CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE

Maggots Feeding on the Body of Art - David Hamilton

2008-07-16T01:14:00.000-07:00

An entry for the 2003 Turner Prize was a sculpture depicting bodies being picked at by maggots. Entitled Sex, it was by Jake and Dinos Chapman who made the headlines as the most shocking nominees. Maggots feeding off a body is a fitting out picture of contemporary artists. They are corrupt, degraded, unimaginative and parasitic as they feed off our great artistic traditions and try to destroy them. Their aim is to destroy our values and something that gives meaning to our lives. Is a urinal, say, an artistic subject? No, it is intrinsically unartistic, even though it might have pleasing curves, and to write about it as such does not make it artistic but conceptually separates artistic form from subject. Contemporary art is not really art at all and should be called something else. But it is a financial asset for the global elites who buy and sell it and run the Arts Councils that manage artistic creativity.
Sotheby's contemporary art auction in July 2008 raised more than $1 billion which shows how the Global elites are investing in art regardless of economic predictions. Their evening contemporary art sale raised 95 million pounds ($189 million), the highest total for a summer contemporary auction held in Europe and just below the overall regional record set in February. Francis Bacon's "Study for Head of George Dyer", the artist's lover, fetched $27.4 million, including commission; Jean-Michel Basquiat's "Untitled ", was sold by rock band U2 for $10.1 million. Competitors Christie's sold art worth $172 million at its sale. Only the less important Sotheby's contemporary day sale is left and the two main auctioneers have sold works worth just over $1 billion during the summer season, which includes impressionist, modern, post-war and contemporary art. Christie's raised around $552 million and Sotheby's about $449 million so far. Senior executives are confidant that the art market will sustain soaring values in spite of falling stocks and house prices with rising oil costs. Russian elites have been a big factor in booming art sales, there is worry they may inflate impressionist prices in the same way Japanese money did around 20 years ago then disappeared causing the market to crash.
Contemporary art is the preserve of an elite, a large clique, that finance their interests through grants from the arts council, local authorities and sponsorship from global corporations. It is exhibited by commercial art galleries, private collectors, corporations, publicly funded arts organizations, contemporary art museums or by the artists themselves who are supported by grants, awards and prizes as well as by selling work. These are interlocking and exclusive relationships. Individual members of the elite are highly influential - Charles Saatchi has dominated the market in British contemporary art for twenty years and is a major sponsor and collector.
A major sponsor and collector when our civilisation was developing was King Athelstan. His attitude and intentions show how different are the motives of sponsors at each end of this arc of culture. He used his collection in service of God and to develop something spiritual. Like his gifts, to Chester-le-Street, a tenth-century West Saxon codex, containing Bede's eighth-century prose and verse Lives of the sixth-century St. Cuthbert, with a frontispiece illustrating the king presenting the book to St.Cuthbert. There were episcopal and royal records in this book, including a list of popes, with the Cuthbert material. There is evidence that Athelstan also supported the shrines of St. John of Beverley and St. Wilfrid at Ripon. A ring preserved at Bury St. Edmunds in East Anglia bears as its inscription the names of St. John of Beverley and Athelstan (see Rollason 1989). Traditions of several churches traditions such as Malmesbury attributed their collections to his religious benevolence. The prologue to an Old English relic-list from Exeter (Rollason.), tells how royal agents purchased "with the king's earthly treasure the most valuable treasures of all - holy relics". A letter from the prior at St. Samson's at Dol in Brittany is evidence of Athelstan's interest in
relics outside England. These qualities give a clue to what creates civilisation - confidence in one’s own people and the sense of the civilisation’s permanence. Traditional masterpieces have such individual detail one is enrapt for the entire day after first looking at the work as a whole. They are so deep. We need belief in our inherited values from our ancestors and to transmit them to our descendants. We know that what gives life meaning is our emotional lives, our relationships, our beliefs and values. Our values come from a sense of continuity: that we have endured for long and will continue to do so and we receive these values from our forbears.
The arts Council privileges some ethic groups as expressed in their customary Doublespeak:” It (the Arts Council) aims to encourage an environment where the arts reflect the full range and diversity of society. The Council wants everyone to have access to excellent arts activity. To make this happen, it is focussing on race and ethnicity, disability and social inclusion. More than 10 per cent of regularly funded organisations are run by Black and minority ethnic artists and organisations that take a lead role in supporting BME artists. By 2007/2008, 25 per cent of the London’s regularly funded organisations will be Black and minority ethnic arts organisations. In what sense are these not “inclusive”? However, ventures representative of our culture, like the English Music Festival, are discriminated against on the grounds they are “Exclusive.” This ideology is disseminated through the channels of communication the cultural elites control. Ethnic arts are treated with reverence - ours are degraded.
The current chairman of Arts Council England, is Sir Christopher John Frayling an educationalist and writer, known for his study of popular culture. He read history at Churchill College, Cambridge and gained a PhD in the study of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He taught history at the University of Bath and in 1979 was appointed Professor of Cultural History at London's post-graduate art and design school, the Royal College of Art. Since 1996 he has been Rector in charge of the College. He is also Chairman of the Design Council, Chairman of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, and a Trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum. He was a governor of the British Film Institute in the 1980s. He was knighted in 2001 for "Services to Art and Design Education"
Chairwoman of the London Arts Board is Lady Sue Woodford Hollick, a businesswoman and consultant with extensive interests in broadcasting and the arts. She is a former producer and director of World in Action for Granada Television and founding Commissioning Editor of multicultural programmes at Channel 4 television. She has been Chairwoman of Arts Council England, London since September 2000 and is currently a member of the Tate Modern Advisory Council. She is founder and Co-Director of Bringing Up Baby, a childcare company and Chair of the UK board of the African Medical & Research Foundation, Africa’s leading health development organization. Her husband, Lord Hollick, is Chair of the South Bank Centre, which is funded by Arts Council England.
The usual chairman of the Turner Prize Committee is Sir Nicholas Serota who grew up in Hampstead. His mother was a Labour Minister for Health in Harold Wilson's government, who was made a life peer and governor of the BBC. He was educated at Haberdashers' Aske's School and then read Economics at Christ's Cambridge before switching to History of Art. He completed a Masters degree at the Courtauld Institute of Art under the supervision of Anthony Blunt and Anita Brookner.
In the 1990s contemporary art merged with popular culture and artists are promoted as stars. In June 2008 The Evening Standard told of the Millions that Damien Hirst is spending on the mansion once owned by Lord Sudeley's family. Hirst is supposedly worth £135 million. Death is a central theme in Hirst's works like a series in which dead animals like a shark, a
sheep and a cow are preserved—sometimes having been dissected—in formaldehyde. The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is a 14-foot tiger shark immersed in formaldehyde in a vitrine. In June 2007, his Lullaby Spring sold for £9.65
million at Sotheby's in London then in 2007, For The Love of God sold for £50 million to an anonymous investment group. Arts Council England is the national development agency for encouraging the maggots. It distributes public money from the Government and the National Lottery to the arts organisations who share their ideology and refuse those that do not. Individuals and organisations can apply to the Arts Council for funding from its own budget or from the Lottery.
Contemporary art is negative and the practitioners use it to destroy the Art they feed off like maggots while they parasitically take what they can. They not only try to destroy art they kill their babies. Lynn Barber wrote of Tracey Emin in The Observer of 22April 2008 :” The first abortion, in 1990, was horrendously bodged because no one realised she was carrying twins: the second abortion, she says, was 'revenge' for the first. Contemporary art is a sort of show to shock which is a petty, destructive motive and meant to hurt innocent people. What they really enjoy is shocking elderly people and children. Of Grayson Perry’s “Barbaric Splendour” the Satchi Gallery wrote: “His form and content is always incongruous: classic Grecian-like urns bearing friezes of car-wrecks, cell-phones, supermodels, as well as more dark and literary scenes often incorporating auto-biographical references.” They need traditional art as a background for if the old standards were truly swept away, no one would be able to say: "What a provocative statement, Tracy."
Tracey Emin was made Royal Academician by the Royal Academy of Arts On 29 March 2007. Emin became a member of the Royal Academy joining an elite group of artists including David Hockney, Sir Peter Blake, Anthony Caro and Alison Wilding. This entitles Emin to exhibit up to six works in the annual summer exhibition. At the 2007 Venice Biennale she hosted celebrity guests, including Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish, Viscount Linley and the model Naomi Campbell. When Jake Chapman married model Rosemary Ferguson in Christ Church, Spitalfields, among the guests were Kate Moss, Sadie Frost, Noel Gallagher’s ex-wife Meg Matthews and society photographer Sam Taylor-Wood. Emin will give a public talk interviewed by art critic and broadcaster Matthew Collings, about her curatorship at the Royal Academy, the Academy’s relationship to the contemporary art world, and her perspective, as an artist, on hanging and curating a gallery in the Summer Exhibition. Her sex-themed works on show include a Zebra with an erection - a crankshaft that operates a model of a zebra, which in turn is copulating with a model of woman in Victorian dress, as the hackneyed image of prudery. It is pretentious and has no intrinsic merit only what the elites who buy and sell it give it. It is propaganda for Cultural Marxism: replacing the Victorian woman with, say, Cherie Blair or Diane Abbott would shock hysterical prejudice from these pseuds.
A main feature of contemporary art is paedophila and popular entertainment partakes of this It is very much part of the establishment. David Bowie promoted an androgynous image in with the concept album on the career of an extraterrestrial rock singer Ziggy Stardust which basis for his 1972 tour, which was sponsored by The Sun newspaper and the gigs filmed by BBC television. When Bill Haley first arrived in Britain in 1957 at the beginning of the Rock era he travelled in a Daily Mirror train. Bowie’s 1975 concept album “1.Outside” has a tale about the dismemberment of a teenage girl
Grayson Perry, dressed as his alter ego Claire, is known for vases depicting child abuse, told the Tate Exhibition 2003: "Well, it's about time a transvestite potter won the Turner Prize. I think the art world had more trouble coming to terms with me being a potter than my choice of frocks.” Tate director and award judge, Serota said: "I don't think the choice is a strategic choice, I think the jury felt strongly that these were the works of a very strong artist who happens to be using ceramics and drawing," he said. These institutions of art manage and regulate what used to be individual inspiration within a traditional culture. Crafts like textile design, are “excluded” from contemporary art despite having large audiences at exhibitions unless they adopt the right values. The elites motives were expressed by Charles Satchi: "A ceramic object that is intended as a subversive comment on the nature of beauty is more likely to fit the definition of contemporary art than one that is simply beautiful."
Perry’s Golden Ghosts were described by the Satchi Gallery:” Unhappy expressions on the little girls’ faces in Golden Ghosts contrast sharply with the idyllic country cottages stenciled in the background. Perry often uses found images to create a mood or a tension – the exceptionally sad image of the seated girl is that of a child affected by the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station disaster. This evocative work hints at a familiarity with psychotherapy, made at a time when Perry was coming to terms with his own unhappy past. Perry’s transvestite alter ego, Claire, appears outlined in gold as the ghost in the title, dressed in the elaborate embroidered Coming Out Dress, made for a performance in 2000.” As we see with Emin they do not transcend their unhappiness but spread it to others.
The Chapman brothers are conceptual artists who work together. They were part of the Young British Artists movement that was promoted by Charles Saatchi who also sponsored Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin. Jake Chapman has published a number of catalogue essays and pieces of art criticism in his own right, as well as a book, Meatphysics in 2003. The brothers have also designed a label for Becks beer as part of a series of limited edition labels produced by contemporary artists.
Their Turner Prize exhibit for 2003 featured two new works Sex and Death. Sex referred their previous work Great Deeds against the Dead. The original work shows three dismembered corpses hanging from a tree, Sex shows the same scene, but in a further state of decay. Clown's noses have been added to the skulls of the corpses while snakes, rats and insects, similar to ones in joke shops, cover the piece. Death is two sex dolls, placed on top of each other, head-to-toe in the 69 sex position.
The next step is cruelty to animals and bestiality. In a declining civilisation art becomes corrupted and is a measure of the health of a civilisation. The Romans sank into a debased barbarism by slaughter in the amphitheatre. Our deterioration into barbarism is moving from images to the reality. In popular entertainment like "I'm a Celebrity Get Me out of Here", simple people, described as Celebrities, are so degraded as to be led into eating live worms and stick insects. There are several levels to this: there is cruelty to lesser animals; encouraging children to eat insects and slugs in the garden ;and the move towards ever more degradation of our people and culture.
This is a world-wide decadence: In 2007, a Costa Rican 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc caught a stray dog on the street and tied it by a short leash to the wall of an art gallery and left it to die of hunger and thirst while cultural elites watched. The Central American Biennial of Art has decided that this was art and has asked Vargas Habacuc to repeat this “installation” at the Biennial of 2008. This was sanctioned by a public body run by the country’s elites. It is not clear that they really did starve the dog and it might be just to shock or get publicity to sell something. But it shows how disgusting these people are as they promote cruelty to animals. The 'artist ' explained: "I knew the dog died on the following day from lack of food. During the inauguration, I knew that the dog was persecuted in the evening between the houses of aluminum and cardboard in a district of Managua. Five children who helped to capture the dog received 10 bonds of córdobas for their assistance. The name of the dog was Natividad, and I let him die of hunger in the sight of everyone, as if the death of a poor dog was a shameless media show in which nobody does anything but to applaud or to watch disturbed. In the place that the dog was exposed remain a metal cable and a cord. The dog was extremely ill and did not want to eat, so in natural surroundings it would have died anyway; thus they are all poor stray dogs: sooner or later they die or are killed." A couple of decades ago an artist castrated himself in an exhibition in London which was presumably funded by the Arts Council.
One would wonder how this is art! The setting does not make it art. It makes it cruelty taking place in an art gallery. The artistic subject has to be intrinsically artistic in that it it is something that produces an affect on our emotions ranging from pleasing to spiritual. It triggers something aspirational or transcendent as the subject is transformed by human imagination and skill. Art begins as wholesome and aspiring to the spiritual but in a declining civilisation becomes corrupted. The Romans sank into a debased barbarism by slaughter in the amphitheatre, our deterioration into barbarism is degeneracy and cruelty and the emotional impact created can lead to the reality.
To combat the anti-art movement a talented young artist would need not only great talent but also independence of mind and an imagination developed through respectful study of tradition and a sense of reverence for God and his creation. They would also need the courage to stand alone against the artists and elites who have a stranglehold on artistic productions and the colleges that pass the fashionable methods on. The brave one would need to study the great masterpieces and find an appropriate tradition to link to and begin reviving our civilisation.

‘Too English to be true…’ - Stuart Millson

2008-06-25T10:17:00.000-07:00

Rediscovering G.K. Chesterton – journalist, poet, polemicist and prophet.

Famously named by George Bernard Shaw as "the Chesterbelloc" (or, at least, one half of that lumbering literary monster!), yet known by some of his young friends and admirers as "Uncle Chestnut", G.K. Chesterton was undoubtedly one of the greatest personalities of early 20th-century English literature and verse.

The lasting image of Chesterton (together with his old friend, Hilaire Belloc) is of a man who set forth in a billowing cloak to do battle with the scientific atheism of the Fabians; to state the case against Socialism, and for tradition, spirituality and the ancient Catholic Church; to write reams of verse, combative newspaper articles; and surreal, sometimes almost comical novels and stories which concealed fables and morality tales. Part-priest (but always laughing), a modern-day Dr. Johnson (and just as physically imposing), a Sir John Falstaff (but never a tragic figure), ‘G.K’ delighted – and continues to delight – readers throughout the world. Yet having said that, his presence today – ever so slightly – has faded.

Perhaps this eccentric gentleman in great tweeds, with his fantasies of self-governing London city-states (The Napoleon of Notting Hill), "flying inns", ruddy-faced publicans, sleuth-priests and suburban anarchists, is a little out-of-step with our bland, technological times. And yet, ‘G.K.’ is a man for our times – his messages, his prophecies, and his faith being entirely relevant to the immense problems of life, and the complexities of contemporary living.

This literary hero to so many traditionalists was born in the Kensington district of London, Campden Hill to be precise, on the 29th May 1874. Educated at St. Paul’s School, he was, as a young man, a vigorous participant in debates – even espousing what seemed like a prototype Communism! However, his unsettling rather leftish ideas as expressed at one schoolboys’ debate, and the notion that the state should govern economic life in the interests of all, was – perhaps – not as Marxist as one would think, as in later life he developed the idea of "distributism" – now, a rather esoteric, forgotten theory which aimed to transcend the materialism of both Socialist uniformity and rapacious, unrestrained global capitalism.

A distributist nation

According to Chesterton’s vision of Albion, the country would become a largely co-operative nation of smaller-scale enterprises; with skilled craftsmen making, trading or distributing goods; with property distributed as widely as possible, to encourage freedom and dignity – but with economic life not as an end in itself, but as a means to keep body and soul together. A country of suffiency, not greed – a country of skilled workers and worthy traders – a nation which had the church and tradition at its core: this is the bedrock of G.K’s England.

But the young Gilbert was by no means the certain, convinced, ready-made Catholic and philosopher. Joseph Pearce, in his detailed and lively 1996 biography of Chesterton, gives us a very different portrait of the great writer-in-waiting:

"He was asking the questions but, as yet, had not received the answers. Catholicism, Protestantism, paganism, agnosticism, socialism and spiritualism were all influences to varying degrees at varying times. During these formative years he caught these influences for short periods, much as a man catches influenza… He didn’t accept them as facts but fed on them as fads."

Literature and writing, however, were not his only enthusiasms. Chesterton (a keen doodler and cartoonist) was drawn toward the world of art, and enrolled at the renowned Slade School – although in time drifted away, partly disenchanted by the prevailing fashion of "the moderns", and partly having realised that his talents lay elsewhere. He also enlisted at University College London (1893), where his Latin teacher was the great A.E. Housman, although again, he departed prematurely from his studies. He later reflected:

"It was at the Slade School that I discovered that I should never be an artist; it was at the lectures of Professor A.E. Housman that I discovered

I should never be a scholar; and it was at the lectures of Professor W.P. Ker that I discovered I should never be a literary man."

A brush with the occult

By 1895, and with no degree, G.K. found himself confronted by the dilemma which affects so many aspiring writers – how to live from day-to-day, but still be able to build one’s experience and reputation. Chesterton supported himself by taking employment as a reader of manuscripts at Redway’s, a curious publishing house which specialised in occult texts. But the nature of some of the contributions which landed upon the reader’s desk surprised and shocked him, and he felt compelled to comment upon "the private asylums" from which the manuscripts must have emerged!

This bizarre backwater soon gave way to a more lucrative and mainstream world, that of the publisher T. Fisher Unwin – although Chesterton was still very much the "reader by day, and writer by night". This employment was to last until 1902, but a year after leaving academia, in the autumn of 1896, our literary hero was to find himself at a social gathering which changed his life. Accompanying his old friend from schooldays, Lucien Oldershaw, to the home of the Blogg family in London’s Bedford Park, Gilbert met "the elvish-faced" Miss Frances Blogg – and immediately fell in love.

For Chesterton, Frances corresponded to a romantic, even a religious ideal, and he gave expression to his love in a poem entitled, To My Lady. He wrote:

"God made you very carefully,

He set a star apart for it,
He stained it green and gold with fields
And aureoled it with sunshine;
He people it with kings, peoples, republics,
And so made you, very carefully.
All nature is God’s book, filled with his rough sketches
for you."

The poet proposed to his idealised love two years after their first meeting, in the green surroundings – not of the English countryside – but among the woods and trees of St. James’s Park, one of the great lungs of London. His deeply romantic and chivalrous disposition found its complete expression in Frances, and throughout their life together, Gilbert doted on his wife.

Their first home together was in another London setting, south of the Thames at Battersea.

A striking literary landscape

The solid, quiet inspiration provided by Frances was hugely important to G.K. and in the very early years of the 20th-century, he emerged as one of Fleet Street’s great columnists, principally for The Daily News – and later, for that once-great title, The Illustrated London News. Home was no longer amid the Victorian gloom of London’s Battersea, but in the leafy Home County of Buckinghamshire, where the writer and his wife would live for the rest of their days. But one of the most striking of Chesterton’s literary landscapes was in Berkshire – the chalk downland where the English army of King Alfred met the Danes in mortal combat, and from which Wessex and a true English nation emerged triumphantly.

The Ballad of The White Horse from 1911 is a stirring and romantic epic – full of the wonder of history and the past – the very magic and essence of England. One can almost imagine G.K. as a veteran of Alfred’s army – a great bulk of a man, a chieftain, elder or earl perhaps – drinking a tankard of ale before re-telling the story of heroic exploits on the high, green hills.

Stiff, strange, and quaintly coloured
As the broidery of Bayeux
The England of that dawn remains,
And this of Alfred and the Danes
Seems like the tales a whole tribe feigns
Too English to be true.

Yet Alfred is no fairy tale;
His days as our days ran,
He also looked forth for an hour
On peopled plains and skies that lower,
From those few windows in the tower
That is the head of a man.

In these lines from the Ballad, the reader is shown both the romance, the "fairytale" side to our history – and the sense that despite the drama and mythology, Alfred and his men saw the very contours of the hills which we can see today. For Chesterton, the past and the present are indissolubly linked through landscape and legend.

England under Islam

Two years later, the author entered a world of pure make-believe in his novel, The Flying Inn. The book begins in the perfect English seaside landscape of Pebbleswick – a completely fictional place – but perhaps a compound of Eastbourne, Deal, Selsey, or a dozen other towns or villages by the sea. But it is the political and religious landscape of The Flying Inn which is so remarkable – a strange England in which the ruling class has fallen under the spell of Islam – the traditional pub and the practice of beer-drinking having been outlawed by the imperious Lord Ivywood, ruler of this new unhappy land. An outraged and defiant publican, Humphrey Pump, and his friend, the Irish mariner, Patrick Dalroy, decide that they will not be crushed by the unnatural and alien diktat of the regime, and so take to the open road as fugitives – their barrel of ale and pub sign the last symbols of defiance of the downtrodden English.

Despite the serious purpose of the tale, there are moments of great mirth, and Chesterton unleashes one of his most famous "drinking songs" upon us – The Rolling English Road. Just as The Ballad of the White Horse, unites past and present, so this beery verse creates a similar sense of English unity over the centuries.

Before the Roman came to Rye or out to Severn strode,
The rolling English drunkard made the rolling English road.
A reeling road, a rolling road, that rambles round the shire,
And after him the parson ran, the sexton and the squire;
A merry road, a mazy road, and such as we did tread
The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head.

By the time the revellers have come to the end of their rolling journey, they have passed to
"paradise, by way of Kensal Green" – a line that seems to symbolise an important ideal of Chesterton – that heaven itself is an overlooked suburb or an English town that is thought to be commonplace.

Sadly, but perhaps not too surprisingly, The Flying Inn (at least to my knowledge) exists in no modern edition. Modern sensitivities being what they are, the swashbuckling story of plucky natives fighting a foreign regime – with a climactic battle between alien overlords and the people – might be considered too controversial. However, if you ferret through any old bookshop, there is a chance that – beneath the dust – you will chance upon an old copy of this prophetic work.

The unhappy lords

Finally, let us leave Chesterton not in any one place, but in another mood of grave prophecy – a landscape of the mind, if you will. Of all his poems, The Secret People seems to speak out to true, traditionalist Englishmen and women the world over – especially in these anxious and disturbing times when so many of our institutions have been changed, or have disappeared altogether – where nothing seems right. Never harsh, never strident – the emotions which Chesterton evokes might yet inspire the people of the land he loved…

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia’s wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing.
It may be beer is best.But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

Chesterton died at his Buckinghamshire home in the June of 1936. With the exception of his close friend, Belloc, there was no-one remotely like him – and his place has yet to be filled. Journalist, novelist, poet, polemicist, visionary, thinker, crusader – ‘G.K.’ surprised, startled, educated and won over readers and audiences throughout the world to his unique wisdom and philosophy. There were giants in the land in those days…

Children of the State by David Hamilton

2008-05-14T23:16:00.000-07:00

Slowly, and the elites hope imperceptibly, we are being brought under a totalitarian control. It goes largely unnoticed because the moves seem unconnected and journalists and opposition politicians are part of the same ruling caste. But if you think about the new laws as a movement rather than individual Acts the trend becomes clear. “Your papers please” is a phrase associated with Hitler’s Gestapo when people without papers were taken to detention centres but it is starting here. “British citizens will be quizzed on up to 200 different pieces of personal information in a 30 minute grilling when they apply for a passport. Those who fail to convince the bureaucrats they are who they say will be denied a travel document or face a full investigation by anti-fraud experts. There is no formal appeal process.” (Daily Mail, 21 March 2007)

Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner says “We are now entering the post-democratic age." To put it more directly, an era of the totalitarian control of people by the state. We are in the grip of a narrow ruling elite, an “Ideological Caste,” that admits only those into power with the same views and expels after disgracing, any who dissent as in the public humiliation and sacking of Dr.James Watson.

The “Ideological Caste” is made up of Cultural Marxists who earn vast sums of money and live in the best areas, send their children to the best schools but impose equality on the rest of us. They are thought police but claim to be trying to correct centuries of unfairness while in practice oppressing those with different views; they masquerade as tolerant. They label their targets - If one opposes racially- based, privilege policies, one is racist; if one has religious convictions on sexuality, one is homophobic. They blame Western people for all evil in the world - the writers and heroes they promote are Marxist, Feminist, and homosexual. They believe if people can be moulded in a pre-ordained way they can make the world better and they have the rigid conviction that they know what is best for us.

In 2006 nine members of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service were disciplined for refusing to hand out leaflets at Pride Scotia in Glasgow. The Cowcaddens fire-fighters had been asked to hand out leaflets at the rally in a publicity exercise but refused on moral grounds. Fire chiefs in Strathclyde gave them diversity training. Then at the 2007 event Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue staff joined the Gay Pride march with fire engine, promotional 'fire hats' and public information leaflets on fire safety were handed out. They had been converted into “new people.”

The watchword of the Cultural Marxists grew up in the 1960s: “Everything is Political.” Cultural Marxism is a total ideological system, supplying opinions for every aspect of life. It is a less brutal but more manipulative technological version of Stalin's Russia. The plan is ideological: to create a new kind of society and a new human personality like Homo Sovieticus; Nazi ideology in Germany was similar with the utopia as a thousand year Reich of “pure Aryans” as was Pol Pot’s ideology to build civilization anew by wiping out the existing people. These were not merely forms of government but a Weltanschauung, the German word for the phrase a "world-perspective." In the west it is the masses with their traditional values who must be changed.

Begin with those who can not object. People who apply for crisis loans from Income Support are told “The Department of Works and Pensions retain personal details on computer.” These people are being classified. Britain has more than a fifth of the world's CCTV cameras. NHS records are to be put on a national computer accessible to thousands of health workers. Ministers want every British subject to have their DNA kept on a national database.

The state takes over our children by social indoctrination and the school leaving age is being raised to 18. Education will not improve but there will be more time for state parenting as in school holiday clubs and breakfast clubs. This is Totalitarianism and our children are being taken over by the state. It is to condition them for being monitored 24 hours a day.

The State has the DNA records of nearly a million children, some as young as five, and have been secretly taking their fingerprints since 2001 and nearly 6,000 pupils have had their prints taken. Each week 20 schools introduce fingerprinting. Ostensibly this electronic mapping system allows children to borrow books from the library is exciting for the children and helps them develop a love of books and reading? It replaces library cards by the child's fingerprint and placing the print on a scanner opens their computer file with records of the books they have borrowed. They say this would greatly simplify record-keeping. The biometric data could be stolen by identity thieves.

The Minister for Schools and Learning, Jim Knight, said that when working on a crime police have access to the children’s fingerprints but parents are not notified of this treatment of their children. To remove the prints takes professional cleansing. The schools, education authorities and the Government say it is difficult to convert this code back though not impossible and a computer whizz-kid could re-create the original fingerprints for illicit purposes. To save our children we must set up Home Schooling networks and when the authorities try to impose restrictions, refuse them.

Identity theft is a common reason given for increasing regulation. Biometric information such as fingerprints cannot be changed like a PIN number and will be used to authenticate passports or bank accounts. People confuse I.D. like drivers' licences with these totalitarian devices. Alarmingly, some of the companies supplying the finger mapping systems to schools have connections with the American intelligence services and military operating at Guantanamo Bay.

I looked at the Identity & Passport Service Website: "ID cards will link your basic personal information to something uniquely yours - like the pattern of your iris, your face shape or your fingerprint. It will protect your identity from people fraudulently claiming to be you and make it easier for you to prove your identity when you need to - like opening a bank account, moving house, applying for benefits or starting a job."

The Home Office website states ” 21 of the 25 E.U. Member States have already introduced ID cards.” Officials from Government to Council Officers will have powers to investigate every phone call in Britain. Laws are being introduced to compel phone companies to keep all landline and mobile calls however private and allow 795 public bodies and Quangos to eavesdrop, tax authorities, 475 local councils, and a many other organisations, including the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the Gaming Board and the Charity Commission. The initiative, formulated after the Madrid and London terrorist attacks of 2004 and 2005, was presented as a major weapon in the fight against terrorism. This is being introduced across Europe and originates with the bureaucrats who run the E.U.

The records will detail the calls made, their time, duration, and the name and address of the registered user of the phone. The files will show where people are at the time they make mobile phone calls and by knowing which mast transmitted the signal officials can pinpoint the source of a call to within a few feet. If you make a call from a moving car it can track your route and also allows police and security services to investigate with or without cause the phone records of British subjects and businesses.

Files will also be kept of all sent and received text messages. By 2009 the Government plans to extend the rules to cover internet use: the websites we have visited, the people we have emailed and phone calls made over the net. This was introduced by the decree of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. The new laws will make it a legal requirement for phone companies to keep records for at least a year, and to make them available to the authorities. The measures were implemented after Smith signed a 'statutory instrument' on July 26 2007 which allows the Government to alter laws without a full act of Parliament.

The move was waved through the House of Lords two days earlier without a debate. It puts into UK law a European Directive aimed at the ‘investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime'. Other organizations with access to the data include - the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the Department of Trade and Industry, NHS Trusts, ambulance and fire services, the Department of Transport and the Department for the Environment.

The Home Office claims there are safeguards as every authority had a nominated senior member of staff who was legally responsible for the use the phone data was put to, 'the integrity of the process' and for 'reporting errors'. A spokesman said: 'The most detailed level of data can be accessed only by law enforcement agencies such as the police. More basic access is available to local authority bodies such as trading standards and environmental health who can only use these powers to prevent and detect crime.' It is said that Councils would only use these powers in circumstances such as benefit fraud. They say the powers would only be used against non-payers of council tax or for parking fines as the sums involved are not enough to justify the use of this information or the costs of applying it.

In July 2006 The Observer reported that British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world. Under proposed laws being drawn up secretly by the European Commission’s ‘Article Six’ committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union’s 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest.

The Home Office wants to include children in its biometric passport scheme in three years' time, and automatically transfer their details and fingerprints to the new national identity database when they are 16. Millions of children as young as 11 are to have their fingerprints taken and stored on a Government database, according to leaked Whitehall plans. As it is more than one million people's genetic fingerprints have been added to the police DNA database. It is biggest in the world and stores details of over 4.5million people and covers one in 13 of the population - around 7.5 per cent. The rapid growth indicates the Government is underhandedly building a universal genetic database. 6.5m people are on the police fingerprint database and a third of 3,000 matches a month with samples taken from crime scenes.

Around a third of all the DNA stored is taken from individuals who were not charged with any offence, and have no criminal record. There has been a massive rise in the number of children on the database which includes 150,000 under-16. The DNA records are taken whether a youngster has committed a crime or not and held on file until they die. Data has been used for genetic research without consent, including attempts to predict "ethnic appearance" from DNA profiles.

Government agencies could use the database to track political activists, find out who they are related to, or to refuse jobs to any classified "undesirable" or just business people or the unemployed. The Government built this database in their own interests and without public or Parliamentary debate. In the past, police could take a DNA sample only from suspects who were charged with a criminal offence, and it was destroyed if they were subsequently cleared or a prosecution dropped. But under reforms introduced in 2000 officers no longer have to erase innocent people's entries. In 2004 police were given the power to take DNA swabs from anyone placed under arrest.

War criminal Tony Blair insisted there should be "no limit" to the number on the database even innocent people not accused of an offence should be listed. The Government will eventually link the database to its plans for ID cards, and then make DNA sampling universal. The latest published figures show 4,523,154 entries are held. A third are from those with no convictions or criminal record, suggesting that 1.5 million innocent people have their DNA stored. At this rate the database will have nearly 10 million profiles by 2011. There are 150,000 children aged 16 or under stored, 334,000 between 16 and 18 and about 50 under-tens on the database. The DNA of a seven-month-old girl was added.

Police can take DNA samples from anyone who is arrested. Regardless of whether the suspect is accused of a serious offence or a trivial one like dropping litter. They use a swab to scrape a few cells from the inside of the suspect's cheek, and lab workers extract the unique DNA gene sequence which is then uploaded to the database. Even if the case is dropped, the samples are kept on file. Police also take DNA from arrested children without parent’s permission. One can write to a chief constable asking for an entry to be deleted if they can prove they are an "exceptional case". But this is very difficult.

A proposed law giving unelected bureaucrats powers to punish people for offences instead of going to court will give civil servants the power to issue fines, was unjust and oppressive and could cause untold misery for businesses. Anyone affected would have to appeal to a tribunal to challenge a ruling “ and pay their own legal bills. The legislation returns to the House of Lords today for a final day of debate before it moves to the Commons.

In typical political jargon, ministers say the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill is designed to take further important steps towards modern and effective regulatory enforcement. It will enable bureaucrats to issue fixed penalties to businesses of any size, as well as to individuals. The fines will range up to £3,500 “ but could also include so-called unlimited variable penalties running into millions for big businesses and will harm businesses already struggling from 178 different Acts of Parliament. Like the other totalitarian states I have mentioned bureaucrats will be operating the law. Such regimes already exist with police cautions, (any crime which is thought possible to issue a caution for), on the spot fines for drunkenness; the Inland Revenue (penalties); Customs and Excise (now part of the combined Revenue and Customs department, HMRC ) penalties; penalties for speeding, parking, littering etc.

Laws to protect people are being removed. A consequence of the Macpherson report is the reduction in legal protection for those under suspicion.

Ostensibly, the repeal of Double Jeopardy in 2005 followed a marathon campaign by Ann Ming, after her daughter was murdered in 1989. Her killer, a violent alcoholic and acquitted in 1991, but later admitted his guilt, believing he would get away with the crime because of the traditional safeguard against tyrants charging people several times. Mrs. Ming lobbied several Home Secretaries and won because the Macpherson report suggested double jeopardy should be abolished where there was "fresh and viable" new evidence. That happened in 2005, and in 2006 Dunlop was convicted. This was a convenient case to use because the removal of Double Jeopardy was a recommendation of the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and would enable the state to repeatedly try “racists” until they get a conviction.

The Pulborough Parish Council magazine reported that police were asking residents to report other residents for 'tailgating' or driving too close to another vehicle. What type of society calls on friends and neighbours to watch each other and report each other to the police apart from ours?- Mao’s China, Stalinist Russia, the Eastern bloc 'Stasi' societies, and Nazi Germany. Have the police not got something better to do than to make notes of people who are alleged to have 'tailgated'? The police are being used to control people not to protect the public by stopping burglars, thieves, muggers, vandals, street beggars and drunkenness in public. They have given up on fighting crime to police our thoughts.

In Orwellian Doublethink, inequality is called equality; state control, freedom; persecution of the politically incorrect, tolerance; gender quotas equal opportunity and bigoted anti-racism that persecutes one race, whites! Language is the medium for transmitting thought and an embryonic totalitarian state gives words new meanings to shape thought for the new state.

They believe reality is a social construct and if we can only think in the correct way reality will change. It is like the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis in linguistics which holds that without the word we cannot have the idea. But what about feelings? Without a wide and adequate grammar people become frustrated and angry as intelligent but inarticulate people do. We must do all in our power to expand our vocabularies and make sure our children are not denied the fullest English lexicon.

In an article “They also change the language “the Daily Express of July 3, 2007 reported on moves towards totalitarian control of what we think through language.”Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with Muslim terrorism. The Prime Minister has told his ministers that the phrase “war on -terror” is to be dropped. This is part of an attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims by adopting a more “consensual” tone than Blair. It is to mould our thinking.

Home Secretary Smith is trying the old con of pretending political terrorists are criminals, “Let us be clear – terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions. Terrorists attack the values shared by all law-abiding citizens. As a Government, as communities, as individuals, we need to ensure that the message of the terrorists is rejected.” How, by changing their descriptions?

The Television companies are a vehicle of subtle tyranny and employees follow the movement or be put out of work. Vacancies in television were only ever advertised in the Guardian to make sure they only employed liberals and socialists. It helps ensure the right attitude in employees. Teaching posts were also advertised there.

Following on the Religious Hatred Law which carries a 7 year penalty the totalitarian “Ideological Caste” is introducing anti homophobic laws that also has a 7 year penalty. If this is not tyranny I do not know what is. This is the counter culture of the 1960s making its moral values the basis of our law and oppressing the members of the public who are individual or think for themselves. As Christians once shaped society when sodomy was a crime, not a “lifestyle,” the “lifestyle” view is now being enshrined in law and replacing the traditional view. As a judge put it “The Truth is no Defence.”

Just keep repeating the lie and prevent others from expressing opposition and soon there is a new reality supported by invented British history. Trevor Phillips openly called for British history to be rewritten at the 2007 Labour Party conference. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights has powers to impose their policies and the justification is upholding European Union laws on xenophobia and hate. To assert our identity is xenophobia – a criminal offence!
The Daily telegraph of 17 march 2008 reported that Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women, is considering scrapping current laws that stop employers from taking race or sex into consideration when interviewing candidates for jobs. White men could be stopped from getting jobs under government plans to allow employers to give ethnic minority and female candidates preferential treatment. The “doublespeak” is “positive action" and prevents applicants with better job credentials getting the job if they are the wrong sex or race. They are changing our morality from Traditional to a universal one based on equality but imposing Equality of Outcome. Their aim is the eradication of racism, sexism, class elitism the nation and the creation of pools of global cheap labour in a one-world or global state to be created in stages like the E.U.

Spin doctoring is to manipulate people into accepting what the elites are introducing. One of the origins of Cultural Marxism was Anthony Crosland who destroyed Grammar Schools to turn the Working Classes into a Lumpenproletariat or Underclass. Comprehensive schooling, by depriving people in the middle levels, of a proper historical and political education, has made manipulation easier as has teaching only small areas of history. Children are taught to equate nationalism with Nazism.

Our ancestors fought against tyranny and we must too! John Hampden’s stand against King Charles I was heroic and he died in battle for his beliefs. The struggle for trial by jury and Habeas Corpus, for the Right to Bear Arms for protection against the billeting of soldiers or searches of our houses must not be lost now to deception. Macaulay's history tells of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which a courageous jury saved us from despotism - is inspirational. The politicians then were cowardly and deceitful like the present lot but the core of the English people opposed tyranny as English men and women and defended national independence.

Sites of groups opposed to the new tyranny:

Statewatch : http://www.statewatch.org/

Civitas http://www.civitas.org.uk/

OPERA WARS by Mike Smith

2008-04-21T11:57:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, some inclusively-minded ‘cultural’ oracle proclaimed ‘All operas are left-wing’. Well, I suppose many works written from the Enlightenment onwards might be described as conveying a ‘liberal’ message, Beethoven’s Fidelio and Verdi’s Don Carlos being obvious examples. In Brussels, Auber’s La Muette de Portici, inspired by the Neapolitan revolt against the Spaniards, touched off a real-life revolution against the House of Orange.

But the truth is that none of this can be said of early opera, once a closed book, but now an important part of the modern repertoire. From the philosophical and historical researches of the Florentine Camerata, to the dawn of the Enlightenment and beyond, opera manifested itself as an art form which, with its casts of heroes, gods and wise princes, tended to glorify absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchs, after all, more often than not paid the piper. True, opera prospered in republican Hamburg and for a meteoric but glittering period in constitutional England under Handel, Bononcini and other composers of the first rate. In London, however, the art remained very much an exotic import, and it is perhaps significant that the Dutch Republic, for all its wealth and love of novelty, remained an operatic desert.

Yet a revolution lay on the horizon. Naples was very far from being a rechtsstaat, let alone a democracy, but in the streets of the most musical of European capitals the common people sang from morning to night, finding a freedom in music they were denied in the field of politics. It was in Naples in 1733 that a brilliant young composer, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, produced a simple one-act comic opera La Serva Padrona, which employed folk-song like arias to tell a charming burlesque story of a cunning maid who tricks her elderly master into marrying her.

The piece was originally no more than an intermezzo inserted between the acts of Pergolesi’s opera seria Il Prigioniero Superbo, a work that rapidly disappeared from view. La Serva Patrona, however, was an immediate hit. Three years later Pergolesi lay dead at the age of 26, but his musical offspring survived to conquer Europe.

In 1752, La Serva Padrona was given in Paris by an itinerant Italian troupe of comic actors, who needed little singing talent to perform the simple work. Immediately the cause of this new form of opera was taken up by men of letters who, needless to say, had ulterior motives for their partisanship. The resultant controversy, conduced in the columns of newspapers and in pamphlets was celebrated as the "Querelle des Bouffons" (War of the Comedians) and may to some extent be seen as a proxy for the largely suppressed political arguments of the day.

The debate highlighted the differences between what was characterised as the vibrant and progressive character of Italian opera and the stultified traditions of French Tragédie-lyrique. Now this is an interpretation which may be strongly challenged, but what is without doubt is that in France, under the patronage of the absolute monarchy, an art-form had developed which had become exclusively French, for all its Italian roots.

In the operas of Monteverdi and Cavalli we find continuous streams of harmony with an absence of discrete songs or arias. This was the tradition that Jean-Baptiste Lully, himself an Italian by birth, had brought to the court of Louis XIV and which, after his death had continued as if preserved in aspic. Operas by Lully remained in the repertoire for decade after decade, and were joined by the imitative works of lesser talents such as Delalande and Destouches.

Certainly, with his début opera Hippolyte et Aricie in 1733 Jean-Phillipe Rameau had brought about a much-needed revolution in Tragédie-lyrique, but it remained still Tragédie-lyrique; sung in French, relying upon semi-declamatory vocal harmonies rather than melody, and eschewing the services of the talented and glamorous castrati who had taken the rest of Europe by storm.

As it happened, the 1752 performance of La Serva Padrona coincided with a revival of Destouche’s Omphale, a work which was now 51 years old. This was the catalyst for the philosophe Grimm, who launched a stinging attack upon the creaking work and upon the Opera itself. "The composer is dead" wrote Grimm, "and his work had little enough life in the first place".

Grimm’s Lettre sur Omphale whipped up an immediate storm, with men and women of fashion and learning taking up the cudgels either for the cause of cultured French opera or for the demotic, easy-going manners of the Italian interloper. Now came to the fray Grimm’s friend, the expatriate Swiss Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on this occasion motivated less by political ideology than by motives of revenge.

When Rousseau came to Paris in 1743, he had done so as a would-be composer and musical theorist, and his idol was the greatest living French composer, Rameau. The austere and cerebral Rameau, as famous for his works of musical theory and philosophy, as for his keyboard publications, had won new laurels when he started to compose opera at the relatively advanced age of 50. This giant, who had absurdly proclaimed music to be first among the sciences, was widely hailed in France as ‘The Newton of Music’.

The newcomer had brought with him a plan for a revolutionary new system of musical notation, which rapidly sank without trace. Rousseau brought also the sketches for an opéra-ballet entitled Les Muses galantes in blatant imitation of Rameau’s highly successful work Les Indes Galantes. The intended tribute was brusquely rebuffed by the notoriously rude Rameau, and Rousseau now conceived in his heart an implacable hatred for his former hero.
By 1752, however, Rousseau had himself found fame with Le Devin du Village, a miniature French comic opera of peasant life which was performed before Louis XV and the court at Fontainebleau to enormous acclaim. The king’s unmelodious voice was heard around the palace singing Rousseau’s hit aria J'ai perdu mon serviteur and Rousseau, had his daemon not led him in a different direction, could have claimed a freely-offered place as a favoured and cosseted court composer.

Now, with his place in the operatic pantheon apparently assured, Rousseau turned with relish to uphold the cause of Italian Opera buffa against the aristocratic grandeur of the Paris Opera and, therefore against the living symbol of that grandeur, Jean-Philippe Rameau.

Rameau, who himself had years before been denounced as an anti-traditionalist, remained aloof throughout the controversy, but it must have pained him deeply to see his wealthy patron, the fermier-général Le Riche de La Pouplinière, drawn to the side of the ‘Italians’.

Meanwhile Rousseau’s assault upon French opera in particular and French music in general became ever shriller. Finally in Lettre sur la musique Françoise, published the following year, he overstepped the mark completely.

"I think that I have shown that there is neither measure nor melody in French music, because the language is not capable of them; that French singing is a continual squalling, insupportable to an unprejudiced ear; that its harmony is crude and devoid of expression and suggests only the padding of a pupil; that French ‘airs’ are not airs; that French recitative is not recitative. From this I conclude that the French have no music and cannot have any; or that if they ever have, it will be so much the worse for them."

Paris reacted with outrage. Rousseau’s free pass at the Opéra was summarily withdrawn, he was allegedly abused and kicked when he attempted to enter the building and the members of the orchestra burned him in effigy. With characteristic paranoia, Jean-Jacques decided that there must be a plot to murder him and in 1754, he decamped to his Genevan birthplace. This was to be the first leg of that tormented yet productive journey through an unsympathetic Switzerland which led him, catastrophically, to England before his final return to France,

Now Rameau, who had carefully avoided being drawn into the opera controversy, could not resist taking a swipe at his stricken tormentor, and he launched an attack on Rousseau's contributions to the musical entries in the Encyclopédie. To Rameau’s chagrin he now became the personal object of counter-attacks from d'Alembert and Diderot. The lasting legacy of this quarrel was Diderot’s brilliant satirical dialogue Le Neveu de Rameau.

Wounded by the criticism from his fellow-intellectuals, Rameau retreated into a crabbed and disillusioned old age and died in 1764 at the then considerable age of eighty-one. The daring and dazzling effects of his last, unperformed, stage work Les Boréades proved that for all his disenchantment he remained the unchallenged king of French opera.

In 1767 Rousseau fled to France from England in panic, his head whirling with fantasies of planned kidnap and assassination. He relocated to Paris in 1770 and lived in quiet seclusion, a shadow of his former self.

Now to Paris came Christoph Willibald Gluck, the ennobled scion of Bohemian foresters. In Vienna Gluck had been music tutor to the Hapsburg princess Marie Antoinette, who in 1770 his pupil married the Dauphin, the future Louis XVI . In 1774, the same year that Marie Antoinette became Queen of France, Gluck obtained a contract to write for the Paris Opéra.

Years before, Gluck had declared himself a disciple of Rousseau. Orfeo ed Euridice, received its premiere at Vienna in 1762, and with its tiny cast and pure melodies stripped of superfluous ornament, Gluck seemed to have realised the apotheosis of the type of opera exemplified by La Serva Padrona and Le Devin du Village.

Yet Orfeo had been this and much more. Gluck’s little masterpiece consciously integrated drama, music and dance in a manner more reminiscent of the stage works of Rameau. His first work for Paris Iphigénie en Aulide (1774) took the process a stage further, in effect synthesising the French tradition of Tragédie-lyrique with that of Italian opera.

Yet the premiere of Gluck’s superb work gave rise to a storm of controversy. Unlike the Querelle des Bouffons, which had deep intellectual roots, the inspiration of this row seemed to owe more to a general chauvinistic resentment of a clever foreigner who had set out to teach the French their business. So, with a breathtaking absence of logic the patriotic party chose as their champion an Italian Niccolò Piccinni, whose light-hearted if somewhat lightweight opere buffe had amused the Parisian public for years. In her memoirs the celebrated portraitist Élisabeth-Louise Vigée-Le Brun gives a vivid picture of the new battleground.

‘The love of music was so general that it occasioned a serious quarrel between those who were called Gluckists and Piccinists. All amateurs were divided into two opposing factions. The usual field of battle was the garden of the Palais Royal. There the partisans of Gluck and the partisans of Piccini went at each other with such violence that there was more than one duel to record.’

1774 saw the premiere of a recast and extended version of Orfeo, translated into French with the former castrato title role now given to a tenor, in accordance with Parisian taste. The production was generally well received, and in that year a poignant meeting took place between the ailing and reclusive Jean-Jacques and his admirer, the glamorous Chevalier. The two men got on remarkably well. Rousseau died four years later, one of his last published writings being an enthusiastic review of Gluck's opera Alceste, a reinterpretation of the very same story which had inspired one of Lully’s greatest masterpieces.

So, in a sense, the story had come full circle, with little more than a decade to run before the world-shattering events of 1789. In 1779 Gluck suffered a stroke and returned to Vienna, leaving the Paris Opera in the capable hands of his protégé Antonio Salieri ,

In 1787, the year of Gluck’s death, Salieri scored a huge triumph with Tarare, to the libretto of Beaumarchais. In the tradition of Gluck’s reforms Salieri’s music served the drama, and what a drama! The death of a royal tyrant and his replacement by a patriotic and popular commander uncannily reflected the unstoppable march of French history. As the people crown Tarare, the final chorus proclaims ‘Your greatness comes not from your rank, but from your character.’

The politics of opera had been replaced by the opera of politics.

The English Music Festival and the Cultural Wars - by David Hamilton

2008-03-14T00:38:00.000-07:00

In a speech to the Institution for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on Britishness, Heritage and the Arts, Margaret Hodge, Minister of State for Culture, Media & Sport is a former Chair of the Fabian Executive Committee said “a shared sense of common cultural identity” was a key part of social integration and cohesion.

She added: “This is not about making every audience completely representative but if we claim great things for our [cultural] sectors in terms of their power to bring people together, then we have a right to expect they will do that wherever they can.” She also praised other institutions for “creating the icons of a common culture that everybody can feel a part of” — such as The Angel of the North, the British Museum, the Eden Project in Cornwall and TV and radio shows “from Coronation Street to The Archers”. But she acknowledged that culture could also be divisive, citing the examples of Jerry Springer: the Opera, which Christians said was blasphemous. She also suggested that British citizenship ceremonies be held in historic buildings such as castles to help people to “associate their new citizenship with key cultural icons”. This is Cultural Marxism. It is culture as social engineering. The use of grants leads promoters and artists in a pre-planned official direction.

While our traditional culture is attacked Em Marshall is staging the second English Music Festival from the 23rd to the 27th of May 2008. People enjoy this music when they get the chance to see it performed and she is regularly approached about a work not heard live. Gustav Holst’s Walt Whitman had never been performed at a professional concert, only at amateur productions, before the first English Music Festival staged it.

The Festival is a cornucopia of English Classical music from Medieval to Contemporary. The main evening concerts will be at the medieval Abbey at Dorchester-on-Thames, several at Radley College Chapel, and All Saints Church, Sutton Courtenay. There will also be a concert at the Chapel of Keble College, Oxford University. Over the five days there will be fourteen concerts and recitals that give the audience the almost mystical experience of listening to performances of exquisite English music from the arc of the centuries, yet the focus is on the twentieth century and many overlooked pieces will be performed. It is reviving an important part of our culture.

The series opens with a major concert by the BBC Concert Orchestra of works including Holbrook’s Birds of Rhiannon, Rawsthorne’s Practical Cats and Mackenzie’s Benedictus and featuring music by Parry and Bantock. They will also bring many unjustly neglected pieces back to life. Other artists booked to appear include the Carducci Quartet, performing Vaughan Williams and Moeran String Quartets; Vox Musica, the Amaretti Orchestra, including Ifni’s Clarinet Concerto, Ireland and Elgar; Keble College Choir performing Sullivan’s Sacred Music; and Hilary Davan Wetton with the Milton Keynes City Orchestra and City of London Chorus doing Holst and Howells. There will be Elgar’s Banner of St.George and Dyson’s Agincourt, a concert of organ music, a concert of Arne and Linley. Early Music Solo Song and, for a lighter period, Mayerl with David Owen Norris give a broad look at the variety of our national musical inheritance. The conclusion is to be a “Grand Finale.” Philip Lane will be a composer featured, along with David Owen Norris, Paul Carr, and maybe Ron Corp and Matthew Curtis.

Yehudi Menhuin wrote to the Times in 1995, “English composers will not slavishly follow some arbitrary theory or construction, whether political or musical. They have kept their Englishness intact, whilst the mercantilistic world has gone all-American.”

Why is it neglected? Like other aspects of English culture it is the victim of a negative ideology that devalues it with pejorative labels like “elitist” or “narrow” but the labels do not fit reality. English music is not imitation but innovative and has developed significantly from the early twentieth century but is still rooted in the English tradition - it is tuneful, melodic, tonal and recognisably English. English Classical Music is hidden by a cloud of prejudice and ignorance from its rightful audience by being characterised as “elitist” or “quaint” when in fact it has the tonal qualities that people enjoyed before modernism set out to destroy them. It is a living, but obscured, tradition and often requested on Classic FM, whose “The Hall of Fame”, is the world's biggest annual survey of classical music tastes; The Lark Ascending by Vaughan Williams is the nation's favourite English work. It is one of the pieces which listeners ask to hear most and epitomises the English pastoral tradition.

Margaret Hodge’s statements are part of the Cultural Marxists cultural hegemony. It is based on Gramsci’s ideas to undermine the traditional nation through changing the culture. The function of Cultural Marxist ideological hegemony is to legitimise the power and status of the ruling “ideological caste” to which Ms.Hodge belongs, and to pathologise dissent and the traditional culture. It is an aspect of the developing totalitarian state which interferes in all aspects of our lives trying to mould us for the new utopia.. The old left aimed for utopia and used subversion but mainly economic and by attacking our industries through strikes. Cultural Marxists use the culture to subvert and deceive us by utilising Liberal concepts of justice, peace, rights and good will between all people to destroy our traditional ways, standards and laws, our history and heroes; every autonomous institution, set of historical associations - the new utopia will emerge from the ruins as if by magic. They see English culture as a major stumbling block and want to eradicate it.

In 2005 the Proms had a number of all-English programmes and all but one sold-out, whereas other non-English music programmes did not. The Gloucester 3 Choirs Festival in 2001 did a special Festival of only English music and sold out swiftly. The BBC Music Magazine has a Top 20 Best sellers list and there is some really interesting English music discs there, often by obscure composers.

Yet despite this noble heritage, much of this glorious music is overlooked. “English Music” festivals tend to either fail at the outset for lack of funds or become internationalised and absorbed into the Social Engineering Culture. The Cheltenham Festival was founded as “The Cheltenham Festival of British Music”, but went “international” and now stages the same as everywhere else.
Without renewal our culture would die and the Festival renews by commissioning works. An oratorio “Prayerbook”, written and performed specially for the first Festival by David Owen Norris was acclaimed by the audience. The Clarinet and viola heralding Vaughan Williams's Norfolk Rhapsody No 1 was a beautiful performance. (1906). A bracing work was ”Oration” by Britten's mentor, Frank Bridge. The haunting, cello concerto, is a passionate cry against the barbarity of the Great War and expresses the miseries of the Front. Julian Lloyd Webber was sympathetic to the solo line, as the cello strives to extricate a poignant lyricism from the tensions of the orchestral background. He returned for Holst’s seldom performed Invocation (1911).

It is usual to get a series of say Mahler, Brahms but rarely English Classical composers. Frederick Cliffe’s First Symphony of 1889, was only revived after 83 years' neglect. The Daily Telegraph of 22 April 1889, had published a review: “It may be doubted whether musical history can show on any of its pages the record of such an Opus. The symphony is a masterpiece, and the composer, one might think, feels terrified at his own success. For our own part, noting the imaginative power displayed in the work, the easy command of all resources, the beauty and freshness of the themes, and their brilliant development, we feel inclined to ask a question, propounded concerning another phenomenon "Whence has this man these things?” Mr Cliffe has by one effort passed from obscurity to fame, and must be regarded as a bright and shining star on the horizon of our English art.”'

Over a century later The Daily Telegraph of 26 April 2004 had a feature on John Foulds as the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra released their recording of “Dynamic Tryptich.” Conductor Sakari Oramo explained, Foulds composed "some of the most original music ever conceived". Malcolm MacDonald, editor of music magazine Tempo, believes: "There's no question he was a genius and one of the most significant English composers of the last century. MacDonald, found some scores in the British Library: "I got out a dozen pieces, and the first thing I opened was the Dynamic Triptych. I was blown away by it. This was music unlike any British composer of the time. I was amazed it was lying around, and no one was playing it. ”Foulds's daughter " took me to the garage, where there were two coffin-sized boxes full of sketches and manuscripts she's been left by her mother." Unfortunately, many of the manuscripts were damaged by rats and ants. In his book “Music Today” Foulds's, explained how, by strict diet and meditation, he had developed his clairvoyant and clairaudient abilities. Much of his music, he claimed, was dictated to him by spirits.”
In the Baroque period we produced composers of immense skill like Purcell, Byrd, Arne, Tallis and Blow. The period between Arne and Parry has been dismissed as a “musical Ice-Age” though we had Stainer, Wesley, Potter, Sterndale Bennett, Crotch, who were on a par with foreign contemporaries, but not progressive enough for international attention. In 1769 Englishman Philip Hayes, who built Oxford’s beautiful Holywell Music Room, composed the world’s first piano concerto! Some great composers died young: Edward Bache, composer of exquisite chamber works, died at 25, and Thomas Linley, died aged 22 in a boating accident in 1777, yet produced wonderful anthems, odes and oratorio, about one of which was written “Neither Purcell nor Mozart ever gave stronger proof of original genius than can be traced in this charming ode”.

Even during the ravages of Modernism in the twentieth century there was a renaissance of music in England of works of innovation, power, drama and beauty. Stanford and Parry were at the fount and in a Brahmsian style created English music equal to Brahms himself; Elgar continued the creation of an English style through merging Brahms and Wagner. Richard Strauss described Elgar as “the first Progressivist in English Music”, and Hans Richter told his orchestra of Elgar’s First, “Gentleman, now let us rehearse the greatest symphony of modern times, written by the greatest modern composer”! Others found inspiration abroad and incorporated the sounds into something uniquely “English”; Delius turned to the continent and Negro spirituals to develop a unique sound with lush, rich harmonies. Vaughan Williams returned to English roots in folk and Tudor to revive an English music, rebelling against the ubiquitous Teutonic schools. English solo song grew from parlour song and folk roots into a beautiful, high-art form; at the other end of the scale, England had answers to Wagner in the music of Bantock and Holbrooke, “the Cockney Wagner”, composers of long, deeply romantic, intense music – to rival Wagner’s Ring, and epic orchestral works. Writing about Holbrooke’s The Raven, Irish composer Hamilton Harty said “there is beautiful and impressive music in that work, and, as I told the orchestra, it is so infinitely superior to the foreign muck with which we are deluged nowadays!” Other composers of this period to listen to include Bridge, Bowen, Moeran, Finzi, Sainton, Bainton, Mackenzie, Gibbs, Berners, Dyson, Bax, Bliss, Ireland, Lambert, Boughton, Coles, Coleridge Taylor, Dunhill, Foulds, Dale, Goossens, William Lloyd Webber, MacCunn, Armstrong, Harty, Friskin, McEwen, Phillips, Scott, Rawsthorne, Rubbra, Hadley and Howells. These, and many more, are known by a small corpus of recorded works which show great individuality, inspiration, and visionary orchestral confidence.

England is a nation whose music and literature are drawn from the landscape, from rolling hills to the desolation of mud flats and moors. Seascapes too: an island nation, we are drawn to the wildness and openness of the sea. We have not the sublimity of the Alps nor the majestic sweeps of the Tabernas desert, the spectacular fjords of Norway nor the thick dense forests of Germany; but, for centuries, artists, poets and composers have been inspired by the picturesque hues and shades in our “blue remembered hills”, the nuances of light-beams in enchanting woods, the changes of seasons , inconstant weather, the dramatic sweeps of the lakes and dales that inspired Wordsworth.

Yehudi Menhuin, wrote: “I am drawn to English music because I love the way it reflects the climate and the vegetation which know no sharp edges, no definitive demarcation, where different hues of green melt into each other and where the line between sea and land is always joined and changing, sometimes gradually, sometime dramatically. The music … is a very human music, not given to shattering utterances, to pronouncements of right or wrong, not to abstract intellectual processes, to human emotion in the abstract, but to a single man’s experience of today as related to a particular place…”

In 1927, Holst wrote incidental music to a mystery play The Coming of Christ which has never been recorded. As I mentioned, Cliffe’s first symphony, an acclaimed masterpiece, has not had a professional public performance for over 90 years. His second symphony has not been published; none of the symphonies by Walford Davies, Coleridge Taylor and Somervell are available, nor is Bowen’s first symphony which was so popular that The Times devoted a whole column to analysing it; Delius’ opera A Village Romeo and Juliet, considered by many the first great modern English opera, has not been performed at either the Royal Opera House or English National Opera for over half a century.

Contemporary artists have similar repertoires and only a small number of works are considered “acceptable.” Concert mangers are not prepared to take risks so programme what they know or popular classics for government funding. A programme of Brahms, Tchaikovsky or Verdi is familiar and safe but to present say, Moeran, Gibbs and Farrar a risk. English music is not fashionable. It is not politically correct and managers hesitate to promote anything English, as if inimical to other cultures. In an era of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” English culture is shunned. It is not the done thing to seem nationalistic by celebrating our traditions: the ending of Elgar’s Caractacus is stigmatised because it points forward to a great British Empire! We are supposed to be ashamed of our culture and ignore it or apologise. Composers of the early twentieth century are dismissed as the “English pastoral composers," lesser musicians whose works are put below the Germanic, Russian, or Scandinavian schools. But the pastoral tradition has always inspired composers and poets.

The term ‘pastoral’ is broad and its meaning of ‘rural’ and ‘innocence’, was used by Classical and Christian artists with its associations of Eden, Arcadia or a ‘Golden Age’, and nostalgia for beauty and sublimity lost through the Fall or the degeneration of Man. Pastoral goes to the roots of our culture: In the ninth century BC, Hesiod contemplated the ages of mankind from a Golden Age to his own ‘Iron Age’. Six centuries later, the pastoral was a literary form in the Idylls of Theocritus, a tradition Virgil built upon in his Eclogues two centuries later. In Christianity the Garden of Eden provided an equivalent to the Arcadia of Classical poets, and the concept of the Fall established the nostalgic pastoral inclination as a natural human impulse. For the Romantic poets, witnessing the beginning of the industrial revolution, the city was a consequence of the Fall and the contrast with nature and a new interest in childhood enabled them to draw a parallel between humankind’s degeneration or Fall from Eden and a child’s loss of innocence as he enters adulthood.

It is often based in a particular location or built from folk song-like melodies - Williams’ three Norfolk Rhapsodies (1905-07), and In the Fen Country (1904); Holst’s A Somerset Rhapsody (1906-7); Butterworth’s Rhapsody: A Shropshire Lad (1912), his Two English Idylls (1911) and The Banks of Green Willow (1913); and Finzi’s A Severn Rhapsody (1923). The sleeve notes to a recording of A Severn Rhapsody read: ‘The music gently evokes the mood of the English countryside and the meandering river’. A pastoral characteristic, reflective of rural ‘simplicity’. These works bespeak a retreat from the care, complexity, or harshness of society. English classical music has its roots in the country; is rooted in our landscape but not necessarily a picturesque one. Gustav Holst was walking in the desolate Dorsetshire country between Wool and Bere Regis in 1926 when visited by inspiration and he started Egdon Heath, also prompted by the opening chapter of Thomas Hardy's Return of the Native. The music is stark and austere. As for elitism anyone can go to these concerts without passing a test. They just have to like the music. Furthermore, composers like Holst wrote music for brass bands. “The Moorside Suite” was used in the brass band competition at the Crystal Palace in 1928 which was won by the Black Dyke Mills Band.

Most works in the English pastoral tradition are not large-scale works but representative of the pastoral genre, though degree of intersection with other forms and genres like the ‘rhapsody’ is characteristic. Some English composers are known as a pastoral ‘school,’ the creative background to both composition and reception, and that their music is so closely bound to landscapes to which they regularly returned. The English pastoral style shares aspects of the pastoral topic of European Classical and Romantic music, but is particularly associated with the musical language of folk song. It is for this reason that Elgar,
Parry and Stanford had individual voices yet developed their style from the German musical idiom but are often excluded from the pastoral canon though their importance to the English Musical Renaissance is recognised.

Contemporaries like John Ireland and Gustav Holst, despite varied influences and often different styles, played an important part in the development of a recognisably English pastoral style.

Three aspects of English pastoralism: setting, language and sensibility. ‘Setting’, the specific location in which the composer has chosen to set a piece; ‘language’, the musical idiom, be it derived from English folksong, French impressionism or the German romantic tradition; ‘Sensibility’ is clearly the hardest to pin-down, but within it resides the pastoral ‘outlook’, the mood invoked by the music; what it sets up to desire or reject. Within each category, there seems to be an ideal, in that one can posit a ‘typical’ English pastoral piece of music as one set in the West of England, derived from the musical language of folk song and with a nostalgic, introspective sensibility. However, these categories allow a degree of flexibility in that a piece need not have a specified setting, or, if it does, its idiom need not be folk-song related. Thus Ireland’s piano miniature” Amberley Wild Brooks” and Vaughan Williams’s “Fifth Symphony” though disparate are of the English pastoral tradition.

Ireland’s music belongs to the school of ‘English Impressionism’. Having been steeped in German classics, especially Brahms, he was strongly influenced in his twenties and thirties by the music of Debussy, Ravel, and the early works of Stravinsky and Bartók. Contemporaries such as Vaughan Williams and Holst developed a language strongly characteristic of English folk song, Ireland developed a complex harmonic language like French and Russian. He was very influenced by poetry and his settings of such poets as A E Housman, Thomas Hardy, Christina Rossetti, John Masefield and Rupert Brooke are among the best known of his works. He was susceptible to the spirit of place. “Chelsea Reach” is a depiction in the form of a barcarolle of the great sweep of the Thames as it flows past the Houses of Parliament. He loved the Channel Islands but his main love was Sussex, a landscape of undulating downs and then isolated villages, including Amberley whose ‘Wild Brooks,’ streams coursing through the fields, inspired the most brilliant of his piano pieces.

Many contemporary composers are writing tonal, innovative, exciting and melodic music which spreads from the English tradition which is difficult to hear in concert yet is to good to be ignored. There are record labels releasing this like Naxos, Dutton, Lyritia, Hyperion, Chandos and they sell well. The BBC music magazine has a classified chart and they usually get in. But concerts are not put on because they are thought not to be popular but when they are they are enjoyed. When the BBC put on English music it sold out. The Gloucester Three Choirs in 2001 did an all English programme and it sold out!

This hidden treasure of English music is part of the revival of English culture and is being brought into the light by the English Music festival.

They cannot get funding from the Arts Council. The only political organisation to give support was the Campaign for an English Parliament and their name worried some sponsors who wanted it removed from the programme, for fear of political embarrassment. Several high-profile companies declined as they wanted to be associated with pop and rock. Some firms first pledged their support and then declined. The director would ideally like sponsors with faith in the project. They do have a number of minor sponsors whence they get a third of their income. The other two thirds come from ticket sales and trust funds, with the final portion from their friend’s scheme and donations. The Friends scheme is very important as it brings a regular income to enable her to plan forthcoming events and gives the satisfaction of seeing that they believe in what she is trying to do. The Friends get discounts. What is needed is helpers with stewarding, distributing information and programmes, publicity and fund raising and more sponsors and friends.

http://www.englishmusicfestival.org.uk/welcome.html

http://doughty.gdbtv.com/player.php?h=81cfcd06dcad85886946a2b7e29a891a

For records among others try -

http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/

http://www.chandos.net/

http://www.naxosaudiobooks.com/

www.duttonvocalion.co.uk
http://www.efdss.org/

The Rustle of Spring…

2008-02-22T00:28:00.000-08:00

Stuart Millson enjoys some seasonal stirrings from the world of classical music

After the deprivations and gloom of January and February, the time has now come for the rediscovery of mild breezes (rather than freezing winds!) and the warm rays of the sun. Music can help us along the way, especially with such famous works as the piano piece, The Rustle of Spring – once a popular item in salons and on the wireless. This lyrical impression for the piano was written by the Norwegian composer, Christian Sinding (1856-1941), and to my ears is just as evocative as Vivaldi’s more well-known “Spring” from his evergreen and ever-popular The Four Seasons.

On the downland

As I have just mentioned, Sinding died in 1941 – the same year in which Frank Bridge, an English composer (and teacher of the young Benjamin Britten) left this life. Spring was a particular inspiration to Bridge (as it was to his young protégé), and in the 1920s the senior composer embarked upon a breezy, involved orchestral work whose working title was “On Friston Down”. Bridge later changed the name of his ambitious piece to Enter Spring – and in its 25-minute span, the composer manages to evoke all the sights, sounds and feeling of a day in early March or April, including an exquisite woodwind passage suggestive of birdsong.

Other native composers to have responded to springtime include Ernest Farrar – a man born in the then small town of Lewisham in 1885, but who met a tragic end when serving on the Western Front in 1918. Farrar’s music has only recently been rediscovered and his creation of a May morning in English Pastoral Impressions conjures a radiant daybreak, long before the horrors of mechanised warfare intruded and shattered the idyllic England of those far-off days. Although a non-combatant, Frank Bridge felt the pain of the war very acutely, and dedicated his strange, brooding orchestral work There is a willow grows aslant a brook to Ernest Farrar.

An impression of time and place

Another lesser-known English composer was John Foulds – a truly avant-garde figure in his day – who, after the First World War, composed a huge World Requiem designed in its vastness to transmit a sense of peace and reconciliation to the whole of humanity. Foulds later made his home in India, inspired by Eastern philosophy and attitudes, but he did pay tribute in music to his native country. One of Foulds’s “Impressions of Time and Place” is entitled simply – April, England – a fervent, noble and deeply beautiful work for large orchestra, which seems to contain its own “rustle of spring”.

Spring Symphony

Earlier on, I made reference to Benjamin Britten. This famous musician, founder of the post-war Aldeburgh Festival, and our country’s greatest operatic composer since Henry Purcell in the 17th century, took to the theme of winter’s disappearance with great relish. Britten loved his native Suffolk, and it is said that whilst driving through the county on a particularly fine morning at the beginning of the year – with blossom and country houses coming into their own – the works of the great Elizabethan poets came to mind.

His Spring Symphony of 1949 was the result – a paean to Nature and the sun for three soloists, a boys’ choir, a large symphony chorus, and symphony orchestra – complete with a cow’s horn, which is blown at the work’s conclusion in a spectacular Mayday procession. Originally commissioned by the Boston Symphony Orchestra, this cornucopia of operatic-like choruses, yet combined with the more intimate spirit of an English song-cycle, received its first performance before a Dutch audience, under the baton of Eduard van Beinum. One of the poets set by the composer was Richard Barnfield (1574-1627). The tenor soloist (with harp accompaniment) sings:

And when it pleaseth thee to walke abroad
Abroad into the fields to take fresh ayre,
The meades with Flora’s treasure should be strowde,
The mantled meaddowes, and the fields so fayre.

Britten had a remarkable capacity to marry words to music, and his choice here is truly “open-air” and outdoor in its swiftness and sense of freedom.

Violent reaction

Finally, we can turn to Russia for a mighty bear-hug to embrace the new season. Rachmaninov’s cantata Spring seems to rush forward with the strength of a spring torrent; Glazunov’s version of the progress toward summer is balletic and carefree, gentle and carefully painted with delicate orchestral colour; but Stravinsky’s shattering The Rite of Spring brings to life a pagan world – an eruption of nature and of primitive human celebration. Stravinsky claimed that the inspiration for his Rite came from a two-hour period in the Russian countryside in which he actually experienced the very moment of spring’s arrival.

At the work’s first performance in Paris in the May of 1913, a riot ensued – so jagged and relentless was this astonishing composition that it prompted a violent reaction from some sections of the audience. Stravinsky had, at a stroke, moved music into a new era and sound-world, whose motion and gravity would pull art toward an abstract and atonal future – the legacy of men in our own era such as Pierre Boulez and his disciples. But could Stravinsky have sensed the violence that was to engulf Europe a year later; the violence that was to destroy (among many millions of others) the life of his fellow-composer, Ernest Farrar in a blasted war-scape of trenches and hollows from which all Nature had been driven?

Restlessness and rediscovery

Stravinsky, of course, would scarcely (if at all) have known of Farrar or his music, and for most of the 20th-century it seemed that Stravinsky’s “violence” had triumphed over the more remote pastoral visions from the provinces of England. Could it be, though, that the restlessness and anxiety of the old century has given way to a desire for simplicity and nearness to the soil, which is somehow represented by the rediscovery of Farrar and Foulds?

Bridge, Farrar, Stravinsky, Sinding, Britten, Vivaldi – centuries of music and completely different musical voices, but with one thing in common: an emotional response of the deepest kind to Nature, to home-landscapes and the universal regenerative powers of the season.

The State Persecution of Thought Criminals

2008-02-03T03:41:00.000-08:00

Robin Page, former presenter of television’s “One Man and His Dog”, a farmer, columnist for The Daily Telegraph, and the chairman of the Countryside Restoration Trust, won £2,000 compensation for being wrongly arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred. He allegedly made a racist remark at a country fair in 2002 which led to him being held in a police cell and fought a five-year, one-man campaign to clear his name. He used the Data Protection Act and obtained official documents which showed that there had been no grounds for prosecution. "I believe I have scored a significant victory over the ludicrous and sinister politically-correct 'hate crime' culture that is currently doing so much to prevent free speech in this country," he said.
His humorous comments at a country fair in September 2002 led to his persecution by the police. To gain the attention of the audience at Frampton-upon-Severn, Gloucestershire, he began in a "light-hearted fashion". "If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you." A complaint was later received by police, and another person wrote to say he disagreed with Mr.Page’s remarks. He was arrested the following month, and then five months later was contacted at his farm in Cambridgeshire and asked by two officers from Gloucestershire to attend an interview at a police station. At the station he declined to answer questions without a lawyer and was arrested. He was put in a cell and told that he would have to stay overnight if he wished to wait for his solicitor, but after 40 minutes agreed to be interviewed without legal representation.
Mr Page said: "I was told I had committed a 'hate crime', interviewed under caution and given police bail." The BBC claimed that he had been arrested for a "race speech" and he felt the incident was potentially damaging to him professionally and as a district councillor for 30 years. He was neither charged nor given an explanation. Under Freedom of Information disclosures he discovered that the Attorney General had given the opinion "no crime committed". His name was secretly put on a "Homo-phobic Incidents Register". He was due to go to on a journalistic trip to Kenya and requested a change of bail renewal date, and in an internal email from the arresting officer the sergeant wrote: "Let's hope he gets eaten by a crocodile."
Mr Page said: "Thank goodness for the Data Protection Act and my advice to anybody who feels that they have been stitched up is to use the Act to get to the real facts. “It is absolutely outrageous. In my view it clearly shows that I was arrested for political reasons simply because my views on the countryside were not appreciated. I was not guilty of any crime."(1)
What has reduced a Liberal Democracy to a police state like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China without people objecting? Cultural Marxism or Political Correctness is a totalitarian ideology that intimidates people into thinking the correct thing and extends into every aspect of life because every part of life is deemed political. It replaced Liberalism by using a similar vocabulary but with different intentions: individual rights were replaced by group rights and the multi-racial belief in equal treatment for racial groups was replaced by preferential treatment for all ethnic groups over whites. Cultural Marxism took over with the New Left in the 1960.s to 70.s. It was influenced by the Frankfurt School and European thinkers like Foucault; and facilitated in Britain by academics like E.P.Thompson and Raymond Williams and Home Secretary Roy Jenkins who introduced Race Laws and the Soviet style agency of Inquisition, the Commission For Racial Equality. A main intention of Trotskyists and The Anti Nazi League in the 60.s and 70.s was to “change attitudes.” Cultural Marxists seek scapegoats to blame when things do not work to their plan. They de-humanise their scapegoats and present a distorted view of what they said to make the persecution seem like justifiable indignation. The thoughts and meanings of the recalcitrant are slotted into a pre-existing ideology which uses them as examples of wrong thinking. The victims are modern outlaws and have no rights and can be spoken of as the guardians of the new morality see fit. This is political persecution because it is only “white” people who express certain views that are targeted for public vilification, though anti-Semitism is coming back amongst the Cultural Marxists who are trying to form an axis with Muslims in the West.
The Cultural Marxists are an “Ideological Caste” and membership depends not on blood or birth, nor even class, but holding the right opinions; to succeed in life one has to conform to their ideology, keep your views secret or be expelled from the “Caste” as the Conservative Party did the Monday Club to ensure thy did not impede its transformation into a vehicle of Cultural Marxism like the other two parties. The Personal qualities of the persecuted are ignored and the public shown a one-dimensional aspect - Racist, Hater, Zenophobe etc. This justifies the establishment saying and doing anything and feeling morally superior about it.
There is constant social engineering to mould everyone for utopia. A television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and tinkers who had invaded her land reversing the roles as we experience them. They think our traditional view of the world is pathological until they correct it for us. They show us or a representative, in the role of what they think are our stereotypes - we are cast as the tinkers - to mould our views and change our attitudes. Of the Gypsies there were no young men shown, because they would be aggressive and they do not want to show them as a threat; village life was not shown because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman. The woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim. This is Television re-structuring our thoughts in accordance with their ideology. It is Frankfurt School television. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Guardian to filter out the applicants with the wrong attitude. (2)
The “Caste” can not meet the arguments so they discredit people. Dr.James Watson 79-year-old geneticist who, with Francis Crick, had discovered the structure of DNA, who is regarded as one of the great scientists of his time, was persecuted for telling the Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade. The British establishments’ agency of Inquistion the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Politicians moved in to persecute him: 'It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices,' said David Lammy, the Skills Minister. London mayor Ken Livingstone: 'Such ignorant comments...are utterly offensive and give succour to the most backward in our society.' The Science Museum cancelled a sell-out meeting it had planned to hold to honour 79-year-old Watson on the grounds that his remarks had gone 'beyond the point of acceptable debate'. Several other centres scheduled to host his talks followed suit. What a scientific argument! His employers, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island suspended him as chancellor. (3) However, prominent scientist Richard Dawkins saw the real issue: “What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant "thought police", of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation.”
Celebrity Jade Goody had the wrong attitude to Indian film star, Shilpa Shetty in “Celebrity Big Brother.” The Daily Telegraph showed the three “Racists” looking common while Shilpa was shown at prayer, elegant in a Sari and looking sidelong. The programme is based on getting an assortment of characters into a house and titillating the viewers to keep the viewing figures up. Bullying and personality clashes are the attraction. But Jade, Daniella and Jo had the wrong sort of personality clash with Shilpa and had to be excoriated to cow down other people. Forcing Jade to keep apologising and to confess publicly that she is disgusted with herself is our cultural Marxist rulers version of a Soviet show trial. She had to be broken in public, made to repent and show abject contrition. Jade has some Afro-Caribbean ancestory and an honest person would look for a cause other than racism like class envy or bad manners, but there is an ideology at work which imposes the same explanation on different situations - white racism. (4)
The law introduced persecution in the case against working class lads from Notting Hill after the race battles of August 1958. In the Commons debate a local Labour M.P. Frank Tomney made one of the most honourable and heroic speeches ever in the House of Commons in defence of his young constituents which shows how the police and lawyers had framed them. They had no rights. Here is a precise: “Nine young men were arrested. No one in the constituency takes the view that what they did was not severely wrong, but the sentences of 4 years imprisonment for boys of 17 - even coloured people are going round organizing petitions on their behalf. I wrote to the Home Secretary asking him to see me about this but he declined as it is sub judice. The case was subject to appeal a week ago and the sentences confirmed. I made sure –none of these boys had a previous conviction. “When people read about comparable cases and find variations in the sentences they come to think that our law does not provide justice. In one case of alleged rioting which concerned coloured people, one man was sentenced to prison for a year and others were fined. The man who was sentenced to a year had a former conviction in 1948 for shooting a policeman which is a crime with intent to kill. Yet these boys with no convictions got 4 years. “I have here a letter from the Union of Post Office workers about a boy from Ellingham Road. It tells of his having just returned from serving in Cyprus yet he was taken from his bed at 2.a.m. and charged with rioting. He only pleaded guilty because he was foolishly advised to. Contrary to the bias of police evidence, he was in possession of no weapon, though he admits to being an occupant in the car that toured the district shouting slogans. A petition to me is in responsible language and from people I have known for nine years” (5)
The 1964 election in Smethwick shows where the persecutions can lead. An offensive slogan had been used during the election campaign and posted on walls “If you want a N***** for a neighbour, vote Labour”. Harold Wilson attributed this to Conservative candidate Peter Griffiths, when being interviewed by Robin Day on Panorama of 9th March 1964. After the Election, now Prime Minister, Wilson broke from his address on the Queens speech to insult the victorious Griffiths by calling him a “Parliamentary Leper”, who would be shunned in the House. This breached the convention that new members be protected until after their Maiden speech. On October the 5th just two weeks before polling Griffiths was denounced in the Birmingham Post, and the Times whose Midland correspondent wrote, ”It is abhorrent to all Conservatives and officials of stature to whom I have talked.” But he did not say to whom he had talked. He headed his column of the 12th, “Vile –its all in Black and White.” As the election result was announced on October the 16th Socialists made Nazi salutes and the Marxist Bishop of Southwark, called the electorate “unchristian”, and the Bishop of Chelmsford attacked local voters. This election was a model of democracy. A local man fighting on a local issue was elected in a fair election by local people but these unelected Bishops who lived far away insulted them on a priori ideological grounds. The state broadcaster the BBC took American Black Power leader Malcolm X to Smethwick in February 1965 for current affairs programme “Tonight”. He told the assembled world’s media,” I have come here because I am disturbed by reports that coloured people in Smethwick are being badly treated. I have heard they are being treated as the Jews under Hitler. I would not wait for the Fascist element in Smethwick to erect gas ovens.” That was what the BBC had told him! They denied having taken him there but Mayor C.V.Williamse investigated: “I was most amazed at the finesse shown by the BBC. I was told the car was not a BBC car but it was owned by one of the directors.” Malcolm X told the Times that the BBC had taken him. This led to a time bomb was planted outside Mr.Griffiths’ home on 26th October 1965. The police thought it the work of experts. (6)
The persecution in 1984 of Ray Honeyford a head teacher at Manningham middle school in Bradford shows the depths of intolerance for those who diverge even slightly from the orthodoxy because Mr.Honeyford supported Multi-Racialism but warned of Multi- Culturalism. The local education authority tried to have him removed from his school, and when he wrote about his efforts in the Salisbury Review he was de-humanised by the media, had a “rent a mob” screaming ‘Racist’ outside the school gates, the local education authority sent a psychiatrist to see him, the Department for Education had Helena Kennedy QC subject him to an Inquisition and school inspectors persecuted him. He had to retire at 52! The dangers of multi-culturalism are now widely accepted even by Trevor Phillips of the Human Rights Commission. (7)
In 1991 Cambridge don Dr.John Casey was picked out for an erudite article in the Salisbury Review which concluded that voluntary repatriation could encourage people to
try to drive immigrants out so the Government should adopt compulsory repatriation. The argument involved quoting Edmund Burke’s definition society as” a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” The address appeared in the first issue of the Salisbury Reviewin 1982 but it was only in 1991 when a student found it by accident that the persecution was unleashed. His English Literature lectures were boycotted by students, Trotskyists demonstrated, Marxist Lecturer Terry Eagleton held rival lectures and the Sunday Times of 1/12/1991 printed a picture which made him look like a wizened crow. These actions are always of a mass of people turned onto one person!(8)
In May 2002 a Tory councillor was persecuted by a Government minister. Professor Geoffrey Samspon's website stated, 'There is overwhelming scientific evidence that races differ to some extent in their average intelligence levels - yellow-skinned Orientals tend to be rather brighter than whites, negroes tend to be rather less bright.” Government minister Peter Hain, a founder member of the Anti Nazi League, raved on Breakfast with Frost, “Sampson is proud to be racist”. Prof. Sampson wasgiven right to reply on Radio 4’s Today programme which is heard less than television. He explained Hain’s statement was untrue and “ as far as I am concerned it would be daft to be proud of racism — what is there to be proud of?” But this was ignored in subsequent TV news broadcasts, which kept repeating Hain’s distortion. Prof. Sampson recalls, “many commentators hostile to me seemed to assume that scientists who explain the roots of racial feelings must be sinister Ku Klux Klan types. That is virtually the reverse of the truth.” Special Branch warned him he was a marked man and advised him on safety precautions to reduce the risk of harm to him or his family. He was advised to look under his car before driving to check that nothing was attached - the result of a Labour government minister publicly persecuting him. (9)
In August 2005 Prof. Andrew Fraser was retired by Macquarrie University, Sydney, Australia, where he was Associate Professor in the Department of Public Law. He responded to a newspaper headline that quoted a 3 year-old Sudanese girl, “Now my mum and Dad are Aussies just like me” by letter, ”Experience practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide-range of other social problems. He added that they are expected to acquiesce in the erosion of Australia’s national identity.” He also warned of the “rising Asian ruling class.” He was invited to submit an article to the Deakin University Law Review. Entitled “Rethinking the White Australia Policy” it was reviewed and accepted for publication until journalists and a lawyer acting for the “Sudanese Community” objected, then the Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University directed them not to publish it. Prof. Fraser makes the point that when he taught at Macquarrie in the 70’s there had been attempts to silence visiting professor Hans Eysenk but that was by the students not the authorities. Sydney Morning Herald columnist Michael Duffy pointed out “That generation of students are now the authorities.”
They suspended Professor Fraser because they thought his views on race would influence his course, American Constitutional History. Usually retired academics who plan to research obtain an Honorary Associate and can use the university library, but Prof.Fraser was refused this, for his book: “Anglophobia: Its Causes and Cure”. He did not deserve consideration now he was de-humanised and labelled ”racist.” That vindictiveness is another spite in a year-long campaign of discrimination by the University against him. (10)
In April 2006, Leeds university authorities subjected Dr.Frank Ellis to an Inquisition after he had an interview published in “Leeds Student.” Dr.Ellis was sought out for the interview with political bias in mind because of his “peculiar and extreme views.” He and his interviewer ranged over many topics but what ignited prejudice against him were his remarks that the average black has a lower IQ than the average white or Asian; that he believed we need to introduce a policy of humane repatriation. There were the usual demonstrations by Unite Against Fascism, or what legendary Daily Telegraph columnist Michael Wharton aka Peter Simple dubbed “Rent a mob.” The Universities decision was purely to persecute a man for holding the wrong opinion: he treated his students fairly and impartially as the interviewer acknowledged Dr.Ellis’s “excellent rapport with his students and colleagues.” Further, Leeds have a system to prevent unfair marking as the candidates paper is anonymous and each is marked by 3 different tutors. He was investigated by the West Yorkshire police for incitement to racial hatred. So what is the problem? Dr.Ellis was not disciplined for his conduct towards his students, which was exemplary, but persecuted for not expressing the right thoughts on ethnicity. In an interview on Talk Sport Ian Collins screamed at Ellis, ”Your’e mad!” (11)
Robert Henderson was persecuted in July 1995, for an article in Wisden Cricket Monthly. He wrote that a reason for the bad performances of England’s cricket team was the mix of foreign and native players. However talented they lack the commitment to their side on which team success depends. He explains: “The common experience of mixed groups makes it immensely difficult to accept that a changing room comprised of say six Englishmen, two West Indians, two Southern Africans and a New Zealander is going to develop the same camaraderie as eleven unequivocal Englishmen.” This was not racism as his example had two blacks and five people who are not English, three of whom are certainly white. The argument seems to have been accepted by other cricket writers like David Firth, Editor of Wisden and Matthew Engel, editor of the associated Wisden Cricketers' Almanac and columnist for The Guardian. The media held an Inquisition. The journalists and public figures who denounced him did not attack what he had actually written but responded out of ideological correctness against what they thought his views were. Two of the black players, Devon Malcolm and Philip De Freitas, sued Wisden for libel but they did not him which is unusual because the author is usually included in the suit. He had made it clear that he would fight any libel action all the way in the courts. Malcolm and De Freitas had sought the advice of the Professional Cricketer's Association who took counsel's opinion which was that no libel existed. The magazine’s proprietor Paul Getty almost definitely ordered the settlement to avoid social embarrassment.
Telegraph newspapers published clues to his home address and refused to print an unedited reply. He was then turned on by Wisden whose following issue had five pages of vitriolic attack on him even though they printed the original article. Editor Mr.Firth would not print a reply.
Mr Henderson contacted his M.P. Frank Dobson to complain of the way the media had treated him, and asked for an intervention on his behalf. Mr Dobson gave a vague promise,
but did not act even though it was his paid duty as his elected representative to raise this in the House of Commons. Later, in his 1997 General Election leaflets Dobson claimed “over the past 17 years I've tried my best to represent our area in Parliament.” On 3rd August 1995, Mr Henderson received a letter from the black Labour politician Diane Abbott, telling him he had "no appreciation of acceptable terminology. As an ex-journalist, and someone who still dabbles, I believe that we have a duty to write on subjects we know about.” Later Ms Abbott objected to "blue-eyed blonde" nurses from Finland tending coloured patients in her East London constituency!
Mr Henderson wrote to Tony Blair about Mr.Dobson and for defence against the media corruption, “You have made a great thing of moral behaviour in politics, Mr Blair. If that means anything you will help me to obtain a fair hearing, both in terms of natural justice and common equity. If you fail to do this, we shall know exactly what a Blair government will be, one based on the primitive idea that justice is for one's political friends and injustice for one's political enemies.”
Mr Henderson wrote to Blair at the Commons and at his home, and Mrs Blair a Human Rights lawyer at Gray's Inn, but was ignored. Mr Henderson wrote thirteen letters to the Blairs between March 1996 and February 1997. Finally, Blair summoned the Police to his Westminster office. The Police considered charging Mr.Henderson with Common Assault and offences under the Malicious Communications and Race Relations Acts. They took the letters for examination by the Crown Prosecution Service. It was decided that the correspondence "fell short" of any criminal offence. But Blair was advised that the "sheer volume" of continued letters could justify criminal prosecution in the future. The Crime Report concluded: “In summary, the allegation of Malicious Communication is 'NO CRIME', however the security of the… (name missing )…has been put in the hands of the right people.” “Sheer volume?” there were only 4 letters to Cherie Blair and nine to Blair over a period of a year. The rest were requests for a meaningful answer to the initial letter - he only got non-replies from their offices.
The media demonised him but refused him right of reply. An interview he gave to the BBC was edited by splicing together different parts of my interview to produce the opposite of what he had said. The interview was 30 minutes of which only 93 seconds was broadcast.
Study this to see how the BBC tries to destroy those who say the wrong things: this is persecution! Mr.Henderson said in the interview: “I take the Mathew Parris line on this. Mathew, says “that part of being an Englishman is being white. Now I think that's reasonable, not just from my own experience, but it seems to me that you don't get someone taking on the whole of a new culture when they come to a country. That doesn't of course mean that they cannot be British and of course if they are representing Britain there may not be the same problem that you've got if they are representing England, but if they are representing England they've got to feel that there isn't anything which spurns them, which thrusts them out from society, which I am absolutely certain that the majority of blacks and Asians do feel. I can sympathise with them because any minority anywhere is going to feel under stress.”
This is what the BBC broadcast after editing:
“...part of being an Englishman is being white. Now I think that's reasonable, not just from my own experience, but it seems to me you don't get someone taking on the whole of a new culture when they come to a country.” (12)
There has been a widening of focus and now there is religous persecution to stop opposition to the creation of Eurabia, as it is throughout the Anglosphere. One who has written about this is Mark Steyn who, as I write, is being persecuted by the Soviet-styled Canadian Human Rights Commission because of two complaints by the Islamic Congress against Maclean's magazine and its editor-in-chief, Kenneth Whyte for printing a chapter from "America Alone” on Oct 20, 2006. The complainents claim “the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” An Islamic Congress press release decries Steyn's article as “flagrantly Islamophobic.” He wrote, “The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it. It's the end of the world as we've known it. Sept. 11, 2001, was not "the day everything changed," but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On Sept. 10, how many journalists had the Council of American-Islamic Relations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain in their Rolodexes? If you'd said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century's principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers. This is about the seven-eighths below the surface -- the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and that call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are: demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion.
Let's start with demography, because everything does: If your school has 200 guys and you're playing a school with 2,000 pupils, it doesn't mean your baseball team is definitely going to lose but it certainly gives the other fellows a big starting advantage. Likewise, if you want to launch a revolution, it's not very likely if you've only got seven revolutionaries and they're all over 80. But, if you've got two million and seven revolutionaries and they're all under 30 you're in business.
For example, I wonder how many pontificators on the "Middle East peace process" ever run this number: The median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.8 years. Once you know that, all the rest is details. If you were a "moderate Palestinian" leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation -- or pseudo-nation -- of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? Any analysis of the "Palestinian problem" that doesn't take into account the most important determinant on the ground is a waste of time.” (13)
I have written about the move to anti-Semitism of the Cultural Marxists to defend the axis they have formed with Muslim terrorists. Well,a Jewish man Ezra Levant, is being persecuted in Canada for “hate speech” about Islam. Mr. Levant is fighting back: "Although the United States has a very robust First Amendment, Canada and Britain have a common tradition going back to the Magna Carta that brought about some of the freest presses in the world," Mr. Levant told The Washington Times, "if Canada and the U.K. can be infected, so can America." Mr. Levant was publisher of the Western Standard, a Conservative weekly. He was noticed by Muslim activists on Feb. 13, 2006, when he published the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that had caused protests throughout Europe and the Middle East. Canadian law-enforcement officials investigated the publication but did notbring criminal charges.
But Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, made a complaint against Mr. Levant with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The commission summoned Mr. Levant for a hearing and Mr. Levant republished the cartoons on his blog, Ezra Levant.com. He is also is a lawyer and accused the Commission, a government body, of violating due process to impose state censorship. He told The Times that "unlike real courts, the tribunal members are not judges (and often not even lawyers); in Alberta, there are no rules of court or rules of evidence; precedent is not followed; there is no set burden of proof; the taxpayer funds the complaints, but the defendant must pay his own costs (even if he wins); and, most importantly, the commissions and tribunals issue rulings that are clearly not in compliance with our constitutional and common law freedoms of expression." He video’d the hearing and put excerpts on his blog and YouTube.com. "My lawyer and I insisted that we be permitted to record the interrogation, for use when we appeal the commission's decision to a real court," Mr. Levant wrote on his blog.
Marie Riddle, the commission's director, did not return phone calls from The Times and the commission barred journalists, observers and the Western Standard's former editor from the hearing. The persecutions of Mark Steyn and Mr. Levant show the tyranny increasing because "In the past, they've focused on small, powerless bloggers or other loners without any money or legal representation," Mr. Levant told the Times, stating that the commissions are now targeting Canada's mainstream media. Mr. Steyn wrote on his Web, SteynOnline.com, that Mr.Levant’s "magnificent performance ... has raised the bar for the rest of us ensnared by this grotesque system. He's absolutely right not to waste time attempting to mitigate his 'offence,' and he's also correct in rejecting this pseudo-court's jurisdiction over him," he added. (14)
A Catholic priest Father Samuel who fled to Belgium to escape Muslim persecution of Christians in Turkey is now being persecuted for “incitement to racist hatred” by the Belgians: the Government’s Inquisition agency, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR). It is for a remark he made in a 2002 television interview: “Every thoroughly Islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority.”
The Belgian judiciary decided to try him before the penal court in Charleroi. He repeated his statement and that he would be honoured to go to jail for this. He added that Jesus too had been persecuted! In a sermon he called upon the faithful to accompany him to court. “We will turn this into an excursion, driving there in full buses.” Father Samuel fled to Belgium to escape the persecution of Aramaic Christians in Turkey and is being persecuted by the Belgians! The Aramaics are a Catholic minority in Syria and Turkey and speak an old Semitic language, which Jesus and the apostles used and so are a link with Christ. Mel Gibson used the language in “The Passion of the Christ.”
At Montignies-sur-Sambre he conducts the Mass according to the traditional rites of the Catholic Church. Hundreds attend his Sunday Mass. The congregation includes African immigrants, a large number of young people and many young families with small children. On his web and sermons Father Samuel warns of “the islamic invasion” of the West and that Muslims are invading Europe and we face impending civil war. According to Father Samuel “so-called moderate Muslims do not exist.” This was in 2006 and is been kept very quiet as we move towards secret trials for dissenters in the western world. They do not want the mass of Catholics to realise that Christians are now being persecuted in the Europe on behalf of Muslims because a rebellion of Catholics against the Cultural Marxists of the E.U. could end their tyrannous rule. (15)
An internet ' blogger' is going to be arrested when he returns to England for incitement to racial hatred. Paul Ray, aka 'Lionheart', left for the Middle East two years ago. He claims he was receiving death threats from Muslims which made it too dangerous to stay in his home town of Luton. He is a born again Christian and reformed drug addict who had reported Muslim drug dealers to the police when, he alleges, the police told the dealers and gave them his address.
Paul, a Christian Zionist, went to Israel and met a fellow traveller, who was also looking for a hostel. Together they got a bus to the old city in Jerusalem, and went to the hostel that the other traveller had written down. The International Solidarity Movement were recruiting there. The ISM website mentions Paul by his original name of Paul Cinato, and they deny that he was photographed with them but Paul’s blog has photographs of him and the group brandishing AK47.s! The leader told them to delete the pictures but he kept his. The International Solidarity Group recruit at universities and colleges around the world and are trained to attack Israel by Palestinians. Later, walking around the town he met a member of the security services who advised him to get his stuff, and then drove him to another town.
On January 3, he received an email from Bedfordshire Police. It was from Soviet-style “ Hate Crime officer” Ian Holden: “The offence that I need to arrest you for is 'Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent. 'Paul I will see you on the 19/02/08 when I will tell you everything that you need to know. 'Due to being out of the office for six weeks I will not have access to my emails as of tomorrow 04/01/08.” Bedfordshire Police said: “We are aware of this particular internet site and we are taking action.” Paul fled the intolerance of the British state to America where he was trying to get asylum but is now planning to return to face the thought police!
Since then a West Indian Christian couple in Luton have also exposed the ethnic cleansing of blacks and whites by Pakistanis by bricks through windows, firebombing synagogues etc to the local newspaper. A very local Christian has had a lot of media coverage about some Asian harassment of west-Indian and white households in Luton. It has been on the radio and the main news as some Muslim thugs have been throwing large objects through the windows of elderly black and white people in an Asian neighbourhood to drive them out. The police have been brushing it under the carpet, but the TV covered a residents meeting with the police and Bishop Blake asking the police what they were going to do about it. (16)

David Hamilton
(5966)

(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/15/nhate115.xml

(2) http://www.hardcashproductions.com/recent24.html

(3) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avoid-Boring-People-Lessons-Science/dp/0192802739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200949250&sr=1-1
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6274881.stm

(5) Commons.Hansard The debate was in October 1958.

(6) http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/2007/07/setting-up-targets-by-david-hamilton.html
A Question of Colour. 1966. Peter Griffiths.(Leslie Frewin).

(7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/nmulticul27.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/14/nhon14.xml

(8) http://www.actioninengland.gb.com/Enoch%20Powell/One%20Nation%20The%20Politics%20of%20Race.htm
Sunday Times 1st December 1991

(9) ) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,714247,00.html
http://www.grsampson.net/

(10) http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1424337.htm

(11) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4785574.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4785574.stm
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/rachelcrofts/entry/dr_frank_ellis/

(12) http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/h.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/nmulticul27.xml
http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin154.pdf

(13) ) http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/878/128/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/0895260786/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200948400&sr=1-1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/08/do0802.xml
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=6805
http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/2007/07/realistic-alliance-david-hamilton.html
(14)
Washington Times. ” Putting tribunals on trial” January 17, 2008
Ezra Levant.com.
http://forlifeandfamily.blogspot.com/2008/01/ezra-levant-vs-orwellian-tribunal.html

(15) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/936
http://www.nonali.com/pere_samuel.php3

(16) See - Bedfordshire on Sunday 13/01/2008
Luton on sunday 16/01/2008
http://www.lutononsunday.com/lutonon....asp?ID=248085
www.lutononsunday.com/lutononsunday/DisplayArticle.asp?id=248100
http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/lut-news...mes.3678903.jp

Bishop Blake is at:
http://www.cogichq.co.uk/Text/bishop_a.htm

There is a tradition of free speech in this country and there are organisations to defend it. NO2ID has been set up to fight the introduction of the I.D.Cards and interrogation centres and opposes the Data Base state.
020-7793-4005 or office@no2id.net

Civitas http://www.civitas.org.uk/
The Libertarian Alliance http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/tactn/tactn001.pdf
The Freedom Association http://www.tfa.net/

UK IMMIGRATION by Paul Rhodes

2007-12-29T03:44:00.000-08:00

There are many categories of immigrant into the UK. Comprehensive figures are never given. Here are examples:-

Regular immigrants and dependents
EU Citizens who register
EU Citizens who do not register
Commonwealth & Dependency citizens with “The Right of Abode”
Those with Patriality
Spouses (an average of 25,000 per annum from the Indian SC)
Work Permit Holders who are granted leave to remain
Student Visa holders who are given leave to remain
Refugees & Asylum Seekers
Economic Migrants (usually holders of a visit visa, they simply stay on)
Illegals

And so on.

The UK’s population increased (gross) by around 1.9 million in 2006/7:-

Legal Immigrants 574,000 ONS
New Births 734,000 ONS
“Overstays” 400,000 ONS *
Illegals 200,000 **
________
Total 1,908,000 Gross
_________

* This is the figure published by the ONS for those visitors to the UK who simply stay on

** This figure is extrapolated from the number of illegal immigrants discovered at our major ports. Around 10 % of vehicles were stopped and searched in 2006

The number of people leaving the UK was given as 200,000 by the ONS. This includes those UK citizens who still return to the UK to use NHS services and those who receive a UK Government pension, heating allowance and other Government allowances and payments.

The contribution made by immigrants to the economy has been an argument used by Politicians, Civil Servants and others who support mass immigration. At a recent House of Commons Committee hearing the costs of providing immigration services was put at £8.78 Billion, as follows:-

Costs of crimes committed by Immigrants £4000 Million
Asylum Support / Processing £1600
Money Sent Home £1400
Border Controls £0690
HIV Treatment £0330
English Lessons £0280
Ethnic Minority Awards Scheme £0169
Security £0174
Translation Services £0100
The Commission for Race Equality £0032
Higher Education £0006.7
Local Authority Race Relations £0003.1

A Treasury Report stated that Immigration might add 0.5% to our GDP or reduce it by the same amount. Politicians and Civil Servants have never willingly issued comprehensive figures on the costs of immigration or the number of immigrants. To do so would have been to reveal their incompetence. Some investigative journalists and the odd whistle blower have revealed the true extent of the “problem”.

A recent TV documentary on this subject interviewed a Somali woman living in East London with her three or four children. Her husband had left and was thought to be living in Kenya. Her income, from the local authority, was given as £34,000 per annum. This of course included all kinds of income support, child benefits and so on.

The last time I looked at the UK’s crime figures 15% of all jail inmates were “foreigners” and 25% came from ethnic minorities. I have worked in over 50 countries and cannot think of one who was so lax with its immigration policies and policing. Immigration is the one factor that affects each and every facet of UK life be it education (including special needs and interpreting services), crime (police, courts, jails, legal aid etc) health, transport, housing, utilities, social services / special needs. All lurch from crisis to crisis.

Government spending increases year on year to pay for these services and taxes increase. Each year the Government goes deeper in to debt. The UK’s share of global trade decreases year on year and our negative trade balance increases. The Government just hopes that our GDP / Tax Revenues will grow year on year. Increasing taxes be they direct or “stealth taxes” can be / is counter productive.

The UK is now one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population in excess of 64 millions. England alone has a population density of around 1100 people per square mile (USA 7.1, China 341, Canada 8, France 280, India 764, Germany 495, Russia 22).

The UK has over 64 million people, personal debt exceeds GDP and Government debt is now around £500 Billion and growing by around £35 Billion per annum. The UK is increasingly dependent on others for manufactured goods, energy and food. Around 80% of the UK’s energy is generated by oil / gas / coal fired power plants, in France the figure is 20%.

Politicians argue that mass immigration drives up our GDP and yet, as stated earlier in these notes, it may reduce our GDP. What it does mean is that all services come under increasing pressure year on year and in many areas are failing. With this level of population we are highly vulnerable to any glitch in world trade particularly any factor that would reduce our importation of oil and LNG.

I have attended many meetings on this subject. The Politicians who have spoken have at best been naive. In truth they have been disingenuous and economic with the truth. They have never had the figures for immigration and misquote (or are simply ignorant of the contents of) the 1951 UN Charter for Refugees.

I see little or no prospect of the UK’s economy gaining momentum or expanding. We are a service- based economy and in difficult times it is the service sector that suffers most. The UK has over 8 million people who are “commercially inactive”. Over 25% of all jobs are Government jobs. We have seen what can happen when credit dries up or interest rates take a hike.

There is little prospect of levels of immigration diminishing as the UK is the destination of choice for many economic migrants, we are members of the EU and 500 million EU citizens have the right to come to the UK and finally the worlds population (having grown from 1.6 billion to 6.4 billion between 1900 and 2006) is set to exceed 9 billion in the next 35 years.

Nationalist Conservatism by David Hamilton

2007-12-02T08:03:00.000-08:00

Conservatism was an attempt to preserve traditional ways and differed from Liberalism but became Liberal, Classical then Social Democratic - abstract rights, capitalism, economics, laissez faire and self interest- now Cultural Marxism.

Like the other parties they offer the electorate incentives to get into power and at election time pretend they will introduce popular policies like controlling immigration but once in office pursue their own agenda. This should be a criminal offence and the Party name subject to trading standards law.

Academic Conservatives have tried to revive Conservatism by turning it into a competing ideology but it has no goal only living life by belonging to a historical community and culture and passing it on to one’s children. It is not a different opinion in a rational debate but an attitude and temperament in life. Rational plans and formulae are for the rationalist-ideologues: which is why these are “intimations” not a blueprint and cannot be stated a priori like utopian ideologies. There is more to human nature than reason.

It is not just reaction to current dominant doctrines nor a rejection of future utopias as fantasy in order to re-live a past utopia, not an attempt to turn back the clock to a bygone time but is a traditional way of thinking and feeling for one’s own ethnic community. The turning point is now as we who feel alienated and dispossessed begin re-developing a tradition for our common good and to revive our collapsing civilisation. We value wisdom over rationalist ideologies.

Wisdom is passed down by tradition, especially the family and develops from naivety through learning the lessons of life, how people behave and what they are capable of doing to each other, to practical wisdom which we pass it on to our children to
prepare them for life. Received ideology is arrested development.

We are born into a family, community and nation with history, culture and a civilisation that pre-exist us and we imbibe it as we grow up: It lives in us, and we in it. This has a conscious and an unconscious effect which makes us what we are. We have piety for our past and reverence for the achievements of our ancestors and a duty to pass it on to our descendants. It is an affective relationship that endures in time not a rationalisation into independent individuals interacting; much less the Cultural Marxist prejudice of slotting selected groups - blacks, homosexuals and women - into abstract categories with legal privileges.

We belong to a nation as Edmund Burke explained: “A nation is not an idea only of' local extent, and individual momentary aggregation: but it is an idea of' continuity which extends in time as well as in numbers and in space. And this is a choice not of one day, or one set of people, not a tumultuary and giddy choice; it is a deliberate election of the ages and of generations; it is a constitution made by what is ten thousand times better than choice, it is made by the peculiar circumstances, occasions, tempers, dispositions, and moral and special habitudes of' the people, which disclose themselves only in a long space of time(1)

Enoch Powell defined our belonging succinctly in the debate on the 1981 British Nationality Act “Your nation is who you will fight for.” T.S.Eliot, our ways, ”… the term culture... includes all the characteristic activities and interests of -a people: Derby Day, Henley Regatta, Cowes, the twelfth of August, a cup final, the dog races, the pin table, the dart board, Wensleydale cheese, boiled cabbage cut into sections, beetroot in vinegar, nineteenth century Gothic churches and the music of Elgar.” (2)

Our Christian faith activates our spiritual natures but Ideology is a secular religion which replaces national religion and having no spiritual content gives rise to earthly fanaticism. It has nothing transcendent only a forced move towards utopia on earth instead of heaven.

This developed from the French Enlightenment: one of the most significant events in human history that changed the human focus from looking back to the past for wisdom, the Bible, Aristotle and Plato, say, to working towards a vague, future utopia. It requires an idea of the person as abstract and malleable, with substance removed conceptually to fit them into a mental blueprint for utopia - Marxism's classless society, the feminists’ androgynous society, the liberal brotherhood of man and the Nazis' thousand year Reich of pure Aryans.

The present Utopia is the coffee coloured, Multi-Racial society. Norman Pannell urged a practical approach to immigration at the 1958 and 1961 Conservative conferences suggesting immigrants have health checks and those who are criminal be deported; Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod countered at a fringe meeting with his utopian belief in the brotherhood of man.

The Ten Commandments are duties which have been more important than rights in our historical and cultural achievement with the greatest art, literature and music inspired by God. A nation based on the duty of men and women is conscientious about responsibilities and obligations: a right-centred society is one in which individuals assert their personal desires. They are encouraged by Human Rights Acts to demand rights, with no consideration for the consequences of those demands on other people, like the right to protest and demonstrate conflicts with the right of pedestrians and motorists to use the public roads.

Human Rights are the modern Rights of Man. Conservatives believe in liberty but derived from belonging to a nation and is opposed to the universal, abstract rights of liberals and the group rights of cultural Marxists.

Because of the Human Rights Act “travellers” are being given our countryside. They buy farming land and convert it into caravan parks, then claim right of settlement. In the Spectator of December 17th 2005 philosopher Roger Scruton urged rural residents to save their countryside by clubbing together and buying it.

Rural communities should “take power into their own hands” as they had shown that the Hunting Act cannot be enforced we must now rescue our countryside from outsiders who are favoured by the Government. Neighbours (we) should club together to buy small parcels of land from desperate farmers then rent it back at a peppercorn rent.” They have done this in Professor Scruton’s neighbourhood and saved them from both travellers and agribusinesses.

The Conservative sense of nation was described by Cambridge don Dr John Casey in an address to the Conservative Philosophy Group. In the nineteenth century,” culture was taken to be the whole life of the people, and not just its highest achievements in, say, the fine arts. This involved an attempt to understand society and the nation through the sum total of its practices, traditions and institutions.

This tradition of thought has always had political implications, since the public institutions of the nation - religious and political - are clearly part of the whole life of the people. And the term most frequently invoked to express the whole life of the people, including the sense of itself as a political entity, was nation. The idea of the nation was something that could include the life of local communities, relations between classes, and indeed all those ways in which people impose a sense of themselves upon merely economic arrangements.” (3) He was persecuted and recanted but it still stands as an example of how we can become homogenous again safe from imported gang murders, muggings and Muslim bomb attacks.

Civilisation is created by effort and genius and must be renewed daily but is being undermined by our rulers for a new world order. Through studying history we learn that civilisations decline and fall when they become decadent and the people indulgent, as in Egypt and Rome which is why history is being phased out of state education.

People expect the state to solve their problems and spoiling them makes them dependent for not only material needs but their beliefs which are provided by the media and opinion formers so they become decadent and indulgent. Discrimination against us is presented as moral superiority - affirmative action. We who have emotionally bonded with our people and territory and belong here are being dispossessed by our rulers for unrealistic hopes of one world and those they brought here as cheap labour.

It takes totalitarianism to make disparate groups unite and our lives are being increasingly regulated. A hospital visit needs a password and our confidential relations with our G.P.s have been destroyed now that our personal medical histories are put on a national database. We are becoming state property.

The “Enlightened” ruling and cultural elites try to dismiss our views as prejudice but when examined their views are rationalisations of their prejudice in favour of other ethnic groups. In fact it is more accurate to define our ruling elites as an “Ideological Caste” because only those who think and act in the correct way are admitted and any who say the wrong thing are forced to publicly apologise or destroyed.

London's Science Museum cancelled a talk by Nobel prize-winning geneticist Dr James Watson, winner of a Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, had been due to speak at the museum, because he suggested black people were less intelligent than white people. Watson, told The Sunday Times he was "inherently gloomy about the prospects of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

The Science Museum, said "We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics...However we feel that Dr Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling his talk." Where was their reasoned argument? That was naked prejudice on their part.

Sir Winston Churchill tried to heal the rupture in our national continuity in 1955 by having a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.” (4)

The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grandson of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendent of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth1, wrote to Viscount Swinton in 1954, in a letter preserved at the Public Records Office, ”We are faced with a problem which, …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main cause of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.”

That Queen Elizabeth I had “Blackamoors” expelled from her realm in 1601 shows what a Conservative value it is.

The Daily Telegraph of 4/10/07 reported, “Foreign criminals are moving out of big cities and infiltrating rural towns and villages. The gangs include Jamaican "Yardies" selling crack in Hereford and Cambridgeshire, Chinese criminals called "Snakeheads" in Lancashire and Norfolk, Albanians running prostitution rings in Hampshire and Colombian cocaine networks in Chelmsford, Essex.

A television series, “ Crime Invasion — Britain's New Underworld”, for
the Virgin 1 satellite channel, was presented by Rageh Omaar, a journalist who has worked for the BBC. Omaar said: "Crime in the UK is changing and making the series has shown me that it is happening right underneath our noses." The chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Julie Spence, has said that immigrant workers were importing their national feuds and criminal behaviour to rural England.”

Democracy is a myth. Few people bother to vote. It attracts inadequate and ignoble people to office because it involves bribing and deceiving people into voting for them; it attracts hypocrites who preach family values and commit adultery or who preach equality but send their own children to public schools. As few voters read the parties manifestoes they have no mandate. The main issues are general movements that political parties conform to, not attached to a political party. In our time it is multi-racialism and all three follow it.

Culture is treated as independent of people and anyone can come and adopt it like putting on and taking off clothes. Aristocracy is a form of rule that suggests permanence and continuity as they embody the nation and its traditions. A warrior class based on the land, their duty was to defend the nation was well as rule it.

The House of Lords must be re-created as the new chamber will be for rewarding members of the political elite and to stack decisions in the elites favour. Only the gullible think this will be democratic. It is part of the ongoing takeover of our lives by moneyed elites whose loyalty is to themselves and whose vision is the dissolution of our nation for unworkable Globalist aims. They are using people for cheap labour - both outsourced and imported. Re-creating the Lords will be a step back to aristocratic and monarchical rule.

Rights were demands of the capitalists that led the French Revolution. Our main historical references are the American and French revolutions and the nationalist revolutions of 1848. It began the destruction of the natural order of sceptre and crown for rule of the Liberal-Capitalist class where membership was not by blood but money. They wanted the disestablishment of religion, the dissolution of nationhood, the denial of race as a social factor, and finally World Government or Utopia.

The media elites manipulate the masses into supporting these ideas. The main issues of the day are movements that political parties conform to: they are not
attached to particular parties and the major movement of our time is multi-racialism and all three parties conform to it.

Traditional prejudice conveys wisdom to new generations but Liberals and cultural Marxists think they have transcended prejudice yet beneath their high-mindedness is the prejudice that immigrants are essentially good but whites are essentially bad and they take sides with immigrants a priori - the rationalisation comes after: “They are going to become English”, “they are bringing diversity”; “Islam the religion of peace”, “they are enriching our culture”, “the hospitals could not run without them”, “we need their doctors”.

This justifies them asset stripping the third world of workers and doctors. It is motivated not by guilt but shame: if you feel guilty you are remorseful and seek to make amends which our elites do not do but direct immigrants into our communities so we are used to make amends for them.

They live in lovely areas or safely in gated communities while ordinary people get mugged, burgled and raped, and put at risk of Aids and T.B. They do not spoil their own areas but use worthy causes like Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England to preserve them. When centres for asylum seekers are proposed for the countryside, the elites are in uproar to keep them out. Political, intellectual and corporate elites are selfish and think only of themselves. The one gets cheap labour, the others pose as moral beacons to the un-enlightened. They loathe their own people and do not care how much we suffer as long as they feel virtuous.

Many illegals work unlawfully long hours for almost nothing and have their liberty restricted by their masters and classic hypocrisy is the elites apologising for historic slavery while importing wage slaves! This is opposite of the Conservative virtue Noblesse Oblige: the obligations of the noble to the lower orders who reciprocate by loyalty and service.

Modern Noblesse Oblige would be adopting economic protectionism. This value was preserved in opponents of immigration including working-class Socialists as the British are naturally Conservative. In the Commons immigration debate on the 5th of December 1958 Labour’s Frank Tomney (Hammersmith), remarked “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.”

Conservative Cyril Osborne (Louth) 25th March 1965 spoke up for the working class in an immigration debate in the House of Commons. He said that in 1958 he could see the social evils and could still see them, “…for more than ten years I have begged this house – my own side as well as the party opposite – to face this problem which haunted me, as it still haunts me because I could see the social evils”.

If anything goes wrong it cannot be others so they blame their own people and the connative word is “racism”. It is only applied to whites. We are the scapegoats for the setbacks on the road to their utopia.

The ideas that we are told rule our lives are but rhetoric. Equality masks hierarchy. Dr.Frank Ellis left Leeds University after an Inquisition for speaking of, amongst other things, “humane repatriation.” The University stated: “Dr Ellis has acted in breach of our equality and diversity policy, and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values. Second, in publicising his personal views on race, Dr Ellis has recklessly jeopardised the fulfilment of the University’s obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. As a public body, the University is required under that Act to promote good relations between people of different racial groups.”

Modern society has been built on the foundation of "equality" and therefore statements like this type threaten its roots. The analogy with the 17th century Papacy persecuting Galileo is apposite. Yet the elites are a hierarchy. The law was passed by the rulers then acted on by bureaucrats and academics lower down the hierarchy and finally the students protested obediently. Equality is imposed from the top, down a hierarchical chain of authority. That is the natural state and our recognition of natural hierarchy is only acknowledging what Liberals and Cultural Marxists try to deny!

Nationalist Conservatives are protective of civil society which took centuries to grow! If we are split up by introducing masses of aliens, the basis of civility, which is trust, is destroyedbecause they have different ambitions and goals and each group become rivals and neither we nor they, know when historical enmity will surface.

A major value is Tradition: ribs that hold communities together. One of the most important is our language and there is a new political vocabulary developing, un-self consciously. Take the word English. During the Empire the home countries were subsumed under the word British and it is PC to say British now but people are describing themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster to emphasise their national identity.

This happened with flags and the authorities’ rationalisation against is re-claim them from extremists! We need a concrete vocabulary with which to explicate the world around us and describe human nature. The Welsh have it right in their great anthem “Land of my Fathers”. “English” is changing as the English affirm their collective identity, mentally disentangle from the EU and the term British disintegrates. This reflects change in British relationships. Country is vapid but land means something. Anglo Saxon words are folksy and Latin more abstract so our political vocabulary requires old English words.

Joseph de Maistre, the Savoyard counter-revolutionary, encapsulated the unreality of abstractions in his famous quote, ”In the course of my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians; ... but man I have never met”

The ruling bureaucrats of the E.U. and our regional Government are restricting our vocabularies through P.C. so that we speak and think in the way they want us to, and are devising an artificial way of describing Muslims to avoid calling some terrorists. This totalitarian control of thought through language began with the French revolutionaries, was continued by the Bolsheviks, Mao’s cultural revolution and in the west by cultural Marxists with their gradual cultural revolution.

Take our degraded art and literature: it is for talented people to re-link with spiritually uplifting art and re-grow it. For example, in Poetry, re-link with our original Anglo-Saxon forms such as the beautiful internal rhyme of alliteration, whereas end rhyme is dull and monotonous; or, Medieval because of the importance of Ballads as a vehicle to convey our suffering under our elected representatives who are against us. The matter of Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham is precedent.

The family is exemplified in Monarchy. The institution of Monarchy is the embodiment of the nation and the Monarch is on our stamps, our court cases are Regina v X; we walk and drive on the Queen’s highway. The throne goes automatically to her successor. It is not the person but the office. The king is dead long live the king. It is continuity but also has a deep archetypal import that touches our deepest instincts.

The natural form of Government is absolute Monarchy. It is the summum bonum of our family system and the family is its reflection. King and Queen are Father and Mother of the nation. Our current royal family are badly advised and reflect the general chaos instead of setting an example. I once read that the Queen Mother liked Ali G!

This is propaganda to make them more ordinary in deference to demands by the tabloids and their global-elite owners but has made them contemptible. We must begin working towards absolute monarchy. They have archetypal importance to their people and a relationship with the whole nation not certain classes and factions.

From the fifth Commandment we learn to honour our mothers and fathers. The family is the beginning of civilisation and we have warnings from one-parent families to go by - the misery and trouble they are often in. The bonds that unite us are affective not rational - we feel that we belong and are comfortable. We feel at home. We like our land because we have bonded with it and this bond has been sanctified by time. These affections grow naturally within the family where responsibility for our community begins and is perpetuated in creating and rearing children and renewing our community so what was handed down to us is passed on.

Homosexuals do not have this fulfilment as they have no further stage to move onto and remain in adolescence. Our babies have been devalued as little more than attributes of the woman’s body, her rights are paramount and the father does not count. Abortion is erasing our posterity and 6 million babies have been killed since the 1967 Abortion Act!

Fetishism is being popularised by our cultural and intellectual elites. This is deriving thrills from injury and degradation. It is the erotic form of hatred and consent is no excuse because if not countered evil spreads and soon those who do not consent will be abused and bullied by perverts. With outside forces working to destroy our boys and girls parents must regain sovereignty over their families and take responsibility for their children and Home School to rescue them from state corruption which is teaching them to give their land away and to become sexual perverts.

An early progressive William Godwin wrote in Political Justice(1793) that marriage and parental duties are irrational and believed as utopians do that society would become better and that men and women would in the future not behave so narrowly but for the benefit of everyone. The family is not narrow: its influences emanate outwards. Nearly all our traditions and institutions have been destroyed so we are going to have to re-link with many of them and grow others from our roots.

The cultural Marxists are planning “Faith Schools” to allow other ethnic groups to instil standards of behaviour and education but try to ruin ours. Jim Knight, the schools minister, was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 8 October 2007 as saying the Government was considering how to simplify the balloting process adopted under 1998 legislation.” Ministers are paved the way for the adoption of fresh powers to abolish academically selective education. They said parents should get the chance to force the closure of grammar schools in their area if the majority of families opposed selection by ability.

Jim Knight, the schools minister, said the Government was considering how to simplify the balloting process adopted under 1998 legislation in which schools could be forced to drop the 11-plus.” The education Guardian on Monday June 25, 2007 told us the other part of the political elite the Conservative party ”announced last month that if it won the next general election there would be no return to
grammar schools on the grounds that they do little to benefit children from poorer backgrounds. Instead, the party has promised to continue Tony Blair's flagship education reform and support the expansion of the academy schools programme - independent state schools sponsored by business.”

We must counter these attempts to destroy our children by cultural Marxists. Parents must take back responsibility for their sons and daughters from the state. We need to re-introduce grammar Schools or even found new public schools to impart traditional values like honour, duty and service; others must consider Home Schooling networks to give their young the standard of education the state schools are denying them and to instil self-worth and a sense of belonging instead of teaching them to give up their country to outsiders and to become sexual perverts.

We must revive local fairs and festivals and develop our Folk music traditions by taking traditional forms but using words and sentiments suitable for our present time to express our sufferings under the elites. These are not rationalist formulae but suggestions for our creative young people to develop in practice. They will forge natural, emotional bonds with their own people, their traditions and civilisation.

1. Reflections on the Revolution in France.
2. Notes Towards a Definition of Culture. T.S.Eliot
3. Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane, 2006) p 224. Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' (Macmillan, 2003) p 382.
4. Salisbury Review. Autumn 1982.

See also:

pat buchanan.org. November 1998; and
"Death of the West” 2002.(St.Martins Press); “
"State of Emergency” (2006.St.Martins Press)
Michael Oakeshott.1948.Rationalism in Politics.(Methuen)
James Burnham.1964.Suicide of the West.

The free-market and globalisation could wreck one corner of rural England, says Stuart Millson

2007-10-22T11:17:00.000-07:00

What could be quieter than the location of Lydd in Kent, the Romney Marsh town whose church tower is known as “the cathedral of the marshes”. To the west of Lydd, army ranges and the road to Rye and Camber. To the east, the road to Old and New Romney which cuts through agricultural land known primarily for sheep farming. Along this road, just outside the town, is Lydd Airport – a small aerodrome which was once used by Dan Air (a famous name from the 1970s) for short-haul services to France, and which continues to cater for a modest, yet growing amount of low-key traffic.

However, the peace of Romney Marsh could be shattered forever if the go-ahead is given to the Middle Eastern company which owns the airport, to run large-scale passenger services. Already, there are some ominous signs – and signposts. For example, on driving up to the gates of Lydd airport, the passenger is told that he or she is at “London Ashford Airport” – a very imaginative approach indeed to marketing and geography, given that Lydd is a 70-mile or so drive from the capital city (which already provides the burgeoning population of the South-East with three airports).

Global business lobby

A number of environmental action-groups have been formed to counter the threat of this latest proposal for airport expansion (the North Kent marshes, with their unique wetland bird habitats were spared a couple of years ago after furious local protests); and the issue has been brought to public attention in the form of some evocative newspaper articles about the spirit of Romney Marsh. But as ever, the global business lobby exercises huge power – and perhaps surprisingly, there are also many individuals within Kent business organisations and local authorities who believe that the only raison d’etre to life is to build new motorways, ring-roads, and more ring-roads to run rings around the existing clogged up traffic system. “If we need a new road, build it” exclaimed one business-Stalinist at a county local business convention in Ashford in 2001 – the “gentleman” apparently having not a single thought for any other consideration or consequence.

Let us be clear what is at stake here. As the Campaign to Protect Rural England warned, not only would the expanded airport cause immense problems with overloaded marshland roads, but the daily impact of Boeing 737s roaring across the small coastal communities and villages – trailing kerosene in their wake – would make for an environmental disaster. But the problem would not be confined simply to the marshland… Circling jets, waiting for their landing slots, would disturb the peace, quiet and solitude of the North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – the mass of aircraft making it increasingly difficult to sustain the rich and enriching local bird population, particularly rare species, and the patterns of bird migration across nearby Dungeness, home of an RSPB reserve. Once again, CPRE provides a perfect clarification of the matter at hand… and what a pity that one leading Conservative and Cameronite chose to deride this valuable body of concerned and dedicated volunteers as “the campaign to preserve posh people’s gardens” – a truly depressing comment for a supposedly “green party”.

Artificially-inflated population

In an increasingly overcrowded South East, with an artificially inflated population, and the ongoing phenomenon of the London overspill moving further and further away from the horrific problems of congested and crime-ridden Inner London, there has never been a greater need to preserve what remains of the remoteness of the Kent countryside. And in the case of Romney Marsh, there is so much within that “fifth continent” which stands for the England which we need so desperately to preserve: the reed-beds and heron-priested banks of dykes and waterways which criss-cross the landscape; the mediaeval church of St. Clement at Old Romney – which looks as though it has grown roots into the very soil; the vast skies and sunsets over the Channel coast, where the Home Guard kept watch in the dark days of the last war. I wonder if such places would ever inspire David Cameron to venture down for an environmentally-concerned photo-opportunity – or is “the environment” just about expensive trips to the North Pole, US Government spokesmen talking about “carbon footprints”, or the plight of the Third World or faraway countries and indigenous peoples?

Once again, the future of a recognisable and rooted place, with its own special culture and local quirks – not to mention a rare ecology, natural history, and treasured tranquillity – stands or falls on the decision of faceless officials, and the whims of foreign entrepreneurs. And despite the current clamour for “green taxes” and for the increased taxation of air travellers, there seems to be a strange predisposition on the part of our rulers toward building new airports and extra runways – a peculiar mismatch of aims! For hundreds of years, Romney Marsh has maintained its sense of separation and feeling of wild mystery – providing a sanctuary for many weekend visitors, and a pleasingly rural habitat for the people who live there. How terrible that the slow passage of time – the essence of any civilised or conservative society – should be sacrificed to the short-termism of the global free-market, and the balance-sheets of the money-men and philistine modern state bureaucracy. We need to preserve the natural and national heritage of our island – we need to save Romney Marsh.

Odyssey through our Present Discontents: Culture Wars and Importing Crime - David Hamilton

2007-10-11T10:03:00.000-07:00

Since the decline of our traditional, aristocratic rulers and the growth of unhealthy values like tolerance and cultural relativism we have been plunging into crime and degeneracy which has harmed our young people and is now spreading to the rural middle classes. If we take an odyssey through our present discontented we get a clearer view of what is happening around us.

The Daily Telegraph of 4/10/07 reported, “Foreign criminals are moving out of big cities and infiltrating rural towns and villages. The gangs include Jamaican "Yardies" selling crack in Hereford and Cambridgeshire, Chinese criminals called "Snakeheads" in Lancashire and Norfolk, Albanians running prostitution rings in Hampshire and Colombian cocaine networks in Chelmsford, Essex, a new television series claims.

The disclosures are featured in Crime Invasion — Britain's New Underworld, a new series for the Virgin 1 satellite channel, presented by Rageh Omaar, a journalist who has worked for the BBC. Omaar said: "Crime in the UK is changing and making the series has shown me that it is happening right underneath our noses." Julie Spence, the chief constable of Cambridgeshire, said recently that immigrant workers were importing their national feuds and criminal behaviour to rural England.” I have personally been approached by people smuggled in by snakeheads to buy cheap tobacco and CD.s in pubs as far afield as Cheltenham and Sheffield.

One of the weapons used by the new left is what is known as the “Culture Wars.” Modern, popular music transmits raw uninhibited energy, emotion and excitement often with catchy tunes but is negative and corruptive. Those who doubt this should listen to, say, “Heavy Metal” or “Rap” then perhaps some Tudor church music and compare the feelings and images that are aroused. The first produce the desire to hurt or mistreat others, the second, an uplifting spiritual sense and a good feeling towards God and others.

Rock stars are part of the cultural elite. Prime Minister Harold Wilson used the Beatles to present himself as relevant and modern as Tony Blair later used Oasis and the stars work closely with the Royal family for their pet charities. Rome under the Caesars kept people quiet with what the satiric poet Juvenal scorned in his tenth satire as Bread and Circuses. Issuing bread and occupying the public with shows managed and controlled them; now, the idea is to manipulate us into a way of thinking and behaving; culture and entertainment are a major part of social engineering.

These usually begin as wholesome pastimes but in a declining civilisation become corrupted. The Romans sank into a debased barbarism by slaughter in the Amphitheatre. Our current deterioration into barbarism makes use of images more than reality, though the emotional impact creates the sensation and can lead to the reality. The state of a civilisation can be assessed by its art. There are deep similarities between our collapsing civilisation and the collapse of Greece and Rome and we need to use their historical example as guides to correcting our own folly. In each there is a coarsening of the presentation of the artistic subject, a shift from a deep explication of human behaviour and motivation to a sensational presentation of violent or lascivious action. This deterioration in moral refinement occurred in the plays of Euripides, whereas Socrates and Aeschylus dealt with the profound questions of life, of existence and our relationship to the Gods. One of the greatest emotionally structured plays of all time, which influenced Aristotle in his definition of dramatic structure, was Oedipus Rex. This ends with Oedipus blinding himself off stage, the revelation of incest and suicide, which is a gathering up of both motivation and action and provides catharsis, the release of emotion, which is a social good for it helps prevent it turning against the others. It is not degenerate or sensationalist because it deals with an aspect of fate and how the Greeks viewed the meaning of their lives. This differs from modern drama, which is a focus on the surface action communicating not glimpses of God but feelings of evil.

The modern manipulators are leading us into degeneracy. In a recent TV series "I'm a Celebrity Get Me out of Here", simple people, described as Celebrities, were so degraded as to eat live worms and stick insects. There are several levels to this: there is cruelty to lesser animals; encouraging children to eat insects and slugs in the garden and the decline into more degradation of our people and culture. On a “reality” programme one masturbated a pig and on another one fried and ate Kangaroos testicles. This is to degrade our people and culture. Many think that the presentation of certain “lifestyles” in T.V. programmes is innocent, but they are arranged and presented to be sympathetic and thus to change people’s attitudes which is social engineering. The Soaps are used to promote “gay” lifestyles. This does not happen by serendipity. It is planned in meetings. The “Goodies” are shown sympathetically and glamorously, every character they want us to imitate is attractive and cool; the “Baddies”, those they want us to hate, are thick and unlovable. It does not occur in a vacuum but in tandem with other developments and helps to manipulate acceptance for the Government plans to equalise the sexual marriage laws.

An area where the human soul meets good and evil from the unconscious mind is in art. The proper function of art is the transformation of real life through the spiritual and emotional functions of the human mind. Traditionalism is presented as living in the past but at an art exhibition in Birmingham I was disappointed to see how quaint these artists are. Someone had a photograph of herself sat on the loo was originally done in 1969 when rock singer Frank Zappa had a publicity poster of himself sat on the loo!

Every year these time-warped artists stage a ritual by setting up an ordinary member of the public. The script is this: an elderly person takes a youngster, say grandchild or niece, to an exhibition and is shocked by something on display, like an unmade bed or something that requires little imagination, and complains to the press. Then the curator is quoted as saying, “Art is to make people think, and to provoke feelings”. This hackneyed response has been used on each occasion for the last 30 years.

I once went to the Ikon gallery in Birmingham, which is financed by taxpayers’ money confiscated by the Government as well as funding by companies. The young gulls there soon refused to speak to me when I explained they are mass produced artists all doing similar stuff. They have to do what the Art Council wants to get a grant. This is state art designed to degrade and destroy our culture and civilisation; so deep goes the hatred for our culture, our communities, our history and our traditions with the liberal middle classes who follow the tastes and standards set by elites such as Saatchi.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the modernist movement set about destroying the form and grammar of traditional art and thus the content, and made it both unintelligible and uninteresting. In the 60’s cultural Marxists of the new left became the elites. They and hate our culture and traditions and are destroying our young people.

In his St. Georges Day address of 1933, Winston Churchill warned, of the type who were taking over our political and cultural life,”…a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrine by a large portion of our politicians.”

George Orwell made the same point “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their nationality. In left-wing circles, it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.”

Aristocrat rulers had sense of “noblesse oblige towards the working classes and a sense of responsibility but the elites, who grew out of the new left, corrupt them out of hatred and personal gain. The Discrimination Act of 1975 advises people not to use degrading language of certain selected groups. But our “cultural Marxist” elites continually degrade working-class people and our young. They mock them as “Chavs.” Our people rarely see themselves affirmed in adverts or on TV, only dark people without English features unless they are advertising our women to the world as whores. We are not supposed to identify with ourselves. The elites need have no conscience about bringing immigrants here to take our jobs by undercutting wages and pushing us out of our communities if they convince themselves we are worthless.

The television programme makers are on the lookout for something to laugh at but we are now the targets and this is done to us before the rest of the world. It is conveyed by images as well as words which are read as body language and semi-conscious messages. Whites are presented as fat, over weight, while ethics are bright and clean. A television programme “How clean is Your House” has two women visit inadequate parents to tell them how to bring their children up. They select lower class inadequates but never tell an inadequate Muslim couple how to bring their children up. One of these programmes is shown in 47 countries! This sends the message to potential asylum seekers that we are inadequate and weak and they can come here and everything off us including our women.

What are the effects of this constant debilitation of our people by the elites on everyday life? Ordinary people lose contact with our civilization and become disorientated, lost, suffer from bereavement and become depressed. Our culture is still amenable to the elites but our manipulated young and those from a de-culturalised background give up and do not bother. They cannot take refuge in a smaller cultural world like the elites who live in large houses in posh areas of London, or beautiful English villages as country gentlefolk. Ordinary people lose heart and, having nowhere to go descend into vices and viciousness. They are no longer civilized and do not know how to behave. They become prey to amoral meritocrats who use and exploit them.

The papers devote pages to the drugged and drunken antics of “celebs” and footballers while the celeb magazines and radio stations promote those who have degraded themselves on Reality TV shows. They show them leaving night clubs drunk and question whether they are wearing knickers or not. The people who make these programmes and write the magazines are educated and intelligent people so they know what they are doing to our young people. It is to redress the balance with the behaviour of ethnic communities. I looked at the covers of two celeb magazines: one stated, “Posh is looking tired and stressed. Is it too much partying?” The other, “Britney and Paris’ wild night out.”

We are being deprived of self worth and seeking it in drink and drugs. There is a trend in drinking amongst people as young as 10 -15. We see them all over the country in subways, on recreation grounds, schoolchildren drinking cans that they have been sold by shopkeepers. Our young people do not understand their loss of identity, the loss of the sense of who they are and loss of self-worth. What are the consequences? The degradation shows in their social lives when they try to escape from themselves.

A young woman told me how she and her cousin go on. “We were so drunk,” she said beaming. Two friends “were “so drunk they couldn’t stand.” I asked if they like getting drunk. “It’s social” one replied; the other ”It’s good fun.” “It is acceptable now like sex and dress.” Some Conservatives claim increasing prices would stop binge drinking but there are methods for getting drunk quickly and cheaply like “drinking glasses of water while drinking alcohol because it reacts in your blood and you get drunk quicker.” There is also a trick of gulping air down while you drink. I asked who originates these tricks. “Probably, the breweries”, she replied. Though they have been educated to see themselves as equal to men but in practice women’s vital organs are not as strong as men’s and they have a greater chance of liver and kidney damage as well as permanent brain damage. As Edmund Burke put it: ”If an idea is good in theory but not in practice, it is a bad idea.”

Children are selfish, but become civilized as they grow older and take responsibility for the world around them. This is becoming adult. However, our elites are preventing them from growing up and keeping them immature which is causing so much uncivilised behaviour. Bar owners and the drinks companies play on the weaker part of people’s nature rather like a sales scam would play on, say, someone’s greed. It is preying on the young’s need for fun and adventure with unhealthy adventures.

Young people drink drinks that have pretty colours and fruity flavours like soft drinks but are about 6% alcohol, or pretty, pleasant tasting cocktails. At the same time the hypnotic music pounds away disorientating them. There are often TV screens all around showing sport, pop acts or models on catwalks. This bar had a couple of bouncy castles upon which customers bounced gleefully, mindless that outside their bubbles of pleasure there is a dangerous, hostile world. Recent bomb attacks were outside London nightclubs. A cool bar is an unreal world and like being in a dream. There is also the use of the hallucinatory effects of drugs in adverts. I saw an advert for vodka shots, which was a square of undulating shades of blue light. You do not see these colours by drinking vodka, gulps of air or not. You see this by taking ecstasy.

On a normal evening in every town and city you see young women collapsed on the pavements usually being attended by paramedics and stretchered away comatose or with cracked heads. Is that all our young women are worth? They walk up to cars waiting at traffic lights and ask for lifts and often just open the door and get in. You see them staggering around the streets at 2 to 4 am lobbing their boobs out to stop passing cars for lifts. They are perfect victims for ethnics and asylum seekers who drive up and down the entertainment streets imitating private hire cars. People from other countries and ethnic groups have no respect for our corrupted women who they see as only good for one thing. A couple of dozen must be raped every weekend in Broad Street, Birmingham alone, and not know it, as many cannot remember how they got home. Later, they might want an abortion or find they are HIV-Positive!

The Times of August 11 2007 reported on “growing concern at the attitudes of some Asian men towards white girls which campaigners for women claim few people wish to address. Parents have complained that in parts of the country with large Asian communities white girls as young as 12 are being targeted for sex by older Asian men yet the authorities are unwilling to act because of fears of being labelled racist.
Ann Cryer, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem after receiving complaints from mothers in her constituency about young Asian men targeting their under-age daughters.

Although campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community for sex, she said that attempts to raise the problem with community leaders had met with little success, with most of them being in a state of denial about it.”

Pop stars are arbiters of taste and behaviour and must take personal responsibility for the harm they have done to young people by creating degenerate images to make themselves millions. Young people identify with them and are beguiled by their rebellious and exciting images while in reality they live in mansions, employ gardeners, maids, cooks and butlers and send their children to the best schools. The man who destroyed old America, and undermined the western world Elvis Presley has a religious devotion 30 years after his death and his home Gracelands attracts worshippers on the scale of Lourdes or Mecca. These pop idols have replaced religious and national icons for millions of people.

John Lennon perceived this and on March 4, 1966, in an interview printed in the London Evening Standard, John Lennon made the following statement: “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me." The statement, being part of a two page interview, went unnoticed in Britain at the time. When it was printed in American teen Magazine "Datebook" a few months later a great uproar broke out. Jesus practiced what he preached and lived in poverty. How sincere was Lennon?

He was interviewed for Marxist magazine, 'Red Mole' by wealthy editor Tariq Ali who wrote,” A limo pulled up outside our office, to the astonishment of bystanders. My colleague Robin Blackburn and I piled in and were driven to Tittenhurst, his Surrey mansion. We spoke for most of the day, saw one of Yoko's avant-garde films (which Robin adored) and were driven back to London. The interview had gone extremely well. Both John and Yoko had been disarmingly frank. The very next morning John rang. He had been so inspired by our interview that he had written a new song. Could he sing it down the phone? He could. That was how I first heard "Power to the People".

Tittenhurst Park is a massive, white, 200 yr-old Georgian mansion in Ascot, Surrey. Lennon had an eight-track studio, in the 7 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 3 reception rooms and it stood in 70 acres of Parkland. Not only did he record "Working Class Hero" and describe it as a song for the revolution, he wrote his best known song, “Imagine” (no possessions) there. He died leaving $275 million! He had spent half of his time making money the other half promoting and donating to terrorists like the Ira and extremist Black groups. His widow Yoko is a billionairess! Madonna in real life tries to live as an English country lady while in public she pretends to be a rebel effing and blinding and snogging Britney at award ceremonies.

On internet “Community” sites for young people to meet others our young women present themselves as tarts and most say they “like getting drunk.” Their clothes and poses show them as anybody’s meat. They are imitating people on TV. talent shows and think they will be spotted, and slappers who have made fortunes showing their silicon boobs. Our elites promote these as role models for our young people, but only promote honourable and worthy people as role models for ethnic minorities. If you walk around an inner city school or community centre the walls are festooned with heroes from the histories of ethnic groups like Gandhi, Marcus Garvey or Harriet Tubman and a statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square.

Like Rome we are behaving as though we have been conquered. The immigrants are after our women and we are supposed to accept it because our elites have passed laws
to prevent us objecting. These are features of being conquered – we must not fight back but acquiesce. An imaginary conversation between a settler and a new asylum seeker,” Their women are easy. All you have to do is buy them a few drinks. There is nothing the men can do because their Government is against them.”

In “Deculturalisation of the English People” the Rev. John Lovejoy, who lived and worked with Australian Aborigines, compared what is being done to us with what was done to them. He concludes that as well as the loss of culture the taking of their women that destroyed them.

On an entertainment street some bars are used for pills and others for cocaine and most door staff are pumped up on steroids. The drug goes with the music. The coke-heads are hyper and constantly making a sort of chewing motion. The staff of these bars put Vaseline on lavatory cisterns to try to stop customers doing lines of coke on them but the owners are usually on it themselves and door staff are often dealers.
Another mode of destruction is Clubbing on Ecstasy. It is a special occasion like going to church on Sundays.

There is an unfinished part of us that is reaching out to become satisfied or whole and this gives a temporary and artificial substitute. A common feature of ecstasy clubbers is a need to escape from themselves which in a healthier age would have led to a mystic journey in solitude as eremites counting their beads and communing with God. In our degraded times they are prey for the hard-headed business people who use any fashion to make money out of their own people.

A young woman explained to me: “It heightens the music, makes it more epic.” In common with others it helps them to dance longer, but the important effect is that “It fills you full of love towards those around you, if a girl is being sick in the toilets you pull her hair back for her. I have only seen two fights in eight years of clubbing.” She compared this with aggressive pubs when people are drunk and violent fights ensue. It is a response to the betrayal of the needs of our young people by our Christian leaders and has fuelled artificial communities and the illusion of transcendence through drugs.

The importation of cheap labour is justified by blaming us: “Eastern European Workers Shame Lazy Brits” scream the tabloids. It is incredible but the Labour Government and Trades Unions have virtually re-introduced Slavery as those encouraged here but classified as illegal immigrants work for almost nothing. On top of asylum seekers and families and spouses coming here, eastern European immigration makes a total of 1,000,000 per annum. Nurse graduates for example cannot find jobs.

The elites see only good in ethics but find fault in us. They pretend they are “essentially good,” while we are essentially bad. Unfortunately many immigrants keep letting them down by shooting and knifing people, grooming our young girls and planting bombs to blow us up. The elites keep reality hidden and pretend the multi-racial dream is a success because they cannot face what they have created but it is difficult to keep terrorist bombings secret. To risk a pun, they are hoist by their own petard!

The one who brought totalitarianism and oppression into our legal system with the Campaign for Racial Equality, in the 1976 Race Relations Act, was Roy Jenkins. Biographer, John Campbell (Weidenfield&Nicolson.1983) tells us, that he believed, “That immigration was good for Britain and if people resisted they should be socially engineered into accepting it. Commonwealth immigrants like previous waves of immigrants from the Norman Conquest, to the refugees of the 30’s, could help overcome “our natural Island lethargy”.

While we are escaping from reality the clever immigrants are taking over the professions and administration. What are our young going to do? Where are they going to work when millions are being brought here as cheap labour? Parents are betraying their children and need to take back responsibility for their offspring from the state.

We need to re-introduce grammar Schools or even found new public schools to impart traditional values like honour, duty and service; others must consider Home Schooling networks to give our young the standard of education the state schools are denying them and to instil self-worth and a sense of belonging instead of teaching them to give up their country to outsiders and to become sexual perverts.
We must revive local fairs and festivals and develop our Folk music traditions by taking traditional forms but using words and sentiments suitable for our present time to express our sufferings under the elites. These are not rationalist formulae but suggestions for our creative young people to develop in practice. They will be able to forge natural, emotional bonds with their own people, their traditions and civilisation.

THIS (UN)HAPPY REALM - Derek Turner

2007-10-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

Millions of years ago, in 1999, a fresh-faced Tony Blair said that he wanted to achieve “a better quality of life”. His proposed solution consisted of: “That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this government’s programme…and devising new ways of assessing how we are doing.” While environmental concerns are important, and while methodology does matter, as social analysis this left something to be desired.

In 2002, there was a government “life satisfaction” seminar, which led to an unofficial “analytical paper” filled with that inimitable, abominable New Labour mixture of management-speak and aggrievedness, which advocated “a happiness index”, “teaching people about happiness”, “more support through volunteering”, “a more measured work-life balance” and – surprise, surprise – further taxation of the wealthy.

No-one can doubt that happiness is important. Too many of Britain’s streets are gloomy, ugly and suspicious avenues, populated by a shuffling, scruffy mass who look almost as if they are living through some terrible catastrophe. We live in a society woefully lacking in public expressions of confidence and joie de vivre. Every aspect of life seems filled with quiet hopelessness, and a secret sadness.

‘Happiness’ pundits say that we are unhappy partly because we are made to feel inadequate by glossy advertising, because money is unevenly distributed, because we have long journeys to work, because we eat badly and don’t take enough exercise. There is something in what they say. It certainly would not do any harm if we were exposed to fewer advertisements of the sort that make children demand (and usually get) the latest trainers, if more people were a little richer, if we didn’t need to spend so much time travelling (and could thereby spend more time with family and friends) and if we ate fewer junk foods. And perhaps, as has also been suggested, some people would benefit if the NHS were to expend more time and resources on improving people’s satisfaction levels.

The happiness theorists take a tentative step into political incorrectness, by realizing that marriage is beneficial for individuals (and so society), adding to levels of satisfaction and even life expectancy. As the 2002 “analytical paper” was co-written by one of Tony Blair’s chief advisers, perhaps some of this kind of thinking might even find its way into government policy some day.

David Cameron is surfing the well-being wave too, telling the Google Zeitgeist Conference in 2006 that “Well-being can't be measured by money or traded in markets. It's about the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our culture, and above all the strength of our relationships… politicians should be saying to themselves ‘how are we going to try and make sure that we don't just make people better off but we make people happier, we make communities more stable, we make society more cohesive’.” (quoted on bbc.co.uk, 22 May 2006).

We should applaud examination of the causes of unhappiness. But all these pundits aren’t cutting deeply enough. For people who say (correctly) that economics is not enough, many of their suggested improvements are themselves highly reductive.
The chief reason for unhappiness is, of course, the loss of religious faith. When God is removed from the cosmos, then many things automatically become existentially pointless, and the cruel, freakish, random nature of the universe is made brutally apparent. As the causes of this lie outside politics (and even beyond the established church) we must absolve the politicians of blame for this phenomenon.

And as an agnostic (albeit a pro-Christian one), I am myself a part of the problem, and it would be hypocritical of me to advocate what I do not believe myself. But there are things that politicians could do today to make Britain happier, if only they had the courage and the vision.

For instance, one of the deeper reasons that Britain is unhappy is because so many parts of it are plain ugly. While modern architecture is improving, there are still huge swathes of Britain that are dominated by 1960s tower blocks, 1970s shopping precincts filled with the same shops, bungalows and caravan parks and houses with PVC windows, industrial estates, ring roads and motorways. “To love your country,” said Edmund Burke, “your country must be beautiful”. But who could love Stevenage, or Cumbernauld, or Corby, or Croydon? David Cameron is right to select this as a major cause of unhappiness. More sensitive (and streamlined) planning controls would, in time, make a massive difference to Britain’s landscapes, and accordingly Britons’ happiness.

But society is ugly too. What else could we expect in a country whose ruling class includes John Prescott, Piers Morgan and Jordan? Who could love the Britain of the Sun and the Mirror, of football hooligans, of lachrymose social workers and whining teachers, of late-night vomitings and back-alley stabbings, and fag-smoking 13 year old mothers-to-be? David Cameron famously, fatuously said that “I love the Britain we have today” – but he is a member of a small and shrinking minority. It is less clear what could be done to alleviate this sickness of the soul, but statesmanlike politicians could, at least in theory, start to arrest the rot, one social sector at a time, through judicious financial and welfare reforms.

Another reason for unhappiness is that Britain simply has too many people – with more arriving all the time. It is difficult to avoid feeling that Britain is suffering from “crowding stress” – the phenomenon that occurs in overcrowded rabbit burrows, where there is constant fighting over space, mates and food, and the does re-absorb their litters rather than bear them into a world where room and nutrition cannot be guaranteed. In modern Britain, there are simply too many houses, too many roads, too many cars, too long queues for doctors and dentists, too much pollution and too much noise.

Another reason may be the relatively small proportion of Britain’s population that is under 25. Young people are naturally ebullient, whereas older people are more likely to be querulous and obsessed by comfort. More old people equals more grumpiness.

A deeper possible reason is simultaneously the most widely discussed and the least addressed – the vast chasm between rulers and ruled. This really is the fault of politicians, who claim to respect the vox populi, but who really push their own agendas – on everything from capital punishment to immigration. They say grandly when challenged that they are representatives rather than delegates; when one surveys the mess of modern Britain, perhaps we would be better off if it was the other way around. Whatever they say to get into office, when they get there the majority of elected representatives from the big parties ‘go native’. Even sincere politicians get sidetracked, and most simply disappear into a corrupted machine that tolerates crime and anti-social behaviour, that cedes more and more powers to the EU, that allows the British industrial base to continue shrinking, that presides over the dumbing-down of schools and the arts, and which permits the continued immigration of hundreds of thousands of ‘new Britons’ every year.

We live in a Britain in which there is no longer any common purpose, in which there are no common values, in which there is no long-term thinking, and which sees no permanence in anything. More and more Britons are rootless, bootless and fruitless – and are being simply crowded out of existence in the land they have occupied for millennia through uncontrolled globalisation, uncontrolled immigration, post-civilized post-modernism and punitive taxation.

More and more Britons have no faith in God, no faith in Man, and no faith in the institutions of their country. All this becomes a vicious circle of faithlessness breeding yet more faithlessness. Is it so surprising that so many people don’t get involved in politics, or even read newspapers or bother to vote – or that so many others simply leave for ever, to search for some meaning in Malaga that they could not find in Manchester? It is small wonder that the people of Britain when viewed en masse look rather like a defeated army. Could they be anything other than profoundly unhappy in the circumstances? What I – and many, many others – would like to know is who will be able to make us feel good about ourselves again.

ENLIGHTENED ENEMIES - THE HUME/ROUSSEAU FEUD RE-EXAMINED David Edmonds and John Eidinow

2007-09-19T12:19:00.000-07:00

David Hume comes down to us as among the greatest of philosophers. He also exemplifies the man of pristine character, saluted in his own age for his uncommon virtue. Hume was immensely proud of his upright reputation; one might say he gloried in his goodness. In 1776, close to death from bowel cancer, he summarised his life in a short, unrevealing essay. He was, he wrote, "a man of mild disposition, of command of temper, of an open, social, and cheerful humour, capable of attachment, but little susceptible of enmity, and of great moderation in all my passions".

His friend, the economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith, agreed, eulogising Hume after his death as the exemplar of as "perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit". Historians and biographers have gone along with this image - ignoring Smith's caveat ... "as the nature of human frailty will permit" ...

That human frailty had faced its severest test 10 years earlier when Hume offered to succour the radical author Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The year was 1766 and Rousseau had just cause to fear for his life. For more than three years he had been a refugee, forced to move on several times. His radical tract, The Social Contract, with its famous opening salvo, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains", had been violently condemned. Even more threatening to the French Catholic church was Émile, in which Rousseau advocated denying the clergy a role in the education of the young. An arrest warrant was issued in Paris and his books were publicly burned.

In The Confessions, a literary landmark described as the first modern autobiography, Rousseau spoke of "the cry of unparalleled fury" that went up across Europe. "I was an infidel, an atheist, a lunatic, a madman, a wild beast, a wolf ..."

Fleeing France, he had found safe haven in a remote village in his native Switzerland. But soon the local priest began to whip up hatred against him, charging him with being a heretic. The atmosphere turned ugly. Rousseau was abused in the street. Some believed this lean, dark man whose eyes were full of fire was possessed by the devil.

One night, a drunken mob attacked his house. Rousseau was inside with his mistress, the former scullery maid Thérèse le Vasseur (by whom he had five children that he notoriously abandoned to a foundling hospital), and his beloved dog, Sultan. A shower of stones was thrown at the window. A rock "as big as a head" nearly landed on Rousseau's bed. When a local official finally arrived, he declared, "My God, it's a quarry."

Rousseau had no choice but to uproot once more. So where next? His saviour would be the Scotsman David Hume.

In October 1763, Hume had gone to the French capital as under-secretary to the newly appointed British ambassador, Lord Hertford.

Today, Hume is known above all for his philosophy, but then he was renowned for being an historian. His first philosophical work, The Treatise of Human Nature, had been, if not exactly ignored, then certainly not acclaimed as the sublime work of genius it is. But his epic six-volume History of England, which had appeared between 1754 and 1762, had become a bestseller, and made him financially independent. Turning his back on the previous mode of history writing as a sequence of dates, names and glorifications, Hume brilliantly combined character studies and the detail of events with an analysis of the broad sweep of underlying forces. The tone was thoughtful, civil, temperate. The series would go through more than a hundred editions and still be in use at the end of the 19th century.

Hume still felt, justly, under-appreciated. The "banks of the Thames", he insisted, were "inhabited by barbarians". There was not one Englishman in 50 "who if he heard I had broke my neck tonight would be sorry". Englishmen disliked him, Hume believed, both for what he was not and for what he was: not a Whig, not a Christian, but definitely a Scot. In England, anti-Scottish prejudice was rife. But his homeland too seemed to reject him. The final humiliation came in June 1763, when the Scottish prime minister, the Earl of Bute, appointed another Scottish historian, William Robertson, to be Historiographer Royal for Scotland.

The invitation from Lord Hertford must have seemed irresistible. Hume's friends travelling in France had already told him about his incomparable standing in Parisian society. And the two years he spent in Paris were to be the happiest of his life. He was rapturously embraced there, loaded, in his words, "with civilities". Hume stressed the near-universal judgment on his personality and morals. "What gave me chief pleasure was to find that most of the elogiums bestowed on me, turned on my personal character; my naivety & simplicity of manners, the candour and mildness of my disposition &tc." Indeed, his French admirers gave him the sobriquet Le Bon David, the good David.

Soon in the French capital it became social death not to be acquainted with him. In his Journal, Horace Walpole (on a prolonged visit to Paris) records, "It is incredible the homage they pay him." To a fellow historian Hume wrote: "I can only say that I eat nothing but ambrosia, drink nothing but nectar, breathe nothing but incense, and tread on nothing but flowers. Every man I meet, and still more every lady, would think they were wanting in the most indispensable duty, if they did not make to me a long and elaborate harangue in my praise."

The lavish attention paid by women must have come as a pleasant shock to this obese bachelor in his 50s. James Caulfeild (later Lord Charlemont), who'd once described Hume's face as "broad and fat, his mouth wide, and without any other expression than that of imbecility", observed how in Paris, "no lady's toilette was complete without Hume's attendance".

Hume was glorified both in court circles and in the so-called "Republic of Letters", that unique French Enlightenment territory of salons governed by outstanding women. The salons became the transmission system of the French Enlightenment, creating, focusing and broadcasting radical opinion. The female hosts were the firm regulators of tact and etiquette: they wanted the guests to shine but they could set the tone of the discussions and insist on clarity of language. Their art was the creation and maintenance of civilised conversation.

In the salons, Hume was introduced to the critics, writers, scientists, artists and philosophers who powered the French Enlightenment, the philosophes. They included the "cultural correspondent for Europe", Friedrich Grimm, and the editors of that vast compendium, the Encyclopédie, the pioneering mathematician Jean d'Alembert and the multi-talented Denis Diderot. Diderot had recognised Hume as a fellow Enlightenment spirit - a cosmopolitan. "I flatter myself that I am, like you, citizen of the great city of the world," Diderot wrote to Hume. Hume also became close friends with the passionate atheist Baron d'Holbach, a major financial supporter of and a contributor to the Encyclopédie. All four men would be crucial in Hume's quarrel with Rousseau.

One salon hostess was a vital link in bringing Rousseau and Hume together: the beautiful, clever and moralistic Madame de Boufflers, in whose dazzling salon, with its four huge mirrors, the young Mozart once performed. The intimate tone of the letters between Hume and Mme de Boufflers indicates that he, at least, became infatuated. A spell apart had Hume writing to her: "Alas! Why am I not near you so that I could see you for half an hour a day." She flattered him that she "admired his genius" and that he made her "disgusted with the bulk of the people I have to live with", ending one note, "I love you with all my heart". Sadly, Hume might have misread the silken manners of her court.

When the ambassador, Lord Hertford, was replaced, Hume's sojourn in paradise ended too. Britain beckoned. Mme de Boufflers asked him to assist the persecuted Rousseau in securing asylum in England. How could Le Bon David possibly say no?

Saviour and exile finally met in Paris in December 1765. There had, until then, been only a short epistolatory relationship between them - marked by mutual effusions of love and admiration. Here is Rousseau on Hume: "Your great views, your astonishing impartiality, your genius, would lift you far above the rest of mankind, if you were less attached to them by the goodness of your heart." After their early encounters in the French capital, Hume penned an unreserved panegyric to a clerical friend in Scotland comparing Rousseau to Socrates and, like a starry-eyed lover, seeing beauty in his adored one's blemishes: "I find him mild, and gentle and modest and good humoured ... M. Rousseau is of small stature; and would rather be ugly, had he not the finest physiognomy in the world, I mean, the most expressive countenance. His modesty seems not to be good manners but ignorance of his own excellence."

Several of his philosophe friends tried to shake Hume from his complacency. Grimm, D'Alembert and Diderot all spoke from personal experience, having had a spectacular falling-out with the belligerent Rousseau in the previous decade. In consequence, they had totally severed relations with him. Most chilling was the warning from Baron d'Holbach. It was 9pm on the night before Hume and Rousseau set out for England. Hume had gone for his final farewell. Apologising for puncturing his illusions, the baron counselled Hume that he would soon be sadly disabused. "You don't know your man. I will tell you plainly, you're warming a viper in your bosom."

At first all seemed well. Rousseau, not only a radical thinker but also one of Europe's most popular novelists, was a star in London. His arrival gave the press the opportunity to congratulate readers on this display of British hospitality, tolerance and fair mindedness. How different from the bigoted, autocratic French!

Of course it must have been galling for Hume, hailed in Paris, to be reduced, in the shrewd observation of an intimate Edinburgh friend, William Rouet, Professor of Ecclesiastical and Civil History, to being "the show-er of the lion". The lion stood out in his bizarre Armenian outfit, complete with gown and cap with tassels, and was almost everywhere accompanied by his dog, Sultan. Hume was astounded by the fuss, somewhat meanly putting it down to Rousseau's curiosity value.

He was still insistent on his love for Rousseau - at least when writing to his French friends. He told one, "I have never known a man more amiable and more virtuous than he appears to me; he is mild, gentle, modest, affectionate, disinterested; and above all, endowed with a sensibility of heart in a supreme degree ... for my part, I think I could pass all my life in his company without any danger of our quarrelling ..." Indeed, a source of their concord, Hume thought, was that neither one of them was disputatious. When he repeated the sentiments to D'Holbach, the baron was glad that Hume had "not occasion to repent of the kindness you have shown ... I wish some friends, whom I value very much, had not more reasons to complain of his unfair proceedings, printed imputations, ungratefulness &c."

Hume worked to find somewhere for Rousseau to live and to engage his friends at Court to pursue a royal pension for the refugee. Initially the immigrant was set up in rooms just off the Strand while Hume stayed at his usual lodging house near Leicester Fields (today's Leicester Square), run by two respectable Scots ladies. But Rousseau was not a city lover. London was in the midst of a manic construction boom. Fuelled by the triumphant end to the seven years war, the capital was the richest, fastest growing city on earth. It had become the lodestone for the talented and ambitious, with foreign trade producing new wealth and shaking up the class order. For Rousseau, however, the city was full of "black vapours".

He moved to the bucolic village of Chiswick to lodge with "an honest grocer", James Pullein. Then, in March 1766, the offer of a country house came from an English gentleman, Richard Davenport, an elderly patron of substantial means. Davenport had an empty mansion, Wootton Hall, in a corner of Staffordshire that seemed to guarantee the solitude for which Rousseau yearned.

En route to Wootton, the exile stopped off at Hume's dwelling in London on Wednesday, March 19 1766. It was their last meeting.

Rousseau was already seized with the glimmerings of a plot; he warned his Swiss friends that his letters were being intercepted and his papers in danger. By June, the plot was starkly clear to him in all its ramifications - and at its centre was Hume. On June 23, he rounded on his saviour: "You have badly concealed yourself. I understand you, Sir, and you well know it." And he spelled out the essence of the plot: "You brought me to England, apparently to procure a refuge for me, and in reality to dishonour me. You applied yourself to this noble endeavour with a zeal worthy of your heart and with an art worthy of your talents." Hume was mortified, furious, scared. He appealed to Davenport for support against "the monstrous ingratitude, ferocity, and frenzy of the man".

Hume was right to be afraid. He knew Rousseau was working on The Confessions: he might even have sneaked a look at early pages on the journey across the Channel. Rousseau wielded the most powerful pen in Europe. His romantic novel Héloïse demonstrated that power, leaving readers weeping and sighing. It was a publishing phenomenon: demand was so great that Parisian booksellers rented it out by the hour. Hume saw his own memory put at risk for all time. "You know," he told another old Edinburgh friend, the professor of rhetoric, Hugh Blair, "how dangerous any controversy on a disputable point would be with a man of his talents."

Hume's eyes were on France, in particular, and his reputation as the good David. His first denunciations of Rousseau were made to his friends in Paris; his Concise and Genuine Account of the Dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau would be published there in French, edited by Rousseau's enemies. He studiously avoided communicating with Mme de Boufflers, knowing she would, as she did, urge "generous pity". Hume's descriptions of Rousseau as ferocious, villainous and treacherous ensured joyful coverage in newspapers and discussions in fashionable drawing rooms, clubs and coffee houses. The actor-manager David Garrick wrote to a friend on July 18 that Rousseau had called Hume "noir, black, and a coquin, knave".

In his reply to Rousseau, Hume (unwisely) demanded that Rousseau identify his accuser and supply full details of the plot. To the first, Rousseau's answer was simple and powerful: "That accuser, Sir, is the only man in the world whose testimony I should admit against you: it is yourself." To the second, Rousseau supplied an indictment of 63 lengthy paragraphs containing the incidents on which he relied for evidence of the plot and how Hume had deviously pulled it off. This he mailed to his foe on July 10 1766. The whole document managed to be simultaneously quite mad but resonating with inspired mockery and tragic sentiment. It was also composed with a novelist's instinct for drama. For instance, among the accusations Hume found trickiest to deal with was Rousseau's claim that on the journey to England he heard Hume mutter in his sleep, "Je tiens JJ Rousseau" - I have JJ Rousseau. In the indictment, Rousseau played brilliantly with these "four terrifying words". "Not a night passes but I think I hear, I have you JJ Rousseau ring in my ears, as if he had just pronounced them. Yes, Mr Hume, you have me, I know, but only by those things that are external to me ... You have me by my reputation, and perhaps my security ... Yes, Mr. Hume, you have me by all the ties of this life, but you do not have me by my virtue or my courage."

Hume was aghast: he could not hope to match prose that he described to a French sympathiser as having "many strokes of genius and eloquence". What he did, instead, was laboriously to go through the indictment, incident by incident, desperately scrawling "lye", "lye", "lye", in the margins as he went along. His annotations became the basis of his Concise Account

Among Rousseau's numerous charges were Hume's misreading of a key letter from Rousseau about a royal pension. That error embroiled King George III. The king was just one of the many prominent figures to be sucked into the quarrel: others included Diderot, D'Holbach, Smith, James Boswell, D'Alembert and Grimm. Walpole became a key player. Voltaire piled in too, unable to resist the chance to strike at Rousseau.

Grimm said that a declaration of war between France and Britain would not have made more noise.

In press coverage of what the Monthly Review called the "quarrel between these two celebrated geniuses" support for Hume was far from universal. While Rousseau was denounced for lack of gratitude, the Monthly Review was not alone in advocating "compassion towards an unfortunate man, whose peculiar temper and constitution of mind must, we fear, render him unhappy in every situation". Letter writers, under cover of pseudonyms such as "A Bystander", also took up the cudgels for Rousseau: one recurring theme was the lack of hospitality and respect accorded the exile, which shamed the British nation. There was poetical support in the St James's Chronicle:

Rousseau, be firm! Though malice, like Voltaire,
And superstitious pride, like D'Alembert
Though mad presumption Walpole's form assume,
And base-born treachery appear like Hume,
Yet droop not thou ...

This even-handed treatment was not what Hume had expected, and not the version he gave Mme de Boufflers, writing that there had been "a great deal of raillery on the incident, thrown out in the public papers, but all against that unhappy man". A cartoon depicting Rousseau as a Savage Man, a Yahoo, caught in the woods was more to Hume's taste. He described it to her with relish. "I am represented as a farmer, who caresses him and offers him some oats to eat, which he refuses in a rage; Voltaire and D'Alembert are whipping him up behind; and Horace Walpole making him horns of papier maché. The idea is not altogether absurd."

So, in less than a year, the relationship between Hume and Rousseau had gone from love to mockery by way of fear and loathing.

In hindsight, it seems unlikely that they were ever going to get along, personally or intellectually. Hume was a combination of reason, doubt and scepticism. Rousseau was a creature of feeling, alienation, imagination and certainty. While Hume's outlook was unadventurous and temperate, Rousseau was by instinct rebellious; Hume was an optimist, Rousseau a pessimist; Hume gregarious, Rousseau a loner. Hume was disposed to compromise, Rousseau to confrontation. In style, Rousseau revelled in paradox; Hume revered clarity. Rousseau's language was pyrotechnical and emotional, Hume's straightforward and dispassionate. JYT Greig wrote in his 1931 biography of Hume, "The annals of literature seldom furnish us with two contemporary writers of the first rank, both called philosophers, who cancel one another out with almost mathematical precision."

While they may be described now as thinkers in "the Age of Enlightenment", how far "Enlightenment" covers a common national experience or meaning is a matter of vigorous dispute. A particular reading of French history tends to shape the general idea of "the Enlightenment" as, broadly, the French philosophes' belief that the application of critical reason to received traditions and structures would bring human advancement. The dominating Enlightenment narrative becomes a small and easily identifiable group of brilliant people, a central activity, the Encyclopédie; the sweetness of the salons balanced by the risk of imprisonment, the focus on reason, and the whole enterprise terminating in the guillotine.

But neither Hume nor Rousseau fitted easily into that narrative and its intellectual consensus. Rousseau, in particular, inveighed against so-called "civilisation", taking aim at the Enlightenment's proud boast of progress (that there had been progress in the human condition, and that with the systematic application of rationality and information, improvements could be speeded up). "Nature has made everything in the best way possible; but we want to do better still, and we spoil everything," he wrote. In his emphasis, not just on reason but on feeling, on sensibilité, he would gain a posthumous reputation as the father of the Romantics.

But Hume, too, is a problematic Enlightenment figure. He used reason to demonstrate the limits of reason and he injected his empiricism with a destructive revolutionary force. Taking empiricism to its logical conclusion, he showed how, if we rely on experience, then we can have no complete confidence in the existence of the external world; we can have no confidence in the laws of nature that we take for granted, such as gravity, and we must drastically rethink our notions of induction, necessity and personal identity. Nor could ethics have a rational foundation. Logic was an inappropriate tool for dissecting morality, like taking a carving knife to water. Reason was a slave to the passions.

True, both Rousseau and Hume assailed the Church: it might seem that in this at least they were emblematic spirits of the Enlightenment. But in fact neither did so in a way that would satisfy the wits and cynics in the salons. Rousseau believed in God's existence, professed his love for God, and his faith in God's goodness ("everything is good, coming from God"), as well as his certainty that there was an afterlife and that the soul was immortal, which "all the subtleties of metaphysics will not make me doubt for a moment".

As for Hume, though he had been damned in Scotland for having too little religion, in Paris, where he squirmed at the disdain directed at believers, his burden was that he had too much. True, he had demolished the arguments purporting to prove the existence of God, including the argument from design - the claim that only a supreme and benevolent being could explain the wonder and order in the world. This argument, Hume insisted, was untenable. How could it account for the suffering in the world? How can we infer that there is just one architect of the world, and not a co-operative of two or more?

Hume also wrote that "I would not offend the Godly". Once, dining with Baron d'Holbach, he claimed he had never seen an atheist and questioned whether they really existed. D'Holbach replied that Hume was dining with 17 of them.

For biographers, the Rousseau affair has been a sideshow in the greater scheme of Hume's astounding achievements. But Hume's behaviour is revelatory. His relationship with Rousseau and the falling-out put him under pressure, and that pressure opens up the man. Through a detailed reading of the constant correspondence, we can see that Hume had not wanted to accompany Rousseau to England in the first place - hoping to delegate that task. And, while Hume was telling his French friends of his love for Rousseau, his cousin John Home, the "Scottish Shakespeare", had noticed only 10 days or so after Hume brought his charge to London, his frustration "with the philosopher who allowed himself to be ruled equally by his dog and his mistress".

A letter of Hume's to Hugh Blair exposes what lay masked by the outpourings of love: "[Living in his Staffordshire solitude, Rousseau] will be unhappy in that situation, as he has indeed been always in all situations. He will be entirely without occupation, without company, and almost without amusement of any kind. He has read very little during the course of his life, and has now totally renounced all reading: He has seen very little, and has no manner of curiosity to see or remark; He has reflected, properly speaking, and studied very little; and has not indeed much knowledge: he has only felt, during the whole course of his life; and in this respect, his sensibility rises to a pitch beyond what I have seen any example of: but it still gives him a more acute feeling of pain than of pleasure. He is like a man ... stripped not only of his clothes, but of his skin."

In fact, sensibility apart, all this was false. Rousseau was widely read and never without fulfilling occupations, including music and botany. In the English countryside, he was introduced to the collector and botanist, the Duchess of Portland, and they went on blissful expeditions in the Peak District together. And, of course, Rousseau was working on The Confessions. It was Hume's creative life that was over.

Behind Rousseau's back, Hume conducted an obsessive investigation into Rousseau's finances. He asked various French contacts to make inquiries on his behalf - though concealing from each friend that he had also asked the others. Mme de Boufflers was put out to learn that Hume had set both her and D'Holbach on the same errand. "To what purpose?" were these investigations, she demanded of Hume: "You will not become his denunciator, after having been his protector ..." Yes he would. There's no question of Hume's wanting the information to help Rousseau. He himself makes plain that Rousseau's character was at stake: was he a fraud professing to poverty?

He denigrated Rousseau in a letter to D'Alembert in such foul terms that D'Alembert destroyed the letters and replied, with others, urgently counselling the man of moderation to remain moderate. Rousseau, according to Hume, was exposed as "surely the blackest and most atrocious villain, beyond comparison, that now exists in the world".

But there was no plot by Hume, though Rousseau was not entirely wrong when he accused Hume of being a traitor. A satirical letter purporting to be from the King of Prussia, acidly mocking the beleaguered Swiss, was a central plank in Rousseau's construction of a conspiracy. The letter promised Rousseau sanctuary, holding out a lacerating incentive: "If you want new misfortunes, I am a king and can make you as miserable as you can wish."

In fact, Walpole in Paris was the author, composing the hoax (in French) just before Rousseau arrived to meet Hume. Walpole took it round very appreciative salons. The "King of Prussia" letter even made its way into the London press and to Rousseau's refuge in Staffordshire. The exile was very upset. Hume maintained he was totally ignorant of the spoof. But a little literary detective work reveals that he was present at a dinner where the joke started, and that he probably contributed its most wounding thrust - in one letter Mme de Boufflers, who was appalled by the satire, claimed this was common knowledge in Paris. Hume was at two dinners where Walpole read the letter aloud

Hume's handling of the affair was full of malevolence. His letters were flush with half-truths and lies: such as that Rousseau had called him the blackest of men, that he had proof that Rousseau had plotted for two months to dishonour him, that King George III was "very much prejudiced" against Rousseau - all plainly untrue. And after Rousseau returned to France to live under the protection of Mme de Boufflers, Hume informed Smith that Rousseau was being shunned. He suggested to Mme de Boufflers and others that for his own sake Rousseau would best be locked away as a madman. Le Bon David's reason had become a slave to his passions.

In Paris as tutor to the Duke of Buccleuch on the Grand Tour of Europe in 1766, Adam Smith was among those who advised restraint. When he delivered his posthumous tribute to his friend "as approaching nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit", Smith had seen at first hand how susceptible to human frailty Hume was after all.

UTOPIAN IDEALISTS AGAINST OUR NATION AND PEOPLE by David Hamilton

2007-09-11T13:27:00.000-07:00

We are led to believe that mass immigration is a blessing to us and that only Enoch Powell and a few narrow-minded and prejudiced people have ever seen danger in it. All decent folk of good will, we are told, have embraced this break in our national continuity as a sign of enlightenment with people progressing to a higher state of civilisation - that of a one-world utopia made up of coffee-coloured persons. It also has been presented as an Ideological battle between left and right but actually is between people of common sense and utopian idealists.

Most ordinary people relate to the world by common sense so the impracticable dream of a multi-racial utopia had to be socially engineered which requires totalitarian methods. The Utopians see immigrants as essentially good and if we are nice to them they will be nice to us.
This utopianism does not counter human nature and we find people being brought in as cheap labour with idealism as a smokescreen. If the high-minded ones are so benevolent and moral, why have their plans been underhand and why public infamy for those who foresaw danger in just letting it happen?

Multi-Racialism follows on from the French Enlightenment in trying to create a society on rationalist principles and ignoring human nature as was the Soviet Union too. Those who wished to preserve our traditional way of life knew how human nature works from their experience of how people treat each other and what they are capable of doing to each other. They learnt from history how different ethnic groups have vied with each other for power and territory and looking at the world around them see that in practice immigration is not assimilation, but the colonisation of our territory. Conversely, Multi-Racialists never describe reality but appeal to a vague future utopia, not facing that if we have been cruel to them in the past then these newcomers could be cruel to us in the future. Further, people from all walks of life have now given warning of the practical consequences which shows the British people as essentially conservative. Some have made crude remarks but most bring common sense to an irresponsible series of idealists who just let things happen with no control. All have suffered and some have been openly persecuted.

Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MP’s wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx. Atlee replied, that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” There had been racial battles in 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd “On the Repatriation of Coloured Men.” ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…” ( Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996).

The first actual debate on immigration was in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 in a thirty-minute adjournment debate called by John Hynd Labour M.P. for Sheffield (Attercliffe). “One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work,
housing or anything else.” He also said the colour bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified. Both Hynd and another Labour M.P. James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up and speakers repeatedly asked the Government to take action but Henry Hopkinson(c), Minister of State at the Colonial Office fobbed them off by telling them “the matter is receiving urgent attention.” He did admit that he had received many letters from worried M.P.’s on both sides. In March 1955 Frank Burden(L) in the debate on National Service asked the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Labour why immigrants did not have to serve in the armed forces as native-born youngsters did.

Winston Churchill battled in cabinet against appeasers of Commonwealth leaders but was old and ailing. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White” in 1955. If Sir Winston had been well we would not know be suffering gun killings, knifings and muggings or Muslims bombing our people. Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955, "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan! The bill was not ready till June 1955, two months after Churchill had stood down.

(Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane, 2006) p 224
Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' Macmillan. 2003 p 382. People have tried to keep this aspect of Churchill’s beliefs quiet.)

Documents at the Public Records Office show the fifth Marquess of Salisbury trying, “I should not be satisfied with the legislation which you suggest. I feel that it would only be tinkering with what is really becoming a fundamental problem for us all, though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will p[our in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.” Letter to Viscount Swinton March 1954.

These records also show Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) trying to bring common sense to bear on the matter. In a letter to Swinton 31/3/1954 wanting deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants, “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”

He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries who refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependants as he shall bring with him to the island”.
Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.

We look back to the time of Salisbury’s illustrious ancestor Lord Burleigh advisor to “Good Queen Bess” and see coming alive our tradition of practical wisdom and how idealists
are trying to destroy it. It was Elizabeth1 who in 1601 had the “Blackamoors” expelled from her realm. As we move forward we find David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, write in “Of National Characters”, “There are moral causes that tend to transform whites from a barbarous nation to a civilised one, whereas nature does not allow this to happen to blacks.” His near contemporary Edward Gibbon, the great historian of the Collapse of Rome, warned of a time hence when minarets would sprout amongst the spires of Oxford. Farther on, we come to G.K.Chesterton who predicted a war with Muslims in England in his novel The Flying Inn (1912). Nearer still Enoch Powell refined his views in a speech to the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”

On 20th January 1955 when immigration from Jamaica was 11,000 a year, Conservative Cyril Osborne(later knighted) had written to the London Times,” But the present West Indian and West African invasion is a mere trickle of what we must expect, because as the law now stands everyone born in the Commonwealth is entitled to come to this country. What shall we do when the millions living in the bigger areas decide to emigrate?” The open entry to anyone was not brought under any control until the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961).

At the second reading Osborne warned “that the world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.” Both sides of the House laughed at him and called him Fascist.” We are seeing this now with boats leaving Africa for Europe.

Churchill was replaced as P.M. by Internationalist Anthony Eden who answered Osborne in the House of Commons, “There is no question of any action being taken to control immigration and in any case most were from Eire.” In May 1958, 3 months before the racial battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne had written to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell who contemptuously handed it to his secretary to reply, “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.”

He instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958 3 months after the racial battles when Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley replied, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).” Seconding the motion Martin Lindsay said, “We must ask ourselves to what extent do we want Britain to become a multi-racial community. If that is our desire and we decide to make it a matter of deliberate policy, well and good, but let us at least consider where we are going and make up our minds that is what we want, and not simply drift.” Simon Heffer relates in his biography of Enoch Powell “Like the Roman” that in 1958 Osborne pleaded with the Conservatives 1922 backbench committee to consider the future consequences of mass immigration. When they refused to listen this genuine and sincere man broke down and wept. In March 1965 he told the House,”Our children and grandchildren will curse us for our moral cowardice.”

Supporting Osborne in December 1958 Labour’s Frank Tomney, remarked on elected representatives ignoring their constituents. “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.” Fellow Notting Hill MP George Rogers (L) told the Daily Sketch of 2/9/58,” Overcrowding has fostered vice, drugs, prostitution and the use of knives.” James Harrison (L) from Nottingham also supported controls. Mr Tomney was a practical man of humble origins and understood his people, "I have come directly from the benches of a factory to the benches of the Commons". In the Guardian of 20/3/01 Andrew Roth slotted him into a standard stereotype, “the crusty old far-right Labour MP.” In the late 70’s Militant, the ideological group in the labour party, tried to de-select him.

Norman Pannell Liverpool (Kirkdale), who had served in the Nigerian legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. had an open door policy and let anyone in. “When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a Member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.” He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking who stood outside in the rain handing out off-prints of a letter of his from the morning’s Daily Telegraph. Mr. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary Butler had disagreed with limiting numbers he had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but nothing had been done.

In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Harold Gurden wrote, “On the health question we find the middle ring of the city (Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country. We have a duty to our constituents.” In the winter of 1961-62, a young Pakistani girl entered the country with smallpox and caused an epidemic. In January 1962 two Pakistanis were in hospital in Birmingham with smallpox Mr.Gurden wrote to the Minister of Health urging medical checks on immigrants. In 2005 we were told that we now have a record number of TB cases and there are more in London than the usual breeding grounds of the disease abroad.

Peter Griffiths Smethwick called for health checks on immigrants when he responded to a question in the local paper the “Smethwick Telephone”, “Immigration should be limited to those of sound health who have jobs and living accommodation arranged before they enter.”

This was prescient as there was an outbreak of Typhoid in Smethwick in April 1965.
In 1964 there had been uproar over the general election at Smethwick which Griffiths won against the trend on anti-immigration (as did Wyndham Davies (C) in Birmingham,Great Barr). The loser was shadow Foreign Secretary Patrick Gordon-Walker who lived at leafy Hampstead Garden Suburb. Mr Griffiths lost this seat in 1966 to Andrew Faulds who lived in Stratford upon Avon! Several well publicised events made this West Midlands industrial town world famous. A slogan used during his election campaign was “If you want a N***** for a neighbour vote Labour.” The town council wanted to buy the remaining houses in Marshall street to stop it becoming “a coloured ghetto”. Prime Minister Harold Wilson described Griffiths as a “Parliamentary Leper” on television. A bomb was planted outside Griffith’s home on 26th October 1965 because of the way he had been de-humanised by press and politicians.

A series in the Times in January 1965 “The Dark Million” showed what the official attitude was. The author wrote: “Back in June (1964) a senior civil servant talked to me about a particular aspect of the problem that has since taken some people by surprise. I had asked why figures were not available to give a nation-wide picture of the problem. I was told:
“We haven’t tried to find out. It may be as things get more critical, and they are getting more critical, it will be decided that should do so. It will be a political decision. One of the things
about statistics is that people asked what they are, then again in three months time what they are, and then you have a problem on your hands. People start to keep the score, and you have a crisis. If, as, a result, they know that such-and-such is happening in Wolverhampton, they say what is the Government doing about Wolverhampton. It is a matter of judgement as to when you start taking that line and say something should be done. It is a matter for central Government.”

In the House of Lords debate on the renewal of the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1/12/1964, Lord Elton took the long view,” I take the view that we are laying up for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, problems - economic, political, social and moral -and that there is no evidence that we can solve them. The brake should therefore be put on more firmly”

On the 5th of March 1965 Patrick Wall (later knighted) spoke against the multi-racial ideal,”We must for the moment reject the multi-racial state not because we are superior to our Commonwealth partners, but because we want to maintain the kind of Britain we know and love.”

In the debate on the 1968 Race Relations Bill Ronald Bell (later knighted) argued that the bill was “very deep and damaging encroachments into the proper sphere of persons decisions.” (Hansard, 23/3/1968). In a speech “This Sceptred Isle” to W.I.S.E. at the National Liberal Club in 1981 was concerned at the nascent totalitarianism in the multi-racialists attitude, “The very word discrimination itself has been grossly abused. It used to be a good word: a discriminating person was someone to be admired. People have been brainwashed into thinking that it is a bad word except when native inhabitants are being handicapped. That is now called positive discrimination, and is deemed a good thing. We are well on the road back to “presentment of Englishry”, when in the days after the Norman Conquest that it was a defence to show that the injured person was only an Englishman.” Sir Ronald had constant difficulties with his constituency party chairman who wanted him de-selected.

Harold Soref had to flee a mob of unworldly students that tried to break into the Oxford Union and attack him while he addressed the University Monday Club on immigration on 10th May 1974. He should of accused them of anti-semitism!

John Stokes MP wrote to The Times on 27th May 1976, “The question is not one of simply maintaining good race relations here, but of preserving our national identity. What sort of people are we to become? Surely not a hotch-potch of all kinds of peoples whose first loyalty is found to be to their own homelands and who we know will never truly integrate with us. What an end to a thousand years of glorious history for our nation! The intellectuals, the intelligentsia and some sections of the media (middle class to a man) expect our English working class to absorb these alien peoples in ever increasing numbers.” He was mocked by the Mirror as “the member for the 17th Century.”

Warren Hawksley (C) Wrekin, told Oswestry Conservatives in 1981,”You may have read in the National Newspapers of the 12 or so back-bench Conservative M.P.’s who had a meeting, during the summer, with the prime minister to put our fears that Mr. Whitelaw (Home Secretary) was letting us down by not implementing our election pledges with speed and enthusiasm.”

In the same year Tony Marlowe MP in Northampton told the Oxford University Conservative Association, “Hordes of exotic invaders have flooded the continent (Europe) wishing to help themselves to the luxuries of Western living. Nowhere has the pressure been greater than in the United Kingdom. No country has been less prepared to stem the flow than our own. In this land which proclaims free speech free discussion has been stifled by humbug and by the censorship of an establishment unwilling to contemplate the radical cures which alone can reverse the tide.” “What would be unacceptable and should not under any circumstances be tolerated is a policy of suppression and inaction for no policy can be more calculated to bring about the racial holocaust which we should all so earnestly strive to avoid.”

K. Harvey Proctor addressed the 1983 Conservative party conference ,but no senior party member sat on the platform apart from a glum looking John Biffen who only clapped sparely. Mrs Thatcher was not present. Just two years previously Proctor had announced a plan by the Monday club Immigration and Repatriation Committee to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell. Mrs Thatcher rushed to assure Asian leaders that they have a right to be here. Just two years previously she had won power by stating on TV that the British people feared “being swamped.” At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984 guest of honour Enoch Powell revealed that the Conservative party had threatened to not speak to Proctor for his belief in repatriation which would have been the first time in their history they had sent one of their MP’s to Coventry!

In 1993 the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, also called Winston, warned that in the north of England half the population was now Muslim and If our prime minister(Major) believes that 50 years hence “spinsters will still be cycling to Communion on Sunday morning” he had best think again. Rather, "the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Street mosque" for Friday prayers. The Times (London) attacked him for a 'tasteless outburst,'" a leading Labour Party politician described his remarks as 'putrid and racist.' Michael Howard, the Conservative Home Secretary, denounced “any intervention which could have the effect of damaging race relations”; Downing Street stated Conservative Prime Minister John Major agreed with Mr. Howard,." Mr. Churchill was viscously shouted down on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme by presenter John Humphrey’s in what was a despicable attack on an elected politician. Another M.P. to be bullied by his party leader(William Hague) was John Townend(C) who wrote in 1991, that Government “ministers wanted to turn the British into a "mongrel" race and the Commission for Racial Equality should be abolished.” In 1989, he suggested deportation of Muslims who opposed Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, "England must be reconquered for the English".

Another of Sir Winston’s grandsons, Nicholas Soames commented in the Commons. On July 17th 2007 he said, “foreign immigration is now 25 times higher than it has ever been in the past, even at the two peaks. Talk of Britain as a nation of immigrants is absurd. It would be much more accurate to describe us as a nation of emigrants. Indeed, the number of emigrants exceeded the number of immigrants until the 1980s. Net immigration is a new phenomenon and initially was quite small. Between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, it hardly exceeded 50,000 a year. Since 1997, however, it has quadrupled to some 200,000 a year. Even that number makes little allowance for immigration from eastern Europe. In 2005, it was assessed as a net inflow of 64,000—a figure that today looks remarkably low. None of those numbers include any allowance for illegal immigrants, who are believed to comprise at least half a million people. The sharp increase in immigration is no accident. To suggest, as Ministers do, that it is all a result of the fall of communism or of globalisation is, frankly, bizarre. The numbers point clearly to a massive increase since the present Government came to power in 1997. Part of the increase is due to their failure during their first five years in office to get a grip on asylum claims, of which more than 60 per cent. were eventually judged to be unfounded. Another part is due to their decision to allow a massive increase in work permits, which have trebled since 1997. At the same time, their decision in June 1997 to abolish the primary purpose rule has led to the number of spouses admitted to Britain doubling from 20,000 to 40,000 a year.” He was accused hysterically of getting his information from the BNP!
In 2005 Lord Tebbit former chairman of the Conservative party told e-politix website , “Islam is so unreformed there have been no real advances in art, literature, science or technology in the Muslim world in 500 years, and multiculturalism was in danger of undermining UK society. In the 1980s he disputed the loyalty of immigrants who backed cricket teams from their countries of origin. He claimed if he had been heeded it might have stopped the London bombings. A leading Muslim group said he was "misguided". After the Muslim bomb attacks in London he declared that Enoch’s prophecies of racial civil war were right.
Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, produced Salisbury Paper 9 in 1981,”The Old People of Lambeth”. It was an empirical research into the real living conditions of “whites” rather than another abstract academic study. One elderly man told him, “…its our Queen and our country, why should we be afraid to go out?” Another former Sunday Telegraph editor Sir Peregrine Worsthorne has written “even Hitler would not have treated ordinary people with such cruelty.” In 1991 the Conservative party tried to impose a black candidate on its party in Cheltenham. A local party member Bill Galbraith expressed his indignation in crude language and was pilloried by the media and hounded by the Race Police and this persecution led to his death.

Eminent legal minds were concerned. Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was concerned about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above
that given to the natives, “ I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded
on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very
large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine
yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical
embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination
and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)

In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented,” It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.” (Guardian, 2 August 1969.)

In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds, "Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren't go even with their cars... All immigration must stop... The country is full up. We don't want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life" (India Mail 02.03.95). Bradford M.P., Max
Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.

In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published — What Next In The Law and the publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies, wrote: "The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out." Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing common sense.

In 1976 Rock guitarist Eric Clapton advised his audience that Enoch was right and that Britain was overcrowded. This raised a profoundly important point about culture and Multi-Racialism. Those of us who were brought up on Black music as I was, have a great respect and admiration for those blues and soul singers who developed a deep, expressive music. Clapton had black musicians in his band but understood a human truth - that enjoying different cultures and having friends from other ethnic groups is good: but that does not mean that we should try to force them together and destroy both.

There have also been scholars. Dr. John Casey who read a paper to the Conservative Philosophy Group which was also printed in the first issue of The Salisbury Review in Autumn 1982. “There is no way of understanding British and English history that does not take seriously the sentiments of patriotism that go with a continuity of institutions, shared experience, language, customs, kinship. There is no way of understanding English patriotism that averts its eyes from the fact that it has at its centre a feeling for persons of ones own kind.” Dr.Casey was persecuted for this and recanted. Marxist professor Terry Eagleton held rival English lectures, the usual campus rent-a-mobs demonstrated as well as refusing to go to his lectures and the Sunday Times of 1st December 1991 printed a photograph that made Dr.Casey look like a wizened crow!

Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was quoted in “The Opinion Journal” of December 10th 2002, “It is a tautology to say a Conservative wants to conserve things; the question is what things? To this I think we can give a simple one-word answer, namely: us. At the heart of every conservative endeavour is the effort to conserve a historically given community.”
For years we have been told how evil we are and how morally superior the multi-racialists are but now we see that a main motive for importing immigrants is for them to have cheap labour. Eminent economist Professor Ezra Mishan exposed immigration as being about cheap labour in the Salibury Review in 1988, “Frequent claims that the new immigrants have in fact reduced the labour shortage in particular sectors of the economy – in particular, the apparent shortages of labour in transport, in nursing, and in what are popularly to be the more menial and less attractive occupations- are naïve. Managers of public services in Britain who, along with some private firms, sent agents to the West Indies in the 1950’s in order to recruit labour were only acting as good capitalists would in such circumstances – attracting lower-paid labour from outside their area in order to prevent wages from rising within it. If it was not for that wages would have risen.”

Professor Bob Rowbotham in the London Sunday Telegraph of 2 July 2006, referred to the motives of the elites, who were creating what Marx called “A reserve army of labour.” In November 2006 it emerged that the Government were advertising for immigrants to come here.

A Foreign Office pamphlet declares: 'Multicultural Britain - A Land of Immigrants'. It encourages immigrants to move here because of the preferential treatment they get under the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. The Foreign Office put it in embassies across the world.
In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher and leader writer on the Jewish Chronicle, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.” The transformation of Southall was brought about by Wolf’s rubber factory encouraging workers from India.

Since New Labour took office in 1997 there has been such a massive increase in immigration that even middle-class Liberals are now worried. The veteran Liberal broadcaster Ludovic Kennedy wrote in a book review for “The Oldie”, in January 2004, that there ”are too many black faces on TV, political correctness has got completely out of hand.” The preferential treatment given to immigrants over that to our own elderly caused Sir Patrick Moore, the world renowned astronomer to remark “The more asylum seekers get the less there is for us.”
Early in 2005, Welsh film star John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in Lord of the Rings told “World magazine ”the Muslim birthrate is a demographic catastrophe, I think that Tolkein says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilisation.” The same month in the Radio Times film star John Hurt praised Enoch, “I think he was just saying: We can’t afford to have any more.”
The Socialist intellectual David Goodhart in Prospects (march 1998), quoted Conservative M.P. David Willetts on the Welfare State: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do? This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests."

Prof. Goodhart reflected, “Thinking about the conflict between solidarity and diversity is another way of asking a question as old as human society itself: who is my brother? With whom do I share mutual obligations? The traditional conservative Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities, to the nation and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one which sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings from Bolton to Burundi - an idea associated with the universalist aspects of Christianity and Islam, with Kantian universalism and with left-wing internationalism.”

In an echo of Enoch’s warnings on “racial civil war” The Sunday Times(London) June 11, 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African “Barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries—a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flight. The warnings by Parry of what could threaten Britain over the next 30 years were delivered to senior officers and industry experts at a conference. The result for Britain and Europe, could be “like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals”.

“Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned … the process acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet.” Lord Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, welcomed Parry’s analysis. “Bringing it together in this way shows we have some very serious challenges ahead,” he said. “The real problem is getting them taken seriously at the top of the government.”

Frank Field(L) has also spoken out on cheap labour. In August 2006 was questioned by the panel on the Moral Maze and asked why he has only raised the issue now and was it because the mass of current immigrants are white (from Eastern Europe). His answer was “The sheer numbers and the attempt to close down the issue. He took the side of the poor natives and talked about this influx pushing down wages and people having to compete for homes. He commented that the panel are well-heeled and the ones who are getting cheap labour.

Former Conservative MP George Walden ) told of how we are being replaced in Time to Emigrate(Gibson square Books). Writing in the Times of 5th November 2006 wrote on how he had been attacked by historian Tristram Hunt. The previous day the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had announced some startling new figures: Britain was taking in 1,500 immigrants a day, while 1,000 Brits left. Which rather confirmed the central premise of my book: that more people were moving out as well as in, and that a growing number of emigrants — by no means necessarily racists — were quitting because of the numbers coming in.

Earlier in the week Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, had complained to a committee of MPs that it was hard to manage the economy when nobody knew how many people were in the country. Unmoved by any of this, Hunt denied there was a problem, real or potential. In one sense he was right: for the well-born, expensively educated liberal elite he represents, there isn’t. I doubt that the Hunt dynasty (he is the son of Lord Hunt of Chesterton) will be inconvenienced too much by immigration and its social, economic and educational consequences. Less privileged folk of his generation, for whose fears about the future he clearly has a patrician contempt, will pay a heavy price if our unprecedented experiment of mass immigration goes wrong.”

Churchill’s Last Stand by David Hamilton

2007-08-21T23:09:00.000-07:00

Those who dare call for control and common sense in open-door immigration are demonised as “Nazis” and “Racists by the dominant Socialist-communists, and the New Left which took over in the 70.s. This is highly offensive as many lost family fighting Nazism and we had a long and noble tradition of conserving our homogeneity. This negative propaganda worked for a long time and few know Sir Winston Churchill opposed immigration. In 1955 he wanted the Conservatives to adopt the slogan “Keep England White”. (1) The multi-racialists try to make out that those who want common sense in immigration follow Hitler when really we follow Winston Churchill. Biographers, journalists and historians usually leave out his racial views and have created a false picture of him.

In “Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill” (2003) Gretchen Rubin looked at everything but this central feature: ”To shield his reputation, this account has downplayed Churchill’s deplorable attitude towards race...For example, he wrote that at a September 1944 conference he” was glad to record” that “the British Empire...was still keeping its position, with a total population, including the Dominions and Colonies, of only seventy million white people.”

In fact he was aware that races compete with each other for power and territory and he knew the truth of slavery. In “The River War” he expressed thoughts that would now get him prosecuted by our totalitarian Governments for inciting racial hatred: "The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and Negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple aboriginals... But all, without exception were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jeddah a continual stream of Negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them” and, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and, were it not that Christianity sheltered it, the civilization of modern Europe might fall as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." (2)

His St. George’s Day address of 1933 warned of the types who were taking over our political and intellectual life: “The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?" 3

In October 1930 he advised that, if Hitler were to come to power in Germany, England's response must be – “If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite.” His response to Munich, “How could honourable men with wide experience and fine records in the Great War condone a policy so cowardly? It was sordid, squalid, sub-human, and suicidal ...The sequel to the sacrifice of honour.”

A tribute to the Royal Marines in 1936 showed his piety to our past: “Those who do not think of the future are unworthy of their ancestors,” which is a strand of Conservatism found in Edmund Burke: “Society ... is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”(Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs)

His admiration for Jewish people - “the most formidable and the most remarkable race in the world” - was part of his belief in superior and inferior races. (4) He was a great wit. During the war a black official of the Colonial Office had been stopped dining at a London club when American officers took it over. It was brought to Mr. Churchill’s attention. He quipped, “That’s alright. Tell him to take a banjo, they will think he is one of the band” (5)

Before the war he had struggled with appeasers of Hitler now he had to struggle with appeasers of Commonwealth leaders.

On 25th November 1952 the Churchill’s Cabinet first discussed immigration when Churchill asked in Cabinet if the Post Office employed large numbers of “coloured workers”. “If so, there was some risk social problems would be created.” The postmaster General was asked to report on it and did so 3 weeks later. He said explained as the largest Government employer it was bound to employ the largest number. He added that “...the Post Offices main unions raised no objections to their employment at basic grades.” He added,” If it is felt that coloured workers should not be allowed to obtain employment in this country, I should have thought the proper course would be to deny them entry to the country.” Despite “the risks involved” they continued with the policy of free entry for immigrants. (6)They kept no records of numbers entering, apparently because the immigrants were as Commonwealth citizens British subjects, nor did they give practical support, leaving it to local councils and voluntary organizations.
Documents held at the Public Records Office clarifies much of modern history. The Prime Ministers Papers for November 1952 record his three attempts to illicit details of the consequences of immigration on English people. He asked his staff to find out about problems in Lambeth, Brixton and Cardiff. This led to B.G.Smallman, PS to the Colonial Secretary producing a paper on “The Coloured Population of the UK. This estimated the numbers to be 40-50,000 which included about 6,000 students. (7) They could not face it so ignored it. Accurate figures of immigrants were not kept because they were British subjects, though they kept records of emigrants to Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

In Eminent Churchillians Andrew Roberts reports that The Commonwealth Relations Office worried that with restrictions “ there might well be a chance of the governments of India and Pakistan introducing retaliatory restrictions against the entry or residence of members of the British business community.” Commonwealth Secretary Earl Home, worried that they should not give the impression that Commonwealth citizens from India, Pakistan and Ceylon would be less favourably treated than those from the Dominions otherwise there could be retaliation.

Roberts other private interviews show the decadence of many around him: “A Minister closely involved in the decision-making process, ‘ In fact…we were just stalling and hoping for the best’… One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries, ‘at that time it seemed a very good idea to get bus conductors and stuff’ … a junior minister, ‘it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station’.’’

On the 27th of June 1953 Sir Winston suffered a stroke that left him paralysed down the left side. Interviewed by Andrew Roberts his Foreign Affairs Personal Secretary Anthony Montague- Brown recalled that he was “simply too tired to deal with the immigration problem. He could concentrate on a few big issues at a time- like the Russians -and the rest of the time he could only give a steer and not see it through.” (7) His Private Secretary, Sir John Colville, noted in The Fringes of Power, "He is getting tired and visibly ageing. He finds it hard to compose a speech and ideas no longer flow. (8)

Just before he gave up the Premiership in 1955 Mr. Churchill told Spectator owner and editor Ian Gilmour that West Indian immigration "is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice". (9)

Two had noticed: Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) wanted a £500 deposit paid by immigrants to prevent them coming here for welfare benefits; the fifth Marquess of Salisbury believed that immigration was “a threat to the fabric of society and the flow attracted by our welfare state would increase even if employment dropped.” On the 20th of March 1954 he wrote to Viscount Swinton: “Though only just beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. It may eventually “fill the whole political horizon” (10)

Cabinet set up an Inter Departmental Committee under chairman W.H.Cornish of the Home Office, to look into preventing an increase in the number coming for employment. It reconvened in January 1953 and reported its findings in December of that year. This Inter Departmental Committee comprised Ministry of Labour and National Service, the National Assistance Board, the Colonial Office and Chief Constables from areas where immigrants were settling. January 1954 Home Secretary Maxwell Fyfe reported on the findings of the Home Office “Working party on the Social and Economic Problems Arising from the Growing Influx into the United Kingdom of Coloured Workers”, which had deliberated for 13 months. He stated “the unskilled workers who form the majority are difficult to place because on the whole they are physically unsuited to heavy manual work…”(11)

Britain was the only Commonwealth country that allowed every Commonwealth citizen automatic entry. Mr. Churchill asked his staff to find out about difficulties in Lambeth, Brixton and Cardiff. (12)

The Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks released to the public in August 2007 are the handwritten notes made by the Cabinet Secretary of Cabinet Meetings as the Senior Secretary. This was Sir Norman Brook. They record that on 3 February 1954, for example, under the item 'Coloured Workers', Sir Winston stated ‘Problems which will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.' Florence Horsbrugh, Minister of Education and Conservative MP for Manchester Moss Side, added: 'Already becoming serious in Manchester.'

David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Home Secretary, gave a figure of 40,000 compared to 7,000 before the Second World War and raised the possibility of immigration control. He said: 'There is a case on merits for exclude. riff-raff. But politically it wd. be represented & discussed on basis of colour limitation. That wd. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We shd. be reversing age-long tradition that. British Subjects have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We should. offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.' He added: 'The colonial. populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington & other areas by those who come into contact with them. But those who don't are apt to take a more Liberal view.' Churchill intervened: 'Question . is whether it is politically wise to allow public feeling to develop a little more before taking action.' Adding that it would be 'fatal' to let the situation develop too far, the Prime Minister is recorded as concluding: 'Would like also to study possibility of "quota" - no. not to be exceeded.'

Another cabinet member referred to an "increasing evil" and said that principles "laid down 200 yrs. ago are not applicable to-day. See dangers of colour discriminn. But other [Dominions] control entry of B. subjects. Cd. we present action as coming into line...& securing uniformity?" Churchill said the question was whether it might be wise "to allow public feeling to develop a little more - before takg. action...May be wise to wait...But it wd. be fatal to let it develop too far." (13)

The Cabinet was divided. There were M.P.s who were under pressure from their constituencies with immigrant populations but others who believed in the Commonwealth and those who feared the consequences. This division was very much between the more practical ones on the back benches and the utopian idealists in power. Salisbury and Lyttleton wanted restrictions though Swinton and Maxwell Fyfe wanted powers to deportation convicted criminals and those on National Assistance.
The Cabinet Minutes show, that in March 1954 Maxwell Fyfe told Cabinet, “that large numbers of coloured people are living on National Assistance” and that “coloured landlords by their conduct are making life difficult for white people living in the same building or area…the result is that white people leave and the accommodation is then converted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding and exploitation”. In a Cabinet memorandum of 8 March Maxwell Fyfe feared “serious difficulties involved in contemplating action which would undoubtedly land the Government in some political controversy.” (14)

In cabinet in October 1954 Mr. Churchill warned Maxwell Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe emphasised that there is no power to prevent these people entering no matter how much the number may increase. (15)
On immigration Mr. Churchill remarked to Sir Hugh Foot, Governor of Jamaica, in 1954, “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.” (16)

The Prime Minister’s Papers for November show three further attempts to get information on the situation. By the end of 1954 Churchill had overseen thirteen Cabinet discussions on controlling immigration. Further, he was having a Bill to deport criminals and those who were a charge on the state drafted but it was not prepared until June 1955, two months after he had retired. His succesor Anthony Eden was an internationalist who told Conservative Cyril Osborne in the House of Commons, “There is no question of any action being taken to control immigration and in any case most were from Eire.” Then in November Eden’s Cabinet buried discussion of immigration. If Sir Winston had been well we would not know be suffering the gun killings and knivings or Muslim bombings of our people. Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955, "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan! (17)

David Hamilton

1Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane, 2006) p 224

Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' (Macmillan, 2003) p 382. This is an example of how people have tried to keep this aspect of Churchill’s beliefs quiet. We have heard nothing of this since 2003!

2 Longmans.1899. pp. 248-50

3 Reprinted in This England.

4 Robert Harris. 16/4/1994. Spectator

5 Zig Layton-Henry. 1992 The politics of immigration. p31

5 The Diaries of Alexander Cadogan. 1938-45, for 13/10/1942).

6 CC100(52)8(cabinet Conclusions on 25/11/1952, CAB 128/25; The Post Master General’s report and the Chancellor being asked to restrict entry to the Civil Service is in CC106(52), 8/12/1952, CAB 128

7 PREM11/824. The papers of British Prime Ministers are classified under PREM.

8 Sir John Colville.1985.The Fringes of Power. P654

9 Inside Right. Sir Ian Gilmour (Quartet.1977)

10 For The views of Lord Salisbury and Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) see British Immigration Policy since 1939:The Making of Multi-Racial Britain,
Ian R.G.Sencer.1997.Routledge.

11 P.R.O. CC100(52)8 Cabinet Conclusions) on 25th November, CAB128/25. His papers for this month show three other attempts to discuss immigration.

12 Report of the Working Party on Coloured People Seeking Employment in the United Kingdom. 17th December 1953. CAB124/1191

13 PRO, PREM11/824CC (54) 7 Conclusions, minute 4, 3 Feb.1954.

14 Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks. The eleventh Notebook (CAB 195/11) (released August 2007) covers the period 3.12.52 - 26.2.54.

15 Nicholas Deakin.s PHD thesis. The Immigration Issue.p32

16 ibid Peter Hennessey and Peter Catterall

TAMING GANGS - THE SHEFFIELD SOLUTION by David Hamilton

2007-08-02T09:05:00.000-07:00

History is exciting narrative and can also guide us with contemporary problems. It does not repeat itself exactly but similarly and study can clarify present disorders. A major problem for decent people living their everyday lives is the take over of our towns and cities by violent gangs that have been allowed here by the authorities. A precedent 1920’s Sheffield, England, was terrorised by gangsters. They lived in cramped back to back houses in courtyards which sociologists use as the excuse. But joining a gang gives power, a sense of importance, of belonging to something, money, possessions, prestige and women offering themselves to you. It gives identity as most gangs are formed on Ethnic lines and based on a territory.
These gangs gambled. Bookies operated outside factory gates with “runners” inside collecting bets for them and one made £75 to around a £100 each day even though it was illegal. Another popular form of gambling was “pitch and Toss.” This was a simple form of betting that required no equipment to pack up and carry away. It was tossing 3 coins into the air with the two forefingers and betting on the proportion of, say, heads that turned up. The biggest and most profitable “Pitching” site was on “Sky Edge” a promontory that gives a panorama over the city and with well-placed lookouts or “Crows” raiding policeman could be spotted from afar.
The head was a “towler” or “toller” because he made a toll of between 2/6d to 4-/- in the pound, on bets placed. They had helpers like “ponter”, “pilners” or “scouts” who were also called “pikers” or “crows” because they kept watch from strategic viewing spots and carried large sticks to prevent trouble. The business itself was a “joint” and the ring a “pitch” and as all these were paid well, alert to police raids. The game began on a cry of “Heads a pound” for the stake and a return of “Tail it” when another matched the stake which was placed in the centre of the ring. Oddly, the toll was only paid by the better and into the Toller’s pocket. Sky Edge used three halfpennies and flung by a tosser. The ponter picked them up and announced the winner. If left, the money doubled with each succeeding toss. If any suspected a miss toss they could shout “barred.”
After the war with munitions work gone a slump set in and the leader of the Sky Edge ring, George Mooney, jettisoned his erstwhile associates from Park district where the pitch was, which caused a war for territory to avenge loss of profit and hurt pride. Bookmaker Sam Garvin formed a gang from Park and a gang war developed. Garvin was a promoter of bare-knuckle boxing matches in pub yards where fighters bound their knuckles with straw that was picked from facial wounds between rounds.
The first attack was Mooney’s mob raiding the home of William Furniss. As a reprisal Frank Kidnew was slashed 100 times near Sky Edge then helped to hospital where he lamented his ruined suit. The Park mob visited Mooney’s home and tried to crash their way in. The Mooney’s defended themselves with guns and one attacker George (Ganner) Wheyall was shot in the shoulder. Police found a double-barrel shotgun, a rifle, revolver and ammunition, which earned Mooney a £10, fine. These vicious tit for tat attacks went on through 1923 with Garvin’s mob gaining domination and Mooney’s disintegrating with members fighting amongst themselves as well as against the Park Gang.
An attack on Mooney’s home on May 18th 1925, led to an elderly spectator being hit on the neck by a brick and several police officers getting medical treatment. The thugs escaped up the labyrinthine passageways at the backs of the courtyards and the only one caught received a £1 fine for the old man and £6 for assaulting a policeman. On Christmas Eve the Park mob stormed Mooney’s home. Sam Garvin and three associates broke in and terrorised not only Mooney but also his wife and six children. One thug enlightened Mooney’s 15 year-old daughter, “We’ve, come to wish your father a merry Christmas.” The terrified man escaped being slashed by hiding in a cupboard upstairs. He left Sheffield for a year. Though they now ruled the roost the Garvin mob kept up the attacks. The following December (1924) they raided former Mooney follower William Furniss’s home firing bullets and throwing bricks through the windows, smashing up the house, and a visiting friend with chair legs.
After the attack on Furniss, exasperated Chief Constable Lieut. Col. Hall-Dalwood, told After a report by the Inspector of Constabulary to the Home Secretary, stating that each year the police finding I harder to uphold the law because they were having extra work put on them, and courts were reluctant to convict and if they did punishments were to light. In an interview with the Sheffield Daily Telegraph on 7th May, Chief Constable Hall-Dalwood bemoaned “The public of Sheffield is paying rats for police protection which under the circumstances it cannot possibly get. In Sheffield we have to admit we are floating on very thin ice indeed and we have to admit that, unless more generally helped by punishment to fit crimes…Sheffield’s police force is utterly inadequate numerically to cope with the wave of crime that must necessarily follow in the wake of the unemployment situation.” He added, “It is the boast of the really bad man that he gets the best run for his money in Sheffield. He would rather be caught in Sheffield than any other part of the country because, he says, you have to produce more evidence for the prosecution in a Sheffield court to get a conviction than in any other town in the country. Moreover, the convicted man in Sheffield is invariably pleasantly surprised by the light character of his sentence. What is happening is that we are making thieves.”
He was contradicted. The Sheffield Telegraph alleged that often the wrong people were convicted. A few weeks later it dismissed the gangs “Although there are a number of gangs in conflict” the danger “has been over-exaggerated in some quarters and there is a noticeable tendency to attribute the slightest breach of the peace to activities of one gang or another.” What did the authorities think? The response of Alderman Alfred Cattell to the warnings of the Sheffield Independent which had compared Sheffield to the violent parts of Ireland, was, “No, I never look at your papers.” J.P. Harold Fisher commented, “We have on the bench some J.P.s who grapple with the cases before them, but older magistrates possess more pluck than the recent additions.” He been personally threatened as he walked through the city, he added. The Sheffield Mail revealed that some members of the Corporation Health Committee were themselves landlords of slum properties.
Councillor Moses Humberstone J.P. “I think they should not be fined or bound over, they should be locked up until we get the whole gang in prison.” Alderman Wardley J.P. Was living in the past, “I recollect 50 years ago, that gangs were in existence in the City that could swallow up the Mooney Gang.”
At a conference of clergymen, the vicar of St.Mathew’s told his audience, ”They are terrorising even the magistrates and other people, and the magistrates hardly dare sentence them to punishment.” There was police corruption and drinking. In January 1930 three constables and nine bookmakers were charged with bribery. It emerge that around twenty officers from the Brightside area had been getting regular payments of small sums to turn a blind eye between 1922 and 1929. There was a break for a year 1925-26, when a plain-clothes officer refused all bribes. Three officers were actually prosecuted, but only one convicted and he was found not guilty. Three bookmakers received fines.
On the 27th the Mail informed the blissfully ignorant, ”The leaders of these gangs and freebooters are men who live on the fat of the land. They are men of good appearance. They possess persuasive personalities and glib tongues. They use every possible art and device to carry on their nefarious business. At one moment they spend money freely as though it were water…the next they are grabbing a glass of beer from a man’s mouth. They are a nuisance and a danger to publicans –they break glasses, assault customers, smash windows, serve themselves beer and don’t pay for it. They work the confidence trick on inoffensive people, row with one another and demand drinks after closing hours. Everyone goes in fear of them and they know it. One of their pet methods of assault is to break a glass on the counter and attack a man’s face with the jagged edges.”
Their main income was the tossing ring and “All kinds of men are employed by the proprietors to deal with various classes of “business”. They have glib-tongued contricksters who can lay a man out as easily as rolling over a nine-pin. One of the principals has himself been a boxer. Others dress flashily, wear heavy gold watch-guards and display their wealth arrogantly. These are not ignorant ruffians. They are men who have calculated quite coolly and calmly the gains to be won by their terrifying outlawry. They are prepared to put up a stiff fight for supremacy. Strong measures will be necessary to beat them down.” Gangsters have families but the boundaries stop with their own - those outside the circle were fair game for bullying and robbing. Innocent people who went out after dark were waylaid. Men were robbed of their wages on their way home from factories; thugs smashed pubs up and demanded protection money; some picked-pockets while others went “Bottling” (mugging). Genuine bookies and their clerks were intimidated by protection rackets and, if they did not pay, would be beaten and robbed, their stands smashed and satchels stolen. Gangsters also took winnings after races were run.
A consequence of gangs thriving was young people looked up to them as heroes and
emulated them. “Junior Gangs” were in their late teens and early twenties. They made violent attacks on innocent members of the public and like their role models they carried knives, coshes and razors. A trick learnt from their heroes was for several to walk into a pub and demand free drink and cigarettes, while one outside kept watch. If refused they would smash up the bar by throwing glasses, bottles, stools at the mirror behind the bar, then assaulting landlord and any remaining customers. If the police were notified they would return and do it again. People were too frightened to testify against them but if any did the magistrates were lenient.
In August 1923 four men who had been to a show at Sheffield Empire were attacked by four youths on Leopold Street, one was hit over the head with a bottle. That very evening a young woman was talking to friends when a gang of youths punched her in the face. She would not take any action. A stranger was walking along Cambridge Street and passed a young man who asked if he wanted to buy a ring. When he refused he was punched down then five more appeared. He ran into the Albert Hall. The scam was usually done by a pair preying on innocent people and trying to sell them rings. The accomplice would also start bidding to up the price. If they refused they were “mugged”, for their money and valuables. As today these gangs had girls too. A set up in Wellington Street in September was a girl screaming for help with a gang of youths around her. One appeared to punch her and when a passer-by went to her aid she and the gang jumped him. Taxi drivers were regularly threatened and intimidated and forced to take gangsters home free.
The Sheffield Mail of 21st September commented on it, “The whole proceedings have caused considerable excitement in the city, and a new cry has been raised for the suppression of gangs.” These were young men acting as clerks or shop assistants. “They debauch and gamble and have one or two young girls in their train who are prepared to sacrifice themselves body and soul to the ruffianly crowd who are their masters. Their chief income is derived from picking pockets and selling dud jewellery. A new epidemic appears to have broken out, it will be interesting to see what measures are taken to suppress the disturbances.”
The next evening the 22nd a stranger was attacked on Cambridge Street. A man asked him if he would buy a ring and upon his refusal punched him in the face and as he rose five other men attacked. He got away into the Albert Hall and called the police but no one was arrested.
The scam with dud jewellery was usually gangsters operating in pairs. They would seek out a victim and one approached to sell the ring and when the victim was examining it the other would approach and, pretending interest, offer say two shillings for it. Then pretended he had forgotten his money and this show often conned the mark into buying. If h were not interested he would be “mugged.” Like their role models the juniors carried various weapons including guns.
Lt.Col.Hall-Dalwood told the Mail on 23rd January 1925, “We have broken the rings up. We have made numerous raids and brought the men before the magistrates, and we, as police, can do nothing more. So far as hooliganism is concerned, it must be well known to everybody who reads the papers that we are bringing in men sometimes three or four times a week for these offences. Whenever the law is broken we bring men before the magistrates. We are handicapped by the fact that the prosecutors are sometimes got at and we cannot bring our witnesses, but we do everything in our power.”
Sky Edge ring was safe from police raids because of its being a high promontory and well watched by sentries. But as the Mail explained the magistrates were passing lenient sentences such as the “large batch” the police caught at Tinsley but the highest fine was forty shillings. Straight after the case the offenders hired taxis and went back to gamble. They could rake in up to £40 a day! The Quarter Sessions that week had sentenced members of the Park Brigade to the second division, an easier prison regime than hard labour which was “like sending them to Scarborough.”
The turning point was1925 with the hanging on September the third and fourth, of brothers Wilfred and Lawrence Fowler for the murder of William Plommer. Plommer, a labourer and father of four, was not involved with gangs and had no criminal convictions. There had been a fight the previous evening between Wilfred Fowler and another and Plommer had made them fight man to man. Fowler was a Garvin boy, so next evening Garvin and two others made threats against Plommer. Then they caught a tram to the Wicker and attacked another with razors and a cosh. Meanwhile the Fowlers and others attacked and murdered Plommer. The fatal weapon was thought to be a bayonet. Plommer had manfully but foolishly left his house to fight each of the six one by one. They surrounded him and got him down.
They appealed and this was heard on April the 18th 1926 in the Court of Criminal Appeal in London and was dismissed. Defence lawyer Mr.J.W.Fenoughty obtained statements from people and wrote to the Home Secretary Sir William Joynson Hicks with new evidence on Lawrence Fowler. Then two days later he wrote again requesting the Home Secretary to advise His Majesty King George V to grant a reprieve. The devastating reply arrived on 1st September,
Sir, … I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has given careful consideration to all the circumstances of the case, and I am to express to you his regret that he has failed to discover any grounds which would justify him in advising His Majesty to interfere with the due course of the law. It was signed by the Under Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
The Daily Mail observed on August 20th, “We may hope that the dismissal by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the application for leave to appeal made by the brothers Fowler, found guilty of the murder of a man in Sheffield in brutal circumstances, will have the effect of striking fear into these gangs and breaking them up. Hicks also wrote to the Sheffield authorities asking them to quell the gang attacks!
On the 1st of May 1925, four days after Plommer was murdered, Hall-Dalwood formed the Special Duty Squad of the four hardest men in the force. Sgt. Robinson, the leader, had served in the Coldstream Guards; P.C.Walter Loxley 6ft 2in, 19 stone 8lb a war-time Royal Garrison Artillery, in France; as had P.C.Herbert Lunn, who won the Military Medal at Bullecourt for rescuing wounded under heavy fire; the fourth was P.C.Jack Farrily, a hard Irishman, experienced in street fighting. Their orders were to harry and beat the gangsters up. They became known locally as the “Flying Squad” and first mentioned in court on September 21st, 1925 in a case over the Junior Park gang. In his evidence Sgt. Robinson said that serious complaints had been made of people being kicked around a fairground by the gang and “That is why we are on special duty breaking up these gangs.”
The first mention of the “Special Duty Squad” was on July 16th. Prosecuting Solicitor, G.H. Banwell told a court Sergeant Robinson and P.C. Lunn were instructed to prevent the gangs gathering in the City. Sergeant Robinson explained,”That is why we are on special duty breaking up these gangs.” Two gangsters were sentenced – one to six months, the other to three.
There had been regular assaults on the police by gangsters but these were hard men who wore plain clothes and were allowed to go in the pubs used by gang members and tell them to leave or beat them up. A brawl at the Red House, Solly Street on 14th September, 1925 gives an insight into the “Squads’” methods. In court, Wheywell’s brief Harry Morris asked P.C.Lunn ”What Wheywell has done to you, you paid back with 4,000 per cent interest?” He replied,”I do not look at it like that. I only did my duty, knowing the man as I do. Then under further questioning, “These men have been ganging together. No licensees in Sheffield want them. They will only serve them through fear. We have had enough of gangs.”
Mr.Barnwell then asked,”Are you one of the Flying Squad?” “Yes”. “And your main duty is that of a sort of disturbance queller?” “Yes, principally.”
Mr.Morris explained that Wheywell had summonsed first and this was in the nature of a test case. There is a system of assaults on these men. But that would be a substitution of an alleged gang terrorism by the police.” The Doctor who had treated Wheywell at the Royal Infirmary said that his patient “had four fairly large bruises, was dazed and looked as if he had been knocked about.”
Under cross-examination Wheywell described “the Squad” as having launched a “cowardly assault.” The landlord gave evidence for Wheywell and said he did not mind them using his pub. He added that he had not called the police but” The Sheffield police have told me I must not serve these men. It is through no complaint of mine.”
The case went to the Sessions where the three “Squad” members were acquitted and Wheywell given three months hard labour! The Recorder warned, “The police must be protected from acts of violence.”
We get insights into how gangs are formed for then as now and even in the middle ages a family is at the nucleus. In a case of 11th July the Recorder asked, ”How do you become a member of these gangs?” Albert Foster replied, ”Well Sir, I have known these men for years, from being a boy. As a matter of fact we have been boys together.”
On the 25th of November two defendants appeared in court after being heavily beaten in custody. One Windle was in facial bandages with blood-stained clothes and scarf. In answer to questioning by Harry Morris the defence solicitor “No, it was through falling.” On another occasion a woman shouted at the police from the gallery, “You’re as bad!”
After six months of the Special Squad Hall-Dalwood had to resign apparently from ill-health but blamed “evil attempts” to undermine him and “insidious influences from outside.” He had had constant conflict with Sheffield Watch Committee to get his force brought up to strength and also to get magistrates to give stronger sentences.
He was replaced by Captain Percy Sillitoe who had served in the South African police. Sillitoe became famous as the “Gang breaker” and went on to tackle Glasgow’s “Razor gangs.” He finished his career as Director-General of MI5. He also visited America to advise J. Edgar Hoover on combating Chicago’s more stylish gangsters.
We need to employ army officers as police chiefs because they have a greater understanding of violent and disorderly people than the academics who are currently raised up because s university graduates they are more open to ideas, or political ideology and more inclined to enforce an orthodoxy rather than keep morality and behaviour within reasonable bounds.
Sillitoe followed where Col. Hall-Dalwood had led and made important innovations like adding P.C. Pat Geraghty who stood 6ft 5in and could pick up five tennis balls in one hand. He had the “squad” trained in Ju Jitso by European champion Harry Hunter. To embolden the magistrates he would appear in court to back his men and take the responsibility for the sentences. His first court appearance was on 28th September. It was over the arrest of a husband and wife for fighting each other. A crowd had gathered and tried to free them. The “Squad” were as bad as the gangsters but with indifferent authorities had to take illegal but drastic measures to restore order to the city.
On modern streets of warfare the “Special squad” would need to be Paras or SAS and openly challenge contemporary gangs and shoot them dead in the streets if need be. One significant difference now is that the young gangs who are shooting each other on our streets are not from our communities but have been brought here. In these cases we should deport the criminals to the countries of their ancestors where they might be socialised as we have failed to do this in our culture which is alien to them.
Edmund Burke remarked that society should be based on human nature. In his autobiography “Cloak Without a Dagger” captain Sir Percy Sillitoe gave this insight into human nature, “There is only one way to deal with the gangster mentality. You must show that you are not afraid. If you stand up to them and they realise you mean business they will knuckle under. The element of beast in man whether it comes from an unhappy and impoverished back ground, or from his own undisciplined lustful appetites, will respond exactly as a wild beast of the jungle responds – to nothing but greater force and greater firmness of purpose.”

The Sheffield Gang Wars, by J.P.Bean (D&D) Publications.2004

Cloak Without Dagger, Sir Percy Sillitoe. (Cassell.) 1955

Sir Percy Sillitoe, A.W.Cockerill. (W.H. Allen.) 1975

Setting up the Targets - by David Hamilton

2007-07-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

American philosopher George Santayana remarked that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat its mistakes. On October the 26th is the anniversary of a unique event in England –a bomb attack on an mp’s home in 1965. This is a lesson that de-humanising a politician could have fatal consequences as happened to Pym Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh.

Mr.Griffiths had been Member of Parliament for Smethwick (now Warley) for just a year. He had been leader of the Conservative group on the council and won the election of 15th October 1964 against a national swing to Labour, which was led by Harold Wilson. The defeated MP Patrick Gordon Walker was Foreign Secretary designate and a personal friend of Wilson. Mr.Griffith’s turned Walker’s 3,544 majority into 1,774 for the Conservatives. Alderman Griffiths was local-born and headmaster of nearby primary school, Fir Tree Lane. Mr.Walker lived in Hamstead Garden Suburb. Peter Griffiths lost his seat in March 1966 to Andrew Faulds (Labour) who lived in Stratford –upon-Avon!

Biased and exaggerated reporting created a dangerous climate in which Mr.Griffiths ceased to be seen as human and became a “racialist”, something to be reviled. When people are thus de-humanised they become just figures of hate it does not matter what others do to them. Paul Foot wrote a book on this “Immigration and Race in British Politics” and, though an excellent journalist, he could not overcome his prejudice to give Mr. Griffiths a fair examination.

However, he did note Walker’s hypocrisy and commented, ”The racial bitterness stirred up…could well last for a generation. For this Patrick Gordon Walker must take his share of the responsibility.” He quoted a Birmingham mp, “look at Patrick. He never left the subject alone.”(1) Walker had issued different election leaflets for each ethnic group. While he was preaching against race discrimination, Smethwick Labour club operated a colour bar!

Mr.Griffiths told the Birmingham Evening Mail, on 24/9/1964, “The Socialists are attempting to obtain the coloured vote because they think it will hold Smethwick for them.”

Many current attitudes were pre-figured in this election. The recent suggestion by Trevor Philips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, has suggested young Black boys need schooling separately. This is similar to a suggestion by Peter Griffiths in February 1964, when in response to complaints from white parents he proposed to hold special classes for Indian children who could not speak English for three hours a day. They were to be taught by their own teachers in English, maths and science and then rejoin the others for games and crafts. He was accused of trying to start Apartheid in local schools!

Some think the oppression and social engineering began with Political Correctness or the advent of New Labour under Blair, but in fact it is part of the Multi-Racialists’ mentality. A couple of examples: The first act of positive discrimination was in 1950 when Minister of Food John Strachey(L) announced that no Government contracts would go to caterers who did not employ coloured people. In 1955 Smethwick a Conservative candidate for the council Harold had his election addresses printed in Urdu as well as English as did Conservative General election candidate John Wells did too.. In 1964 Enid Blyton was under attack for her book "The Little Black Doll". Also in 1964 the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination sent out forms for general election candidates to sign pledging not to us race as an issue and in 3 constituencies all the candidates agreed not to mention race!

Meanwhile, back at the narrative – An offensive slogan was being posted on walls before and during the election,” If you want a N***** for a neighbour, vote Labour”. Harold Wilson attributed this to Griffiths on national Television, when asked by Robin Day on Panorama of 9th March. Mr. Wilson replied, that he understood that this was said by the Conservative candidate in Smethwick. Griffiths denied he or any member of the Conservative party had used this slogan, but did refuse to condemn its use saying it was an expression of frustration felt by local people. He explained that the only person who had heard it was Mr.Walker, who claimed it was in use in the Municipal elections of 1963. A Labour spokesman said that Wilson had said no more than was in the morning’s Times. Mr.Griffiths threatened to sue Mr.Wilson but later declined.

After the Election new Prime Minister Wilson broke from his address on the Queens speech to insult Griffiths by calling him a “Parliamentary Leper”, who would be shunned by everyone in the House. This breached the convention that new members be protected until after their Maiden speech! Harold Gurden Birmingham Conservative mp (Selly Oak) told the Times 25/1/1965, “He “had not met Griffiths but would be his friend in the House.”

Then on October the 5th 1964 just two weeks before polling Griffiths was denounced for his campaign in the Birmingham Post and the Times Midland correspondent wrote, ”It is abhorrent to all Conservatives candidates and officials of stature to whom I have talked.” He headed his column of the 12th, “Vile –its all in Black and White.”

As the election result was announced on October the 16th Socialists made Nazi salutes. Mr.Walker, the embittered loser griped,” I feel the result tonight will give Smethwick a bad name.” The Bishop of Southwark called the electorate “unchristian” and the Bishop of Chelmsford and Archbishop of Canterbury were critical. Local people supporting a local-born candidate in a democratic election over a local issue is a model of Democracy at work yet, these un-elected Bishops who lived far away, were imposing their a priori ideology on the situation but not drawing inferences from the facts or observation.

The way to understand this piece of history is not through the prejudices of outsiders but through real examples: A supporter of Mr.Griffith’s campaign was Cllr. Alan Vernon, 23-years old, who had fostered a young coloured child. Mr.Vernon, who had supported Griffiths campaign, told the Times of 15th February 1965, June, “I do not think the campaign was conducted on racialist lines. I feel that immigration should be restricted. He had also fostered a young coloured child eighteen months previously. He supported the Marshall Street plan.

This plan was an attempt by the Conservative council to buy the remaining houses in Marshall Street to sell to white people as 40% were occupied by coloureds people. Martin Luther King himself had addressed members of Parliament in December 1964 on his way to Oslo to collect his Noble Peace Prize and had warned of the creation of “Little Harlems”.(2) Conservative group leaders had taken the decision after meeting a delegation of worried housewives. Housing Committee chairman E. Gould remarked,” This is not colour prejudice. We understand that over thirty houses in Marshall Street are occupied by coloured people and we think they should not be allowed to occupy more than half the houses in any street.” Griffiths agreed and told the Times of 7th December, 1964 ” coloured people can only be integrated if they live alongside white people.”

Later a delegation of housewives visited Richard Crossman Minister of Housing for support, who with his PPS Bob Mellish treated them harshly and upset the ladies. A request for funding was sent but turned down. Crossman a leading left-wing intellectual was proud of having opposed the 1961 Commonwealth Immigration Bill, as a “shameful piece of legislation, but wrote in his Diary,
“Ever since the Smethwick election it has been quite clear that immigration can be the greatest potential vote loser for the Labour party if we are seen to be permitting a flood of immigrants to come and blight the central areas of our cities.”(3)

Mellish had said “Smethwick’s name stinks and “Smethwick is well regarded in Alabama.” But in May 1976 with an influx of Malawi Asians into his own Bermondsey constituency, Mr. Mellish, then Labours’ chief whip, told the Commons, “With 53 million of us we cannot go on without strict immigration control.”

Ever consistent the BBC took Malcolm X the American Black Power leader to Marshall Street in February 1965 to film for their current affairs programme “Tonight”. He told the world’s media,” I have come here because I am disturbed by reports that coloured people in Smethwick are being badly treated. I have heard they are being treated as the Jews under Hitler. I would not wait for the Fascist element in Smethwick to erect gas ovens.” I wonder who he heard that off! He told the London Times that the BBC had taken him there for a programme on race in their current affairs programe “Tonight”. This was a mere nine days before he was assassinated after his return to the States.

The BBC denied having brought him but Smethwick’s eloquent mayor Alderman C.V.Williamse investigated and revealed, that he was appalled at” the BBC bringing algebraic characters to Smethwick and then denying it. I was most amazed at the finesse displayed when I spoke of him being brought in a BBC car. I was told the car was not a BBC car but it was owned by one of the directors.” Griffiths was outraged by the visitations of extremists and wrote to the “Smegs” Telephone, “ The visit of Malcolm X was an affront to decent people and a direct provocation. That he should have been brought to Marshall Street by the BBC, which is supposed to be a responsible public corporation, makes matters worse. I say to all extremists Right and Left, black or white, get out and stay out.” A blazing wooden cross had been left against a door in Pink Passage, with KKK painted on the pavement. The front room was a store for an Indian shopkeeper. Earlier a Labour Councillor described the council as being like “Peter Griffiths’ Reichstag.”

Mr.Griffiths also called for health checks on immigrants when he responded to a question in the local paper the “Smethwick Telephone”, “Immigration should be limited to those of sound health who have jobs and living accommodation arranged before they enter.” This was prescient as there was an outbreak of Typhoid in Smethwick in April 1965. Dr.John Briant the Deputy Medical Officer of Health said ”Smethwick had contained one outbreak but another might occur if people were let into the country without health checks.”
That campaign of vilification which lasted for eighteen months and had been featured in media all across the world, culminated in a time bomb being planted outside Peter Griffith’s home. This is unique in British politics. The bomb was a battery and clock placed on a meter cover, connected by wires through the letterbox to a detonator and an explosive substance. The explosion splintered part of the front door, blew the dining room door off its hinges, broke the hinges on an upstairs door, blew off the loft entrance, smashed some windows and drove splinters into the walls and stair banisters in the hall. The police thought it the work of experts. The media created a climate in which Peter Griffiths was made a legitimate target for political fanatics. This shows that irresponsible journalists and politicians can put people’s lives in danger especially now we have many Muslim extremists in the country, if they use wild and emotive terms of abuse based on lies against an opponent.

(1955)

1 Foot, Paul 1965. Immigration and Race in British Politics (Penguin)

2 Griffiths, Peter 1966. A Question of Colour (Leslie Frewin)

3 Crossman Richard1975. Diaries of a Cabinet Minister. Vol.1

David Hamilton

THE REALISTIC ALLIANCE - DAVID HAMILTON

2007-07-13T00:32:00.000-07:00

Britain has thwarted several terror plots, including a scheme by a British Muslim to blow up the New York Stock Exchange and other landmarks, and a plan by Muslim extremists to use liquid explosives to blow up as many as 10 flights between the United States and Britain but will not always succeed. In December 2006 Home Secretary John Reid revealed there were thirty investigations into Muslim conspiracies to plant bombs and murder innocent people under way.

There is supposed to be 1.5 million Muslims in Britain, which is a great underestimate, and 300 Muslims in the military which makes them traitors to their people. There is the largest population of Pakistani immigrants anywhere, many of whom complain of anti-Muslim bias. Militant opposition to us is growing among younger, second-generation Muslims, which has been galvanised by Blair’s illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a poll published by the Daily Telegraph 40 percent of young Muslims said they would prefer to live under Islamic law in Britain. One in eight said they admired groups such as al-Qaida that are”prepared to fight the West.”

As a “Nationalist” I believe that each people and each country is responsible for their own affairs and their own destiny. How people go on in Afghanistan and Iraq is their business and nothing to do with us. Intellectually, the reasoning that leads to poking in other people’s affairs and justifying it with pious terms is universal thinking. A Nationalist or Conservative would be concerned with his own people and their needs. Under the surface the war on Iraq does have possible motivation like keeping Israel safe and ensuring oil supplies. But it lacks practical wisdom.

I ask you gentle reader, sit and contemplate the folly of bringing people of a different religion and with communal aspirations different from ours into our communities then bombing their women and children in their own countries! This tells them that we are their enemies. It is only 80 years since Churchill sent the British to bomb their villages with bi-planes. These latest attacks show us to be waging constant war against them. These events fit into and help create a world view in which we are the enemies of a rival religion and a different type of people. That difference manifests in the way Muslims here do not like us or our ways and want to change them to something more suitable to them. We have nothing in common. Sharia law is now being operated in many of our cities.

Our Government ministers pretend it is not so and that if we are nice to them they will be nice to us. Unlike Conservatives they ignore the historical grudge that Muslims have for us even while their attacks on Muslim states re-kindle those grudges. We cannot just transcend history to make the world nice. Our Government have thus compromised the safety of our people and are sneaking immigrants in and convincing themselves that they are essentially good and if we give them everything and appeal to their goodwill then we will all get on nicely together.

The catalyst of the Muslim bombings in London is the invasion of Iraq. The originating reason is that Muslims here do not like us or our ways and want to change them to something more suitable to them. Our Government ministers have compromised the safety of the public and sneaking immigrants in many of whom are potential terrorists. The Sunday Times of March 28, 2004 reported that former immigration minister Beverley Hughes personally authorised a policy to allow tens of thousands of migrants into Britain without adequate checks, according to a leaked Home Office document. She was first cleared by an internal inquiry into the “fast-tracking” of immigrants then new evidence showed the minister approved far more than she admitted.

British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments - Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American - have protested London's refusal to shut down its Islamist terrorist infrastructure or extradite wanted operatives. Muslim community shelters extremists and illegal immigrants. The reason they are attacking us is because we and Jews are their enemies. They were treated as impoverished, lacking opportunities and enraged by direct Israeli action on their communities.

In practice Palestinian mores glorifies suicide bombers as ' shahid ' or martyrs and terrorism is part of the Palestinian mentality. In Britain they are bombers because of Ideology not social conditions and many young Muslims hero worship them. The extremists are not poor Muslims suffering racism or poverty but middle class, Muslims born and educated in Britain who regard us as their enemies based on the ideology of hatred they have been taught in the mosques on our streets. This is an “enemy within”, that does not have to invade because it was imported by our elites who pour tax payers money into their communities, such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Keighley.

On 27 7 2005 BBC reporter Phil Mackie admitted on Radio 5 Brian Hayes 10 pm programme that the BBC censors the truth about Muslims because the BBC was selective in its broadcasting of Muslim statements. A Totalitatian law against Religious hatred has been introduced at the behest of Muslim leaders This is an Act of Appeasement to butter-up one faction in the breakdown into a chaos of competing tribes which is Multi-Racial Britain. I wonder if this analysis of the imminent racial war in Britain is classifiable as “inciting racial hatred”. If so I am liable to seven years in prison.

There is an alliance between Socialist-Totalitarians and Muslims. Members of this Labour-Islam axis used taxpayers' money to help finance the London suicide bombers. Labour-run Leeds City Council gave more than £125,000 to premises and projects used by the Edgware Road bomber to recruit and train his terror cell. The money was spent on building work and equipment at two Leeds properties used by the bombers, as well as on Al Qaeda away-days, including the whitewater-rafting trip used as the final 'bonding' activity for the bombers just before they planted the bombs. Edgware Road bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan received massive funding for four Leeds-based Muslim youth groups. He got £106,000 for the Leeds Community school, based in Beeston, where some of the bombs were made. The secrecy he needed for such activities was guaranteed by a council grant of £1,582 ”to improve security at the premises.

Khan also raked in grants for the Iqra Learning Centre, a Muslim bookshop which distributed videos glorifying suicide bombers, and £16,000 for equipment for a Muslim boys only gym in the basement of a mosque in Hardy Street, Beeston, where he recruited two of the other 7/7 murderers, Shehzad Tanweer and Hassib Hussain. The gang went on away-day trips paid for by a £1,535 grant to the Youth Support Service to take Muslim youths on sporting activities and educational trips.

It is not just a few extremists funded by taxpayers' money from Islamophile Labour councillors. At Shehzad Tanweer's memorial funeral in his home village in Pakistan, an estimated 10,000 mourners chanted Jihad, Jihad, Jihad and eulogised the suicide bomber. Such feelings, of course, are kept under wraps in Britain, but the truth that emerged revealed how much support for murder attacks on us exists across Muslim states.

Pakistan is one of the countries where our Government has been recruiting immigrants. In November 2006 it was reported that the Government were advertising for immigrants to come here from terrorist countries. A Foreign Office pamphlet declares: 'Multicultural Britain - a Land of Immigrants'. It encouraged immigrants to move telling them of the preferential treatment they get under the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. The Foreign Office put it in embassies across the world. It was discovered in Pakistan.

Blair was personally committed to the intervention in Kosovo to help the Muslims against the Serbs. Likewise, our Government funded the reconstruction of Bosnia. Tony Blair personally champions the entry of Turkey a Muslim country into the EU. A major policy promoted by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown has been development aid, with 33 of the countries receiving British foreign aid being Muslim. Since 1997, the British aid assistance to Bangladesh alone has doubled.. This shows the real nature of foreign aid: transferring our money to the foreign elites and political causes supported by our elites. Within weeks of coming to power Labour repealed the Primary Purpose Rule that stopped people bringing their families here from Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries.

Second to racial attacks on whites by blacks is the number of racial attacks by Muslims on Jewish people. Tony Blair and the other elites are creating a potential holocaust against Jewish people here on British soil at the hands of the Muslim extremists they are importing from states that hate Israel and by extension Jews, and then granting them citizenship . There are Muslim shops all over the UK selling” The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”. Our Government has introduced against “Religious hatred” that carries seven-years imprisonment which will indirectly protect terrorists.

Many of our authorities encourage terrorism. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, was quoted in the Sun of Thursday, July 8, 2004 defending a Muslim cleric who supported suicide bombings and for child suicide bombings, executing homosexuals, and wife beating and killing Jews. Mayor Livingston called the sheik an honoured guest. He added that the outcry in the tabloid press shows why legislation is necessary (to prevent religious hatred). Egyptian-born al- Qaradawi said he had been visiting London for 30 years and was baffled by the fuss. In a pre-recorded TV interview, the cleric called for suicide bombers to kill Allied soldiers in Iraq. In London he spoke in support of suicide bombings by Palestinians in Israel. On BBC2's News Night he urged Iraqis to rise against Coalition forces. If they failed, he said, suicide bombers should be used against them.”

In November 2001 mayor Livingstone said that British Muslims fought for the Taliban in Afghanistan should not be prosecuted for treason if they return to this country. In an interview with The Telegraph the London mayor called on the police to be lenient. We've got to accept that these people went off because of a deep sense of injustice about what's happening in Israel and the West Bank” The West should understand that they and the al-Qa'eda network feed off a genuine injustice in the Middle East. Mayor Livingston invited back cleric Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi who described Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel as martyrs. The Crown Prosecution Service said there was not enough evidence to prosecute him on the grounds of his speeches. Mr Livingstone apologised to his guest and called the criticism “hysteria.”

Livingston’s remarks to a Jewish journalist being like a concentration camp guard are an indication. Commenting on Israel Cherie Blair stated She “...understands how people are driven to suicide bombing” This gives encouragement to extremists here too because they identify with the terrorists or “freedom fighters” in Muslim countries. For making general comments on Arabs the BBC sacked Robert Kilroy-Silk, yet, signed the former editor-in-chief of Al-Jazeera.

During the run-up the the General Election of 2005 the Labour party issued posters of pigs flying with the faces of Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin who are both Jewish superimposed, but dropped them after protests. In an openly anti-semetic plea to the Muslim community to support labour, Government minister Mike O'Brien wrote in Muslim World, in early 2005, that “The government has obediently introduced controversial legislation (The law against religous hatred) at the behest of Muslim leaders. The article also implies that Muslims should not vote for Michael Howard because he is Jewish.
O’Brien boasted, ”When the Americans and Israelis refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, Tony Blair promptly sent myself as the Foreign Office Minister, to visit Yasser Arafat in the Muquata in Ramallah to convey the message that we had not abandoned him. Tony Blair’s message was clear: we will work with the elected leader of the Palestinians, even if the Americans will not. On the issue of the assassination of the leaders of Hamas, Jack Straw as the Foreign Secretary was the first Western politician to condemn Israel’s actions.”

In November 2003, the European Union's “Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia” suppressed a report on the rise of anti-Semitism. The survey had found that "many anti-Semitic incidents were carried out by Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups," and so a "political decision" was taken not to publish it because of "fears that it would increase hostility towards Muslims."

Men who fought for the Taliban against our soldiers have been granted asylum, Algerian terrorists have flooded in and countless Iraqi's probably trained and of active age (18-35) have also been admitted as asylum seekers. Over 3000 Al-Qaeda terrorists trained in Afghanistan are living here and more enter from Iraq every day. There are terror cells right across Britain as shown by the locations of police raids following the bombings.

The July 7th terrorist attacks and the failed suicide bombings two weeks later, the riots here and in France in 2000 are part of a religous war against the West and Jewish people. The terrorists have no central chain of command but instead operate by a unified methodology of terror by using the same techniques of terrorism, they enter countries by immigration and co-ordinate the war for Global Jihad over the internet, through media and supporters in mosques. These Wahhabist hate us yet their greatest allies the liberal-left who, while Muslims prepare for war against us all, are surrendering us to them.

The corollary of this nationalist Conservative concern with keeping our territory for our own people and of course the realistic assessment of human nature and how our thoughtless behaviour can make us enemies is not to butt into the affairs of other countries but respect their sovereignty, their legitimate dominion over their territory that, like ours, is sanctioned by time and emotional bonding with the territory. On this basis we should work for two independent sovereign states in Palestine and Israel and whether we like the UN or not it is there and we could do it through that or through American politics.
There is such an abandonment of belief in one’s own country, culture and history amongst western elites that thee cannot comprehend that Arabs who share our common humanity have these instincts abstract systems of ideology that having 3 disparate and mutually disliking ethnic groups in Iraq each with a need for their own territory, culture and religous beliefs is incomprehensible to them. They are so ashamed of our history that they fail to learn from it. If they considered, to take just one example, the troubles the British Empire caused by introducing Tamils into Indonesia to work on the rubber plantations they might get a glimmer of reality.

As it is things are likely to worsen. Writing in the Guardian of 22 March Geoffrey Wheatcroft told of power of “Anglo neoconservatives” in the British Conservative party. “Several of the younger M.P.’s are fanatical adherents of the creed with its three prongs: ardent support for the Iraq war, for the U.S. and for Israel.” The mutual incomprehension can be seen in the recent knighting of Salaman Rushdie whose book “Satanic Verses” was so insulting to Muslims in the early 80’s is now seen as an insult to them by our Queen. Then we have Tony Blair, who despite his support for Muslim causes in the UK,is widely regarded as a war criminal abroad because of his part in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, made “Middle East Peace Envoy!” This bizarre appointment will look to the Arabs as another western provocation, another insult to Islam. It is another example of how western rulers have lost touch with reality and long ago forsook practical wisdom based on common sense and a shrew judgement of human nature; for abstract reason, universal ideas and the belief that persons are mallable and can be changed to suit a pre – conceived plan.

We have British born suicide bombers operating in Israel and Iraq. Fanatics, potential terrorists and ordinary Muslims know they are getting favourtism from British authorities and this encourages terrorists to unite and plan bomb attacks on us. It is an alliance of Socialist-Totalitarians and Muslim extremists against “whites” and Jewish people. Many Jewish people in France support the Front Nationale as it is seen as their only protection from a Muslim jihad. And in Antwerp the Vlaams Belang and the Jewish community united against Islamification.

It is not unfair to say that the Neo Cons have brought a lot of this danger onto Jewish people but we must not lump them all together any more than Jewish people should lump all us together as potential Nazis. As a self-conscious Englishmen with Welsh ancestory and a Christian, or, as I like to call myself an “Anglo” or “Anglo-Saxon Celt”, I believe the practical wisdom is that we must offer the Jewish community protection against this Alliance of Socialist Totalitarians and the Muslim extremists they are bringing here, funding and protecting by law.

As things stand both peoples face the greatest holocaust in human history as the much of the Muslim world hates us and is turning on us. Neither of our peoples have anywhere to run for Israel is surrounded and traitorous western rulers are importing them into our communities. Our only solution is to form a realistic alliance of Jews and Gentiles to defend our two peoples who are the intended targets of the alliance.

CDA NEEDS YOU!

2007-07-10T10:30:00.000-07:00

The CDA goes from strength to strength. We are now the leading voice of the radical Tory right in Britain. We oppose the social liberal betrayal of our party. We oppose the infiltration of the "modernisers". We want real opposition to Blair. WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK.

The CDA has held prominent national events - including a much-reported Tory conference rally, and our Spring Conference and policy forum. We deployed a big force during the Countryside March, and our supporters bombard newspapers with letters and press releases. Hundreds have attended our meetings - and thousands have contributed to our website debates.Our activists work throughout the country to oppose the betrayal of British conservatism.

Our advertisements in the press are seen by thousands of people. The CDA has arrived - and we will not be bullied, or silenced!But our campaigns - on the EU, asylum, regaining our freedom, fighting the Blairite PC police state, defending rural Britain - cost money.

We need to keep the momentum going, to keep our movement strong! Now, we are moving up a gear, with plans for some very big and spectacular campaigns. More will be revealed in due course, but in the meantime, YOU can get us to the all-important "Stage 2".

Our national appeal will enable the CDA to move forward and fight for you. Do you want to see a real Tory opposition in Britain? Do you want to hear the voice of patriotism loud and clear, instead of evil political correctness? Do you long for the nation we had - do you long to give your children a Britain to be proud of? Then help the CDA!

Please - for the sake of the cause, send your donations to:

The CDA National Patriotic Appeal,
BCM 9045,
London
WC1N 3X X

Please make all cheques payable to: The Conservative Democratic Alliance.

VISIT OUR QUICKTOPIC FORUM AT:

http://www.quicktopic.com/share?s=UuZb

Welcome

2007-07-10T00:12:00.000-07:00

We are currently working on this blog and will soon have a variety of articles for you to comment upon