© by Rob Ager 2009


During the past forty years there have been a handful of referendums in Britain. They include the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum 1973, United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum 1975, the Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, and the Welsh devolution referendum 1997.

In 2003 Britain, under the New Labour government, invaded Iraq along with America and the other coalition nations. Despite massive public opposition, no referendum was held.

Last year the people of Ireland held a referendum on The Lisbon Treaty and they rejected the bill. This opportunity to vote was something the British people were denied by New Labour, which has in turn severely damaged New Labour’s popularity and virtually guranteed their ejection in the next national election. The reason New Labour took this incredibly unpopular approach to the treaty is simple. They knew the British people would reject the bill. Study group polls consistently reflect the declining popularity in Britain of the EU and the public desire for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Even Flash Eurobarometer research arranged by the European Commission gives less than favorable UK public opinion results.

Luckily, Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty stopped it in its tracks (all EU member states are required to ratify the treaty for it to be allowed to pass), but apparently the EU are unable to accept a “no” vote. They simply decided to hold another Irish vote the following year, only this time they kept it a much more low key media event and the result was a “yes” vote. Only two more countries are required to pass the Lisbon Treaty into law.

Regardless of whatever haggling, manipulation or arm twisting went on to sway the Irish vote, the people of Europe are now in the position of being pulled even further under EU bureaucratic control. To put the undemocratic nature of the Lisbon Treaty ratification process into context, I’ll summarize the history of how the Treaty came into being:

1.The Lisbon Treaty originally began as a bill called the European Constitution and in order to pass into law it needed to be ratified by all EU member states.
2.Only four of the ten planned referendums on the bill were held.
3.The people of Luxemburg and Spain passed the bill, while the people of France and the Netherlands rejected it.
4.As a result the referendums in Poland, Portugal, Denmark and the UK were cancelled.
5.Rather than accept that the EU Constitution wasn’t wanted by the people of Europe, the EU Council repackaged it as The Lisbon Treaty. Again, in order to pass into law it needs to be ratified by all EU member states.
6.Only one country held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – Ireland. They rejected it in 2008.
7.In 2009 the Irish were told to vote again on Lisbon. This time they passed the bill.
From the above sequence of events the EU Council (also known as the Consilium) has shown its true face. They’re willing to go through seemingly democratic processes regarding what laws they wish to introduce, so long as they think those laws will be approved by the people of Europe (they were vastly over-confident about the EU Constitution), but when they know the people of Europe will reject their proposals, they scrap the democratic process all together and put it into law anyway by refusing referendums across the board. The so-called ratification of the Lisbon Treaty is simply staged (and poorly at that) democracy and economic coersion (bribery).

On the national scale, the populations of European countries are confronted with parties in power who hold more allegiance to the wishes of the EU Council than they do to their own voters. One of those parties in power, the current New Labour government of the UK, will be the main focus of this article, though we will discuss much broader issues in the process.

New Labour are fully aware that the people of Britain want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. This Timesonline article explains a recent poll on the matter and states: “58 per cent agree that Britain has given the EU too much power, including a clear majority of supporters of all main parties. Twenty-eight per cent say the balance is about right and 6 per cent say too little power has been given to the EU. If other countries ratify the Lisbon treaty, 82 per cent say that Britain should hold a referendum on the issue. Just 13 per cent disagree.” And a very important issue is that the British people do not want to again be ruled by the lying bureaucrat Tony Blair, who helmed New Labour during its first two terms in office and could be installed as the EU president in the near future: “The poll contains a blow to Tony Blair’s hopes of becoming EU president if the Lisbon treaty goes through: 63 per cent are against his appointment, compared with 34 per cent in favour.”

Despite the overwhelming public pressure for New Labour to do a u-turn and hold a referendum, they are committing pre-election suicide in order to ensure the Lisbon Treaty becomes law. For an explanation of this bizarrre logic we need look little further than the example set by former New Labour leader and British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He consistently went against the will of the British people on a number of issues, some of which we’ll explore shortly, and demolished his own reputation with the voters. However, Blair is now on the cards as a possible EU president. There can be little doubt that his track record as Prime Minister was driven, at least partially, by a desire to climb the bureacratic career ladder in Brussels. That could also be the case with the many other politicians in Britain who are fighting to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum when they could easily gain votes by doing the opposite.

So how will the Lisbon Treaty affect Britain?

Well, the first factor to consider, and this appears to be the basis of mass rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, is that it will continue the problematic aspects we currently have under EU membership, some of which we will explore shortly (primarily massive financial loss, mass immigration and legal superiority over many British laws). Its actually a series of amendments to the Maastricht Treaty 1991 (Treaty on European Union), which created the euro currency and allowed free movement of EU citizens between member states. However, it isn’t the first amendment. There was the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 and the Treaty of Nice 2001. Each of the treaties is basically part of an “integration” process that gradually puts our financial and legal institutions under increasing EU control. People want the opposite of this, they want a decreased power of the EU over their national government. Rejecting the Lisbon Treaty is a way of voicing that desire.

But one very important detail of the Lisbon Treaty is that it creates a new permanent “PRESIDENT OF THE EU COUNCIL” position. From the EU website description of the post:

“the Constitutional Treaty establishes a permanent President of the European Council, who will take on the work currently assigned to rotating Presidencies. He/she will be elected by qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end his or her mandate according to the same procedure. … Finally, the Constitution stipulates that the President of the European Council may not hold a national mandate at the same time. It will therefore be impossible for a sitting Head of Government of a Member State to be President of the European Council, as is the case today. This is because of the burden of work associated with the Presidency of the European Council, particularly in an enlarged Union of 25 Member States. However, this does not prevent the President of the European Council from holding another mandate at the same time within another European institution. This allows for the possibility, in future, of combining the functions of President of the European Council with those of the President of the Commission, if the Member States so wish.”

What the above description does not explicitly state is that MEPs (the people you vote into the EU parliament) will have no say in who becomes the permanent EU president. The possibility of a combined president of both the European Council and Commission would invest an incredible amount of power in one individual.

Let’s take a broader look at the EU and its institutions.


Corruption in the EU and Financial Cost to the Member States

The creation of a European Union has been long in the making and has occurred in an incremental form.

According to this document by the Brugesgroup, “Membership of the European Union costs Britain £60.1 billion per annum gross or £50.6 billion net.” The document then calculates “That is the equivalent for every man, women and child in Britain of £1,002 per annum gross or £843 net. Or the equivalent for every tax-payer in Britain of £1,939 per annum gross or £1,632 net.”

According to chief-exec of the Tax-payer’s Alliance Matthew Elliot and management consultant David Craig the EU costs Britain £118 billion per year.

This oficial document explains the UK as providing 12.2% of the EU’s total budget “after abatement” in 2006. This is calculated in the same document as a net contribution of £2.8 billion from a gross contribution of £12 billion, but this is contrasted in the appendix in that the UK government’s own account holds the net contribution figure as £3.9 billion. The report offers several “probable causes” for the difference of balance. In other words they don’t have a definitive explanation as to why there is a difference of over £1 billion between the two accounts.

This particular uncertainty regarding UK financial contributions to the EU budget is something I picked up of my own accord, but I’m a mere layman on the subject of finance. So if you want a much more detailed and authoritative source on questionable EU financial accounts then try reading Marta Andreasen’s book Brussels Laid Bare. Marta was the EU’s Chief Accountant back in 2002 and decided to blow the whistle on their accounting practices. Here are some quotes from chapters 2 and 3 of Brussels Laid Bare:

“Numbers in the computerized reports came in from day to day. Some of the accounts came in on spreadsheets on which anyone can make changes – and thus if these were manipulated, leave no electronic trail. Some of the accounting did not even incorporate double-entry book-keeping – a system invented by the Italians in the 16th century – in which the two effects of every financial transaction are recorded: first where the money comes from or goes to and, secondly, what is the item or service that is being paid for or received … Scarily, thousands of payments were being made out of the budget every week – for serious sums of money … I asked for a list of all those who could – electronically – authorize such payments. But this was not forthcoming – ever.” p14-15

“One of the first things I found out was that the opening balance for the EU accounts for 2001 didn’t match the closing balance for the 2000 accounts. There was a gap of almost 200 million euros.” p15

“I was amazed to discover that in the Commission there was NO central register of the recipients of all funds paid out.” p16

“Incredibly, nobody appeared to be worried about the control of the other 90 percent of “indirect payments” – where the Commission paid funds to a local agency or ministry in one of the member states, who then passed on the money to the final beneficiary.” p16

“When I finished no one uttered a word and Maison simply moved on to another subject: The future of the EU budget and a new Financial Regulation (EU accounting law) … This proposed eliminating the existing “Validity of discharge for payment.” In a word, this meant that payments could be processed directly to the bank by different directorates – without my staff checking the supporting documents to establish that the payment was for the right amount, for the approved purpose and was going to the right person.” p20-21

“Maison made it clear that not only did he not want me interfering in any of his plans for “reform” embodied in the new Financial Regulation, but that he wanted me to be the one to present it to the Council of Ministers. If there was any gunfire, I would be the one in the front line!” – p26

“At the end of my speech, Maison commented that this was the first time that the Commission has a Chief Accountant who was a qualified accountant.” p31

“Any proposals I made for new computer systems – even those needed on the gounds of direct necessity – were waved away on account of ‘budget limitations’.” p31

“According to my research, I could see that at the end of 2001 the under-expenditure was 15 billion euros – 10 billion euros more than the 5 billion figure the Commissioner appeared to be reading from her reports. … she had already been in the job, and presumably followed the budget, for two years, and yet didn’t appear to have noticed that ten billion euros had gone walkabout. … Shreyer’s cabinet had instructed the Accounting Services to send reports directly to them via e-mail – so no one could be sure that the Commissioner had got to see the figures actually produced by our department. To me it was fairly obvious that the figures and reports were pretty well cooked before they ever reached the Commissioner’s desk.” p33

Another whistleblowing incident in the EU was that of MEP Paul Van Buitenan, which led to the resignation of the entire EU Commission in 1999. Again financial corruption was the issue at hand. The opening summary in this house of commons report on the event states “The implications for the EU of the mass resignation are potentially serious, and the Commission’s credibility, as it continues to represent the EU in international fora, risks being seriously undermined as a result of the Committee’s report into its activities and failures.” Here’s a more recent incident of Van Buitenan battling to expose EU corruption, in which fraud investigators at OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) were found to be travelling with the very EU officials who they’re responsible for investigating.

Again in 2006, the EU accounts were unsatisfactory. The EU website admits “the report mentions weak internal controls for the majority of EU expenditure, and a high incidence of errors in the underlying transactions.” The page offers a link to the Annual Report in question.

According to the figures listed on Wikipedia, based upon the Open Europe (a think tank for EU reform) estimates for EU-27 budget for 2007-2013 in euros, Britain will put 103 billion euros into the EU but will only get back 47 billion – that’s a loss of 56 billion euros from the UK economy. So we put twice as much money into the EU as we take out – surely that’s a bad investment. From the same list of EU member state contributions, I calculated that the EU will take in a total of 839.5 billion euros for the period of 2007-2013 and gives back only 777 billion to the countries that contributed. Where does the remaining 62.5 billion go?

Those of you who are pro-EU and who have heard my Liverpool accent on my videos may be thinking “Why isn’t this guy grateful for the £800 million boost to his city’s economy resulting from its selection as European Capital of Culture?” Those of you asking that question have probably not come across the financial figures listed in the previous paragraph. If Britain didn’t have 56 billion euros worth of its money disappearing into the EU accounts over a period of five years, never to be seen again on our shores, then the UK government could give several times the £800 million investment to every one of its major cities in the same period. The European Capital of Culture award is a propaganda stunt that not only hides the fact that Britain is making massive financial losses to the EU on a regular basis, but the scheme is also used to force multiculturalism on the city as a pre-condition of the investment … political / economic bribery, EU style. It is not about celebrating Liverpool’s existing culture, but transforming it according to the wishes of the EU and New Labour. The EU has been doing this on a systematic basis with cities across Europe since 1985. Forced multiculturalism and its true purposes will be further explored in chapter four of this article.

Several revealing factors about the EU-27 budget for 2007-2013 can be found in the following Choropleth map.

The countires are colour coded according to their ratio of financial contributions and returns relating to the EU budget. At the dark red end of the scale countries like Sweden and Germany get back far less from the EU budget than they pay in (notice that the UK is in the red), while at the light blue end are countries which get back far more than they contribute.

It seems the EU Commissioners were savvy enough to give Ireland a marginal return on its investments being that they knew Ireland, under the requirements of its own constitution, would have to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. If Ireland was Given as bad a financial deal by the EU as the rest of Britain, a “no” vote would have been even more forthcoming.

Specifically, notice that money is being sucked away from central Europe and given to eastern Europe: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece – and over on the Western coast, Portugal. Why the very deliberate Eastern transference of money? To answer this we simply need to look at the order in which member states joined the EU. I’ve colour coded the country names according to their codes on the choropleth map above.

•1952 – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands
•1973 – Ireland, Denmark, United Kingdom
•1981 – Greece
•1986 – Portugal, Spain
•1995 – Finland, Sweden, Austria
•2004 – Cyprus, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, Estoria, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovenia
•2007 – Romania, Bulgaria
The general patterns are simple.

1.The longer your country has been a member of the EU the less it gets back for its money (apart from the curious example of Luxembourg, which has the greatest return on its investment of all EU member states).
2.Taxpayer’s money from longstanding, western and central European states is being used to bribe new countries on the eastern flank into EU “integration” (“control” is a more appropriate word).
3.The EU as a whole is becoming an ever larger superstate, ever expanding into Asia. Notice in the order in which member states joined the EU charts that several more countries are negotiating to join.
Regarding these patterns some important question arise.

1.Will there ever come a point at which the longstanding member states get back as much as they pay in? … Or will their contributions always be used to enlargen the territorial boundaries of the EU?
2.After 2013 will the newer Eastern EU member states, by then under full EU bureaucratic control, find that they also get back far less for their money? Will their contributions be transferred to other potential member states, as ours are now?
3.Why are there a few exceptional longstanding member states that still get back far more than they put in (Luxembourg, Belgium, Greece)?
The third question is relatively straightforward to answer. The majority of EU institutions (Commission, European Council, Council of Ministers, Economic and Social Committee, Comittee of the Regions, Court of Justice, Court of Audit, European Investment Bank), are based in Belgium and Luxembourg so naturally these two countries, and hence the EU bureaucracy, will always be favourited for investment (scroll back up to the map and notice how Luxembourg has been colour coded in black, which makes its outstanding investment returns less visible – the creator of the map is anonymous). Greece is a different story. Although an EU member since 1981, Greece is situated along the South Eastern flank of Europe with several neighbouring countries that are not yet EU members. Investment in Greece will help facilitate south eastern expansion.

The overall transference of wealth from richer member states to poorer member states on the Eastern front could be argued as a humanitarian endeavour, but if it was truly humanitarian then EU membership wouldn’t be required.

Back to the UK relationship with the EU, membership means our country is left open for citizens across Europe to flood in, despite the fact that Britain is already one of the most densely populated countries in Europe (see map below).

The monetary figures offered so far (a loss of 56 billion euros from the UK to the EU budget for the period of 2007-2013) don’t even take into account the cost to the British welfare system caused by an influx of immigrants who are unable to support themselves. Although the official figures still hold that over 92.1% of the British population are white, I have witnessed first hand during my work in homeless hostels over the past five years, an increasing ratio of UK residents needing housing and welfare benefits, who are not British born. Many of them speak little or no English and as such are not useful to the British economy. Not only that, but according to this telegraph article British tax payers pay child benefit for over 50,000 non-UK residents. At the moment these financial burdens can only be stopped by the UK withdrawing from its EU member status.

Note: for those of you who are inclined to take the above paragraph as a racist statement – read on. I will shatter that inclination and demonstrate that I’m far more interested in REAL equality than either the EU bureaucrats or the New Labour party leadership.

Decision-Making in the EU

Let’s now explore how decisions are made in the EU and to what degree the politicans you vote for are able to influence those decisions. In Britain, as with other EU member states, we have national elections where we vote in our own national leaders. However, we also have European Parliamentary Elections, in which we vote politicans into seats in the EU. Naturally we vote for whoever we believe will represent our interests, but what actually happens is that once elected, the MEPs no longer represent their own national parties. They become members of European Political Parties, or in short Europarties. Here is a breakdown of the current Europarties and their share of seats

These Europarties are funded directly by the EU. So when you vote to send your local New Labour or Conservative candidate to the EU parliament, you don’t really know which Europarty you are supporting. For example, were you aware that Britain’s member of the EU Council, Gordon Brown, is a member of the second largest party in the EU parliament – the Party of European Socialists? The largest party, with twice as many seats, is the European People’s Party. This puts the UK representation as a whole, in a minority position.

Another factor is that no matter who you elect as an MEP their purse strings within the EU parliament are controlled by the EU Budget. A parliament within which all parties are depending upon the same funding source is hardly democratic because it places far too much influence in the hands of those dishing out the funds, in this case the EU Council. If certain Europarties are going strongly against the wishes of the EU council (or being ‘Euroskeptic’) then they could easily find their party affected by strategic funding cuts.

Europarties are under strict financial regulations, but as Marta Andreasen revealed, the EU Council doesn’t necessarily follow its own financial rules. Consider that only a tiny fraction of the financial contribution from EU member states is reinvested in these Europarties – the total budget for all Europarties in 2008 was only 10.6 million euro out of a total EU budget of 116 billion euro for the same year. That’s approx 0.01% of the total EU budget (one ten thousandth) or one twentieth of the 200 million euro that went missing from the EU budget between its 2000 – 2001 financial accounts. No wonder the Europarties and MEPs find it so hard to influence the EU Council.

Britain has 72 MEPs out of a total of 785 in the European Parliament, although it had 78 MEPs prior to the most recent election. The UK Office of the European Parliament states;

“The last elections took place on Thursday 4 June 2009, when the UK’s 72 MEPs were chosen. The newly-elected MEPs take their seats in the new Parliament on Tuesday 14 July 2009. The number of MEPs has been reduced from 78 as a result of the enlargement of the EU.”

So the more countries join the EU, the less influence individual member states have.

The EU tries hard to present itself as a democratic organization, but the processes through which laws are passed in the EU Parliament can hardly be called democratic. The Europarties are not allowed to draft proposals for new European laws. They are only allowed to vote on the ones put forward by the EU Commission. On that basis laws are only proposed in the EU parliament that serve the interests of the EU Commission. Here it is in the EU’s own words

“The Commission has a monopoly of legislative initiative in all the areas which are subject to the codecision procedure. In accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty), only the Commission may put forward legislative proposals. … The Commission has the ‘right of initiative’. In other words, the Commission alone is responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation, which it presents to Parliament and the Council. These proposals must aim to defend the interests of the Union and its citizens, not those of specific countries or industries.”

So let’s clarify who exactly the EU Commission and EU Council are and how their members are appointed. The EU Council basically consists of the heads of states from each EU member country, with prime minister Gordon Brown currently representing the UK. Regarding the EU Commission, in the EU’s own words.

“The term ‘Commission’ is used in two senses. First, it refers to the team of men and women – one from each EU country – appointed to run the institution and take its decisions. Secondly, the term ‘Commission’ refers to the institution itself and to its staff. … They have all held political positions in their countries of origin and many have been government ministers, but as Members of the Commission they are committed to acting in the interests of the Union as a whole and not taking instructions from national governments. … The day-to-day running of the Commission is done by its administrative officials, experts, translators, interpreters and secretarial staff. There are approximately 23 000 of these European civil servants. That may sound a lot, but in fact it is fewer than the number of staff employed by a typical medium-sized city council in Europe. The ‘seat’ of the Commission is in Brussels (Belgium), but it also has offices in Luxembourg, representations in all EU countries and delegations in many capital cities around the world.”

So whenever we hear the term “EU Commission” or “Commission of the EU” or “the Commission”, it could mean the 27 appointies from the members states (the EU Council), the 23,000 EU Civil Servants or any combination of the two. The 23,000 EU Civil Servants are appointed by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). Some of them are permanent staff and some are contracted.

Protection Against Foreign Threats (Eastern and Western)

Those of you reading this who are pro-EU (if you have endured reading this far) may currently be thinking one or more of the following regarding my stance on the EU …

1.”He’s a right wing nationalist.”
2.”He’s ignoring environmental issues, on which EU membership creates more global consensus and action.”
3.”He’s ignoring the importance of an integrated European defence strategy, in the event of aggression from an increasingly strong China or an economically recovering Russia.”
4.”He’s ignoring that we need a European Union to stop European countries from fighting each other.”
Any “right wing nationalist” concerns will be thoroughly addressed in chapter four of this article.

The environmental issues are a complex subject that are beyond the immediate scope of this article, but one point I will make on the subject is that there is not yet a scientific concensus regarding the presence, severity, cause or effect of “global warming / climate change” [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The people who are claiming that there is scientific concensus are predominently politicians seeking new tax laws and politically funded / filtered science groups [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. When the politicans tell you that we don’t have time to wait for consensus because we must act now for the good of all … remember that those same arguments were also used by the same media / think tank / political networks to push the war on terror and invasion of Iraq … and look where that got us. It’s commonly referred to as “alarmism” [1] [2] [3] [4].

The issue of preventing wars, both within Europe and globally, I would like to address immediately by referring you to a 1997 book called The Grand Chessboard by US foreign policy guru and presidential policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. The tagline on the book cover sums up its content fairly well “American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperitives”. It’s basically a book about how the US establishment can dominate the world by dominating Asia. The smooth-talking Brzezinski tries his utmost to make imperialism sound a noble cause, but regardless the book is revealing on many issues and contains some quite shocking statements, (eg, “America is also too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of American power, especially its capacity for military intimidation.” p35), but the following quotes relating to the European Union are of interest for our subject here:

“Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead on the Eurasian continent. America’s geostrategic stake in Europe is enormous. Unlike America’s links with Japan, the Atlantic alliance entrenches American political influence and military power directly on the European mainland. At this stage of American-European relations, with the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. security protection, any expansion in the scope of Europe becomes automatically an expansion in the scope of direct U.S. influence as well.” p59

“An America that truly desires a united and hence a more independent Europe will have to throw its weight behind those European forces that are genuinely committed to Europe’s political and economic integration. Such a strategy will also mean junking the last vestiges of the once-hallowed U.S.-U.K. special relationship.” p50 (This reads almost like an announcement that the U.S. will disown Britain if it doesn’t join the EU)

“The politcal elites of two leading European nations – France and Germany – remain largely committed to the goal of shaping and defining a Europe that would truly be Europe. … But each is committed to a somewhat different vision and design, and neither is strong enough to prevail by itself. This condition creates for the United States a special opportunity for decisive intervention. It necessitates American engagement on behalf of Europe’s unity, for otherwise unification could grind to a halt and then gradually even be undone.” p60 (Brzezinski doesn’t state what kind of “American engagement” this will consist of)

(Regarding possible French leadership of the EU) “Even Germany could perhaps be seduced into acceptance of a united, but independent (of America) Europe, but only if in fact it felt France was in fact a global power and could thus provide Europe with the security that Germany cannot but America does.” p64-65. (This also explains the logic behind the following two statements)

“In the short run, tactical opposition to French policy and support for German leadership is justified.” p72

“America must work particularly closely with Germany in promoting the eastward expansion of Europe. American-German cooperation and joint leadership reagarding this issue are essential. … Combined American-German pressure will be especially needed to obtain the required unanimous agreement of all NATO members, but no NATO member will be able to deny it if America and Germany jointly press for it.” p 79-80

“Tacit American support made it possible for France and Germany to push the process of Europe’s unification forward.” p65 (the author doesn’t state in what form this “support” took place)

“The central issue for America is how to construct a Europe that is based on the Franco-German connection, a Europe that is viable, remains linked to the United States, and that widens the scope of the cooperative democratic international system on which the effective exercize of American global primacy so much depends.” p71 (notice the contradiction between this call for a “democratic international system” and Brzezinski’s statement from page 35 that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad”.)

“It is conceivable that at some point a truly united and powerful European Union could become a global political rival to the United States. It could certainly become a difficult economic-technological competitor, while its geopolitical interests in the middle-east and elsewhere could significantly diverge from those of America. But, in fact, such a powerful and politically single-minded Europe is not likely in the foreseeable future.” p75

“America’s central geostrategic goal in Europe can be summed up quite simply: It is to consolidate through a more genuine transatlantic partnership the U.S. bridgehead on the Eurasian continent so that an enlargening Europe can become a more viable springboard for projecting into Eurasia the international democratic and cooperative order.” p86 (a “springboard for American interference” would be a more honest term)

These comments could be more easily dismissed if they weren’t being written by one of America’s most influential policy advisers. Among other things, Brzezinski was a co-founder of The Trilateral Commission in 1972, national security advisor to Jimmy Carter for four years, co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force in 1988, and he’s been very politically active through other policy think tank groups such as the Atlantic Council and CFR.

So in addition to the forced superstate “integration” from bureacratic players within the EU, we have the spectre of arm-twisting coersion from the U.S. political establishment. Brzezinski and friends want to use the EU as a dependent / secondary global superpower, which will in turn extend U.S. imperialist policy across the Eurasian landmass. U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are other, more prominent, examples of their global domination agenda. Is it possible that a United Europe would then be strategically pitted into destructive wars against China and Russia for domination of the entire Asian continent?

Regarding the need to fend off rising tyrannical Eastern superstates, which has been the base justification for aggressive U.S. foreign policy since WW2, I would like to recommend to you a series of books by Antony C. Sutton:

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986) – This book explains how the Soviet military might was built up during the cold war by covert support from U.S. banks and manufacturers, and how Congress deliberately avoided using the Trading With The Enemy Act to put a stop to it. This continued in spite of the Soviets providing assistance to America’s Vietcong opponents in the Vietnam war.

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976) – Sutton details how U.S. companies helped Hitler attain power and build up the Nazi military might and how this support continued during WW2.

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974) – In this book Sutton details how communism in Russia was covertly supported by the Wall Street establishment from its inception.

Each of these books is packed with documented evidence, such as sales receipts from treasonous weapon contracts and quotes from congressional investigative reports, and I’m yet to find a political writer who so strongly evidences his arguments. With the three books mentioned Sutton establishes a consistent pattern – the U.S. establishment has a habit of knowingly providing weapons, technology, financial support, and even loaning specialist personnel, to countries that the American public believe they are at war with. Basically, its a grand scale protection racket. In order to justify aggressive international policies, domestic tyranny, and a sky-high “defence” budget, the power-hungry U.S. establishment consistently needs to convince its population (and the world at large) that it is doing a good deed by fighting powerful “enemies”.

Other sources have independently reached similar conclusions to those of Antony Sutton, such as these documents published on this EU Facts page (being that the original documents are in German I’m unable to assure you of their translation accuracy and authenticity) and the findings of investigative journalist John Buchanan, which were then reported on by The New Hampshire Gazette, The Guardian and, surprisingly FOX News. Buchanan’s revealing documents on the subject can also be viewed at History News Network.

Regarding the more modern “threat” of communist China, the aforementioned Antony Sutton explained how the US assisted the rise of Communism in China and helped build the country into the superpower it is today. In 1986 he summed up “By about the year 2000 Communisrt China will be a ‘superpower’ built by American technology and skill.”(p181, America’s Secret Establishment).

If the U.S. establishment really wanted to stop Communism, terrorism or fascism then it could achieve a great deal by clamping down on its own covert support for such enemies. This would be much easier than going to war time and time again.

The Brzezinski book, mentioned earlier, raises a key factor that inadvertently supports Sutton’s take on all this: “The European era in world politics came to a final end in the course of World War II, the first truly global war.” (p5, The Grand Chessboard). WW2 significantly weakened most of the world’s most powerful nations, which allowed the U.S. to economically emerge as the undisputed global superpower. Cross reference this factor with the information in Sutton’s book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. The question begs to be asked … Did corrupt players within the U.S. aid the Nazi war effort deliberately to bring about the mutual weakening of all its global competitors? That would put the blood of over 60 million WWII deaths on their hands.

Try reading the aforementioned Antony Sutton books and then ask yourself whether you want a European Union that the war mongering U.S. establishment has its claws in.

EU Think Tank Networks

To appreciate the determination of the EU bureaucracy in creating its desired EU superstate, its important to explore its associated think tank groups. The membership of these groups are not necessarily EU civil servants, but more a mixture of academic scholars, business tycoons and politicians. However, what is important about these groups is:

•Their funding sources
•Their specific partnership alliances with other think tanks groups
•The external business and political interests of their individual members
As an example of these important factors, the think tank Bruegel claims to be independent and funded by membership only, yet it has a funding / partnership alliance with The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), which describes itself as “an American institution with an American Board of Trustees” with “offices in Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.” and which also has “received grants from the European Union”. So the think tank Bruegel has access to EU funds via the GMF, despite claiming to be independent. The Bruegel site also explains that its board members are elected by Partner Research Institutions (PRI’s), Group of State members and Group of Corporate members. So it’s not independent, it’s not funded wholly by membership fees and it’s strongly linked to a US think tank group with a specific interest in Germany.

The illusion of independence offered by EU think tank groups such as Bruegel can often be quickly shattered by a read through the partnership and funding information on their websites.

Other examples of think tank groups that operate an EU – US alliance of funds and membership are the Center for Applied Policy Research, Transatlantic Academy and Transatlantic Trends. A think tank called the International Crisis Group states on its website: “The International Crisis Group is an independent, multinational, not-for-profit organisation, based as a legal entity at 1629 K Street NW, Suite 450, Washington DC 20006, USA. International Crisis Group is registered as a not-for-profit organisation in Belgium, at 149 Avenue Louise, 1050 Brussels, Belgium as a branch of the U.S. entity with registration number 0872.781.947. This branch constitutes the international operational headquarters of International Crisis Group.” Pay particular attention to the Brussels Forum if you wish to follow EU issues as they relate to US interests. In its own words: “Brussels Forum is an annual high-level meeting of the most influential North American and European political, corporate, and intellectual leaders to address pressing challenges currently facing both sides of the Atlantic.” Here is the forum agenda for their 2010 meeting.

The expansionist motives of the EU are expressed by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). Their first founding principles states: “When faced by the great powers of today and the rising giants of tomorrow, individual European countries regard the world as beyond their control. But if it speaks with one voice, the European Union can help shape the world order.” Compare that statement with the following article title from the US based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): International Institutions and Global Governance: World Order in the 21st Century. In the CFR’s own words: “The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been the leading independent foreign policy organization in the United States since its founding in 1921.” It’s membership history strongly supports that point as it has included several US presidents. The CFR and ECFR certainly appear to share the same political ideology as well as their similar names. There is also a German Council on Foreign Relations (GDAP).

There are so many EU related think tank groups that it would take quite an effort to list them all here, but if you start searching online you will find them easily because they frequently contain links to each other. They form a giant pro-EU intellectual web, backed of course by EU funds. What is unsurprising is that virtually all of the EU think tank groups are in agreement on just about every major issue:

•they’re convinced of global warming theories (despite the world’s scientific community being divided on the subject)
•they support the discredited war on terror (at the very least they do nothing to oppose it)
•they don’t speak out against continued occupation of Afghanistan / Iraq or the fabricated WMD lies that got us into the Iraq war to begin with
•they don’t speak out against US foreign policy in general or its destruction of its own constitution and bill of rights.
•they spout diversity and equality rhetoric
•they are concerned about the growth of “extremism” (across the board this word has been replacing “terrorism”)
•they promote unrestricted immigration between EU member states
•they approve of increasing centralization and EU bureaucratic control over member states
•they seek ways to integrate more Eastern flank nations into the EU
•they support increasing taxation of EU citizens to bring more funds to the EU Commission
There are Euroskeptic think tank groups as well such as Open Europe, Global Vision and the Bruges Group, which ar far less subject to spouting the same group rhetoric as the Eu’s own think tanks.

For more info on EU think tanks try this link. For more on the EU, try the EuroFAQ website. In addition, the following page from the Open Europe site details the “top 100 examples of EU fraud and waste”.


New Labour New Danger

The above poster was distributed by the Conservative party in a 1997 general election campaign that saw them booted out of office and replaced by New Labour. The ad seemed pretty ridiculous at the time, but after three terms of New Labour government it now carries a ring of truth.

Labour did a pretty good job of selling itself to the British people in 1997. Since the previous election it had installed a young and charismatic new leader, Tony Blair, and tagged on the word “New” to its party name, thus becoming New Labour. The name change implied that there was something different and updated about the party. This had its appeals because after three prior terms in office for the Conservative party, the British people were screaming out for something new, yet many still feared their perceived shortcomings with the previous Labour party. For the first few years it seemed that New Labour were worth voting in. For starters they introduced a minimum wage (though the details discriminated against young workers). They also devoluted political powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (in the longer run this was a false gain because the entire UK is now falling under the control of the EU Commission).

But as the years went on New Labour morphed into an almost unrecognizable political entity, a New New Labour, if you will. A very important change, that goes completely against Labour’s supposedly socialist principles, is the increasing gap between rich and poor in Britain evidenced in the IPPR policy document State of the Nation. New Labour had helped the most severely poor of the nation, while at the same time making the fat cats a lot fatter.

There were also a barrage of stealth taxes under New Labour [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].

The War on Terror

The biggest New Labour change came in the form of Tony Blair’s absolute support of US policies in the war on terror, the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fascist activities at Guantanamo Bay.

As part of the war on terror New Labour introduced several pieces of legislature that basically amounted to the introduction of a surveillance / police state in Britain – Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, Civil Contingencies Act 2004, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Terrorism Act 2006, Counter-terrorism Act 2008. They’ve also tried vigorously to introduce compulsary ID cards, but have repeatedly delayed this due to public opinon polls were increasingly against it [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], partially based upon repeated instances of data on the population going missing under the New Labour government [1] [2] [3] [4] and partially due to the costs of the scheme, which could even be viewed as yet another New Labour stealth tax.

There are also a variety of surveillance laws that New Labour has introduced or tried to introduce in recent years [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

All these surveillance / police state laws can be naively perceived as an over-reaction to 9/11 and 7/7, but in actuality the process had already begun before the 9/11 attacks with the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 – an act that, much like America’s post-9/11 USA Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, offers an incredibly broad definition of what terrorism is. The following orange text is the definition of terrorism as explained at the beginning of the Act.

Terrorism: interpretation
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c )the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

4)In this section—

(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
These broad descriptions of terrorism run the risk that activists and dissenters against government corruption could be branded as terrorists, and thus imprisoned / punished unjustly, much like the spanish Inquisition burning witches. So here we have New Labour veering away from socialism and towards fascist legislature.

Gradually the war on terror lies have been unveiled through a variety of both mainstream and independent media sources. One of the biggest breakthroughs to my knowledge was Adam Curtis’s 3hr BBC2 documentary The Power of Nightmares (downloadable at this link) in 2004. More recently the documentary Taking Liberties specifically chronicles New Labour’s attack on civil liberties in the UK.

Iraq War

The triggering event for New Labour’s push for a police state was the World Trade Center Attacks of 9/11. 9/11 was such a global shock that it took years for the appropriate criticism of Tony Blair’s response to fully surface. Some people initially saw through the charade of falsified WMD evidence [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] used to justify the Iraq war, including high level politicians within the New Labour party such as Claire Short, and Michael Meacher. There was even the suspicious “suicide” of Dr David Kelly, but far too many of us simply weren’t able to comprehend the scale of lies we were being told.

In spite of continued and increased loss of public confidence in the validity of the war, New Labour maintained British military occupation of Iraq for the next six years. During that invasion and occupation the estimated number of violent deaths in Iraq range up to over a million people, depending on which report you read [1] [2] [3] (far in excess of those who died in 9/11 and 7/7), and then there’s the ecological damage of the conflict, the financial burden of waging the war, and the various other forms of suffering for the population of Iraq.

At the time of writing, the Chilcot inquiry is investigating the validity of the Iraq war and today tony Blair publicly announced his opinion that the war would have been right without the threat of WMDs. Is he covering for himself in case the inquiry concludes that the WMD threat wasn’t real.

Conspiracy theories and activist demonstrations

In 2005 the public were getting wise and increasingly suspiscious of not just New Labour, but their American partners in the War On Terror – the Bush Administration. This even reaached the point of an explosion of debates, books and documentary films about the 9/11 attacks being a possible “inside job” [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The mass media avoided covering this issue for as long as it could, but the documentaries became increasingly poular on the internet, with the film Loose Change becoming the most downloaded internet film ever. When the media coverage eventually came it was kept off the front pages and almost universally limited to repeated spouting of the “conspiracy theorist” smear slogan, while ignoring the stronger aspects of the conspiracy arguments and emphasizing the weaker points [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. If only the media had spouted the “conspiracy theorist” slogan in response to Bush / Blair’s claims of Iraq harbouring WMDs then perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the prevention of an unnecessary Iraq war. Or if they’d spouted “conspiracy theorist” in response to exaggerated claims of hordes of Al Queda sleeper cells hiding among us then they could have prevented New Labour passing their more draconian anti-terror legislature.

A much more appropriate response to the 9/11 conspiracy explosion would have been for the news media to feature it as headline news (thus dispelling popular beliefs that the news media follows a controlled content agenda) and to address the basic fact that this widely believed conspiracy theory, whether true or not, indicates a breakdown of trust between populations and their governments. That would have led to a much more healthy and productive debate rather than a mutual smearing competition that failed to resolve the conspiracy accusation issues.

At the same time as the 9/11 conspiracy boom the backlash was building against Tony Blair on a number of other issues including those mentioned earlier in this chapter, but Blair was marginally rescued by the significanly less shocking 7/7 bombings – itself a subject of conspiracy accusations, which isn’t helped by the fact that the attack still hasn’t been given a public enquiry [1] [2] [3] [4].

On 23rd September 2006 I marched in the Time To Go demonstration outside the Labour Party annual conference in Manchester, along with tens of thousands of other protestors. This protest was regarding a number of issues – a call to bring British troops home from Iraq, opposition to the trident missile program, and opposition to the imminent invasion of Iran [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] that America (and thus potentially New Labour’s Britain following suit) had been tentatively introducing to the political table based upon another “WMD threat”. Amazingly, the Time To Go demonstration received hardly a mention in the British mass media, yet a demonstration by a few dozen animal rights activists or one involving racial-conflict will get wide coverage, sometimes even in advance of the protests taking place [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

Peaceful Time To Go demonstration against Tony Blair / New Labour, Sept 23rd 2006, Manchester.

A large and peaceful demonstration such asTime To Go shows solidarity when the government is engaging in corruption. It shows that citizens can intelligently organise their opposition. It shows widespread public disatisfaction with the government that crosses race, age and ideological bariers (participating groups at Time To Go even included Communists and Palestinians). And it gives an important message of hope to British people that they can make a difference if they get involved – that they don’t have to sit back and watch the government get away with murder. Perhaps these are messages the establishment controlled media don’t want the population to hear. But they’re almost always happy to show demonstrations that result in violence by rival protestors or by the police, thus scaring readers away from future demonstrations.

Less than a year later, on 27 July 2007, Blair stepped down and handed over to Gordon Brown as his replacement for Prime Minister. Blair was then quickly snapped up as a middle east envoy on behalf of globalist organisations such as the EU and UN. Obviously those organisations were pleased with his work as Prime Minister in Britain, which again begs the question as to whose interests he was really serving as our Prime Minister. It’s ironic that he was given such a job, considering that the Arab world would distrust Blair for his support of US foreign policy in the middle east. And on top of this Blair is now being considered for the first job of an EU president [1] [2] [3].

From gold to Brown

Now let’s do a little background check on Gordon Brown. Prior to filling in as Prime Minister Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years. During his time in that position he made one of Britain’s worst ever economic decisions – now known as “Brown’s Bottom”. He sold off 60% of the Bank of England’s gold reserves when gold prices were at a 20 year low. Anyone with a basic knowledge of monetary history and banking institutions knows that gold has historically been the backbone of banking institutions – here’s a brief article from the Telegraph outlining this arguement. Financial experts warned Brown of the consequences of his decision, but not only did he do it anyway, he actually announced the day on which the Gold would be put on the market and how much gold would be sold. This drove the price down even further. Since Brown’s sale the price of gold has fired up from $250 an ounce to over $1,000 an ounce. Brown cost the British tax payer billions with this decision. The consequent reduction of gold reserves at the Bank of England may also have rsulted in the recent global financial crash hitting the UK economy harder. Many economists are predicting even more rises in gold prices the coming years, further adding to the UK financial loss. And if the world’s financial institutions learn from their recent global economic bubble burst and decide to get back to a gold standard as the basis of money then this will cause the price of gold to fire up many times more.

Can this be right? Gordon Brown makes an economic blunder that costs his country billions and then goes on to become Prime Minister. In the world of corporate business a blunder of this size would almost universally result in the firing of the inept decision maker.

Here’s a video of Brown being lambasted in the EU parliament both for his lack of a Lisbon Treaty referendum and his disastrous gold sale.

Like with Tony Blair, we need to ask where Brown’s true loyalties lie. Is Gordon Brown on a personal mission to bankrupt Britain so that we’ll go begging for a replacement of our national currency with the Euro? Considering New Labour’s previous dirty tricks and his statements in the above video, I wouldn’t put it past him. This BBC article explains how the money made from the sale of the gold was reinvested by Brown into foreign currency assets – 40% of it in Euros: “The $3.5bn of revenue raised in the sales was invested in interest-bearing assets denominated in dollars, euros and yen to the extent of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively.”

Although the British losses based upon the gold sale are called Brown’s Bottom, the Treasury’s Review of the sale of part of the UK gold reserves in 2002 defends the gold sale decision. So was Brown acting alone or in accordance with the wishes of behind the scenes bankers? Page 6 of the treasury report explains the “REASONS FOR, AND AIMS OF, THE UK GOLD SALES PROGRAMME”, (the gold price chart below proves just how wrong the treasury’s analysis was). On page 9, “The Government’s objectives for the sale programme were to sell gold in a transparent manner, over the medium term, fairly and with a view to obtaining value for money for the taxpayer.”

An interesting aspect of this is that several European Union countries have done the same thing . On page 4 of the aforementioned Treasury report, point 2.2 states: “The UK has sold a total of 395 tonnes at 17 auctions over the course of three financial years, the Swiss are in the process of selling around 1300 tonnes, the Dutch have sold around 800 tonnes and Belgium has sold around 1000 tonnes. The UK’s sales have reduced its holding from around 700 tonnes to around 300 tonnes. The World Gold Council estimates that official sector sales totalled 12 per cent of total supply in 2000.” Why this widespread EU member abandonment of gold in the face of a global economic debt bubble (the source of our current financial crisis and resulting credit crunch) that was ready to burst? One possibility is that it was part of a global banking strategy to suppress the price of gold – see Antony Sutton’s books The War on Gold and Gold for Survival for more on gold price suppression or the new Goldrush21 DVD (a 25 minute summary of which can be viewed here).

Surprise and objection by economists to Brown’s gold sales were also evident in the Swiss gold sales mentioned above and in other central bank gold sell-offs around Europe since 1990 [1] [2] [3].

Brown’s decision to announce the gold sales, thus lowering the price it was sold for, suggests it may have been done not for the profit of Britain, but as a deliberate transference of the gold to some other political interests (disguised as a market sale). At the moment I’ve been unable to track down who bought the phenomenal amounts of gold sold off by European banks. The following quote from page 25 of the Treasury Report is the closest i’ve come to this info: “All members of the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association), other central banks and certain international monetary institutions with accounts at the Bank of England were able to participate in the auctions making it demonstrably fair.” Also why is the Treasury so interested in making the sale “fair” to the buiyers. Aren’t they supposed to fetch the highest price they can in line with their intention of “obtaining value for money for the taxpayer”.

One would expect that the banks selling 12% of total world gold supply would cause a long term drop in gold prices since. But a glance at the following snapshot of gold prices at shows this simply isn’t the case. It briefly suppressed the growth of gold prices for a few years. Despite all the extra gold now supposedly existing on the market place, rather than being locked up in bank vaults, prices are soaring.

We’ll return to the subject of gold in a later chapter.

MPs Expenses

I need not go into the MPs expenses row in detail as it has received a great deal of media coverage and is a very recent event. However, I will add the observation that our new media have been more than willing to attack our own MPs over figures of money that are miniscule compared to the amount of money we lose to the EU, yet the latter is de-emphasized in the media.

Party funding scandals

Through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, New Labour introduced a law that UK political parties are only allowed to accept donations in excess of £200 from “permissible donors”, defined as either individuals on the electoral register, or political parties, companies, trade unions or similar organisations that are registered in the UK. New Labour then contradicted themselves by breaking this law in the Cash for Honours and Labour party proxy and undeclared donations scandals.

The Communist threat

So what else can we learn about New Labour? They’re a member of a global group Socialist International, whose headquarters are in Britain, and of the Europarty the Party of European Socialists or (PES). Its entirely possible that New Labour is little more than a branch of the PES, which effectively would mean Britain is being run by an external party. New Labour certainly isn’t interested in what the British people want and is much more likely aligned to the New Social Europe ideals of the PES, which can be viewed in this document and this promotional video. Bare in mind while reading / listening to the idealistic rhetoric of the PES that Britain’s New Labour has not been ejected from membership of the PES, or even disciplined, for participating in any of the instances of corruption described in this chapter.

PES / New Labour’s rejection of free market principles and promotion of welfare states across Europe is dangerous because socialism / Marxism can and has historically been the key stepping stone to communism. The Russians were promised equality through their socialist / communist / Marxist revolution and eventually they ended up with the opposite, a full blown police state under Stalin (Stalin took part in the bolshevik revolution of 1917 to establish socialist rule). A similar example is China.

The basic problem with socialism is that its proponents often don’t know when to stop. More and more power is centralized to the government under socialism, accompanied by repeated government claims that everything needs regulating and controlling to protect people’s rights. Increased power gives increased scope for corruption and fascist control.

Here is a short video explanation by Vladimir Bukovsky (who was an activist against the fascist Soviet union establishment) explaining the similarities of the rise of the soviet union and the rise of the EU.

Another notable organisation with strong New Labour links is the 140+ year old socialist think tank group the Fabian Society. Many aspects of New Labour propaganda rhetoric are mirrored in the publications of the Fabians.

Targeting Britain

One of New Labour’s greatest failures / successes, depending on whose interests you’re taking into account, is its widespread introduction of target-based management. Rather than give a lengthy breakdown of the issue here I advise the reader to obtain and watch a copy of the three hour Adam Curtis documentary The Trap: What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom. Presently all three one hour episodes can be watched on Google video [1] [2] [3].

The basic argument put forth in The Trap is that New Labour’s introduction of target-based management practices, and the giving of broad freedom to ambitious individual managers in how they meet those targets, has led to widespread lying and corruption in Britain. Rather then fulfill their targets genuinely, self-interested career sharks have found ingenious ways to manipulate statistics across the board to give the illusion of targets being met [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. (note: some of the linked examples are of New Labour themselves manipulating statistics to win over an increasingly distrusting public)

The documentary also mentions a practice called Perception Management, which was initially used by the American military as a foreign policy tactic of winning people over to the American way, but eventually snaked its way into politics on both sides of the Atlantic. Here is the definition as given in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms:

“perception management — Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations. See also psychological operations.”


Ethnic statistics given in this chapter, unless noted otherwise, are taken from the UK Census 2001, which can be viewed at the office of national statistics.

New Labour, since its 1997 campaign and election success, has consistently promised “equality” in Britain. Economic equality, social equality, gender equality, racial equality … they’ve promised equality across the board [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The apparent strive under New Labour to eliminate all prejudice and discrimination in British society has been a combined effort from the mainstream media, countless charitable organisations representing minority groups [1] [2] [3] [4] and of course the New Labour politicians. This has also created an interesting new facet in the world of business in the UK … diversity training.

On the surface its easy to assume that business managers, politicians and charities have simultaneously seen the light and decided to create a better, more equal world for us all. But what they’ve delivered is something very different.

Bear in mind, while reading this chapter, that New Labour and a compliant British media have wholeheartedly supported the implementation of police state laws in Britain, the demonization of Muslims and ethnic minorities as terrorists, the deportation of Asian men to face torture and long term imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, the fabrication of WMD lies against Iraq, as well as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi people. Never forget that New Labour and their allies have a great deal of blood on their hands. They are not the promoters of equality and human rights that they claim to be.

Meta discrimination

New Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, claims “Labour is the party of equality and we’ve done more than any government to promote fairness and equality.”, but the strive to give minority groups equal representation has been a selective one in that some minority groups are targeted for political / economic assistance and others are simply left to fend for themselves. I call this Meta Discrimination because it occurs at the decision making level of those who claim to promote equality. Here are some examples.

1) The pursuit of equality and social representation for Asians (which under the UK census doesn’t include the Chinese or other countries of the Far East / Orient) and black people is strong, but it is very weak for those from the Far East. Asians and black people are consistently encouraged to “integrate” into British culture [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and at times this appears to be against their will, yet East Asians (especially the Chinese) are not subject to this demand. East Asians are perfectly capable of integration, but are not subject to government pressure when they choose to form their own segregated neighbourhoods, nor are the rest of the population pressurized with ideas of “inclusion” of those from the Far East. There are eight Chinatowns in British cities, one of the major ones is in my home city of Liverpool. And there is virtually never any outcry against its presence.

2) While ethnic, cultural and religious segregation is deemed intolerable for Asians, segregation according to wealth is allowed to go on as usual with less political / media attention [1] [2] [3] and with children from poor and rich families being educated separately and under different conditions [1] [2] [3].

3) Race specific publications and leisure / community / entertainment events are frequently funded around specific ethnic minority groups [1] [2] [3], but white people / white British culture are almost universally excluded from holding such events in celebration of their own culture. For example there is a UK Black Pride organisation, which is backed by dozens of corporate and media sponsors, but there is no funding for white pride organisations. Those who do wish to celebrate their white ethnicity are left only with nazi-styled fascist groups, or BNP affiliated groups to turn to [1] [2] [3] [4]. We’ll return to this subject shortly.

4) Equality / representation for sufferers and ex-sufferers of mental illness is very limited. In fact for some mental illness groups the media systematically operates a demonization campaign. Sex offences, especially paedophilia, are the most extreme example of this [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This has even contributed to a shortage of men who are willing to work with children and is depriving children of much needed male role models [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It’s also led to adults fearing interraction with other people’s children in general [1] [2] [3] lest they be branded a potential sex predator. It’s led to parents keeping their children indoors lest they be attacked by a paedophile [1] [2]. And it’s led to false accusations / unfounded suspicions of paedophilic activity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] against innocent members of the public, which are difficult for the accused to shake off even when they’ve been proven innocent. Paedophilia is a serious mental health condition that needs genuine, honest and rationale debate backed up by well funded and unbiased research. In contrast to this widespread phobia of child molestors, the media has in recent years increasingly portrayed children in an over sexualized way [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Should we not be arresting the creators of over sexualized childrens magazines and music videos on suspicion of disseminating paedophilic media content?

5) Other mental health disorders that are left behind under New Labour’s equality push are schizopherenia and personality / psychotic disorders. This is a field I have a lot of experience in through my own line of work. I’ve seen time and time again how mentally ill people are put into flats in the community and left to fend for themselves with minimal support, all justified under labels such as “independent living” and “the tenant’s choice”. My own father died under these circumstances and my ongoing efforts to hold the care agencies accountable has been met with strong institutional resistance despite over-whelming evidence. The mentally ill are often isolated under lax community care programs because their mental health problems make it difficult to form friendships / relationships in the community. This frequently drives the mentally ill person to drugs or alcohol as a form of escapism and control of anxiety, which in turn leads to addiction and occasionally their premature death. [1] [2] [3]. The mentally ill are also often demonized in the media and subject to imprisonment for crimes that are a result of their illness [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [5].

6) Demonization of teenagers is another area in which equal rights don’t seem to apply under New Labour’s Britain [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Like with mental illness and paedophilia, antisocial behaviour from teenagers requires genuine, rational and honest debate about the true causes stemming from the overall structure of our society. In particular, white teenage males are currently losing out in Britain [1] [2] [3], apparently due to an anti-education culture that has emerged in their social group. The overwhelming identity pressure of our current celebrity culture, as opposed to worthy role models, is also harmful to teenagers [1] [2] [3] [4]. Copycat suicides are one of the most bizarre examples of the harmful power of celebrity culture. The sexual emphasis of our media induced celebrity culture may be one of the reasons for Britain having the highest rate of teenage pregnacies in Europe.

7) An area of inequality that universally gets almost no attention at all is people’s level of intelligence. I’ve worked with the homeless for many years and have frequently met people who are socially hampered by low intelligence and poor education. They’re often semi-literate, have poor concentration spans and limited control of their emotions. Many women in this respect have gotten themselves pregnant at an early age, resulting in pressures to raise children on state benefits or in some cases their children have been taken away from them by the state, leaving them and their children emotionally wrecked by the separation. A person with higher than average intelligence generally stands a much greater chance of succeeding in higher education and the workplace. We generally accept that these people are entitled to live a better life due to their career efforts, but how much of it is simple differences of intelligence? We treat people with physical disabilities and severe learning disabilities with dignity by providing them with decent lifestyles in the community, as if they were fully contributing to the economy like the average citizen. So should a person of slightly below average intelligence, who is confined to less mentally challenging forms of employment, be penalized by a lower standard of living and lower social status? It’s highly debatable, but the point I’m making is that it’s an area of inequality that New Labour is neither capable or willing to tackle.

All these forms of meta discrimination bring into question the motives and competencies of New Labour in presenting themselves as champions of “equality”, “diversity” and “inclusion”. Why do they fight tooth and nail for some minority groups and not others? It’s a simple question, but the information avialable on the subject is complex.

However, one of the big giveaways about New Labour’s agendas can be found in a particular area of inequality that I haven’t yet mentioned.

An increase in economic inequality

The truest reflection of an equal society is on the level of economic comparisons. There’s no point celebrating different cultures with glossy brochures and multicultural events if the people from those cultures are kept in the poor house. This is the bar by which we should judge New Labour’s equality achievements.

Unfortunately, New Labour has not delivered its equality promises on the all important economic level [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Here are some statistics and snapshots from a powerpoint presentation by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) relating to their research document Racing Away? Income Inequality and the evolution of High Incomes.

•The richest 10% to 1% of adults receive approx 37-40% of total personal income
•The richest 1% to 0.1% of adults receive approx 11% of total personal income
•The richest 0.1% (top one thousandth) of adults receive approx 4.3% of total personal income
•The top 1% to 0.1% of earners (£100,000-150,000 per annum) pay 31.8% income tax
•The top 0.1% of earners (£350,000-800,000 per annum) pay 35.2% income tax
•Despite New Labour’s rhetoric about sexual equality in the workplace, the top 10% of earners are predominently male (approx 73%). This figure rises to over 90% for the top 0.1% of earners.

Notice how the wealth curve fires straight up for the richest one thousandth of Britain’s population, yet the income tax for this super rich class only goes up slightly. The following graph from the same powerpoint document illustrates a timeline in rises of income for the top 10%, 1% and 0.1% of Britain’s earners under New Labour since 1996-7.

Here is a short 2008 press release by the (IFS) concerning the same document.

The reasoning as to why New Labour has failed to achieve its promises of economic equality is a difficult subject because it leads into areas of debate that are emotionally challenging for many people. At the most base level the answer is very simple … their promises of equality are a deception to passify the population, while New Labour aligns itself with the agendas of the already super rich and the European Commission. That may sound like a harsh judgement, but bear with me as I further the case.

Unrealistic promises & ridiculous assumptions

The Labour party’s criteria for what constitutes equality is deeply flawed. Back in 1976 Labour introduced the Race Relations Act, clause 37 of which enables companies in Britain to deliver training only to specific racial groups, while excluding others.

37. Discriminatory training by certain bodies.— (1) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in relation to particular work by [F153any person] in or in connection with—
(a) affording only persons of a particular racial group access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work; or
(b) encouraging only persons of a particular racial group to take advantage of opportunities for doing that work,

Basically the clause facilitates racist recruitment at the training level. The last sentence quoted above is interestingly vague. What kinds of “encouragement” of particular racial groups (and hence a lack of encouragement for others) are acceptable under the act? Here’s how the UK Film Council interprets this law under their so-called “positive action” recruitment policies.

Special encouragement such as targeted advertising and recruitment literature, reserving places for one gender on training courses or providing taster courses in non-traditional areas.

And another training organisation, Skillset, interprets it as follows:

The scheme was delivered under clause 37 of the Race Relations Act which allows training organisations to run programmes for people from black and ethnic origin groups which have been demonstrated to be under represented in a particular industry.

Clause 37, along with several other clauses in the Race Relations Act, enables direct exclusion of specific racial groups from training. It allows racism. The act doesn’t allow discrimination to occur directly at the recruitment level, but shifts the racist policy to the level of training, where it will be less noticed [1] [2] [3].
A year earlier, in 1975, Labour introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, which established the same rules, but this time allowing training to be targeted at one gender, while excluding the other.

So why would Labour introduce laws to combat discrimination, yet include clauses that specifically allow discrimination at the job training level? The first thing to note in this respect is that the act has served as a stepping stone to later policies introduced by New Labour, such as the Equality Act 2006, which was criticized in its early draft form for attempted legalizing of discrimination at the employment level [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Whenever Labour is in power it implements laws to facilitate discrimination, while claiming to fighting discrimination. They may as well be saying “We have to be racist to stop racism”.

The logic given within the acts is that if the racial makeup of a workplace is not equal to the ethnic makeup of the entire population then it can only be down to one thing … racism. New Labour leaders have an absurd belief that in a discrimination free society every workplace will have a staff team that is proportionally equal to the entire division of the population in terms of race, sexuality, religion, sexual orientation and disability, but the assumption is simply untrue. People from different social groups have different workplace interests. For example, we’re not going to get an equal percentage of males and females becoming makeup artists, construction workers, midwives or soldiers. White British people are less likely to work in the catering industries because our culture places less emphasis on the culinery arts. Japanese people have a much higher interest in animation than other cultures. Black men, particularly in America, have shown a much greater interest in becoming musicians. And Indian men tend to have more interest in the medical professions than white men do, hence they’re vastly over-represented as doctors.

The simple fact is that workforce disproportion is not in itself evidence of discrimination. It can just as easily be attributed to the preferences of different social groups.

In case the absurdity of New Labour’s equality crusade hasn’t sunk in yet, I’ll take my analogies a step further. In order to create a perfectly equal society that conforms to New Labour’s proportional expectations, in which no one has any advantage over anyone else and nobody is left with any reason to complain that they’re being discriminated against, here are some of the social changes we would have to achieve.

•Fashion magazines would have to recruit from a broad range of physcal types instead of discriminating in favor of “slim” and “attractive” models.
•Our legal institutions would have to adjust convictions so that the prison population was proportionally representative of the UK population. Currently it isn’t proportional.
•Stand up comedy and other forms of humour would have to be outlawed on the basis that most humour involves audiences relishing in the humiliation, embarrasment or misfortune of a particular individual or social group.
•People with ginger hair would have to be recruited to make up a 2 – 6% proportion of every workforce because that is the proportion of European populations falling into that hair colour group. To not do so could run the risk of a form of discrimination called “gingerism”.
•The social circles of every individual in the country would have to be monitored and adjusted to make sure they are proportionally socializing with the right kinds of people in the right numbers. If they aren’t then they may be racist.
•The content of all artistic media that depicts human beings would have to be monitored and adjusted to ensure the artist wasn’t showing preference in his choices of gender, age and race in his/her artwork.
•All verbal and written descriptions of scenarios involving a “him” or “her” protagonist would have to be replaced with a non-gender description.
•Competitive sports would have to be abolished because they encourage social oneupmanship, based partially on genetic differences between different individuals and sometimes between different races.
As an example of such ridiculous measures actually being taken, fire fighting services in Britain have now been given targets to recruit more women firefighters to combat sex discrimination [1] [2] [3]. Even the most hardcore feminist would have to admit that males have a physical constitution much more appropriate for the demanding tasks of a firefighter. Also included in this drive to remove apparent discrimination in the fire services was a series of recruitment days, which white male applicants were banned from taking part. The result of the entire scheme was that just one ethnic minority applicant was hired.

The following clip of a Margaret Thatcher speech is crude, but pinpoints that New Labour’s promise cannot be achieved without the party dictating what goes on not just in the workplace, but in the family home.

New Labour’s promise of universal equality is no more realistic than the utopian dream of communism. It can never be achieved.

Inequality is a part of life and in some instances is appropriate. If two people of roughly equal ability and with similar work opportunities differ in their willingness to work then one of those people should and will end up earning more than the other. Ability, motivation and reliability should always be the traits that an employer looks for in both the public and private sectors, and if one particular racial, sexual or social group displays those qualities more consistently then so be it – they should get the jobs so that we can all reap the benefits of the best service.

Another fact that New Labour policy makers are in denial of is that people naturally group together according to sameness. This is true on all levels of society. Football fans are drawn to other football fans, rather than chess enthusiasts, and generally towards those who support the same football teams. Both men and women tend to have mostly same sex friends. Alcoholics and drug addicts tend to hang out with their own. 98% of marriages in the UK are between people of the same ethnicity. Corporate bosses hang out with other corporate bosses. Even politicans are socially drawn to members of the same political parties or at least those who share the same ideologies.

This seeking out of familiarity and mutual interest is especially true culturally. We have pubs in Britain that are specifically themed to Irish people and hence draw a higher percentage of regular Irish customers. As previously mentioned there are many Chinatowns in Britain. New Labour and the British mainstream media often present such cultural hotspots as xenophobic and based upon underlying feelings of racism [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], but it’s the psychological similarities and mutual interests within any given culture that create its secular cohesion. The majority of the time skin colours are incidental. Evidence of this can be found in instances of “us and them” conflicts between groups of people sharing the same ethnic ancestry. For example, in North England personal feelings of rivalry are often displayed between white British people living in Manchester and Liverpool. Each group has a geographical and social cohesion of its own, despite being visually indistinguishable. Religion is another powerful example. People who have adopted opposing beliefs systems are not drawn to eachother. They are drawn to their own places of worship where they are surrounded by people who share their beliefs. This can even be said of New Labour leaders themselves – they are drawn to each other by mutual interests and shared beliefs.

Of course, from time to time people do naturally display a healthy interest in the lifestyles and beliefs of groups they aren’t familiar with, even if only to keep the peace. Its one of the core motives for holidaymakers. They like to explore and appreciate how other people live, even if they wouldn’t choose to live the same way. And this isn’t just done through holidays. People read both fiction and non-fiction books set in different cultures. They also watch foreign language films. This is how people naturally educate themselves about other cultures and celebrate their differences. And from time to time, people decide to make a lifestyle switch and adopt the lifestyle of a culture other than the one they’re born in.

But in New Labour’s fantasy reality the geographical separation of cultures must be erradicated so that every culture exists simultaneously, side-by-side, in every city, every street, every workplace and in every home. This is simply impossible. Throughout human history geographical proximity has been the key factor that bonds groups of people together. When people sharing the same land become divided into camps of incompatible belief systems they tend to reorganise themselves geographically to achieve separation and, if they’re willing, then establish a neighbourly tolerance and co-operation on matters of mutual interest.

The so-called “racist” element comes into play when groups of people with opposing belief systems happen to have different ethnicity. People sometimes forget about the psychological basis of their differences and begin to assume that skin colour is what separates them. Ask any classic “racist” why they feel hostility to another race and their feedback will primarily consist of objections to opposing economic interests and opposing perceptions of morality. One of the reasons the “racist” focuses on skin colour is because of its aesthetic simplicity, which is always a temptation for people who are angry and afraid, but its not the core reason for the “racist”s hostile position.

Misrepresenting Britain

So have New Labour simply gotten the wrong ideas into their heads about how to create a fair society, in which people have equal rights? Unfortunately the evidence suggests not.

A new trend emerging in Britain is the distortion of group statistics. An example of this, which I encountered a few years ago, is that the major funding bodies of the British film and TV industry have intentionally distorted ethnic statistics to give the impression that more white people are being employed than there actually are (See this article / video for more on the subject). The UK Film Council uses the ethnic workforce statistics of London (24% ethnic minority) to determine how its worforce should be ethnically proportioned. However, London is actually the central gathering place for the majority of film and tv production staff from all over Britain, so it should be the national ethnic statistics that are used. If the UK Film Council based its statistics on the national proportions of ethnicity in the UK (92% white) then its target for ethnic minority recruiting would drop from 24% to 8%. This manipulation of statistics causes white applicants for jobs and training to be discriminated against and thus underrepresented in the workforce. Another factor in UK Film Council recruiting is that the employment of short term contractors and full time employees are not differentiated ethnically. On that basis, full time work could be favorably given to one ethnic group, while short term contracts of just a few weeks per year could be given to another group. I also discovered the same distorting use of statistics at a company called Skillset, but this time the 35% ethnic minority statistic for inner London were used instead of the national statistic of 8%.

We see a similar statistical anomoly at the BBC. On the BBC’s Equality and Diversity page, workforce ethnicity targets are “12.5% for black and minority ethnic staff overall (status: 12% at 31 January 2009; 11% at 31 January 2008)”. Why 12.5% if only 8% of the British population are ethnic minorities? The BBC have already over-compensated by achieving a 12% ethnic minority proportion in 2009, but are continuing with an anti-white, racist recruitment and training campaign. If they really believe in proportional representation then they should be rolling it back to 8% to avoid unfairly excluding white candidates. The London Evening Standard correctly challenges the BBC’s axing of 1,800 jobs to save money, while spending £750,000 on ethnic recruiting.

Here is a case of a woman being rejected for a training progamme with the Environment Agency beacuse she was white English, as opposed to white Scottish, white Irish or white Welsh, but when pressed on the issue the Environmental Agency were unable to provide data demonstrating that the three target groups were unrepresented.

Britain’s police forces have been forced by the government to engage in positive discrimination recruitment practices. Gloustershire police were specifically caught out rejecting white male applicants on principle, but not rejecting a single female or ethnic minority candidate [1].

And here is a more recent example in which “a firm advertised a £38,000-a-year job for someone ‘preferably of Indian origin’.”

The institutional rejection of ethnic reality in Britain stems from government to newspapers to corporate promotion. The official statistics are that 92% of British citizens are white. Nevertheless, we’re bombarded daily with carefully orchestrated photos that give the impression Britain has an equal proportion of each race. Whether it’s school photo shoots for newspapers or corporate promotional brochures we find glossy images in which photograped individuals have been carefully selected by skin colour. We see people of differing cultures smiling gleefully to the camera as if they’re one big happy family. White people, and especially white males, are de-emphasized to give the impression that they exist in lesser numbers than they actually do. Privately owned business are not legally bound to do this, but they’ve been swept up in New Labour’s tidal wave of positive discrimination craftily disguised as “equality”. Companies now bend over backwards to give off a “diversity and equality” stance that will impress government officials and local newspaper editors. If a business wants positive newspaper coverage then their easiest option is to hold an event or campaign with the words “equality” and “diversity” in bold print.

Another point I’d like to add here, something the New Labour government and British media virtually never talk about, is that white people are actually a minority on a global scale and a proportionally decreasing minority at that [1]. Finding specific worldwide racial statistics is difficult, but a glance through this page at and this page at gives a clue as to just how small an ethnic group white people are. Of the world’s 6.8 billion people, China and India are populated by a combined 2.5 billion people, Indonesia / Brazil / Pakistan / Bangladesh / Nigeria comprise just under a billion, and Japan / Mexico / Phillipines / Vietnam / Ethiopia / Egypt comprise over half a billion. These 13 countries account for around 60% (4 billion) of total world population and have very few white people (well below 1% per country). The highest concentrations of white ethnicity are the United States (307 million, 77% white), Russia (140 million, 80% white), Germany (82 million, 91% white), France (64 million, no ethnic statistics available as they are illegal in that country) and United Kingdom (61 million, 92% white). So the five most highly populated, white ethnicity countries account for not much over half a billion – less than 10% of world population.

My aim with the above statistics is not to alarm you of a great threat against white culture. My point is that white people are a global minority and thus should not be discriminated against under the current spate of anti-white policies disseminated by New Labour. The irony is that the above countries comprising a non-white ethnicity equalling 60% of the world’s population (4 billion) are not running racial equality programmes to integrate large numbers of white people into their cultures. So why is New Labour doing it the other way here in Britain?

Double standards

Several of the statistics listed above indicate a double standard in New Labour’s equality laws, but the following example establishes the point even more firmly.

Recently I stumbled across a new local newspaper in my city called Liverpool Life. It’s a free newspaper that covers the usual combination of multiculturalism and save the environment stories that are spouted relentlessly by newspapers across the country. The first edition of the paper featured a bold front page caption “New Lodge Lane Cultural Quarter”. I had a glance through this paper as I’m usually interested in new media. On flicking to page 2 (scroll down in the above pdf link) I found a list of the paper’s editorial staff. They are listed as follows:

Editor – Belayet Hossain Ahmed

Contributors – Sarfarez Ali, Judi Woolley, Farhad ahmed, Abdul Aziz, Imam Amzad, Dr Abdul Hamid, John Gregory, Dr Mohammed Haris

Business Advisors – Dr Adel Ahmed, Peter Wensley

Arts and Music – John Lau, Professor Steven Small (University of California), David Jack, Midhat Khan

Marketing and Sales – Hossain

Marketing assistant (Distribution) – Noor Islam

Being that the person listed for marketing and sales (Hossain) is lacking in a last name, its likely that Belayet Hossain Ahmed (the editor) is doubling up as the marketing and sales contact. That makes a total of sixteen people comprising the editorial team. The really strange thing here is that ten of these sixteen staff members, including the main editor, have Asian names. Yet the newspaper itself isn’t marketed at Asian people. For argument’s sake let’s assume that Judy Woolley, John Gregory, Peter Wensley, John Lau and David Jack are white people. 63% of the editorial team have Asian names, yet only 4% of British people are Asian. Where is the proportional representation at Liverpool Life’s editorial team for the white 92% of Britain’s population?

New Labour’s equality laws are used to exclude white people from training, funding and jobs when workforce ethnicity statistics proportionally justify it (or when they can be manipulated to justify it), but when it’s white people who are left underrepresented the laws are not applied.

There is disproportion in other fields of work (for example over representation of Asians among taxi drivers and under-representation of white men in medical schools), but its very rare that we hear of “positive action” training and recruitment in those fields being targeted at white people to address the balance.

Another example of these double standards is the British media’s selective coverage of race related violence. The two most prominent examples in recent years are the murders of black teenagers (in unrelated incidents) Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker. In the case of Stephen Lawrence the murderers have never been found, but the media widely began to announce the attack as mosty likely race motivated. The officers conducting the investigation were accused of racism themselves in handling the case. The racial aspects of the case became the central theme of media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. In the Anthony Walker case a black teenager was killed by two white teenagers. Again, the racial aspects of the case became the central theme of media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

In comparison I’d like to refer you to a lesser known incident that for me was much closer to home. First, take a look at the only piece of news coverage related to the incident. The title is unusually lacking in emotional intensity: “Knife attacker is facing prison for Aigburth attack.” The attack was actually much more viscious than the news article suggests. It occurred while I was at work on a night shift. I came home in the morning to find police officers guarding the building where I lived. Upon entering I saw a deep pool of blood near a flat entrance on the ground floor and blood smeared on the door and surrounding walls. The officers explained that the attack actually occurred inside the flat, where there was a much greater amount of blood. In the following days I spoke to my neighbours who had overheard the incident, my landlord who had received further information form the police and relatives of the two victims. The story was consistent all around. Welsey McKenzie had stabbed the girl through the forearm, which caused her to lose so much blood she almost died and almost lost her arm. Wesley also attacked the male and stabbed him nearly thirty times. Luckily the male victim survived as well. Various people in my neighbourhood, who had been drinking in local pubs, said that they had seen Wesley on the same night, not long before the attack. He had apparently taken a lot of cocaine, had threatened various people in a pub because he was so severely under the influence of drugs and / or alcohol, and was already carrying the knife in his pocket.

The Wesley McKenzie knife attack incident was brimming with details suitable for a commercial newspaper to latch onto and publicize. Not only was it an incredibly violent incident involving the hot topics of knife-crime and drugs, but the incident also had potential racial overtones being that the identities of perpetrator and victims crossed racial boundaries. Notice that the very toned down article comes from a local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo. The news didn’t even make the national press. There is no mugshot of the perpetrator in the article as is often the case with knife attack convictions. The article doesn’t explain the physical extent and severity of the attack, or mention the drug factor. Why was the coverage limited to just one, toned-down article and why was the case not covered until after the court case was closed?

We could just assume the Liverpool Echo wanted to conduct mature and objective coverage of the McKenzie case, but have a read of these Liverpool Echo article titles relating to the murder of Anthony Walker (incidentally both the McKenzie and Walker attacks occurred in Liverpool). The article titles are listed chronologically according to the dates they were published.

•Boy 17 is quizzed in search for race killers
•Shame of our city
•Is racism on the increase in a city proud of its tolerance?
•the roots of racism in city of many cultures
•Our family suffered racial abuse before Anthony was killed
•Axe death fugitives to surrender
•Local group warned of rising tension and hate crime days before axe murder
•Race murder suspects arrested at airport
•Anti-racism project in memory of victim
•Police question seventh suspect over race murder
•Anti-racism concert attracts star line-up
•United against racism at Toxteth festival
•Filthy abuse, then an ambush, then the fatal axe blow
•Chilling racial abuse of Anthony
•Cousin found him with axe in his head
•Man who has admitted murder once brandished hunting knife in pub
•’He’s a thief and a liar’
•Abuse goes on night after night
•Victims terrorised as hate crimes soared in Knowsley
•Son’s overdose forced me to flee from racist neighbours
•Police will make it easier for victims to report hate crimes
•The reign of terror of Chomper & Ozzy
•Locals fear another race murder
•Evil yobs with no meaning to lives
•This was racist thuggery of a type that is poisonous to any civilised society – judge
•Police warn racists that they are being watched
•Life sentences for ‘poisonous racist thugs’
•Is Liverpool a uniquely racist city?
•’Racist message’ decision
•Murder victim’s sister to join battle against racism
•Anthony’s sister backs new drive to take on the racists
•Dominique in fight against racist threat
•Woman helped racist killers escape police
•I’ll talk to BNP about Anthony
•Walker ‘won’t meet BNP’
•Walker killer knifed in jail
•Walker race hate charge
•Man charged with posting racist comments
•Man appears in court over racist messages on Walker tribute site
•Anthony’s family in hate crime meeting
•Murdered teenager’s mother in line for race award
•The lies of a racist thug
•United in the fight against race hate
•’Teach your children tolerance and peace,’ says Walker mum
•Voices of peace in the face of hatred
•Gee honoured for her work to promote racial harmony
•£15,000 gift to kick out racism
•Anthony killing in race hate spotlight at lecture
•”Anthony’s murder was caused by legacy of slavery”
•Gee in call to help weed out hate crime
•Tribute to Anthony at slavery museum
•The battle against racism will be won slowly, says Gee
•Gee Walker: Why we need new anti-hate drive
(note: if the above article links cease to function try this link or visit the Liverpool Echo website and search their archives for ‘Anthony Walker’)

The above list is less than a third of all the coverage that the Liverpool Echo gave to the Anthony Walker case (the coverage is still going on after nearly five years). There are around 200 Anthony Walker related articles in the Echo website archives, yet the barely known Wesley McKenzie case received just one watered down article. Why have the Liverpool Echo taken a deliberate stance of maximum coverage of one murder case and minimal coverage of a drug fuelled knife attack that almost killed two people? We could partially attribute it to the fact that Anthony Walker died and that the two victims in the McKenzie case barely survived. However, there is an element that makes the McKenzie case more shocking and worthy of news coverage. Anthony Walker was murdered at age 18 by two men aged 17 and 20, but Wesley McKenzie was aged 33 and his victims were in their late teens, he was almost fifteen years their senior. Notice that the Echo article mentions Wesley’s age, but doesn’t give the age of his victims, Anthony Howard and Sarah Stanley.

Possible clues as to the motives of the Liverpool Echo in covering one case and not the other can be found in the way that they covered the Anthony Walker case. Their emphasis is consistently on the topic of racism. Anthony Walker’s murderers apparently shouted racist abuse at their victim before killing him and in many instances the Liverpool Echo emphasize the name calling as being even more shocking than the murder itself. The Echo’s position on the subject was firmly established far before the trial even took place – it was a racist attack, racism is evil, Liverpool is racist and must shed its evil. This tunnel vision coverage doesn’t take into account that the murderers were individuals with their own personal and social problems. The Liverpool Echo has decided to act as judge and jury in the case, branding the killers as “evil yobs” and accusing Liverpool’s predominantly white population of sharing responsibility for the murder by being inherently racist. The coverage is sickeningly immature and comes from trained journalists and editors who should know better.

Last, but not least, there are two details I’ve not yet mentioned about the Wesley McKenzie attack. 33 year old McKenzie was black and he was from London, not Liverpool. His two teenage victims were from Liverpool and they were white. Once again, this is something the Liverpool Echo didn’t mention … and I’d put money on it that it’s the same reason why no mugshot of Wesley was shown, as it usually is with news coverage of convictions for violent crimes [1] [2].

This kind of emphasis on racial conflict, with a preference for cases involving white males as the perpetrators of violence or abuse, is now a common theme in British media [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Here is one of the few exceptions I could find, in which a white male was the victim of an ethnic minority gang in a racially motived attack and was beaten so badly he ended up with brain damage [1] [2] [3]. Notice that the BBC avoids reporting the racism element of the case in which the white man was attacked [1], yet emphasizes the racism element in the Anthony Walker case, where the white men were the attackers [2].

Here is a case of an MP speaking out about attacks on white people being ignored in his consituency and consequently being accused of helping the BNP party, and here is an article in which an ethnic minority journalist saw fit to write an article about excessive media coverage of murders involving white perpetrators against ethnic minority victims.

Below is a selection of children and teenagers who have been murdered in Britain in recent years, several of whom have received only a fraction of the coverage that is given to that of the Anthony Walker case.

•Michael McCarthy, aged 19, white male killed by Mustafa Demirtas and Julian edwards
•Shaquille Smith, aged 14, black male murdered by gang of six black males
•Jamie Kelly aged 18, a white male killed in Liverpool just a few weeks before this article was written, murderer unknown
•Jodi Jones aged 14, white female murdered by her white boyfriend
•Danielle Beccan aged 14, white female, murderer unknown
•Damilola Taylor aged 10, black male killed by two black males
•Henry Bolombi aged 17, black male murdered by ethnic minority neighbourhood gang
And there are plenty more murdered teenagers out there.

So why did the Liverpool Echo latch onto the Anthony Walker case and emphasize its “racial attack” element as being more important than even the murder itself, while de-emphasizing other, equally tragic murders of teenagers? Are murdered teenagers who are not victims of white racism less important?

Political correctness – more meta discrimination

Under New Labour Britain has been swept by a tidal wave of political correctness. This has been in the areas of race [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], religion [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], gender [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and, with less frequency, sexual orientation [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], physical disabilities [1] [2] [3] [4], and age [1] [2] [3] [4].

The New Labour government, in combination with a strangely compliant mainstream media, has everybody treading on eggshells as to what they say in public and in the workplace, lest they offend someone from one of the above groups. Jokes about race, religion, gender and sexual orientation are responded to with “zero tolerance”. A person can lose their job or face a harsh fine just for uttering a statement that can be perceived offensively [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The old “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me” motto is apparently now out of fashion.

Political correctness has overtaken efficiency as the key target in the workplace. An employee can do their job badly or consistently turn up late … and when challenged on their performance can quickly claim themselves to be a victim of discrimination. All they have to do is claim that a colleague of a different colour, sex or religious disposition has said something that they found offensive and bingo … they can attribute their poor work performance to discrimination induced emotional stress. I’ve personally witnessed this in my own work environments.

This looming tension and fear of “racism” accusations has even infected tv programming, such as Big Brother, Strictly come Dancing, and Kilroy. However, there is little complaint when derogatory comments are made about white people [1] [2] [3]. Movie releases such as White Men Can’t Jump and White chicks are rife with white bashing content. Personally I can watch and enjoy those films without taking personal offence, but if we’re going to allow race humour against whites then it should be allowed against all. Under New Labour a film title such as Black Men Can’t Jump or Black Chicks would be ferociously attacked. Then there’s the book Stupid White Men, in which phoney activist / author Michael Moore openly blames every social problem on white men, but sources hardly any of his claims. He even openly calls for anti-white recruiting by employers.

As a point of interest Michael Moore seems to have very little problem getting corporate funding for release of his not-so-well-researched DVDs and books, yet more controversial and well researched or entertaining activists like Antony C. Sutton, Alex Jones, Brian Gerrish and Noam Chomsky are given barely a fraction of Moore’s coverage – depsite booming underground sales of their DVDs and books mainly by word of mouth. Moore gets the media coverage and funds because his messages are in line with the desires of his big business sponsors.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

A key institution that plays a major role in New Labour’s “equality and diversity” agenda is the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EHRC may have a morally upstanding name, but New Labour is very fond of using moral sounding rhetoric to implement immoral policies, just as the fascist US news channel FOX NEWS boldly displays its trademarked slogan “FAIR & BALANCED” repeatedly during its broadcasts. Let’s examine the EHRC in detail.

The home page of the EHRC website uses a massive font to emphasize its claimed agenda: “Our job is to promote equality and human rights, and to create a fairer Britain. We do this by providing advice and guidance, working to implement an effective legislative framework and raising awareness of your rights.”

A simple test as to whether the EHRC put its money where its mouth is, is to examine the proportional makeup of its central management team. At the time of writing the EHRC has fifteen commissioners, each selected by New Labour’s Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman. Here is a list of the commissioners:

•Trevor Phillips (Chair)
•Baroness Margaret Prosser (Deputy Chair)

•Morag Alexander (Scotland Commissioner)

•Maeve Sherlock

•Joel Edwards

•Stephen Alambritis

•Ann Beynon OBE (Wales Commissioner)

•Professor Geraldine Van Bueren

•Kay Carberry CBE

•Meral Hussein Ece OBE

•Baroness Sally Greengross

•Dr Jean Irvine OBE

•Angela Mason

•Michael Smith

•Simon Woolley
The names I’ve highlighted in yellow are the male commissioners, of which there are only five. Of the five male commissioners, three are black and two are white. Black men represent approx 1% of the British population, but makeup 20% of the EHRC commission. White men makeup approx 46% of the British population, but makeup 13% of the EHRC commission. There are no ethnic minority females at the EHRC and not a single Asian or East Asian of either sex. The commission is 67% white females.

So if we apply the EHRC’s own proportional representation logic we instantly find that Harriet Harman, a white woman, has shown favoritism to her own gender group in her selection of the EHRC management team. It cannot be argued that Harman didn’t have enough white male candidates to select from because the site states that the commissioners “were chosen from more than 600 applicants”.

On the Our Job page the EHRC states ” For the first time, a statutory body has the responsibility to protect, enforce and promote equality across the seven “protected” grounds – age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.” This reinforces my earlier comments about meta-discrimination. Mental health sufferers and those of below average intelligence are ignored by the EHRC.

The Our Job page concludes with a link to a PDF file called Two Years Making Changes, which explains the EHRC’s perception of its own achievements since being founded in 2006. The document begins with a typical diversity propaganda based selection of photos of people from different social groups, including those who aren’t represented among the commissioners themselves. Notice also the deliberate de-emphasis of white males.

The content of the document reveals the broad influence of the EHRC’s activities.

“We have extensive legal powers, including powers to conduct formal investigations, to take judicial reviews, and to assess how effectively public bodies are upholding the equality duties. In addition, we are charged with promoting and enforcing the Human Rights Act. We also seek to influence policy and use our power of our voice to make the case for change.”

“This autumn, parliament votes on a new equality bill, which will bring together and build upon existing equality legislation. It addresses both multiple discrimination and the underlying causes of much disadvantage: poverty and absence of aspiration. The Commission has worked hard to shape the bill, and we believe it will give us a sound legal basis on which to tackle the deep-rooted structural causes of inequality.”

“10 million distributed through our grants programme to 285 different groups delivering frontline services across the country”

“35,000 people received Equality News, our monthly e-bulletin”

“136,000 small and medium-sized businesses received our guidance on managing equality obligations during the downturn”

“3,500 stakeholders from across the country have been regularly involved in our work”

“Over 400 enforcement or pre-enforcement actions taken, of which over 80 per cent were resolved without the need to go to court.”

“Clock is a small digital agency employing 32 people, most of them men.” Note the double standard regarding the EHRCs emphasis on women commissioners in its own management team.

“The rise of the BNP to prominence in the 2009 European elections has been another area of concern to the Commission.” BNP did not rise to prominence. They won just two seats. The political party that the EHRC are really concerned about is UKIP (UK Independence Party), a non-racist party calling for a complete withdrawal of Britain from the EU. UKIP came second in the British 2009 European elections, winning 13 seats, and knocked New Labour into third place. Remember that the EHRC commission is appointed by a New Labour politician. We’ll return to the subject of UKIP soon.

“Using new powers, the Commission demanded that the party address potential breaches of the Race Relations Act. In August 2009 county court proceedings were issued against the party by the Commission in respect of BNP’s constitution and membership criteria. The case will be heard at Central London County Court on 15 October 2009.” Yet New Labour laws allow people to be denied the right to training, and hence jobs, on the basis of their ethnicity or gender.

“The launch of the second year of funding in May 2009 generated an unprecedented response, with more than 2,000 organisations applying for funding.” These financial incentives are New Labour’s way of bribing companies into their questionable equality laws.

“70% of people would be happy for their son or daughter to marry someone of a different race or faith”, yet only 2% of British mariages are interracial. This demonstrates that people can have a preference for being socially integrated with their own race without being racists. That’s a message New Labour doesn’t want the public to hear.

“We believe in empowering the individual. Nobody wants assumptions made about them because of their background or identity, be they a white man looking to retrain, a black woman who needs support for her business, a gay undergraduate, a young child from a run-down estate, a mother who wants to work or a disabled person looking for the right support.” Yet New Labour and EHRC are all for discrimination against white men for training, and their laws allow for it.

“As part of our commitment to creating a tolerant, fair society we work extensively with young people, aiming to create a ‘generation without prejudice’.” Again, this is the utopian dream that has no more basis in reality than Communism.

“We have received United Nations accreditation as an ‘A’ status National Human Rights Institution, giving the Commission international recognition and status as the independent body charged with promoting human rights in Britain.” This backing of the EHRC by a powerful globalist institution will become more significant later.

“1/3 of working Muslim women see themselves as future chief executives”. This seemingly random quote appears at the top of a page which outlines the EHRC’s Muslim Women Power List. There is a push for ethnic minority managers and female managers under New Labour, but the reasons for this are not about equality, as we shall discover shortly.

On the EHRC’s Race in Britain page is another example of a diversity propaganda photo, falsely depicting Britain as being more multiracial than it actually is. I’ve captured the picture and posted it below in case the original page is altered or deleted. Notice how white people are pushed into the background, especially the males.

Considering the above photo, it’s ironic that the EHRC has published a pdf file called Talent Not Tokenism. The document itself includes more diversity propaganda photos that are not proportionally representative of Britain’s population.

Another giveaway sign that the EHRC wants to manipulate statistics rather than present honest information is that it refuses to fund academic research. To fund research by external bodies would run the risk of information and statistics being published that go against the EHRC agenda of manipulating public opinion.

Even though the EHRC has only been up and running for three years, internal disagreements over policy direction have already led to the resignation of a handful of commissioners [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some of this is over chairman Trevor Phillips [1], whose leadership was described by resigned commissioner Kay Hampton as “better suited to a political organisation rather than a human rights one”. Equally important is that the National Audit Office refused to sign off the EHRC accounts in 2009 due to irregularities, which was also the case at the Commission for Racial Equality (the forerunner of the EHRC) which was also chaired by Trevor Phillips.

EHRC chairman Trevor Phillips has also been criticized for taking highly paid consultancy work, in which he guided Channel 4 in their handling of a (possibly staged) race scandal concerning its tv program Big Brother [1] [2] [3]. It also seems that Phillips wanted to use entertainment programming like Big Brother to manipulate public opinion. The consultancy work was done through Phillips’ own private company The Equate Organisation and represented a conflict of interest with his highly paid (£110k) EHRC job. Apparently he has since resigned from Equate, but he is still the chairman for Pepper Productions, a company which “focuses on popular multi-cultural programming and documentaries”.

So is Trevor Phillips in it for human rights or for the money or for some alternative political agenda? The website for his Equate company is currently “closed for recontruction”. However, Rubensteinpublishing explains

“Its website,, prominently features a picture of Mr Phillips on every page and identifies him as chair of the EHRC, as well as ‘one of the leading experts on equality and diversity policy in Europe’.”

“It is not all that uncommon for those in senior positions in regulatory bodies to profit from this by going into consultancy once their term of office has finished. To act for part of the time as the regulator, and also to run a profit-making business advising the regulated, is very different.”

“Trevor Phillips, as I understand, is not only chair of the Commission, but also acts as chair of its legal sub-committee. This committee has the responsibility for making the ultimate decision as to which organisations are investigated by the Commission to determine whether or not they have committed an unlawful act. It decides which individual claims the Commission will support and in which tribunal and court cases it will seek to intervene. Some of the organisations under consideration may be clients of Mr Phillips’ consultancy. How will this affect the views of EHRC staffers who have to propose priorities for action?”

“The Commission also has the important power of assessing the extent to which an organisation has complied with the public sector race, disability and gender equality duties, and of issuing a compliance notice for failure to comply. A key part of the public sector duty is the equality impact assessment. The EHRC has the job of vetting these, yet the Commission’s chair is now a principal of an organisation that markets carrying out equality impact assessments.”

“As chair of the EHRC, Mr Phillips is privy to a great deal of confidential information, both about the activities of the Commission itself and about Government plans. How will he manage to wall this knowledge off from the advice he gives as a consultant, or even from the contents of his ‘confidential’ client newsletter?”

“Mr Phillips should decide whether he wishes to be a management consultant or whether he wants to chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

Despite all this evidence of corruption and self-interest on the part of Trevor Phillips, he was reappointed for an additional three year term as EHRC chairman by Harriet Harman (again). It seems that Phillips fits right in there with the corrupt New Labour top brass because he peddles “equality” lies for them. Incidentally, Trevor Phillips’ own promotional website, has a .eu extension rather than a .com or Keep that in mind as we will soon be exploring the EU’s role in Britain’s tidal wave of “equality and diversity” hypocrisy.

A similar story to that of Trevor Phillips is that of Lord Ouseley – he was chief exec of the Racial Equalities Commission (now merged into the EHRC) from 1993-2000. Then in 2000 he became director of Focus Consultancy Ltd and managing director of Different Realities Partnership Ltd (both profit-making consultancies specialising in equality, diversity and people management strategies) and chair of the Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity (PRIAE). It seems that the promotion of racism paranoia by leaders of “diversity and equality” institutions leads to lucrative business opportunities on the side, but unlike Trevor Phillps, at least Lord Ouseley had the decency to wait until after his position at the REC before pursuing such business ventures.

In a nutshell the EHRC is a diversity propaganda front for New Labour, with Trevor Phillips calling the shots on behalf of New Labour bureaucrat Harriet Harman.

New Labour Cheap Labour

An area in which the British media has done its job more effectively – as in present multiple views on a given issue – is the subject of immigration. As mentioned in chapter two, Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and is becoming more so due to an open door immigration policy imposed by our EU membership.

Media coverage has bounced back and forth between accusations of racism against opposition to open door immigration and accusations of New Labour engaging in a smear campaign to label such opposition as racists [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

A key factor is that mass immigration and its corresponding increase in competition for UK jobs allows British companies to get away with paying lower wages both to British people and to immigrants (legal and illegal) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The population increase also drives house price up both for both British people and immigrants.

So it’s entirely possible that New Labour’s grand-scale push for “equality and diversity” is underpinned by an agenda of winning support from influential British corporations seeking to profit from widely available cheap labour. This is a very similar situation to the United States’ corresponding “equality and diversity” media tidal wave being underpinned by corporations profiting from cheap labour imported from Mexico.

If the cheap labour motive is true here in Britain then isn’t this akin to sweatshops …. the corporate practice of setting up factories in poor countries to exploit cheap ethnic minority labour for profit (basically watered down, debt driven slavery)? The only real difference is that under New Labour the cheap workers are imported rather than the factories being exported. On this basis the racist accusational finger should be firmly pointed at New Labour and their corporate allies. It can also be pointed at the EU itself, which has repeatedly allowed workers from new EU member states to be paid lower wages than the populations of other EU countries in which they work [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

When we’re told that mass immigration is good for the economy the part that is usually left out is that the beneficiaries are the employers who get to pay lower wages. Employees (the majority of the population) lose out due to increased workplace competition.


The British National Party

The double standards and hypocrisy of New Labour “equality” policies are so pervasive that the only ways not to notice them are to be disinterested, biased or naive. Public disatisfaction, opposition and feedback is ignored almost completely as New Labour soldiers on. They consider themselves to be superior to the average UK citizen, both morally and intellectually. Their logic is in line with that of most totalitarian regimes … leader knows best and those who disagree are to be ignored or demonized.

Another aspect of New Labour that is in line with totalitarian regimes is the power tactic of divide and conquer. Different social groups are pitted against each other in a competition as to who is the most victimized and the most entitled to special economic privelege. New Labour policies have a polarizing effect that causes British people to bunch up into “us and them” groups. These groups can then be easily played off against each other to create a mass state of panic … and in that state of panic, questionable new policies are put on the table for public acceptance, the logic being that they will be accepted for emotional reasons (primarily fear) and will be less subject to intelligent debate. This is true of British terror laws, which were passed on the basis of shadowy networks of terrorists lurking among us. It was true of the Iraq war, kickstarted by falsified WMD threats. It’s true of racial laws that discriminate against innocent white people, passed into law on the strength of biased media coverage that installs a false sense of guilt in people who weren’t even racist to begin with.

One of the most basic benefits of the divide and conquer, or engineered conflict, tactic is that it prevents the general public from achieving mass solidarity in opposition to government corruption. But if this was the primary motive of New Labour then surely it would be best to balance out the conflict by occassionally siding with Britain’s white male population. That way New Labour could pass themselves off as neutral peacemakers. No. The New Labour bias is consistently against British born people, especially white people, and with a focused disregard of white males (apart from the rich ones and pro-EU ones).

Let’s explore some major examples of New Labour’s conflict engineering in Britain.

One of the most pervasive engineered conflicts is the combined government and media opposition to the BNP (British National Party) … take note of your immediate emotional response to that last sentence. Did you suddenly feel a tinge of panic that you might be reading an article by a closet-BNP supporter? If you did then I suggest you delay your judgement at least until the end of this chapter. That hasty emotional response is exactly what New Labour and the EU wants you to feel towards anyone who suggests BNP are anything but a fascist and racist organisation … the polarization effect.

During and after the 2009 European Parliamentary elections I noticed an interesting sentiment being repeated in the British media. Readers were being reminded across the board not to vote for or support BNP [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Here’s Harriet Harman giving BNP maximum exposure prior to the EU elections. In fact the British media has consistently been giving BNP all the coverage it can in the past year [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

One of the consistent rules of party political campaigns (and almost any other self-promoting group) is to show strength in the face of opposition. Parties almost universally claim that they are headed for impressive victories when facing an election. Harriet Harman, who exaggerated to newspapers the threat of BNP in the EU elections, can be seen below in the 2009 New Labour conference displaying supposed party strength in the run up to the 2010 UK general elections … this is in spite of severe New Labour losses in the EU elections and the party’s presently abysmal popularity ratings. The video itself is an official New Labour youtube release, but has its ratings disabled and has gathered less than 1,000 viewings (ironically, this article may give it a boost).

New Labour really was losing a great deal of support in the years building up to the EU parliamentary elections, so why did they make it worse for themselves by running a campaign that amounted to little more than “Don’t vote for BNP as a protest vote”? Do we ever hear moans of “Don’t vote Conservative as a protest vote!”?

Harriet Harman, the self-proclaimed New Labour champion of “equality”, paved the way for widespread media coverage of BNP. She helped the BNP to win its two, first ever, EU parliamentary seats. Can she really be this stupid?

An important motivational clue can be found in this report, which reveals that the three main parties (Conservatives, New Labour, Liberal Democrats), who are supposedly opponents for political office, met to arrange a joint strategy to defeat BNP. Notice that UKIP (UK Independence Party) were left out of this meeting, yet came second in the EU elections with 13 seats and slightly more votes than New Labour. The fact is that BNP were not a major threat. As the EU election results showed, UKIP was the rising threat. Despite being given minimum media coverage in the EU elections UKIP knocked New Labour into third place. The significance of this is enormous. If this shift is reflected in the 2010 general elections then Britain’s political landscape will have changed into a battle between Conservatives and UKIP, which in turn will bring EU withdrawal to the table as a major political issue.

The problem for New Labour in trying to defeat UKIP is that spouting “racist” accusations won’t work because UKIP party membership requires non-racism. Harman didn’t have any ammunition to fire so she instead encouraged the media to focus its attention on BNP instead of UKIP. Conservative and Liberal Democrats went along with this strategy because the real issue at hand is Britain’s role in the EU. All of the three major parties that met up to tackle the “BNP threat” are pro-EU parties. This has since become evident in that the Conservatives backed out of their promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Conservative party leaders even upheld their no referendum stance when newly elected UKIP leader Lord Pearson offered to withdraw UKIP from the next general election in return for a legal promise that Conservatives would hold a referendum on EU membership [1] [2]. Conservative leader David Cameron ordered his own MPs not to favor the UKIP offer despite threats from existing Conservative MPs and Lords to defect to UKIP [1].

Like New Labour, Conservative leaders value EU integration more than they do the votes of the British public. The cross-party alliance of New Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was an attempt to defeat the threat of UKIP – and their strategy was to redirect public opposition (on matters such as immigration and the financial costs of EU membership) away from UKIP and towards BNP. The mass emphasis of BNP as a “protest vote” choice was reverse psychology – a simple device to polarize public opinion into extreme left and right camps.

By helping BNP to win two EU parliamentary seats, New Labour generated a polarizing backlash across Britain against an illusionary “fascist and racist” threat that the three main parties helped to manufacture. Anti-BNP groups have been popping up and gaining support all over the country [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] – sucking people back into New Labour’s tunnel vision “equality and diversity” corner at the expense of more important issues. It was a nice try, but a few months later New Labour’s partner in crime, the BBC, tried another tactic along the same lines and shot themselves in the foot … they invited BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on the prime time political tv show Question Time. You can watch the video on youtube.

Like with the EU election buildup, maximum media coverage was given to Nick Griffin’s BNP appearance well ahead of the Question Time broadcast [1] [2] [3] [4] thus ensuring millions of viewers. The media reports that followed after the broadcast were almost universally attempts to polarize public opinion into camps of extreme right and left [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], the unspoken message being you’re either with the political stance (pro-EU integration) of the three major parties in Britain or you’re a BNP supporting racist.

The Question Time show started out as a debate clearly designed to further the cause for New Labour’s supposed “racial equality” agenda and to support their open door immigration laws. The BNP leader was a scarecrow on display, supposedly personifying all Euroskeptics and critics of mass immigration. Gradually, it turned into a mudslinging match between the three pro-EU party representatives who were supposed to be in alliance against the BNP. They were dragged into a debate on immigration policy and subsequently accused each other of either causing or supporting the problem.

Here is a list of details in the Question Time debate that demonstrate the pro-EU bias of the broadcast with the three main parties and the BBC attempting to polarize public opinion into extreme left and right camps.

•Jack Straw started off with a rant about how Britain fought to defeat Nazism in WW2 and then likened the BNP to the Nazis for having a “white only” membership policy – predicatably trying to align himself and his party with notions of “equality”. Griffin immediately revealed that Jack Straw’s father was imprisoned for being a consciencious objector to the war effort against the Nazis. Here is an article about the revelation. I’ll also add that Jack Straw himself supported the imperialist invasion of Iraq in 2003 [1] [2] [3] and later vetoed the publication of minutes from meetings that led to the decision to invade.
•The second audience question to Griffin was about trade with the EU, but the questioner was cut short by the presenter David Dimbleby, who immediately said “Ok, we may come to that later, but we’re talking about racism at the moment.” They didn’t return to it later. Dimbleby then asked another man in the audience to ask a question, thus avoiding discussion of the real issue that is driving British people to nationalist parties – the pitfalls of EU membership.
•The three party alliance of Conservatives, New Labour and Liberal Democrats was announced by the Liberal Democrat representative of the panel who cited that Winston Churchill had been involved with all three parties – the unspoken message being that voters must choose between fascism / BNP and the three pro-EU major parties.
•UKIP were not represented on the panel, though they came second in the EU parliamentary elections. Did the BBC deliberately keep UKIP out of the debate lest it harm their attempts at polarizing public opinion? There was an additional seat on the panel where UKIP could have been represented, but the BBC chose to invite a black, American-born playwright Bonnie Greer instead. She was sat next to Nick Griffin and spent the show with her back to him.
•During a debate about Nick Griffin sharing a debate platform with a Ku Klux Klan member, presenter David Dimbleby interrupted and asked “Why should anybody trust what you say? Why should anybody think it’s any more than a facade?” The question was a generic attack that could be used by any human being in just about any debate on any subject and was strongly indicative of the presenter’s bias.
•A young woman tried to ask a question about BNPs policies on repatriation, but Dimbelby cut her short and redirected to another audience member who asked a question about BNP “white only” membership requirements. Dimbleby allowed the second question to be fully asked, but did not allow Griffin to answer. He simply redirected to another audience question, which again was about ethnicity. Again Griffin was not given time to answer the question, but another audience member was selected to ask a question. The question that followed was about holocaust denial. At this point Griffin was allowed to answer (not that his answers were good). The presenter was demonstrating a pattern of only allowing the BNP leader to answer questions in which he was most severely under attack.
•Griffin was asked to answer a question about why he disapproved of the Islamic faith. He responded by pointing out the harsher aspects of the Quran, as he saw it. His answers were not entirely unjustified as New Labour themselves have battled with certain aspects of Islam in their attempts to “integrate” Muslims into Britain. Despite the overwhelmingly anti-BNP selection of audience members Griffin’s response did win a small applause, but Dimbleby merely washed over Griffin’s comments and asked “So what’s your policy on Islam?”
•Griffin then delivered a very appropriate comment regarding Britain’s relationship with Islam, “My policy with Islam is a truce with Islam. I’m not the one with the blood of 800,000 Iraqi’s on my hands after an illegal war, where as Jack Straw is. I’ve never hurt one single Muslim. I believe that the West should stop trying to de-Islamify the middle east and should leave those sovereign countries to run their own affairs. We shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. We should never go into Iran, despite the fact that’s where the tories will take us in due course. We should leave them alone and we should ensure that if Muslims are staying in this country they do so on the understanding that our country must remain fundamentally a British and Christian country.” Although Griffin’s response to questions about holocaust denial were half-witted, his comments here were entirely appropriate. The tunnel vision of the selected audience was apparent in their minimal applause response. Non-white membership rules of BNP were more of a concern to them than the unnecessary violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east. Even the Asian Conservative representative on the panel (Baroness Warsi), whose comments followed, was unable to comprehend the difference between New Labour’s “equality” rhetoric and it’s war mongering activities in the middle east, “Mr Griffin is a thoroughly deceptive man who comes on here and tries to sell us any message he wants. He is no friend of Islam. He is here to demonize Islam just as he demonizes Christianity.” Despite the utter denial of her own party’s warmongering stance (the Conservatives even more aggressively shouted for an invasion of Iraq than New Labour did) she got a wide applause for her response. As an Asian woman she should have at least agreed with Griffin that Britain shouldn’t be invading middle eastern countries.
•An audience member appropriately asked, “Can the recent success of the BNP be explained by the misguided immigration policy of our government?” Jack Straw’s response was a dragged out avoidance of the point by trying to state that there is no such thing as being British (a blatantly pro-EU opinion). He assumes that all nationalism is driven by ethnic identity – a topic we’ll return to and correct shortly. Fortunately, Dimbleby dropped his bias against Griffin at this point and repeatedly pressured Jack Straw to provide a straight answer. He summarized, “If you want to know why the BNP won in the Northwest and in Yorkshire in June it was a lot to do with discontent with all the political parties, particularly to do with expenses.” This was a sly deception from Straw. The British people were already unhappy with the major political parties over immigration and EU membership before the expenses scandals. Even the Conservative panelist voiced immediate disagreement with him on this – so much for cross party solidarity in the face of BNP.
•The Conservative panelist acknowledged that “There are many, many people out there who vote for the BNP who are not racist. There is lots of statistical evidence to prove that so what we have to do is go out and say to those people as main stream political parties ‘We are prepared to listen. We are prepared to deal with this and you do not have to turn to a rasict, fascist party who have their own agenda to deliver the solutions on your concerns’.” Dimbleby then asked her to specify what the Conservative party would actually do. She responded that an immigration cap would be put in place and was immediately rebuked by an audience member who reminded her that it was the Conservative party that entered Britain into EU membership in the first place. What the Conservative party should be doing to reassure the British public is to guarantee a referendum on EU membership. They know this full well, but refuse to do it.
•Shortly after this the Liberal Democrat panelist, Chris Hulne, blamed both Conservatives and New Labour for uncontrolled immigration via their successive terms in office. He also provided some interesting figures, “I think the government made an unbelievable mistake in its projections of what was going to happen when we … very few other European countries decided we were going to allow everybody from the new central and eastern European states in. The government projected it would be 56,000 people would come here. It ended up being 766,000 people.” David Dimbleby then launched an attack on these comments. Jack Straw also added that the Liberal Democrats voted for the immigration policy, but Chris Hulne simply responded that he wasn’t in office at the time.
•Nick Griffin then began trying to make a point about the cross party forced multicultural engineering of Britain, but was repeatedly interrupted by the various panelists trying to accuse him of racism. Dimbleby’s response was a corker, “If you all attack on different fronts we’ll get nowhere.” He doesn’t have a problem with his program consisting of a series of attacks, rather than debates, so long as the attacks on Griffin come one at a time for maximum, scarecrow waving impact.
•Every time Griffin tried to use the term “indiginous white people of Britain” panelists attacked him as being a racist for even using such a term. We’ll return to this shortly with a much needed identification of what nationalism actually means.
•A black audience member then reinstated to Jack Straw that the government’s failure to tackle immigration concerns of the British people was what was driving people towards BNP. Straw launched into further long-winded denial statements and was even accused of “denial” by the Conservative panelist.
•A key question was raised by an audience member, “Why are we letting thousands of immigrants into our country when we have rising unemployment?” The presenter ignored the question and moved on.
•The last ten minutes of the programme were moved on from the subject of BNP and racism to discuss other issues. Perhaps if the agenda of portraying the BNP as a hardcore racist scarecrow opposition to New Labour / EU policy was going more smoothly then the presenter would have stuck with the topic until the end of the show.
•The last couple of minutes finished with panelists summarizing their scarecrow waving of Nick Griffin, with Jack Straw having the last word and even calling him a “conspiracy theorist”. Jack Straw is as dangerous a conspiracy theorist as anyone. It was his collusion with other New Labour leader’s in promoting an intentionally deceitful conspiracy theory about Iraq being a nuclear threat to the west that has since caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Iraq war.
Another chapter in this polarized BNP versus New Labour fiasco is the “leaking” of BNP member details online, along with full media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Guardian newspaper even went to the lengths of providing a sohisticated map of Britain’s BNP members on it’s website. People of specific professions supposedly having joined the BNP have been smeared in this process, including police, the forces, teachers and even doctors [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This mass smearing of individuals as racists has shades of 1950’s McCarthyism, in which people who opposed the political establishment were accused of being communists and had their careers destroyed. Now the New Labour government is banning police from joining the BNP [1] [2] and is trying to achieve the same in the teaching professions [1] [2] [3] and even the nursing profession [1]. This is clearly undemocratic. The amazing thing about it is that across the board BNP members are assumed to be racists, but the truth is that many BNP members have joined the organisation as a desperate attempt to find a political alternative to the three main parties – New Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. If those parties were democratically dealing with the issues that British people are concerned about then BNP’s membership would dramatically fall.

The English Defence League

The English Defence League appeared out of the blue in 2009, holding a series of demonstrations against Muslim extremism. Within months these demonstrations received widespread media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4]. On its website the EDL lists its previously held demonstrations in chronological order, beginning with a demonstration in Luton on May 24th 2009. The EDL website claims this first demontration was in response to a group of Muslim men in Luton earlier in the same month who demonstrated at a homecoming for British soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Here is a video clip of the homecoming demonstration at which a group of Muslims protested.

The difficulty of the situation is immedietely apparent. One of the signs held by the Muslims simply says “ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ”. Two more say “BRITISH GOVERNMENT TERROR GOVERNMENT”. Another sign shows pictures of Iraqi casualties along with the slogan “IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES”. Another says “ANGLIAN SOLDIERS ARE WAR CRIMINALS” and another “ANGLIAN SOLDIERS: CRIMINALS MURDERERS TERRORISTS”. (Apologies for the picture quality. They’re taken from a poor quality video recording).

With the exception of the branding of Anglian soldiers as war criminals, these slogans are valid criticisms of the Labour government’s warmongering foreign policy, but the context in which it is expressed is unfortunate. There will likely have been relatives of the serving soldiers waiting to see their loved ones return, who would be deeply offended at the Muslim slogans. The slogans would be more appropriate outside the houses of parliament, but due to new British laws regarding demonstrations [1] [2] these Muslim men may have felt confined to holding their demonstration in the wrong context. The returning soldiers didn’t create the policies that led to the war and so what follows is an angry burst of verbal abuse and physical threats from the crowd, who we can assume to be members of Luton’s population. However, several of the crowd begin chanting simple football-type slogans of “ENGLAND ENGLAND ENGLAND” … not a particularly relevant response.

Here is the BBC’s coverage of the event, which came months later at the beginning of the Muslim demonstrators’ trial. Notice that the BBC avoids quoting the more valid placards held at the demonstration such as “ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ”, “BRITISH GOVERNMENT TERROR GOVERNMENT”, or “IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES” and instead focuses on the slogans that are most offensive to the British troops and their families. The BBC reporters certainly saw the other placards

And so, a couple of weeks later is the first EDL “demonstration”, apparently a knee-jerk angry response to the homecoming demonstration by Muslims. A batch of videos of the event can be found at the Youtube channel lutonmay24th2009.

The footage shows a large group of mostly young, white men in defiance of the police chanting occasional slogans such as “We want our country back” and carrying the occasional placard. The footage contains very little verbal content to support the EDL claim that the prior Muslim demonstration “led to the formation of the English Defence League”[1] nor does it show much in the way of placard content.

Next up is a demonstration in Whitechappel, London on June 27th 2009. The footage shows a gang of mostly very young white men, many of whom look like they’re in their teens. There are almost no placards and their police escorted march consists of little more than football chants of “England” and the occasional “We want out country back”. This appears to be a small group of maybe two dozen white males who have made their way from Luton to hold the demonstration in a location that the EDL describes as having been “converted into a ‘mini-Islamic State’ by local muslim extremists”.

This video of the same event is posted with a title description that describes the group as an “English & Welsh Defence League”.

The next demonstration is at Woodgreen on the 4th July 2009. There doesn’t seem to be much information or footage available for this event.

Note that several of these videos are hosted by a youtube user called lutonlionheart. This youtube channel is significant to unravelling the hostory of the EDL.

Lutonlionheart’s youtube account was created on Feb 1st 2008. On the same day, he uploaded a three part video of himself being interviewed by an unidentified American [1] [2] [3]. The interviewer introduces him as follows, “Today is February 1st 2008 and I’m here with Paul Ray, otherwise known as LionHeart”. Paul Ray has a British accent and claims to have been in the US “since December”. Paul then explains he has been arrested on suspiscion of “stirring up racial hatred through written material on my blog”.

On youtube he posts very little information about the detailed political views and opinions that are the motivational drive of the EDL demonstrations, apart from an overwhelming fear of Islamic extremism. He posts lots of videos emphasizing a perceived Islamification of Britain. He also posts videos calling for people to rally and attend anti-Muslim extremist demonstrations. One of his rally calls predates the May 2009 homecoming demonstration (the one where the Muslims demonstrated in Luton) by two months, yet the EDL website claims the formation of the EDL was a reaction to the May homecoming demonstration. One of his videos also shows photos of a Luton demonstration with captions stating that it took place in April. So it appears that the belief systems driving the EDL were present in Luton before the homecoming demonstration by Muslims.

During his youtube interview, Paul describes in detail what he perceives as Muslims pumping drugs into his community, committing rapes, planning bombings etc. He seems genuinely concerned and afraid “I’ve got these al queda in Luton who want to kill me”. I could see no indication in the video of him lying about his fears. How much truth there is to his stories of a Muslim extremist takeover or whether he is simply a misguided and paranoid individual I can’t say with authority. However, the evidence he cites to support his perception of a network of terrorism in his Luton community mostly comes from the British media – stories of Al Queda, terror plots etc. He talks about the London bombings with total conviction that the perpetrators were part of a larger and still existent Al Queda network in Luton. But something that seems to have bypassed his attention is that there hasn’t even been a public enquiry into the London bombings yet [1] [2] [3]. The true story of that event is yet to be established as there is a great deal of conflicting evidence out there [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Paul Ray describes his distrust of the British government, yet he seems to believe every scaremongering terrorist story that comes out from that same government.

Is Paul Ray the ideological and organisational source from which the EDL sprang? Maybe. His fearful belief structures about networks of terrorists seem to be shared by the write-ups on the EDL website, yet the footage of their demonstrations seems more in line with football fans seeking the tense thrill of group opposition. My guess is that it’s a combination of the two. The EDL isn’t a political party and it can barely even be called an organisation as it seems to operate on the same level of sophistication as gangs of football fans getting together to attend a match and taunt each other.

Regardless of all these factors, the EDL gained notoriety across Britain in the latter half of 2009 as a rising racist threat to British democracy. The sensationalist coverage of the EDL by the British media fanned the flames of left versus right ideological polarization, while distracting from important issues such as immigration fuelled over-population and the cost of EU membership.

On the same day as the Woodgreen demonstration, 4th July 2009, was another EDL demonstration in Birmingham, for which there doesn’t appear to be much information available. A second Birmingham demonstration was then arranged at the same location, to be held on August 8th 2009. This time Unite Against Fascism (UAF), an organisation formed in 2003 to combat the growth of the British National Party, planned and announced a counter demonstration at the same time and place. The logic of this is bizarre. The previous EDL demonstrations were obviously a combination of misled, youthful thrill seeking mob mentality (of the football variety) combined with media induced paranoia of Muslim extremism, which New Labour have overwhelmingly been the driving force of with their War on Terror. And the most significant detail that media reports have completely ignored are that the EDL group comes from Luton, which is where the london bombers were reported to have travelled from to carry out their attack [1]. That factor is crucial because, as the footage of Paul Ray reveals, the media coverage of the London bombings has resulted in deep rooted fears of local Al Queda terror networks in the white population of Luton. That isn’t evidence of a rising racist threat. It’s simply a community response to a perceived terror network and differs little from the misguided, and in some cases exploitative, establishment reaction to the london bombings [1] [2] [3] [4]. The EDL is an expression of media induced fear by frustrated young men who have little understanding of the political agendas of the War on Terror and little knowledge of how to run an effective political campaign. In an interview with the telegraph they wore black masks to hide their identities and burned a Nazi flag, while surrounded by banners saying “BLACK AND WHITE UNITE” (not the most racist slogan) and “SAY ‘NO’ TO MORE SHARIA LAW” [1]. New Labour expects us to believe the EDL are racists for demonstrating against muslim extremism, yet over several years New Labour has caused mass destruction, fear and erosion of civil liberties in it’s own response to that very same issue.

The UAF would have known these facts as they are a well funded, coalition organisation with powerful political ties to New Labour (Ken Livingston is the chairman, the Anti-Nazi League and Socialist Worker’s Party are among its coalition partners). This political organisation seized upon the opportunity to sensationalize the August 8th EDL demonstration and promote its own existence. The result was a predictably violent demonstration that was misrepresented by New Labour and its allied media sources as a clash between “right wing / racists” and “anti-fascists” [1] [2] [3] [4]. It was a clash between “anti- Muslim extremists” and “anti-fascists”, each blaming each other for social problems caused by the New Labour government.

The anger fuelled by the August 8th demonstration led to a third demonstration by the EDL, again in Birmingham. There were calls to have the demonstration banned [1] [2], but of all people it was a local New Labour MP, Steve McCabe, who opposed the ban. Was he doing this in defence of British free speech or because he saw the propaganda gains for his own party if another violent demonstration could be pinned on a “right wing” group? I’d put my money on the latter because the EDL dermonstrations have since been used as a tool to attack New Labour’s proclaimed enemies, the BNP [1] [2] [3] [4]. Luton council saw fit to ban further EDL demonstrations [1], but the next Birmingham demonstration went ahead on the 5th September anyway. It was even more violent, resulting in 90 arrests [1].

The same thing occurred again on the 10th October in Manchester, but this time it wasn’t just the UAF who beefed up the conflict potential [1] [2]. Manchester City Council allowed the protest to go ahead despite reports of earlier EDL demonstration violence in other cities. Not only that, but this time newspapers, socialist groups (and even the police) basically advertised the demonstrations in advance [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This of course fueled Manchester black and Asian fears that a “fascist / racist ” organisation was coming to town, thus ensuring that an angry counter-mob would show up and violence would ensue.

The next two EDL demonstrations occured simultaneously in London and Leeds on 31st October. In Leeds, there was advance advertising through the media of the planned demonstrations [1] [2] [3] although this time police control appears to have been more effective.

At the Leeds event the following speeches were made.

One speaker cites incidences of what he describes as the islamification of Britain. Another makes the following statements regarding his fears of Islamification “… we will have an Islamic inquisition. The laws of this England are built on human rights and the friends we have invited into the commonwealth are apparently to end the bedrock of our culture and throw us back into the middle ages with arcane extreme religious beliefs.” and he names specific Muslim campaigners as being the people he is resisting. At the same rally the EDL are taunted by “anti-fascists” shouting terms such as “Nazi fascist scum”. Several of the videos on youtube show the “anti-fascist” protestors complaining to the police for protecting the EDL. The UAF led oppostion was as hate-filled and ready for violence as the EDL.

At the time of writing, the last demonstration by the EDL was in Nottingham on December 5th … again, advance media advertisement of the event [1] [2] [3] as well as by the police [1] resulting in a counter demonstration and violence.

It’s also interesting that reports consistently describe the EDL as having lost their protest battles or of being “run out of town” by “anti-fascists” [1] [2] [3] [4], yet the EDL kept up its momentum and held protest after protest in city after city in 2009, even returning to the same cities despite the resistance they encountered. Rather than being run out of town, they were escorted to train stations by the police as arranged. EDL protests also seem to have been timed to co-incide with football matches and home coming parades [1] [2] [3], thus drawing people into the battles who somewhat agreed with the EDL’s messages, but weren’t members. This gave off the impression that the EDL is a larger and more well organized group.

As an intellectual exercize both sides fail ridiculously. This is the kind of polarized public opinion that serves the interests of New Labour and the EU. These sensationalized and violent clashes have been used to whip up mass paranoia of a rising “far right / racist” threat across Britain. The oversensationalized coverage and engineered conflict are attempts to justify a clamp down on free speech by smearing patriots / nationalists as fascists, racists [1] [2] [3] and if New Labour has their way – terrorists. In particular, the BBC have been manipulative in their coverage of this issue [1] [2] [3]. This BBC interview with an EDL member is laughable. The interviewee doesn’t put forward much logic, but the presenter is absolutely determined to smear him and the EDL as racist thugs. The same is also true of this BBC interview, in which the presenter states that a government minister has claimed the EDL is “using the tactics of the fascists from the 1930’s”. The same could also be said of the New Labour government’s use of terrorism laws to erode civil liberties, support for concentration camps at Guantanamo Bay and illegal invasion of Iraq based upon a fabricated threat – those were all Nazi tactics as well. Notice also how the BBC reporter asks questions and then speaks over the young man before he can even give a full answer. It’s a smear report veiled as an interview.

The thuggish elements associated with the EDL are nothing new. Football violence and riots have occurred for decades not just in Britain, but across Europe. The difference here is that the New Labour government has given footballers a series of political issues to shout about. The EDL may not understand the core political and economic factors that are the source of their frustrations, but they’re certainly feeling them.

Here is a more constructive meeting between critics of perceived Muslim extremism and Muslims themselves. Notice that the person ejected from the debate and the people giving verbal abuse outside of the building aren’t the nationalists. There appear to be no national media reports of the event.

These two “right wing” groups have been used as political pawns by the supposedly “left wing” New Labour and their pro-EU allies. The growth of BNP membership and the creation of the EDL stem directly from social tension created by New Labour policies … the Iraq war, the war on terror, anti-white legislation, mass immigration policy and the surrendering of British sovereignty to the EU without a referendum.












Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s