigration control with the 'progressives on one side wanting open borders and the legalization of illegal immigrants and conservatives on the other side wanting strict border controls and deportation of illegals, or at least a credible plan for legalization.
As is the case in Great Britain, it is no secret that immigrants tend to vote for the parties that promote big government and welfare handouts therefore legalizing eleven million illegals in the USA will change the electoral landscape for ever ensuring that there will never be a conservative government again.
The situation is the same in Great Britain, the process however started much earlier therefore the cultural replacement agenda is much further advanced. The government knows, as do the people, that the tipping point is fast approaching from which there will be no return.
The fact that the current government is a coalition led by a so called conservative can be misleading, however all the party leaders condemn themselves by their own words and actions.
All three of the party leaders are from an exclusive wealthy, elite that are unable to identify with ordinary people. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Red Ed Miliband are identical in thought and they are all self confessed 'progressives'. In direct contrast to the British people they are also self confessed Europhiles. All three believe in the post democratic European Union superstate, run by technocrats such as themselves, which automatically means they accept open border mass immigration and the consequent result, namely, multi-culturalism.
David Cameron made it an article of faith that he was going modernize and 'de-toxify' the Conservative Party which, translated into every day language, means he is going to purge it of conservatives and replace conservative policies with 'progressive' ones.
There is not an iota of difference between the party leaders on the big issues of concern to the British people such as, EU membership, open border mass immigration, political correctness, enforced multi-culturalism and the destruction of their country and culture.
In an attempt to stem the flow of members who are deserting his modernized, 'progressive' party in their droves and with an election due in 2014, Cameron and his spin machine have moved into overdrive. The lies, deceit and obfuscation are pouring out thick and fast.
The biggest deceit, and the most annoying soundbite being repeated ad nauseum by Cameron is that he is going to "reduce net immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by 2015". Any informed person will realize that decreasing net immigration does not stop cultural replacement. If ten thousand highly educated scientists leave and ten thousand illiterate goat herders arrive, net immigration is zero but society is drastically downgraded toward third world levels.
Recent reports illustrate the disaster of cultural replacement in all its ugly glory. Professionals and skilled people have had enough of high taxes, crushing regulations and watching the deliberate degradation of their country therefore they are leaving Great Britain in ever increasing numbers. At the same time illiterate criminal gangs and beggars are pouring in, blighting the lives of the ordinary people who are powerless to stop it.
Emigration of highly trained engineers, aerospace workers and those in the creative industries, is up by a fifth and it is currently running at around four hundred per day. One hundred and fifty four thousand departed British shores last year alone. One in ten of those who graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Exeter Universities have left for pastures new. Twelve percent of students from St Andrews are doing the same. There are currently 1.28 million of Great Britain's most highly trained professionals living abroad, more than any other developed economy.
Unsurprisingly, they are avoiding the highly regulated, over taxed, bankrupt European Union and heading for the tax friendly dynamic economies of the Middle East and Hong Kong.
More worrying is the fact that these desperately needed skilled people are being replaced in the main by unskilled or illiterate welfare colonists from the third world and the poorer parts of the EU.
In addition to the five million non EU immigrants currently residing in Great Britain, two hundred and fifty thousand Romanians and Bulgarians are expected to arrive when controls are lifted in 2014. The majority of these will have no contribution to make to Great Britain other than to put an even greater strain on the public services, a greater increase in the welfare budget, a greater increase in the number of crimes committed and an incalculable increase in the misery of the long suffering British people.
As the highly educated citizens head off to pastures new their replacements are arriving to colonise and trash the once salubrious areas they left behind. Gangs of homeless Romanian beggars have set up camps in Park Lane, Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner.
Look at link and despair.
Cameron, Clegg and Red Ed Miliband should come down from their taxpayer funded ivory towers and explain to the British people how the economy is benefiting from these welfare colonists, how are the British peoples' lives being culturally enriched and why should they be celebrating diversity?
The scale and wanton destruction of the cultural replacement agenda is best illustrated by the deliberate Islamification of Great Britain, which in many peoples view will be the final nail in the coffin for Great Britain's unique Anglo/Saxon/Celtic culture.
London, the capital city of a once great civilization, has already fallen. Looking beyond the historic buildings and the tourist hotspots, there lurks a cesspit of crime ridden mono-cultural ghettos including sharia controlled areas where even the police fear to tread. Mohammed is now the most popular boys name in London and other major cities and the tradition indigenous English people are now in the minority. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband know this but refuse to act because they are actively encouraging the cultural replacement agenda.
The loss of Great Britain's brightest and best has spurred a leading Conservative Member of Parliament into action and it is worth quoting Nick de Bois to illustrate his imbecility:
"more needed to be done to 'sell' Britain to the talented professionals that live here in a bid to keep them".
This quote illustrates just how out of touch and stupid these people are. Why should anyone have to 'sell' a country to its own citizens?
It gets better: "we have to convince those people, who we have invested so much in, to make Britain their first choice. We have to drive lower taxes, we have to keep driving the change and reform in our public services".
Why would any government have to convince British people to make Britain their first choice? I am not sure what 'reforming public services' as got to do with it but his own Chancellor could lower taxes but refuses to do so.
The genius continues to enlighten us with his grasp of the situation: "many of those leaving Britain are emigrating to work in Hong Kong and countries in the Middle East, where they have a better standard of living and education for their children".
Deliberately downgrading the country to the level of a third world slum and filling the schools with non-English speaking pupils does not help convince aspirational people to stay.
The increase in the population by four hundred and twenty thousand in a year, more than the increase in Germany Belgium, Holland and Sweden combined, demonstrates that for all his net immigration rhetoric Cameron is doing absolutely nothing to calm the British peoples concerns about mass immigration.
Unless the British people wake up and very soon, their country and culture will be gone for ever, destroyed by the same people who will be canvassing for their vote in 2014. For the sake of future generations, don't give it them!
Update: Here is an excellent article from the USA highlighting their version of cultural replacement which equally applies in Great Britain. Highly recommended.
It is not a coincidence that the same policy is being pursued in the USA. The battle is raging over immigration control with the 'progressives on one side wanting open borders and the legalization of illegal immigrants and conservatives on the other side wanting strict border controls and deportation of illegals, or at least a credible plan for legalization.
As is the case in Great Britain, it is no secret that immigrants tend to vote for the parties that promote big government and welfare handouts therefore legalizing eleven million illegals in the USA will change the electoral landscape for ever ensuring that there will never be a conservative government again.
The situation is the same in Great Britain, the process however started much earlier therefore the cultural replacement agenda is much further advanced. The government knows, as do the people, that the tipping point is fast approaching from which there will be no return.
The fact that the current government is a coalition led by a so called conservative can be misleading, however all the party leaders condemn themselves by their own words and actions.
All three of the party leaders are from an exclusive wealthy, elite that are unable to identify with ordinary people. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Red Ed Miliband are identical in thought and they are all self confessed 'progressives'. In direct contrast to the British people they are also self confessed Europhiles. All three believe in the post democratic European Union superstate, run by technocrats such as themselves, which automatically means they accept open border mass immigration and the consequent result, namely, multi-culturalism.
David Cameron made it an article of faith that he was going modernize and 'de-toxify' the Conservative Party which, translated into every day language, means he is going to purge it of conservatives and replace conservative policies with 'progressive' ones.
There is not an iota of difference between the party leaders on the big issues of concern to the British people such as, EU membership, open border mass immigration, political correctness, enforced multi-culturalism and the destruction of their country and culture.
In an attempt to stem the flow of members who are deserting his modernized, 'progressive' party in their droves and with an election due in 2014, Cameron and his spin machine have moved into overdrive. The lies, deceit and obfuscation are pouring out thick and fast.
The biggest deceit, and the most annoying soundbite being repeated ad nauseum by Cameron is that he is going to "reduce net immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by 2015". Any informed person will realize that decreasing net immigration does not stop cultural replacement. If ten thousand highly educated scientists leave and ten thousand illiterate goat herders arrive, net immigration is zero but society is drastically downgraded toward third world levels.
Recent reports illustrate the disaster of cultural replacement in all its ugly glory. Professionals and skilled people have had enough of high taxes, crushing regulations and watching the deliberate degradation of their country therefore they are leaving Great Britain in ever increasing numbers. At the same time illiterate criminal gangs and beggars are pouring in, blighting the lives of the ordinary people who are powerless to stop it.
Emigration of highly trained engineers, aerospace workers and those in the creative industries, is up by a fifth and it is currently running at around four hundred per day. One hundred and fifty four thousand departed British shores last year alone. One in ten of those who graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Exeter Universities have left for pastures new. Twelve percent of students from St Andrews are doing the same. There are currently 1.28 million of Great Britain's most highly trained professionals living abroad, more than any other developed economy.
Unsurprisingly, they are avoiding the highly regulated, over taxed, bankrupt European Union and heading for the tax friendly dynamic economies of the Middle East and Hong Kong.
More worrying is the fact that these desperately needed skilled people are being replaced in the main by unskilled or illiterate welfare colonists from the third world and the poorer parts of the EU.
In addition to the five million non EU immigrants currently residing in Great Britain, two hundred and fifty thousand Romanians and Bulgarians are expected to arrive when controls are lifted in 2014. The majority of these will have no contribution to make to Great Britain other than to put an even greater strain on the public services, a greater increase in the welfare budget, a greater increase in the number of crimes committed and an incalculable increase in the misery of the long suffering British people.
As the highly educated citizens head off to pastures new their replacements are arriving to colonise and trash the once salubrious areas they left behind. Gangs of homeless Romanian beggars have set up camps in Park Lane, Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner.
Look at link and despair.
Cameron, Clegg and Red Ed Miliband should come down from their taxpayer funded ivory towers and explain to the British people how the economy is benefiting from these welfare colonists, how are the British peoples' lives being culturally enriched and why should they be celebrating diversity?
The scale and wanton destruction of the cultural replacement agenda is best illustrated by the deliberate Islamification of Great Britain, which in many peoples view will be the final nail in the coffin for Great Britain's unique Anglo/Saxon/Celtic culture.
London, the capital city of a once great civilization, has already fallen. Looking beyond the historic buildings and the tourist hotspots, there lurks a cesspit of crime ridden mono-cultural ghettos including sharia controlled areas where even the police fear to tread. Mohammed is now the most popular boys name in London and other major cities and the tradition indigenous English people are now in the minority. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband know this but refuse to act because they are actively encouraging the cultural replacement agenda.
The loss of Great Britain's brightest and best has spurred a leading Conservative Member of Parliament into action and it is worth quoting Nick de Bois to illustrate his imbecility:
"more needed to be done to 'sell' Britain to the talented professionals that live here in a bid to keep them".
This quote illustrates just how out of touch and stupid these people are. Why should anyone have to 'sell' a country to its own citizens?
It gets better: "we have to convince those people, who we have invested so much in, to make Britain their first choice. We have to drive lower taxes, we have to keep driving the change and reform in our public services".
Why would any government have to convince British people to make Britain their first choice? I am not sure what 'reforming public services' as got to do with it but his own Chancellor could lower taxes but refuses to do so.
The genius continues to enlighten us with his grasp of the situation: "many of those leaving Britain are emigrating to work in Hong Kong and countries in the Middle East, where they have a better standard of living and education for their children".
Deliberately downgrading the country to the level of a third world slum and filling the schools with non-English speaking pupils does not help convince aspirational people to stay.
The increase in the population by four hundred and twenty thousand in a year, more than the increase in Germany Belgium, Holland and Sweden combined, demonstrates that for all his net immigration rhetoric Cameron is doing absolutely nothing to calm the British peoples concerns about mass immigration.
Unless the British people wake up and very soon, their country and culture will be gone for ever, destroyed by the same people who will be canvassing for their vote in 2014. For the sake of future generations, don't give it them!
Update: Here is an excellent article from the USA highlighting their version of cultural replacement which equally applies in Great Britain. Highly recommended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)