Has Britain’s referendum victory been stolen?  The forces of darkness have quickly reasserted themselves and the portents are now very grave.  Both the outgoing prime minister David Cameron and his possible successor Boris Johnson are both now saying trade must come before immigration curbs.  Nigel Farage, the face of Brexit, has accused them of backsliding but may himself have been already “frozen out” out of the European exit negotiations by more establishment figures in the broad Brexit alliance.

This would only confirmed the growing suspicions about the real motives behind the Conservatives who had so belatedly joined the Leave camp. Boris Johnson was worryingly vague about any change of European freedom of movement rules saying “It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so.” If there is a stab in the back then it is an inside job.

But it is the statements made by two prominent UKIP members, two prominent Leave members, one UKIP one Conservative, that have really caused alarm.  Both Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan are still committed to freedom of movement across Europe which essentially negates the entire point of the referendum in the minds of most voters.

Both Carswell, who is an MP, and Hannan, who is an MEP,  are prominent conservative writers with strong free market affiliations and City of London connections.

But in fact both men have been sniping at Farage and questioning his leadership long before the referendum. At the height of the campaign Carswell was pouring abuse on his party leader, not least for a gritty refugee poster, and he then went to opine that Farage was “not a serious person.”

The offensive poster

But while both men are disloyal to Nigel Farage and worryingly “flexible” on the core issue of immigration, there are some causes to which they do display unquestioned loyalty. Both are staunch friends of Israel and have gone out of their way to reassure the Jewish community that, whatever happens, they do not need to worry.

Read more

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

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.

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