British Politics

Britain says no

brexit

Cucked reactions to the Brexit vote

“Bliss was it to be alive.,.” the words of poet William Wordsworth seem appropriate on a morning when Britain woke up to find the world had turned upside down — and our ruling elite had been given a decisive bloody nose. The British people’s narrow but definite rejection of the European Union is the biggest upset since Churchill was rejected by the voters in 1945.

The country seems in shock this morning. Red-eyed female presenters on the BBC look as if they have suffered a close family bereavement and the commentators are scrambling around trying to make sense of it all but there is no doubt who they are blaming: David Cameron, the “heir to Blair” himself and a man who had sworn to make Britain safe for the financial and bureaucratic elites.

In a system in which the defining characteristic of politicians must always be the ability to successfully sell lies to the voters, Cameron finally failed to deliver. He had come to power on a promise to reduce annual net immigration to under 100,000 and instead it had soared to an official 310,000 (unofficially it much higher than 500,000). While ordinary people were aghast, Cameron had merely shrugged his shoulders and said his hands were tied by Europe.  For generations, British politicians had got away with this. Then he allowed himself to be talked into a referendum. You can see the rationale. The voters had fallen for it repeatedly and there seemed no reason to think they would not do so again. Read more

The #StolenReferendum: How Cameron & Co have ruthlessly exploited the murder of MP Jo Cox to save their skins and the EU ‘Project’

Remain

Britain’s vote on Europe looks set to go down in history as the ‘Stolen Referendum’. As the Remain campaign’s ruthless exploitation of the appalling murder of MP Jo Cox continues, big business, banks and other Remain enthusiasts are increasingly confident of coming out on top in Thursday’s historic poll.

Yet such a victory will have been bought at a terrible price — a blatant triple fraud against the democratic process, perpetrated with the enthusiastic support and involvement of all three leaders of the UK’s old established governing political parties and of the overwhelmingly dominant political force in Scotland.

The damage such a consensus for deceit and election rigging will do to faith in the democratic process is incalculable.

The first great Establishment electoral fraud in the now terminally polluted campaign was in place even before the sorry farce began: In a shameless re-run of the corruption that discredited the UK’s first In/Out referendum, in 1975, the contest was drastically skewed by the fact that every household received two documents in favour of EU membership (one from the Government and one from the Europhile campaign) compared to just one from the campaign for independence. Read more

Dreams of Eurocide: Non-White Immigration as a Weapon of Race-War

Martin Luther King had a dream. So did Europe’s compassionate and caring Jewish community. After the Second World War, they thought that importing millions of Muslims would give them staunch allies against the White Christians who had persecuted them so unfairly for so long. With Muslim help, they hoped to bring about Eurocide: the death of White Christian Europe and its replacement by a rainbow continent firmly under Jewish control.

This dream of a progressive alliance was still alive in 1995, when the radical Franco-Jewish director Matthieu Kassovitz released a searing indictment of France’s racism and xenophobia:

The film was called La Haine (Hate) and was the story of three young men in one of the wretched housing projects outside Paris, commonly referred to as la banlieue. The three lads were a north African, a black guy and an eastern European Jew/ … They were cheeky, funny and likable — a gang of what the French call “branleurs”, which is literally translated as “wankers” but really means young guys who mess about. The core of the story was, however, that they were also full of rage — against the police, but ultimately against a society that has pushed them to the margins. Much of the film’s comedy as well as its social comment comes from the gang’s misadventures in central Paris, a world as distant and alien to them as America.

la haine

The plot is relatively simple, centring on the fact that Vinz, the angry young Jew, has got hold of a gun stolen from the police. He threatens to use it against them if his mate Abdel dies from his injuries after being held in police custody. When Abdel does die, Vinz’s moment for revenge comes when he has the chance to kill a neo-Nazi skinhead. He backs away, however, and finally hands the gun over to Hubert, the black boxer who is the most philosophical of the gang and totally against violence. The film ends with Vinz being accidentally shot dead by a policeman, who is taunting him with a gun. The shocking and powerful final scene is a standoff between Hubert and cop pointing guns at each other; the scene is framed by the traumatised face of Saïd, the north African member of the trio, and a voiceover saying that this is the “story of a society falling apart”. (La Haine 20 years on: what has changed?, The Guardian, 3rd May 2015)

Read more

Britain’s accidental “red pill” moment

If you think Donald Trump is getting a hard time from an openly one-sided media, then consider what is happening in Britain where the Labour Party has been punished for months for the temerity to reject the Jewish political agenda.

But now the law of unintended consequences has finally caught up with the manufactured “Labour anti-Semitism” pseudo-crisis. No-one could have predicted that it would backfire so deliciously — or that it would turn into such a potential “red pill” moment on the realities of Jewish power in Britain today.

It happened during a BBC interview with leading Labour left-winger and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone. He was being interrogated about a witless female Muslim Labour MP who had lost her job over a re-tweet she made two years ago, despite apologising in public four times. Pressed to repent, Livingstone finally snapped and came out with the fated words.

Hitler was supporting Zionism… Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel.

For good measure he then said the woman, Naz Shah, was the victim of a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby” and repeated it all later. Read more

Cameron tax bombshell and Tory civil war: Who’s dropping banana skins on the road to Britain’s EU Referendum?

The campaign to keep Britain in the European Union is unravelling by the day. The prospect of an easy win for the ‘Remain’ camp is vanishing, as a succession of banana skins and a brutal civil war in the Conservative party wipes out a poll lead that seemed unassailable just a few weeks ago.

None of this was supposed to happen; indeed, there was never even supposed to be an EU vote at all. When David Cameron promised an “in-out” referendum before the last UK general election, it was a cynical and empty PR stunt.

First, because he expected, at best, to end up leading another minority government, in which his Lib-Dem partners would block any such referendum.

Second, even if the unexpected did happen, there was big existing majority of the UK electorate (which, of course, is increasingly not the same as the actual British people) in favour of continued membership.

With the ‘Yes’ campaign backed not just by the government but also by most of the political elite, and massively funded by big business, there was no reasonable hope of this changing. Read more

Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn: Fighting the Jewish Establishment

It is hard to think of two politicians further apart than Britain’s Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump. Corbyn is a Marxist class warrior steeped in identity politics while Trump is, well, Trump.

The similarity is in who they have managed to antagonise. For both have incurred the wrath of the media through the perception that they are not totally beholden to Jewish political priorities.

Since the moment Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the opposition in Britain in September, he has undergone a media demonization that is surely unprecedented in its intensity and duration. Like phosphorous bombs on Gaza, the abuse rains down on him from all points on the compass, day after day. It is hard to keep up with all the accusations but broadly, Corbyn is accused of harbouring or sympathising with “anti-semitism” which is defined as previous association with Islamic preachers, sympathy with the Palestinian cause and his insistence that the Iraq war was a criminal mistake.  It has now reached the stage where ‘anti-semitism in the Labour Party’ is a bigger daily story than the impending referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

All the elements of Jewish communal defence have been mobilized in this campaign but it has been spearheaded by the British Board of Deputies and the main Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle. The Jewish vigilante group, the CST have weighed in.

How did this happen? Corbyn is probably the most left-wing leader Labour has ever had and a believer that borders are a thing of the past. He would flood Britain with refugees tomorrow, if he could. Read more

The Legacy of Tony Blair: Deception and Jewish Ethnic Strategizing in the Creation of Multicultural Britain

tony_blairBroken Vows
Tom Bower
London: Faber & Faber, 2016

Few political indiscretions in Britain have had the effect of the Andrew Neather leak of six years ago. The former speech writer for Tony Blair recalled a speech on immigration he had worked on and wrote:

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—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

The effects of this slip still reverberate today. Only now as we look back only eighteen years can we really discern the outline of something that had long been suspected—that there was a hostile secret agenda to impose multiculturalism on Britain and to transform the country beyond recognition.

More evidence for this has been gathered in a new book by journalist Tom Bower titled Broken Vows. Bower has interviewed 200 members of Blair’s administrations including the civil servants closest to immigration decision making. The sheer scale of the deception takes the breath away. Blair is said to have told ministers and officials: “Don’t mention the advantages of immigration in public because they won’t even want that.” Read more