On 3 April 2009, The Daily Mail reported thus:
“A ROMANIAN CAREER CRIMINAL WHO RAPED A YOUNG WOMAN SO HE COULD BE SENT TO A 'LUXURIOUS' BRITISH PRISON and get free lodgings and English lessons had his wish granted yesterday. Ali Majlat, who was allowed into this country DESPITE HAVING SPENT MORE THAN HALF HIS LIFE IN PRISON, cornered a 21-year-old at a deserted train station and attacked her in a subway.
HE HAD BEEN RELEASED FROM PRISON IN OXFORDSHIRE ONLY TWO DAYS EARLIER, travelling to Yorkshire in an unsuccessful attempt to visit his brother Dominic, WHO WAS ALREADY IN JAIL FOR RAPE. Majlat, 35, had been inspired to carry out his crime after hearing from Dominic about THE 'EASY AND COMFORTABLE CONDITIONS' IN BRITISH JAILS, and yesterday he was ordered to serve an indeterminate sentence at one...
'This was a woman who was deliberately raped so that he could get accommodation in prison,' said Judge Alistair McCallum at Leeds Crown Court. 'IT DOESN'T GET MUCH WORSE’… Branding HIM 'ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS TO OUR COMMUNITY', the judge said Majlat could be considered for parole in four-and-a-half years' time but is likely to be imprisoned at huge expense to the taxpayer for many years longer…
Majlat grew up in one of his home country's notorious Communist-era state orphanages because HIS ILLITERATE PARENTS COULD NOT AFFORD TO FEED HIM. After leaving the institution at the age of 16 he was soon caught stealing, and ended up spending 19 YEARS IN ROMANIAN PRISONS WITH A TOTAL OF 11 CONVICTIONS FOR THEFT AND BURGLARY.
Last August, with HIS 45-YEAR-OLD BROTHER SERVING A LIFE SENTENCE HERE FOR RAPE AND ATTEMPTED MURDER, he travelled to Britain to visit him. Before he had the chance to do so, HE WAS CONVICTED IN CONNECTION WITH A BURGLARY in London and jailed for eight weeks.
DESPITE HIS RECORD, HE WAS NOT DEPORTED on his release on October 10 because he was not deemed to be 'high risk'. Instead he travelled to Wakefield, West Yorkshire, two days later to visit his brother, but was turned away because he did not have the right paperwork.
Majlat went straight to Wakefield Kirkgate station where he spotted the young woman, a soldier's girlfriend, on a deserted platform. After pestering her, saying 'You should love me' in broken English, HE BEGAN PUNCHING AND KICKING HER. She fled down an underpass, but Majlat caught up with, pinned her to the ground, HALF-STRANGLED HER AND RAPED HER.
She later told police the thought that flashed through her mind:
'THAT'S IT, I'M 21 AND I'M DEAD.'
However, Majlat released her after taking her mobile phone and money. He travelled to London where he was caught after using the mobile. He later told a psychologist:
'When I was on the railway station I thought I SHOULD RAPE THIS LADY IN ORDER TO GET A PLACE TO EAT AND SLEEP AND LEARN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE’…
Yesterday officials who had dealt with Majlat in Romania revealed that IF THEY HAD BEEN ASKED, THEY WOULD HAVE CLASSIFIED HIM ' HIGH RISK' AND CAPABLE OF RAPE. They were not surprised that he committed crime just to get into a British jail, saying he was completely institutionalised after spending his life in a grim orphanage followed by prison.
'HE ALWAYS FELT BETTER IN PRISON, it was the only support system he ever received,' said the chief psychologist at Bircea Mare Prison...
In Majlat's hometown of Petrila, head of social services Susana Heljiu said:
'HE WAS ONE OF FIVE CHILDREN PLACED INTO AN ORPHANAGE BY HIS MOTHER. IT WAS EASIER FOR HER TO HAND THEM OVER TO THE STATE THAN PROVIDE FOOD AND A HOME HERSELF’.
An acquaintance said:
'His attitude was simple - if he got away with the crime, he benefited. IF HE GOT CAUGHT, HE WOULD GO TO PRISON, AND THAT'S WHAT HE REALLY WANTED’…
AS WITH OTHER EU CITIZENS, ROMANIAN NATIONALS NEED ONLY A PASSPORT TO ENTER BRITAIN, so immigration staff may not be given details of any convictions in their home countries...
HIS VICTIM HAS BEEN LEFT SERIOUSLY TRAUMATISED BY HER ORDEAL, has difficulty sleeping and is afraid of men and isolated locations...
Majlat appeared to smirk in the dock due to what his lawyer said was a medical condition.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1167122/Romanian-raped-woman-live-luxury-British-jail-gets-wish.html
Dominic Majlat was given two life sentences for rape and GBH with intent.
After tricking a woman into his car with a promise of tickets to a London Mardi Gras festival, he hit her in the face with a wooden stave, knocking out three of her teeth, raped her and then attempted to strangle her.
Passing sentence upon him, the Judge said:
"She was a woman who had not had sexual intercourse with a man before. She only managed to escape by jumping through a window and was left with multiple injuries.”
He is an illegal immigrant who raped, clubbed and attempted to strangle “a woman who had not had sexual intercourse with a man before” in England’s capital city. He already had two convictions for rape in his home country before he did what he did in London. And his brother punched and kicked a young woman before half-strangling and raping her, in order, not just to slake his animal lusts, but to take advantage of the cushy number Dominic Majlat was already experiencing.
Don’t you think it would be a good idea to try and keep such people out of our country?
Our politicians don’t. They have been aiding and abetting the Majlats ever since they foist the first race law upon us 44 years ago. In what way, ladies and gentlemen, did our parliamentary overlords, those who know so much better and see so much further than us, ever expect us to profit from the importation of such corrupt, ignorant and brutish foreigners? In what way was the vast majority ever going to be “enriched” by such predictable horror? How were we ever going to benefit from such “absolutely worthless” creatures as these?
The answer is simple. The powers-that-be knew this would happen and they could not have cared less. Those we voted for to protect and promote our interests always knew what the probable outcome of such a rapid and massive colonisation of our land would be. Those who would dare to say they didn’t forsee this should have resigned long ago. Their consciences should have told them that they had had failed in their duty to the British people and were unfit to serve them. However, you may have noticed that the current crop of parliamentarians do not seem the least bit encumbered by conscience. They appear to be much more interested in stuffing their already bulging wallets full of our tenners than they are in representing our interests.
In truth, folks, they are at war with us.
They are at war with us because they are either wholly self-obsessed and motivated, and would never lift a finger to help those who elected them, or because they belong to a sinister confederacy of elite criminals who have, over the last sixty years, sought to destroy our world.
If you find this last statement difficult to believe, read through the Daily Mail article once again and then multiply the Majlats by ten thousand. And then consider that our politicians have created an enormous body of law and entitlement specifically designed to persuade and encourage such people to come here and to ease the way for them once they arrive.
For example, for almost fifty years now, a Majlat would have found it much easier to gain access to council housing than a Brit in straightened circumstances. Now you tell me, does a government that would DELIBERATELY set about creating such a desperate state of affairs really have the best interests of the native people of these islands at heart?
Laws were in place forty years ago that gave the Thought Police of the time the power to come down hard on an employer who was rather too concerned to see that an unsuitable alien did not get the job. And as for the angry Brit who might be tempted tell a Majlat to b*gger off home, well, he’s been sorted since 1965 when the Home Secretary of the time, Frank Soskice, led the way in imposing the first race law upon us.
Perhaps those of you who are a little too ready to dismiss the at-war-with-us hypothesis out of hand might have a little think about this: Frank Soskice was a Russian immigrant whose father was the Private Secretary of the Russian Revolutionary leader, Alexander Kerensky.
Why did Harold Wilson choose a man with such dubious origins to argue the toss, as Home Secretary, for the first British race law? Well, perhaps the answer may be found in the unlikeliest of places.
Ken Livingstone said this in the House of Commons on 10 Jan 1996:
“In 1961, Anatoli Golitsin, a KGB defector… told MI5 that he had heard of a KGB plot to kill the leader of a west European political party so that its man could take over… Peter Wright and other extreme right-wingers inside MI5… believed that the assassinated party leader had to be Gaitskell…
MI5 believed that seven members of Wilson's Government and three other Labour Members of Parliament were either spies or at the very least security risks… Will Owen, the Member of Parliament for Morpeth, eventually turned out to be guilty… All the other names on MI5's list were completely innocent, but that did not stop MI5, in particular Peter Wright, hounding Bernard Floud... MI5 pursued him until he finally committed suicide in a moment of despair.
The other seven Members on MI5's list were John Diamond, Tom Driberg, Judith Hart, Stephen Swingler, John Stonehouse, Barnet Stross and, OF COURSE, WILSON…In the summer of 1967, people from MI5 met people from the CIA, the FBI and the Australian and New Zealand security services in Melbourne, Australia, where they were addressed by Golitsin about his Wilson allegations.
Matters began to hot up when the press baron Cecil King, a long-standing MI5 agent, began to discuss the need for a coup against the Wilson Government… At a meeting with Lord Mountbatten and the Government's chief scientific adviser, Solly Zuckerman, he urged Mountbatten to become the leader of a Government of national salvation…Zuckerman pointed out that that was treason, and left the meeting. The idea came to nothing because of Mountbatten's reluctance to act.”
As regards Livingstone’s assertion that Bernard Floud was “completely innocent”, in his book, Their Trade is Treachery, the author Chapman Pincher alleged that he had been presented by MI5 with evidence that he had worked for the KGB and this was confirmed by Peter Wright, the MI5 officer who interrogated him, in Spycatcher.
On 10 January 1965, Frank Soskice eulogised the outsider thus:
“THE NEW ARRIVALS ARE HARMLESS, FRIENDLY PEOPLE”.
In October 2008, 43 years and 10 months after the “harmless, friendly people” were given more rights in Britain than the British themselves, a young Englishwoman was moved to say, “that's it, I'm 21 and I'm dead”, as she was being strangled and raped by a "new arrival" who just happened to have spent 19 years in a series of Romanian prisons. Six months later, a learned Judge opined that “it doesn't get much worse” than the “harmless, friendly” incident perpetrated by Ali Majlat.
Without in any way wishing to make light of the horrific suffering an innocent, young girl endured at the hands of an alien beast, I’d have to say that the undeclared war our own politicians have been waging upon us for the last half century would take some beating. It is because of them that obscenities like Ali and Dominic Majlat are now able to wreak their savagery, so easily, upon the British people.
23.3.09
Fear is NOT the Reason!
On 11 March 2009, Ruth Dudley-Edwards reported thus in The Daily Telegraph:
"THAT THE POLICE ARRESTED ONLY COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS (IN LUTON) WILL INCREASE THE AVERAGE JOE'S BELIEF THAT RADICAL MUSLIMS HAVE REASON TO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS NOT ONLY SEPARATE BUT PRIVILEGED…
In agreeing in advance to what was bound to be an offensive protest, THE POLICE WERE ONLY FOLLOWING WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE GOVERNMENT POLICY: DON'T UPSET RADICAL MUSLIMS IN CASE THEY BLOW US UP. Luton has around 20,000 Muslims and is a black spot for jihadism. THE POLICE CONCILIATE THE VOCIFEROUS in the hope they won't get so cross that they bomb the airport...
FEAR IS THE ONLY REASON THAT MUSLIM GROUPS RECEIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT. Why else would the representatives of around two million people have money and time lavished on them in such an obscenely disproportionate way?… And why else would the Government throw £90 MILLION at 'Preventing Violent Extremism' – an UNACCOUNTABLE, contradictory, bureaucratically convoluted counter-terrorism initiative that has the authorities snuggle up to HOMOPHOBIC, MISOGYNISTIC WEST-HATERS, JUST SO LONG AS THEY DON'T ACTUALLY USE VIOLENCE?
The whole mess was highlighted this week in the Policy Exchange report Choosing Our Friends Wisely, which catalogues how THE GOVERNMENT HAS EMPOWERED REACTIONARIES, MARGINALISED MODERATES AND DRIVEN COUNCILS AND POLICE INTO BED WITH ENEMIES OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. Due diligence has been even more lacking here than for Lloyds TSB and HBOS."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4975163/Stop-pandering-to-enemies-of-our-way-of-life.html
As regards "fear" being the "only reason that Muslim groups receive special treatment", Ms Dudley-Edwards could not be more wrong.
Muslim groups receive special treatment because the animals at the top of the tree are at war with us.
Unwanted immigration in general; the utterly immoral, wallet-stuffing bankers; the deadly, callously-managed hospitals, where tens of thousands of British people are dying unnecessarily every year; the dumbing-down; the drugs; the drunkenness; the feral children; the gangs; the street crime; the onward march of the supermarket and its negative effect upon the high street and the farming and fishing industries; the EU laws dominating our own; 4.5 million CCTV cameras; the destruction of our industrial base and pension systems; the privatisation of our national assets and the shuffling off of these into foreign hands; unrepresentative media opinion; political correctness, the Health-and-Safety Nazis, Iraq and Afghanistan really ought to have given the lady hack a bit of a clue as to the war that is being waged upon us, not just by the Muslims, but from all sides, as we speak.
Imagine this, ladies and gentlemen:
If 500 ordinary, British men and women, like you and me, ruled the roost, do you think the Muslims would behave as they do? Would any of us afford Muslim groups "special treatment" for fear of what might happen if we didn’t?
I'll tell you straight, as soon as those who will stand up for what we really are and what we really want are elected, the threat from "radical Muslims" will be over. Once we have people like you and me back in charge, there will be no more talk of "jihad" from the "radicals".
Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, with a Brit-first government in charge, the "radical" would play it cute and immediately draw in his horns. The politician knows this and, I suspect, Ms Dudley-Edwards knows it as well. Unfortunately, they do not want YOU to know it. Those who are at war with us do not want anyone running things who might take action against those who despise us, fix what THEY have broken or punish them for breaking it.
The politicians, and the dark forces behind the scenes who saw to it that such treacherous anti-Brits got to slither to the top of the greasy pole in the first place, do not want things put back the way they were.
The true Brit does.
How about you?
Are you content for things to carry on as they are?
Well, if the world is the way you want it, you just keep on doing what those who kowtow to the Muslims and the bankers want you to do. Never mind that they have nothing but contempt for you and see you as their greatest enemy, you carry right on doing what you always did and getting what you always got.
If you want change, however, you are going to have to choose it. You are going to have to put your cross in the box marked "someone who will put me first". That is, someone who will put your needs before those of the immigrant, the banker, the PC Crowd and the bought politician.
If you dare do that, ladies and gentlemen, you will get your country back from those who stole it in the blink of an eye.
Vote for those who love you, folks.
Not for those who want you gone.
THEY will never give you your country back.
We will.
"THAT THE POLICE ARRESTED ONLY COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS (IN LUTON) WILL INCREASE THE AVERAGE JOE'S BELIEF THAT RADICAL MUSLIMS HAVE REASON TO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS NOT ONLY SEPARATE BUT PRIVILEGED…
In agreeing in advance to what was bound to be an offensive protest, THE POLICE WERE ONLY FOLLOWING WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE GOVERNMENT POLICY: DON'T UPSET RADICAL MUSLIMS IN CASE THEY BLOW US UP. Luton has around 20,000 Muslims and is a black spot for jihadism. THE POLICE CONCILIATE THE VOCIFEROUS in the hope they won't get so cross that they bomb the airport...
FEAR IS THE ONLY REASON THAT MUSLIM GROUPS RECEIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT. Why else would the representatives of around two million people have money and time lavished on them in such an obscenely disproportionate way?… And why else would the Government throw £90 MILLION at 'Preventing Violent Extremism' – an UNACCOUNTABLE, contradictory, bureaucratically convoluted counter-terrorism initiative that has the authorities snuggle up to HOMOPHOBIC, MISOGYNISTIC WEST-HATERS, JUST SO LONG AS THEY DON'T ACTUALLY USE VIOLENCE?
The whole mess was highlighted this week in the Policy Exchange report Choosing Our Friends Wisely, which catalogues how THE GOVERNMENT HAS EMPOWERED REACTIONARIES, MARGINALISED MODERATES AND DRIVEN COUNCILS AND POLICE INTO BED WITH ENEMIES OF OUR WAY OF LIFE. Due diligence has been even more lacking here than for Lloyds TSB and HBOS."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4975163/Stop-pandering-to-enemies-of-our-way-of-life.html
As regards "fear" being the "only reason that Muslim groups receive special treatment", Ms Dudley-Edwards could not be more wrong.
Muslim groups receive special treatment because the animals at the top of the tree are at war with us.
Unwanted immigration in general; the utterly immoral, wallet-stuffing bankers; the deadly, callously-managed hospitals, where tens of thousands of British people are dying unnecessarily every year; the dumbing-down; the drugs; the drunkenness; the feral children; the gangs; the street crime; the onward march of the supermarket and its negative effect upon the high street and the farming and fishing industries; the EU laws dominating our own; 4.5 million CCTV cameras; the destruction of our industrial base and pension systems; the privatisation of our national assets and the shuffling off of these into foreign hands; unrepresentative media opinion; political correctness, the Health-and-Safety Nazis, Iraq and Afghanistan really ought to have given the lady hack a bit of a clue as to the war that is being waged upon us, not just by the Muslims, but from all sides, as we speak.
Imagine this, ladies and gentlemen:
If 500 ordinary, British men and women, like you and me, ruled the roost, do you think the Muslims would behave as they do? Would any of us afford Muslim groups "special treatment" for fear of what might happen if we didn’t?
I'll tell you straight, as soon as those who will stand up for what we really are and what we really want are elected, the threat from "radical Muslims" will be over. Once we have people like you and me back in charge, there will be no more talk of "jihad" from the "radicals".
Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, with a Brit-first government in charge, the "radical" would play it cute and immediately draw in his horns. The politician knows this and, I suspect, Ms Dudley-Edwards knows it as well. Unfortunately, they do not want YOU to know it. Those who are at war with us do not want anyone running things who might take action against those who despise us, fix what THEY have broken or punish them for breaking it.
The politicians, and the dark forces behind the scenes who saw to it that such treacherous anti-Brits got to slither to the top of the greasy pole in the first place, do not want things put back the way they were.
The true Brit does.
How about you?
Are you content for things to carry on as they are?
Well, if the world is the way you want it, you just keep on doing what those who kowtow to the Muslims and the bankers want you to do. Never mind that they have nothing but contempt for you and see you as their greatest enemy, you carry right on doing what you always did and getting what you always got.
If you want change, however, you are going to have to choose it. You are going to have to put your cross in the box marked "someone who will put me first". That is, someone who will put your needs before those of the immigrant, the banker, the PC Crowd and the bought politician.
If you dare do that, ladies and gentlemen, you will get your country back from those who stole it in the blink of an eye.
Vote for those who love you, folks.
Not for those who want you gone.
THEY will never give you your country back.
We will.
4.2.09
Interracial Murder - The Statistics
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2007/8, tell us that, in the three year period 2005/06 to 2007/08, Blacks were suspected of murdering 74 Whites in England and Wales, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 22 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, was suspected of murdering the White at a rate in the area of 74/22 = 3.36 times more often during the period specified.
However, the 2001 census tells us that only 2.0% percent of the population of the UK was Black in 2001, whilst 91.3% of the population was White. Thus we may infer that the Black 2.0% of the population was responsible for the deaths of around 74 Whites and the White 91.3% of the population was responsible for the deaths of about 22 Blacks in England and Wales during the specified period.
Thus, at this time, the individual black person could be seen to be around 91.3/2.0 x 74/22 = 153.55 more likely to kill an individual white person than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and the same extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians were suspected of killing 34 Whites and Whites were suspected of killing 28 Asians, and the Asian population comprised 4.0% of the UK population, an individual Asian could be seen to be 91.4/4.0 x 34/28 = 27.7 times more likely to kill an individual White person than the reverse.
I’ll say that again:
Based on the figures in the cited Home Office document and the population statistics found in the 2001 Census, it is a mathematical likelihood that an individual black person was 153 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 27 times more likely, to murder an individual white person in England and Wales than the other way around during the period specified.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2007/8 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006/7, tell us that, in the three year period 2004/05 to 2006/07, Blacks were suspected of murdering 94 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 37 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 94/37 = 2.54 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 94/37 = 105.8 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 45 Whites and Whites killed 30 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 45/30 = 34.27 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 105 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 34 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006 - 2007 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006, tell us that, in the three year period 2003/04 to 2005/06, Blacks were suspected of murdering 125 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 39 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 125/39 = 3.2 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 125/39 = 133.5 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 57 Whites and Whites killed 36 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 57/36 = 36.2 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 133 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 36 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2006 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2005, tell us that, in the three year period 2002 - 2005, Blacks were suspected of murdering 103 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 37 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 103/37 = 2.783 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 103/37 = 115.9 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 33/32 = 23.5 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 115 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 23 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2005, may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.6 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2004, tell us that, in the three year period 2001/02 to 2003/04, Blacks were suspected of murdering 87 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 39 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 87/39 = 2.23 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 87/39 = 92.9 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 37 Whites and Whites killed 36 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 57/36 = 23.5 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 91 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 23 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2004 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.6 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2003, tell us that, in the three year period 2000/01 to 2002/03, Blacks were suspected of murdering 71 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 34 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 71/34 = 2.09 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 71/34 = 87 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 33 Whites and Whites killed 22 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 33/22 = 34.3 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 87 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 34 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2003 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 4.2 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2002, tell us that, in the three year period 1999/00 to 2001/02, Blacks were suspected of murdering 74 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 32 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 74/32 = 2.3 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 87/39 = 96.3 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 34 Whites and Whites killed 22 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 34/22 = 35.3 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 96 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 35 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2002 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 4.2 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2000, tell us that, in the three year period 1997/98 to 1999/2000, Blacks were suspected of murdering 56 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 35 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 56/35 = 1.6 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 56/35 = 66.64 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 26 Whites and Whites killed 23 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 26/23 = 25.8 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 66 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 25 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2000 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 4.2 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1999, tell us that, in the three year period 1996/97 to 1998/1999, Blacks were suspected of murdering 53 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 31 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 53/31 = 1.71 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 53/31 = 71.21 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 31 Whites and Whites killed 24 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 31/24 = 29.5 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 71 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 29 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1999 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 5.1 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1998, tell us that, in the two year period 1996/97 to 1997/1998, Blacks were suspected of murdering 31 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 15 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 31/15 = 2.07 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 31/15 = 86.1 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 21 Whites and Whites killed 19 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 21/19 = 25.3 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 86 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 25 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 1998 may be accessed here.
It is war, ladies and gentlemen.
THEY are at war with us.
They reduce us now, not with bullets and bombs, but with propaganda, spin, globalist law, financial chicanery and immigration.
Ask yourselves this:
How come you had so little idea of the way things really were before you saw the bleak statistics on show here? How come you thought Stephen Lawrence was the be-all and end-all of the interracial murder story?
Most of us know what we’re allowed to know. Most of us, I’m afraid, think more or less what THEY want us to think. We believe what THEIR propaganda intends us to believe.
Now that you’ve had a glimpse of what was really happening whilst THEIR TV programmes and THEIR newspapers were telling us, over and over again, how much better everyone else on the planet was than we are, tell me, ladies and gentlemen, will you be voting for THEM again?
Will you really be cuddling up to those who gave their immigrant foot-soldiers the go-ahead to forge the Home Office statistics cited above?
Will you really, even now, be casting your vote for those who designed the race laws to promote the immigrant and disenfranchise you?
Will you really, even now, be casting your vote for those who are at war with you?.
The Black, therefore, was suspected of murdering the White at a rate in the area of 74/22 = 3.36 times more often during the period specified.
However, the 2001 census tells us that only 2.0% percent of the population of the UK was Black in 2001, whilst 91.3% of the population was White. Thus we may infer that the Black 2.0% of the population was responsible for the deaths of around 74 Whites and the White 91.3% of the population was responsible for the deaths of about 22 Blacks in England and Wales during the specified period.
Thus, at this time, the individual black person could be seen to be around 91.3/2.0 x 74/22 = 153.55 more likely to kill an individual white person than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and the same extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians were suspected of killing 34 Whites and Whites were suspected of killing 28 Asians, and the Asian population comprised 4.0% of the UK population, an individual Asian could be seen to be 91.4/4.0 x 34/28 = 27.7 times more likely to kill an individual White person than the reverse.
I’ll say that again:
Based on the figures in the cited Home Office document and the population statistics found in the 2001 Census, it is a mathematical likelihood that an individual black person was 153 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 27 times more likely, to murder an individual white person in England and Wales than the other way around during the period specified.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2007/8 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006/7, tell us that, in the three year period 2004/05 to 2006/07, Blacks were suspected of murdering 94 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 37 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 94/37 = 2.54 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 94/37 = 105.8 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 45 Whites and Whites killed 30 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 45/30 = 34.27 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 105 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 34 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006 - 2007 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2006, tell us that, in the three year period 2003/04 to 2005/06, Blacks were suspected of murdering 125 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 39 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 125/39 = 3.2 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 125/39 = 133.5 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 57 Whites and Whites killed 36 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 57/36 = 36.2 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 133 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 36 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2006 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.5 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2005, tell us that, in the three year period 2002 - 2005, Blacks were suspected of murdering 103 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 37 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 103/37 = 2.783 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 103/37 = 115.9 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 33/32 = 23.5 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 115 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 23 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2005, may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.6 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2004, tell us that, in the three year period 2001/02 to 2003/04, Blacks were suspected of murdering 87 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 39 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 87/39 = 2.23 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 87/39 = 92.9 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 37 Whites and Whites killed 36 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 57/36 = 23.5 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 91 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 23 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2004 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 3.6 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2003, tell us that, in the three year period 2000/01 to 2002/03, Blacks were suspected of murdering 71 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 34 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 71/34 = 2.09 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 71/34 = 87 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 33 Whites and Whites killed 22 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 33/22 = 34.3 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 87 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 34 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2003 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 4.2 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2002, tell us that, in the three year period 1999/00 to 2001/02, Blacks were suspected of murdering 74 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 32 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 74/32 = 2.3 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 87/39 = 96.3 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 34 Whites and Whites killed 22 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 34/22 = 35.3 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 96 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 35 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2002 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 4.2 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2000, tell us that, in the three year period 1997/98 to 1999/2000, Blacks were suspected of murdering 56 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 35 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 56/35 = 1.6 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 56/35 = 66.64 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 26 Whites and Whites killed 23 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 26/23 = 25.8 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 66 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 25 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 2000 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 4.2 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1999, tell us that, in the three year period 1996/97 to 1998/1999, Blacks were suspected of murdering 53 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 31 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 53/31 = 1.71 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 53/31 = 71.21 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 31 Whites and Whites killed 24 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 31/24 = 29.5 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 71 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 29 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1999 may be accessed here.
The statistics available in table 5.1 of the Home Office document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 1998, tell us that, in the two year period 1996/97 to 1997/1998, Blacks were suspected of murdering 31 Whites, whilst Whites were suspected of murdering 15 Blacks.
The Black, therefore, murdered the White at a rate in the area of 31/15 = 2.07 times more often during the period specified.
However, using the 2001 census stats once again, we find an individual Black person was somewhere in the region of 41.65 x 31/15 = 86.1 times more likely to murder an individual White person in England and Wales than the reverse.
Using the same homicide figures and extrapolation against the 2001 Census, as Asians killed 21 Whites and Whites killed 19 Asians, an individual Asian was 91.4/4 x 21/19 = 25.3 times more likely.
I’ll say that again:
In England and Wales during the period specified, an individual black person was 86 times more likely, and an individual Asian was 25 times more likely, to murder an individual white person than the other way around.
Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System – 1998 may be accessed here.
It is war, ladies and gentlemen.
THEY are at war with us.
They reduce us now, not with bullets and bombs, but with propaganda, spin, globalist law, financial chicanery and immigration.
Ask yourselves this:
How come you had so little idea of the way things really were before you saw the bleak statistics on show here? How come you thought Stephen Lawrence was the be-all and end-all of the interracial murder story?
Most of us know what we’re allowed to know. Most of us, I’m afraid, think more or less what THEY want us to think. We believe what THEIR propaganda intends us to believe.
Now that you’ve had a glimpse of what was really happening whilst THEIR TV programmes and THEIR newspapers were telling us, over and over again, how much better everyone else on the planet was than we are, tell me, ladies and gentlemen, will you be voting for THEM again?
Will you really be cuddling up to those who gave their immigrant foot-soldiers the go-ahead to forge the Home Office statistics cited above?
Will you really, even now, be casting your vote for those who designed the race laws to promote the immigrant and disenfranchise you?
Will you really, even now, be casting your vote for those who are at war with you?.
3.2.09
The Betrayal of the British People
On 9 March 2009, Sir Andrew Green, the Chairman of MigrationWatch, was quoted thus by The Daily Star:
"THE GOVERNMENT HAS HELD PUBLIC OPINION IN CONTEMPT FOR YEARS. DESPITE HAVING DISMANTLED BORDER CONTROLS, THEY DELIBERATELY ENCOURAGED IMMIGRATION... THE CONSERVATIVES HANDED OVER BORDER CONTROLS TO THE EU BUT ALL THE OTHER FACTORS ARE DOWN TO NEW LABOUR…
The Government seems to make a habit of blaming ‘global forces’ but OUR ANALYSIS SHOWS THIS PROBLEM IS ALMOST ENTIRELY HOME GROWN’…
Meanwhile, the London School of Economics calculation for Panorama said around 725,000 illegals are in the UK, but THE FIGURE COULD BE AS HIGH AS 947,000.
Home Office figures in 2001 estimated the number to be between 310,000 and 570,000. IT IS ESTIMATED IT WOULD TAKE 34 YEARS AND £8 BILLION TO REMOVE ALL THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN THE UK ILLEGALLY."
The Star added:
"BRITAIN’S IMMIGRATION CHAOS IS DOWN TO DISASTROUS LABOUR POLICIES AND NOT GLOBAL POPULATION MOVEMENT. A DAMNING NEW REPORT ACCUSES THE GOVERNMENT OF A ‘SMOKESCREEN’ TO COVER UP ITS OWN FAILURES. LABOUR’S DISMANTLING OF BORDER CONTROLS AND ENCOURAGING FOREIGNERS TO ARRIVE EN MASSE HAS SEEN IMMIGRATION TREBLE...
UP TO 947,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COULD BE IN THE UK – TWO-THIRDS MORE THAN A HOME OFFICE ESTIMATE IN 2001…
EMBARKATION CONTROLS WERE SCRAPPED IN 1998, SO FOREIGNERS ON TIME-LIMITED VISAS REALISED THAT THERE WERE NO CHECKS TO SEE THAT THEY EVER LEFT. IN 1997 THE PRIMARY PURPOSE RULE – WHERE APPLICANTS HAD TO SHOW THEIR MARRIAGE WAS NOT ‘PRIMARILY TO OBTAIN ADMISSION TO THE UK’ – WAS SCRAPPED, LEADING TO A 50% INCREASE IN SPOUSES ARRIVING.
The report says that since about 2000 THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPECIFICALLY ENCOURAGED THE ARRIVAL OF ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. And unlike most EU partners, LABOUR FAILED TO IMPOSE CONTROLS OVER NUMBERS."
New Labour was doing much more than "encourage the arrival of economic migrants".
Its failure "to impose a control over numbers" was a DELIBERATE attempt to multiculturalise our world against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people.
Check this out:
On 23 October 2009, Andrew Neather, a former government advisor to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett amongst others, dropped this revelatory bombshell in The Evening Standard:
“THE DELIBERATE POLICY OF MINISTERS FROM LATE 2000 UNTIL AT LEAST FEBRUARY LAST YEAR… WAS TO OPEN UP THE UK TO MASS MIGRATION…
The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall BUT THEIR BIG IMMIGRATION REPORT WAS SURROUNDED BY AN UNUSUAL AIR OF BOTH ANTICIPATION AND SECRECY. DRAFTS WERE HANDED OUT IN SUMMER 2000 ONLY WITH EXTREME RELUCTANCE: THERE WAS A PARANOIA ABOUT IT REACHING THE MEDIA.
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled ‘RDS Occasional Paper no. 67’, ‘Migration: an economic and social analysis’ focused heavily on the labour market case. But THE EARLIER DRAFTS I SAW ALSO INCLUDED A DRIVING POLITICAL PURPOSE: THAT MASS IMMIGRATION WAS THE WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO MAKE THE UK TRULY MULTICULTURAL.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that THE POLICY WAS INTENDED… TO RUB THE RIGHT'S NOSE IN DIVERSITY and render their arguments out of date…
THERE WAS A RELUCTANCE... IN GOVERNMENT TO DISCUSS WHAT INCREASED IMMIGRATION WOULD MEAN, ABOVE ALL FOR LABOUR'S CORE WHITE WORKING-CLASS VOTE. This shone through even in the published report: THE ‘SOCIAL OUTCOMES’ IT TALKS ABOUT ARE SOLELY THOSE FOR IMMIGRANTS…
The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 FOREIGNERS WERE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO SETTLE IN THE UK. BY 2005 THAT HAD RISEN TO 179,000... In addition, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MIGRANTS HAVE COME FROM THE NEW EU MEMBER STATES SINCE 2004, MOST REQUIRING NEITHER VISAS NOR PERMISSION TO WORK OR SETTLE… THE GOVERNMENT HAD CREATED ITS LONGED-FOR IMMIGRATION BOOM”.
You might think, from the astounding revelations cited above that Andrew Neather is a whistleblower.
Far from it, as the title of his essay, Don't listen to the whingers, London needs immigrants suggests, he is still four square behind New Labour's imposition of the Multicult upon a bewildered and disenfranchised majority.
Those we vote for are at war with the British people.
They have DELIBERATELY destroyed our world. Does anyone who read the articles cited above truly believe that the Labour Party, an organisation created to support and encourage the working man, has put the British worker first in this country over the last twelve years? Don’t you think that New Labour has put the rights and wants of the foreigner a thousand light years in front of ours? Don’t you think that they have spent a lot more time cuddling up to the fattest of the fat cat businessmen and the greediest of the greedy bankers than ever they have to the British people as a whole?
And how about Gulf War II? How has an illegitimate war conceived by American, Israeli and British warmongers benefited us? And the obscenity that is Afghanistan? How was this unwinnable war ever going to make our lives any safer or better?
These wars have ushered hundreds of our finest young men and women into an early grave and severely injured thousands more. They have also caused the Muslim world to hate us and seek to kill us in our turn, as they did successfully on 7/7/2005. They have also cost us all many billions of pounds which, I think you’ll agree, we could all do with right now.
We have been betrayed, ladies and gentlemen. Those we elected to serve us have instead served themselves and the dark powers who, behind the scenes, have been pulling their strings and paying their real wages all along.
Tony Blair's favourite New World Order buzz-word when he ruled over us was "interdependency". He spent the whole of his time in office making our country as dependent as he could upon others. If you are dependent upon others for food, heat, medicine and medical and technical expertise, you can never rebel. You can never thwart the will of Big Brother. It’s as simple as that.
Remind me again, how much has the great traitor made since he left office?
Consider the following statistics:
In 1995 there were 35,000 dairy farmers in the UK. By 2006, Tony Blair's love of big business had seen this figure drop to 21,000. The supermarkets are forcing three British dairy farmers out of business every day. (New Labour's principal monetary sponsor, Lord Sainsbury, owns the Sainsbury supermarket chain and Margaret Thatcher's Westminster Council pin-up girl, Dame Shirley Porter, owns Tesco)
Between 1997 and 2002, the number of UK farm workers fell by 100,000. Between 1997 and 2002, butchers, bakers, newsagents, fishmongers and the like were closing at the rate of fifty a week in Tony Blair's Cool Brittania.
In 1995, the UK fishing industry comprised 9,750 vessels. In 2005 there were just 6,722 of these left with a good few of these owned and crewed by non-indigenous fishermen.
Here's a little EU insanity:
In 2004, the UK exported 1,500 tonnes of potatoes to Germany and imported 1,500 tonnes from Germany. We also exported 10,200 tonnes of milk and cream to France and imported 9,900 tonnes from that country.
Since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, hundreds of British pits have been closed and there are now just seven left.
Of this national disaster, Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (he would later be promoted to Home Secretary) once commented insensitively thus:
"The pace of GLOBALISATION is increasing… Britain is one of the most open, trading nations in the world… we are stronger and richer as a result and have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF REVERSING THE PROCESS. Whatever the difficulties and challenges of GLOBALISATION the answers will not be found in the stagnant waters of protectionism…
In the UK, we welcome companies who… want to operate in our competitive liberalised market… WE BELIEVE IN GLOBAL CONSUMER CHAMPIONS, NOT NATIONAL CHAMPIONS... Already, BRITAIN IMPORTS 10 MILLION TONNES OF RUSSIAN COAL EVERY YEAR, whilst the EU as a whole imports 40 million tonnes… More than a fifth of Europe’s gas comes from Russia.
SHELL, BP, and smaller companies like Victoria Oil and Gas INVEST OVER $16 BILLION IN THE RUSSIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY BETWEEN THEM. And a Russian company recently announced investment to resurrect the Hatfield colliery here in the UK."
In January 2009, the French power company, EDF, bought British Energy, the largest electricity generator and nuclear operator in Britain.
Now tell me, ladies and gentlemen, is there really anyone out there, apart from the Blair/Brown axis, their Global sponsors and the Westminster wallet-stuffers, who is happy to rely on Russia and France for all their energy needs? Can any of you possibly be comfortable with the fact that we are now so dependent upon those who were our sworn enemies not so long ago?
If "interdependency" was Tony B Liar's favourite New World Order buzz-word, Gordon Brown’s was "globalisation".
On 26 January 2009, Brown said this to the Foreign Press Association in London:
"We could allow this crisis to start a retreat from globalisation… We could close our markets – for capital, financial services, trade and FOR LABOUR – and therefore REDUCE THE RISKS OF GLOBALISATION… Or we could view the threats and challenges we face today as THE DIFFICULT BIRTH-PANGS OF A NEW GLOBAL ORDER - and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through A NEW INTERNATIONALISM to the benefits of an expanding GLOBAL SOCIETY… SETTING THE NEW RULES FOR THIS NEW GLOBAL ORDER."
On 18 April 2008, Brown gave a speech at the John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston, during which he used the word "global" and its derivatives 79 TIMES!
Brown and those who own him view the world as a global village.
They believe that it is their absolute right to rule over this village forever. Iraqs, Afghanistans and world-wide recessions are constructed and foist upon the decent many, in order that the rule of the indecent few be cemented into place. The nation state, the only obstacle in the way of this "elite" conspiracy, must be rendered obsolete for total control to be realised.
Nationalism is the direct opposite of Globalism. Nationalism, the love of one’s own land, culture and kin by a nation’s people, is the one thing the Blairs, Browns and Big Brothers are afraid of. The Nationalist does not wish to rule the world, he wants only to hold sway in the land that he and his ancestors made.
On 9 March 2009, Lord Peter Mandelson, the architect of New Labour, said this in the House of Commons:
"The nationals coming here from the original eight new accession countries are helping to fill gaps in our labour market our British Nationals are either not available to fill OR ARE UNWILLING TO FILL."
And yet, on 10 March 2009, The Daily Express was telling us this:
"Earlier this month, 3,000 job-seekers arrived at a zoo in Warwickshire chasing 150 vacancies for zoo rangers, kitchen staff and cleaners. And 600 people applied for a single post as a £22,762-a-year emergency call operator in the West Midlands...
At a time of high and rising unemployment, it is incredibly arrogant of Lord Mandelson to assume that British workers are not willing to do these jobs. Most of the unemployed are desperate to get back to work…
The official UK unemployment rate is close to two million and is forecast to exceed three million by next year. Yet figures show 3.8 MILLION PEOPLE BORN OVERSEAS ARE NOW WORKING IN BRITAIN, more than double that of 10 years ago. And a recent study by think-tank Migrationwatch found that 1.08 million out of the 1.34 million new jobs created since 2001 have gone to non-UK citizens."
On 9 March 2009, Leo McKinstry said this in The Daily Express:
"Prime Minister Brown always tries to pin all the blame on global problems or sub-prime lending in America. But the fact is that HE IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT MESS. IT WAS HE WHO PUSHED FOR THE DISASTROUS SHOTGUN MARRIAGE BETWEEN LLOYDS TSB AND HBOS, PROMISING LLOYDS BOSS SIR VICTOR BLANK THAT HE WOULD WAIVE THE RULES ABOUT COMPETITION TO SMOOTH THE MERGER.
IT WAS BROWN WHO RUINED THE PUBLIC FINANCES, PUSHED FOR MORE GLOBALISATION, PROMOTED THE CREDIT BUBBLE, WRECKED THE PRIVATE PENSIONS SYSTEM AND SOLD OFF OUR GOLD RESERVES."
In a previous issue of The Express, McKinstry summed it up intelligently when he said:
"IT IS NOW CLEAR THE ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE TWIN FORCES OF EXCESSIVE BORROWING AND UNFETTERED GLOBALISATION. THE WILFUL DISREGARD FOR EITHER FINANCIAL RESTRAINT OR THE BRITISH NATIONAL INTEREST HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR OUR COUNTRY, DESTROYING JOBS AND STORING UP DEBTS THAT WILL BE A BURDEN FOR GENERATIONS.
So what is the Government’s solution? More borrowing and MORE GLOBALISATION, of course… IN FASHIONABLE POLITICAL CIRCLES IT IS REGARDED AS OUTRAGEOUS TO ADVOCATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC FIRST by limiting the movement of labour, tightening borders, supporting domestic industries or restricting imports...
THE VERY CONCEPT OF A NATIONAL INTEREST IS TREATED AS BACKWARD. THE NATURAL IMPULSE TO LOOK AFTER ONE’S OWN, WHAT USED TO BE SEEN AS NOBLE PATRIOTISM, IS NOW REGARDED AS DANGEROUSLY REACTIONARY. So we end up with the alternative created by the globalisation freaks where BRITISH WORKERS ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR JOBS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, where the welfare state pays an Afghan single mother £170,000 a year in housing benefit to live in a large villa in west London, WHERE DOLE QUEUES LENGTHEN WHILE CALL-CENTRES ARE RELOCATED TO INDIA and where desperate migrants flood into the country to be exploited by employers paying £1 an hour…
THE CREED OF GLOBALISATION HAS BROUGHT NOTHING BUT MISERY. IF WE’D HAD A BANKING SYSTEM THAT PUT THE INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY FIRST WE WOULD NOT BE IN THE PRESENT CHAOS, SINCE OUR BANKS WOULD NOT HAVE INDULGED IN RECKLESS LENDING TO SUB-PRIME AMERICAN HOMEBUYERS, RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS OR SPANISH PROPERTY INVESTORS...
Without the remorseless pursuit of globalisation, we might still have home-grown car and aircraft industries. Our essential utilities would still be in our hands. Without the open-door immigration policy we would have retained the skills base in engineering and construction that once made our country great. Nor would we have been forced to spend £30 billion a year on public services to immigrants.
A SENSE OF NATIONAL PRIDE, THE INSTINCT THAT LIES BEHIND PROTECTIONISM, WOULD HAVE PREVENTED BRITAIN FROM ENDURING THE LUNACIES OF MULTI-CULTURALISM. WITHOUT GLOBALISATION WE WOULD STILL BE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY RATHER THAN MERELY A REGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, AN ENTITY FOR WHICH WE NEVER VOTED. WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAND OVER £12BILLION A YEAR TO BRUSSELS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING GOVERNED BY EUROCRATS.
In a protectionist Britain that looked after its own people we would not be squandering £8billion a year on overseas aid, most of it going to Africa where it is used to prop up tyrannical, kleptocratic regimes. It is the height of absurdity that we are forking out £40million a year in subsidies to Mugabe’s Zimbabwe."
Leo McKinstry was moved to say these things, ladies and gentlemen, despite the fact that he was once a Labour Councillor and a parliamentary aide to Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the New Labour Party!
In 1998, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, oversaw the imposition of a new set of Race Laws.
These laws gave the government the power to imprison us for seven long years if we committed the crime of "incitement to racial hatred". (A crime that didn't exist prior to 1965) Such law was not designed to rein in the immigrant, ladies and gentlemen. It was created to shackle us as the globalist went to war with the nation state. Our race laws were constructed to encourage and promote the outsider at the expense of the native Briton.
And they have, haven't they?
Have our politicians flooded our country with unwanted foreigners against our will over the last few decades? Have they spent the last 40-odd years giving our council housing stock to the same foreigners? Are they giving our jobs to them as we speak? Are our formerly nationalised industries, which once belonged to all the British people, now owned, not just by foreign countries like France, but by a few mega-rich "new global order" aliens as well?
Are you not aware that our politicians have, wherever they could, covered up non-native criminality and trumpeted the reverse? Did it never occur to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the "New Global Order" would be that much easier to achieve if THEY could convince the most gullible and trusting Britons (the young) to believe that the immigrant hordes were, somehow, better than us?
Ever since the first race law was introduced in 1965 by the Labour Home Secretary of the time, Frank Soskice, (himself a Russian immigrant) our own politicians have put the foreigner first in our country.
The same politicians put the British working-classes, who had worked so hard, sacrificed so much and died the deaths in all their wars, a very long way last. It's not just me who is saying these things, ladies and gentlemen. Check out what Frank Field, an unusually honest former New Labour Welfare Minister said early in 2009:
"His (Gordon Brown's) claim to have provided British jobs for British workers is as hollow as it could be... OF THE THREE MILLION JOBS CREATED IN THE LAST DECADE, NINE OUT OF 10 HAVE GONE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BRITISH.” (Daily Express - 1 February 2009)
How any self-respecting TRUE Labour supporter could have voted for a party that inflicted such a traitorous statistic upon the British people is beyond me.
On 1 October 2009, Mr Field cited this even more chilling figure in The Telegraph:
“In my constituency of Birkenhead, THERE ARE NOW MORE VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON THAN THERE WERE IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY 50 YEARS AGO”!
You know, they could put me in jail for seven years for telling some of the unfashionable truths that I tell.
And yet, unlike the politicians who created the Brit-bashing seven-year law, I don’t spin, I don’t lie, I don’t exaggerate and I don’t cover up. I just dare to say the things that the richest and most powerful of the globalist gangsters do not want you to know.
I dared to say some of these things in the 2010 General Election where I stood as an Independent candidiate. I leafleted extensively and was able to put my views pretty candidly in the local newspapers. As a result, a huge number of people were able to access a deal of damning information that they would otherwise not have come across.
Nevertheless, their verdict was categoric.
I polled just over 400 votes, 0.8% of the total. Despite the observably terrible behaviours of those who had brought about a state affairs where, in just one British constituency, "there are now more violent crimes against the person than there wre in the whole country 50 years ago", the British people were not prepared to contemplate voting those who had created such a dreadful statistic out of office.
As the wise man warned:
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got".
At the 2010 General Election, yet again, the British people chose not to heed that warning.
If you are intested in viewing the information contained in the leaflets I delivered, these may accessed here:
http://airstrip4.blogspot.com/2010/05/engine10.html
Books
Video Games
Computers
Musical Instruments
Classical Music
Music
MP3 Downloads
DVD
Camera & Photo
Cell Phones & Accessories
Electronics
Sports & Outdoors
Automotive
Toys & Games
Health & Personal Care
"THE GOVERNMENT HAS HELD PUBLIC OPINION IN CONTEMPT FOR YEARS. DESPITE HAVING DISMANTLED BORDER CONTROLS, THEY DELIBERATELY ENCOURAGED IMMIGRATION... THE CONSERVATIVES HANDED OVER BORDER CONTROLS TO THE EU BUT ALL THE OTHER FACTORS ARE DOWN TO NEW LABOUR…
The Government seems to make a habit of blaming ‘global forces’ but OUR ANALYSIS SHOWS THIS PROBLEM IS ALMOST ENTIRELY HOME GROWN’…
Meanwhile, the London School of Economics calculation for Panorama said around 725,000 illegals are in the UK, but THE FIGURE COULD BE AS HIGH AS 947,000.
Home Office figures in 2001 estimated the number to be between 310,000 and 570,000. IT IS ESTIMATED IT WOULD TAKE 34 YEARS AND £8 BILLION TO REMOVE ALL THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN THE UK ILLEGALLY."
The Star added:
"BRITAIN’S IMMIGRATION CHAOS IS DOWN TO DISASTROUS LABOUR POLICIES AND NOT GLOBAL POPULATION MOVEMENT. A DAMNING NEW REPORT ACCUSES THE GOVERNMENT OF A ‘SMOKESCREEN’ TO COVER UP ITS OWN FAILURES. LABOUR’S DISMANTLING OF BORDER CONTROLS AND ENCOURAGING FOREIGNERS TO ARRIVE EN MASSE HAS SEEN IMMIGRATION TREBLE...
UP TO 947,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COULD BE IN THE UK – TWO-THIRDS MORE THAN A HOME OFFICE ESTIMATE IN 2001…
EMBARKATION CONTROLS WERE SCRAPPED IN 1998, SO FOREIGNERS ON TIME-LIMITED VISAS REALISED THAT THERE WERE NO CHECKS TO SEE THAT THEY EVER LEFT. IN 1997 THE PRIMARY PURPOSE RULE – WHERE APPLICANTS HAD TO SHOW THEIR MARRIAGE WAS NOT ‘PRIMARILY TO OBTAIN ADMISSION TO THE UK’ – WAS SCRAPPED, LEADING TO A 50% INCREASE IN SPOUSES ARRIVING.
The report says that since about 2000 THE GOVERNMENT HAS SPECIFICALLY ENCOURAGED THE ARRIVAL OF ECONOMIC MIGRANTS. And unlike most EU partners, LABOUR FAILED TO IMPOSE CONTROLS OVER NUMBERS."
New Labour was doing much more than "encourage the arrival of economic migrants".
Its failure "to impose a control over numbers" was a DELIBERATE attempt to multiculturalise our world against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people.
Check this out:
On 23 October 2009, Andrew Neather, a former government advisor to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett amongst others, dropped this revelatory bombshell in The Evening Standard:
“THE DELIBERATE POLICY OF MINISTERS FROM LATE 2000 UNTIL AT LEAST FEBRUARY LAST YEAR… WAS TO OPEN UP THE UK TO MASS MIGRATION…
The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall BUT THEIR BIG IMMIGRATION REPORT WAS SURROUNDED BY AN UNUSUAL AIR OF BOTH ANTICIPATION AND SECRECY. DRAFTS WERE HANDED OUT IN SUMMER 2000 ONLY WITH EXTREME RELUCTANCE: THERE WAS A PARANOIA ABOUT IT REACHING THE MEDIA.
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled ‘RDS Occasional Paper no. 67’, ‘Migration: an economic and social analysis’ focused heavily on the labour market case. But THE EARLIER DRAFTS I SAW ALSO INCLUDED A DRIVING POLITICAL PURPOSE: THAT MASS IMMIGRATION WAS THE WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO MAKE THE UK TRULY MULTICULTURAL.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that THE POLICY WAS INTENDED… TO RUB THE RIGHT'S NOSE IN DIVERSITY and render their arguments out of date…
THERE WAS A RELUCTANCE... IN GOVERNMENT TO DISCUSS WHAT INCREASED IMMIGRATION WOULD MEAN, ABOVE ALL FOR LABOUR'S CORE WHITE WORKING-CLASS VOTE. This shone through even in the published report: THE ‘SOCIAL OUTCOMES’ IT TALKS ABOUT ARE SOLELY THOSE FOR IMMIGRANTS…
The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 FOREIGNERS WERE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO SETTLE IN THE UK. BY 2005 THAT HAD RISEN TO 179,000... In addition, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MIGRANTS HAVE COME FROM THE NEW EU MEMBER STATES SINCE 2004, MOST REQUIRING NEITHER VISAS NOR PERMISSION TO WORK OR SETTLE… THE GOVERNMENT HAD CREATED ITS LONGED-FOR IMMIGRATION BOOM”.
You might think, from the astounding revelations cited above that Andrew Neather is a whistleblower.
Far from it, as the title of his essay, Don't listen to the whingers, London needs immigrants suggests, he is still four square behind New Labour's imposition of the Multicult upon a bewildered and disenfranchised majority.
Those we vote for are at war with the British people.
They have DELIBERATELY destroyed our world. Does anyone who read the articles cited above truly believe that the Labour Party, an organisation created to support and encourage the working man, has put the British worker first in this country over the last twelve years? Don’t you think that New Labour has put the rights and wants of the foreigner a thousand light years in front of ours? Don’t you think that they have spent a lot more time cuddling up to the fattest of the fat cat businessmen and the greediest of the greedy bankers than ever they have to the British people as a whole?
And how about Gulf War II? How has an illegitimate war conceived by American, Israeli and British warmongers benefited us? And the obscenity that is Afghanistan? How was this unwinnable war ever going to make our lives any safer or better?
These wars have ushered hundreds of our finest young men and women into an early grave and severely injured thousands more. They have also caused the Muslim world to hate us and seek to kill us in our turn, as they did successfully on 7/7/2005. They have also cost us all many billions of pounds which, I think you’ll agree, we could all do with right now.
We have been betrayed, ladies and gentlemen. Those we elected to serve us have instead served themselves and the dark powers who, behind the scenes, have been pulling their strings and paying their real wages all along.
Tony Blair's favourite New World Order buzz-word when he ruled over us was "interdependency". He spent the whole of his time in office making our country as dependent as he could upon others. If you are dependent upon others for food, heat, medicine and medical and technical expertise, you can never rebel. You can never thwart the will of Big Brother. It’s as simple as that.
Remind me again, how much has the great traitor made since he left office?
Consider the following statistics:
In 1995 there were 35,000 dairy farmers in the UK. By 2006, Tony Blair's love of big business had seen this figure drop to 21,000. The supermarkets are forcing three British dairy farmers out of business every day. (New Labour's principal monetary sponsor, Lord Sainsbury, owns the Sainsbury supermarket chain and Margaret Thatcher's Westminster Council pin-up girl, Dame Shirley Porter, owns Tesco)
Between 1997 and 2002, the number of UK farm workers fell by 100,000. Between 1997 and 2002, butchers, bakers, newsagents, fishmongers and the like were closing at the rate of fifty a week in Tony Blair's Cool Brittania.
In 1995, the UK fishing industry comprised 9,750 vessels. In 2005 there were just 6,722 of these left with a good few of these owned and crewed by non-indigenous fishermen.
Here's a little EU insanity:
In 2004, the UK exported 1,500 tonnes of potatoes to Germany and imported 1,500 tonnes from Germany. We also exported 10,200 tonnes of milk and cream to France and imported 9,900 tonnes from that country.
Since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, hundreds of British pits have been closed and there are now just seven left.
Of this national disaster, Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (he would later be promoted to Home Secretary) once commented insensitively thus:
"The pace of GLOBALISATION is increasing… Britain is one of the most open, trading nations in the world… we are stronger and richer as a result and have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF REVERSING THE PROCESS. Whatever the difficulties and challenges of GLOBALISATION the answers will not be found in the stagnant waters of protectionism…
In the UK, we welcome companies who… want to operate in our competitive liberalised market… WE BELIEVE IN GLOBAL CONSUMER CHAMPIONS, NOT NATIONAL CHAMPIONS... Already, BRITAIN IMPORTS 10 MILLION TONNES OF RUSSIAN COAL EVERY YEAR, whilst the EU as a whole imports 40 million tonnes… More than a fifth of Europe’s gas comes from Russia.
SHELL, BP, and smaller companies like Victoria Oil and Gas INVEST OVER $16 BILLION IN THE RUSSIAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY BETWEEN THEM. And a Russian company recently announced investment to resurrect the Hatfield colliery here in the UK."
In January 2009, the French power company, EDF, bought British Energy, the largest electricity generator and nuclear operator in Britain.
Now tell me, ladies and gentlemen, is there really anyone out there, apart from the Blair/Brown axis, their Global sponsors and the Westminster wallet-stuffers, who is happy to rely on Russia and France for all their energy needs? Can any of you possibly be comfortable with the fact that we are now so dependent upon those who were our sworn enemies not so long ago?
If "interdependency" was Tony B Liar's favourite New World Order buzz-word, Gordon Brown’s was "globalisation".
On 26 January 2009, Brown said this to the Foreign Press Association in London:
"We could allow this crisis to start a retreat from globalisation… We could close our markets – for capital, financial services, trade and FOR LABOUR – and therefore REDUCE THE RISKS OF GLOBALISATION… Or we could view the threats and challenges we face today as THE DIFFICULT BIRTH-PANGS OF A NEW GLOBAL ORDER - and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through A NEW INTERNATIONALISM to the benefits of an expanding GLOBAL SOCIETY… SETTING THE NEW RULES FOR THIS NEW GLOBAL ORDER."
On 18 April 2008, Brown gave a speech at the John F Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston, during which he used the word "global" and its derivatives 79 TIMES!
Brown and those who own him view the world as a global village.
They believe that it is their absolute right to rule over this village forever. Iraqs, Afghanistans and world-wide recessions are constructed and foist upon the decent many, in order that the rule of the indecent few be cemented into place. The nation state, the only obstacle in the way of this "elite" conspiracy, must be rendered obsolete for total control to be realised.
Nationalism is the direct opposite of Globalism. Nationalism, the love of one’s own land, culture and kin by a nation’s people, is the one thing the Blairs, Browns and Big Brothers are afraid of. The Nationalist does not wish to rule the world, he wants only to hold sway in the land that he and his ancestors made.
On 9 March 2009, Lord Peter Mandelson, the architect of New Labour, said this in the House of Commons:
"The nationals coming here from the original eight new accession countries are helping to fill gaps in our labour market our British Nationals are either not available to fill OR ARE UNWILLING TO FILL."
And yet, on 10 March 2009, The Daily Express was telling us this:
"Earlier this month, 3,000 job-seekers arrived at a zoo in Warwickshire chasing 150 vacancies for zoo rangers, kitchen staff and cleaners. And 600 people applied for a single post as a £22,762-a-year emergency call operator in the West Midlands...
At a time of high and rising unemployment, it is incredibly arrogant of Lord Mandelson to assume that British workers are not willing to do these jobs. Most of the unemployed are desperate to get back to work…
The official UK unemployment rate is close to two million and is forecast to exceed three million by next year. Yet figures show 3.8 MILLION PEOPLE BORN OVERSEAS ARE NOW WORKING IN BRITAIN, more than double that of 10 years ago. And a recent study by think-tank Migrationwatch found that 1.08 million out of the 1.34 million new jobs created since 2001 have gone to non-UK citizens."
On 9 March 2009, Leo McKinstry said this in The Daily Express:
"Prime Minister Brown always tries to pin all the blame on global problems or sub-prime lending in America. But the fact is that HE IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT MESS. IT WAS HE WHO PUSHED FOR THE DISASTROUS SHOTGUN MARRIAGE BETWEEN LLOYDS TSB AND HBOS, PROMISING LLOYDS BOSS SIR VICTOR BLANK THAT HE WOULD WAIVE THE RULES ABOUT COMPETITION TO SMOOTH THE MERGER.
IT WAS BROWN WHO RUINED THE PUBLIC FINANCES, PUSHED FOR MORE GLOBALISATION, PROMOTED THE CREDIT BUBBLE, WRECKED THE PRIVATE PENSIONS SYSTEM AND SOLD OFF OUR GOLD RESERVES."
In a previous issue of The Express, McKinstry summed it up intelligently when he said:
"IT IS NOW CLEAR THE ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE TWIN FORCES OF EXCESSIVE BORROWING AND UNFETTERED GLOBALISATION. THE WILFUL DISREGARD FOR EITHER FINANCIAL RESTRAINT OR THE BRITISH NATIONAL INTEREST HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR OUR COUNTRY, DESTROYING JOBS AND STORING UP DEBTS THAT WILL BE A BURDEN FOR GENERATIONS.
So what is the Government’s solution? More borrowing and MORE GLOBALISATION, of course… IN FASHIONABLE POLITICAL CIRCLES IT IS REGARDED AS OUTRAGEOUS TO ADVOCATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC FIRST by limiting the movement of labour, tightening borders, supporting domestic industries or restricting imports...
THE VERY CONCEPT OF A NATIONAL INTEREST IS TREATED AS BACKWARD. THE NATURAL IMPULSE TO LOOK AFTER ONE’S OWN, WHAT USED TO BE SEEN AS NOBLE PATRIOTISM, IS NOW REGARDED AS DANGEROUSLY REACTIONARY. So we end up with the alternative created by the globalisation freaks where BRITISH WORKERS ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR JOBS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, where the welfare state pays an Afghan single mother £170,000 a year in housing benefit to live in a large villa in west London, WHERE DOLE QUEUES LENGTHEN WHILE CALL-CENTRES ARE RELOCATED TO INDIA and where desperate migrants flood into the country to be exploited by employers paying £1 an hour…
THE CREED OF GLOBALISATION HAS BROUGHT NOTHING BUT MISERY. IF WE’D HAD A BANKING SYSTEM THAT PUT THE INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY FIRST WE WOULD NOT BE IN THE PRESENT CHAOS, SINCE OUR BANKS WOULD NOT HAVE INDULGED IN RECKLESS LENDING TO SUB-PRIME AMERICAN HOMEBUYERS, RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS OR SPANISH PROPERTY INVESTORS...
Without the remorseless pursuit of globalisation, we might still have home-grown car and aircraft industries. Our essential utilities would still be in our hands. Without the open-door immigration policy we would have retained the skills base in engineering and construction that once made our country great. Nor would we have been forced to spend £30 billion a year on public services to immigrants.
A SENSE OF NATIONAL PRIDE, THE INSTINCT THAT LIES BEHIND PROTECTIONISM, WOULD HAVE PREVENTED BRITAIN FROM ENDURING THE LUNACIES OF MULTI-CULTURALISM. WITHOUT GLOBALISATION WE WOULD STILL BE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY RATHER THAN MERELY A REGION OF THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, AN ENTITY FOR WHICH WE NEVER VOTED. WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAND OVER £12BILLION A YEAR TO BRUSSELS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING GOVERNED BY EUROCRATS.
In a protectionist Britain that looked after its own people we would not be squandering £8billion a year on overseas aid, most of it going to Africa where it is used to prop up tyrannical, kleptocratic regimes. It is the height of absurdity that we are forking out £40million a year in subsidies to Mugabe’s Zimbabwe."
Leo McKinstry was moved to say these things, ladies and gentlemen, despite the fact that he was once a Labour Councillor and a parliamentary aide to Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the New Labour Party!
In 1998, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, oversaw the imposition of a new set of Race Laws.
These laws gave the government the power to imprison us for seven long years if we committed the crime of "incitement to racial hatred". (A crime that didn't exist prior to 1965) Such law was not designed to rein in the immigrant, ladies and gentlemen. It was created to shackle us as the globalist went to war with the nation state. Our race laws were constructed to encourage and promote the outsider at the expense of the native Briton.
And they have, haven't they?
Have our politicians flooded our country with unwanted foreigners against our will over the last few decades? Have they spent the last 40-odd years giving our council housing stock to the same foreigners? Are they giving our jobs to them as we speak? Are our formerly nationalised industries, which once belonged to all the British people, now owned, not just by foreign countries like France, but by a few mega-rich "new global order" aliens as well?
Are you not aware that our politicians have, wherever they could, covered up non-native criminality and trumpeted the reverse? Did it never occur to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the "New Global Order" would be that much easier to achieve if THEY could convince the most gullible and trusting Britons (the young) to believe that the immigrant hordes were, somehow, better than us?
Ever since the first race law was introduced in 1965 by the Labour Home Secretary of the time, Frank Soskice, (himself a Russian immigrant) our own politicians have put the foreigner first in our country.
The same politicians put the British working-classes, who had worked so hard, sacrificed so much and died the deaths in all their wars, a very long way last. It's not just me who is saying these things, ladies and gentlemen. Check out what Frank Field, an unusually honest former New Labour Welfare Minister said early in 2009:
"His (Gordon Brown's) claim to have provided British jobs for British workers is as hollow as it could be... OF THE THREE MILLION JOBS CREATED IN THE LAST DECADE, NINE OUT OF 10 HAVE GONE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BRITISH.” (Daily Express - 1 February 2009)
How any self-respecting TRUE Labour supporter could have voted for a party that inflicted such a traitorous statistic upon the British people is beyond me.
On 1 October 2009, Mr Field cited this even more chilling figure in The Telegraph:
“In my constituency of Birkenhead, THERE ARE NOW MORE VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON THAN THERE WERE IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY 50 YEARS AGO”!
You know, they could put me in jail for seven years for telling some of the unfashionable truths that I tell.
And yet, unlike the politicians who created the Brit-bashing seven-year law, I don’t spin, I don’t lie, I don’t exaggerate and I don’t cover up. I just dare to say the things that the richest and most powerful of the globalist gangsters do not want you to know.
I dared to say some of these things in the 2010 General Election where I stood as an Independent candidiate. I leafleted extensively and was able to put my views pretty candidly in the local newspapers. As a result, a huge number of people were able to access a deal of damning information that they would otherwise not have come across.
Nevertheless, their verdict was categoric.
I polled just over 400 votes, 0.8% of the total. Despite the observably terrible behaviours of those who had brought about a state affairs where, in just one British constituency, "there are now more violent crimes against the person than there wre in the whole country 50 years ago", the British people were not prepared to contemplate voting those who had created such a dreadful statistic out of office.
As the wise man warned:
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got".
At the 2010 General Election, yet again, the British people chose not to heed that warning.
If you are intested in viewing the information contained in the leaflets I delivered, these may accessed here:
http://airstrip4.blogspot.com/2010/05/engine10.html
Books
Video Games
Computers
Musical Instruments
Classical Music
Music
MP3 Downloads
DVD
Camera & Photo
Cell Phones & Accessories
Electronics
Sports & Outdoors
Automotive
Toys & Games
Health & Personal Care
VIDEOS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
