UK Resistance - Working Class Action intends to apply a new purist approach to the defence and salvation of this country and our way of life. The defence of foreign realms or alien ideologies will not feature in our plans. UK Resistance was formed by working class people, and will be a working class movement run by the working class for the working class.
Earlier this week, the director-general of Britain’s license fee-funded BBC, Mark Thompson, gave an astonishing interview, revealing that the BBC consciously and deliberately treats Muslim themes more sensitively than those pertaining to Christianity. A practicing Catholic, he treats Christianity with less sensitivity because it is ‘‘pretty broad-shouldered.’’ Islam, however, is a different story.
Non-Christian faiths are more aligned with ethnicity, he explained, and race is more sensitive, therefore careful treatment is warranted. Moreover, broadcasters must consider the possibility of ”violent threats” when crafting satire:
‘‘Without question, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms,’ is different from, ‘I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write.’ This definitely raises the stakes.’’
This much has long been obvious to observers of Western media, but that does little to diminish the odium of the admission, because it proudly elevates hypocrisy and double standard (again, both longstanding features of BBC coverage) to policy. For instance, when the BBC aired “Jerry Springer: The Opera” in 2005, it did so in the face of Christian opposition. In the interview, Thompson was asked whether it would have been aired had it dealt with Islamic themes. He said no.
It is noteworthy that the inexplicable obsession with race in Britain – historically less racked with racial, than with religious, conflict – has now impinged on religious sensitivity. This is, in a sense, unsurprising, for those very conflicts engendered a spirit of religious toleration – toleration which made Christianity so ‘‘broad-shouldered.’’ Toleration, of course, is best pursued reciprocally, but, unlike the Hindu, Sikh, and many decent Muslim immigrants to the UK, the Islamists have yet to learn that. Acquiescing to their demands made at bayonet point is, it seems, to forego the very lessons the British learned centuries ago.
Furthermore, the sensitivity afforded to non-Christian faiths because they are more aligned with ethnicity is obviously unfair, not just to Christianity, but to Judaism also, which, though legally considered in racial terms (anti-Semitism falls under race-relations legislation), is culturally not seen as an ethnicity – a category reserved for more recent immigrants. Today, though, Judaism is aligned rather with a nationality, and the BBC’s remarkably biased and even inaccurate reportage of Israel is no less ‘‘insensitive’’ – indeed it is considerably dangerous to the safety of Jews in Britain and elsewhere. Thompson sees insensitivity toward Islam as ‘‘racism by other means’’ towards Muslims. If so, then its treatment of Israel is ‘‘racism by other means’’ toward Jews.
At the end of the day, the ethnicity rationale is nonsense. This is literal Islamphobia: fear of Islamists, and the ‘‘AK-47s’’ they wield and use. There is a welcome debate to be had about the limits of acceptable religious satire, but the BBC cannot have it both ways. And the lesson the BBC appears to be teaching – a lesson we always knew and apparently is also policy – is that complaints get more credence if they are backed up by force.
The Afghan government has announced that two Muslim delegations have met with NATO officials, and that NATO has "promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident . . ."
Yes, Americans are going to stand trial for burning Qur'ans that were used to spread messages among terrorists.
In other words, NATO has agreed to enforce Sharia.
We might as well give Karzai our lunch money while we're at it.
Joint Statement by the Delegations Assigned to Probe Bagram Incident
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
Following the insulting and shameful act of burning Quran in Bagram airbase that injured the religious sentiments of the Islamic world and particularly of the Afghan Muslim nation, two delegations comprising of representatives from government, the National Council of Ulemma and the National Assembly were assigned and dispatched to investigate the circumstances and causes that have led to the inhumane incident.
The delegations, while deeply touched by the religious sentiments shown by the Afghan Muslim and Mujahid nation, inform our citizens of the following:
1. In view of the particular security situation in the country, we call on all our Muslim citizens of Afghanistan to exercise self-restraint and extra vigilance in dealing with the issue and avoid resorting to protests and demonstrations that may provide ground for the enemy to take advantage of the situation.
2. After the shameful incident by the US soldiers stationed in Bagram, senior NATO and American officials expressed their deep apologies to the Muslim nation of Afghanistan and assured that such incidents will not happen again.
3. NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible.
4. The assigned delegations demand from the government of Afghanistan to take over from the Americans the authority of the Bagram prison so no such incidents can recur and calls on the US government to fully and comprehensively cooperate to this end.
5. The delegations also want from the Afghan government to formally praise those brave Afghan army soldiers and all others who showed feelings against the disrespectful act by preventing more religious books and Quran copies from burning, so that the pure Muslim sentiments of our honored Mujahid nation can remain alive.
This is the Azad Ali who once suggested that the killing of British troops in Iraq was justified.
He he praised Abdullah Azzam, Osama Bin Laden’s mentor.
He described the late Azzam as one of the ‘few Muslims who promote the understanding of the term Jihad in its comprehensive glory’. He then quoted Azzam’s son as saying: ‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation. If I saw the same soldier in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier – here he is not. I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for Jihad.’ Just to recap:
Azad Ali opposes democracy “if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia”
Azad Ali sued the Daily Mail for suggesting that comments on his blog showed that he was “a hardline Islamic extremist who supports the killing of British and American soldiers in Iraq by fellow Muslims as justified”. He lost.
Azad Ali used to attend talks by the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Europe: Abu Qatada.
Azad Ali wants Ismail Haniyeh – leader of the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Hamas – to be the Caliph of the next Caliphate.
Azad Ali admired the Al Qaeda and recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki and had this to say about him on the Islamic Forum of Europe’s blog: “I really do love him for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing.”
Azad Ali’s show on the Islam Channel was sanctioned by OFCOM for its failure to maintain due impartiality in its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, including in relation to comments on Mahmoud Abbas. That’s because he’s a Hamas supporter.
When an undercover reporter for Dispatches exposed Azad Ali’s political views, he threatened them on his radio show, saying: “We’ve got a picture of you and a lot more than you thought we had. We’ve tracked you down to different places. And if people are gonna turn what I’ve just said into a threat, that’s their fault, innit?”
This is just a fraction of the evidence against Azad Ali. I’m not proposing to recap the links between the Islamic Forum Europe and the far Right South Asian party, Jamaat-e-Islami. Nor will I list the ongoing parade of hate preachers, racists and bigots who are paraded through the East London Mosque/London Muslim Centre. There’s no need to. All of this information is very well known.
The appointment of Azad Ali as Vice Chair of Unite Against Fascism is the lowest point of this organisation, so far.
Below is one of the strangest stories in financial history, one involving the US government lying about hundreds of thousands of tons of imaginary gold, illegal wire transfers and loans totalling $15 trillion.
The video, from the House of Lords, is amazing in itself. What it doesn’t express is where the money came from though Lord James of Blackheath proves conclusively that an effort was made to say it came from a gold reserve in Brunei that, in fact, never existed.
At surface, it appears we have stumbled upon the largest terrorist organization in the world and have found original documents tracing its funding to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, two of the top financial officers in the US.
A cursory review of terrorism statues in the US indicate that all transactions we will learn about are, in fact, to be assumed “terrorist money laundering” and that the only thing preventing the immediate arrest of hundreds of top financial officials is their political connections alone.
We will be able to offer an alternative, more insights, some hard intelligence and some very valuable background that we hope will offer insightful and realistic perspectives on this amazing story.
On February 16, 2012, Lord James of Blackheath, member of Britain’s House of Lords presented evidence of an illegal scheme begun, he has thus discovered, in 2009.
His documents including originals signed by Alan Greenspan and Timothy Geithner, show the illegal “off the books” transfer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of $15 trillion to, initially, HSBC (Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation) London and then to the Bank of Scotland.
The Bank of Scotland, under royal charter but restricted from involvement in any such transactions, simply “gave” the money to 20 European banks to use in a highly profitable scheme of co-trading “fresh cut” MTN’s (mid-term notes), generating trillions of dollars in profits over 3 years, none of which is shown on books, none has been taxed or has benefitted shareholders in those banks.
As Blackheath outlines, the “deception and cover” for this transfer is the imaginary seizure of 750,000 tons of gold by agents of an unspoken entity (confirmed by the highest official sources as the Bush family and CIA), the listed “source” of the money.
The government of Indonesia confirms this to be an utter fabrication and that the individual named had 700 tons of gold (about half of what Gaddafi was holding), not 750,000. It is noted that only 1,500 tons of gold have ever been traded in world history, as stated in the House of Lords.
The issues that are initially brought out, issues inconsistent with international convention and starting the reader on what is only the surface discovery of two decades of crimes involving dozens of governments are as follows:
At no time has the Federal Reserve Bank of New York been authorized to hold the funds indicated
However, documents held by Lord Blackheath prove, conclusively that they did hold such funds and transfer them in a manner as to obscure their origin by using HSBC and the Bank of Scotland. This process, seemingly involving Alan Greenspan, Timothy Geithner and others would appear to be “money laundering” until some other explanation were found. None has been offered.
The “collateralization” of these funds, being 750,000 tons of gold, is proven to be fantasy. These funds then, in no way or manner, are related to Brunei. The presentation of this false transaction has been conclusively proven to be a “cover and deception” project such as an intelligence organization would use.
The transfer of these funds, all done without any authorizations, governmental or otherwise, particularly without agreements, payment of interest to the United States and without knowledge and approval of congress makes every aspect of this criminal in nature, a violation of innumerable statues.
The receipt and use of these funds by the 20 banks, two of which are Wall Street’s largest, and the use of these funds to generate profits while the funds themselves are held “off the books” and the profits hidden and laundered, themselves the earnings of funds received through criminal acts makes any and all involved part of a criminal enterprise.
WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM
There is no record of the Federal Reserve being authorized to “create” $15 trillion, equal to the entire national debt of the United States.
There is, however, proof that funds that totalled, at one time, $27 trillion had been earned surreptitiously, disposed of as part of an intelligence operation against the Soviet Union and then later stolen with accusations made against George H. W. Bush as being the perpetrator.
I have spoken with two individuals, one President Reagan’s intelligence coordinator and the other Chief Legal Cousel for the Central Intelligence Agency regarding these funds.
Both have indicated that former President Bush had asked that these funds, totalling $27 trillion, be transferred to his control, that threats were made by Bush and that many involved in this operation suffered, issues including murder, illegal arrest, torture and detention among them.
The individuals I am speaking of repreatedly met with President Bush over these funds, disputed his claim to them, and indicate that the majority of the funds are the property of the people of the United States.
These funds are the mysterious “Wanta” funds, monies earned through years of currency trading aimed at collapsing the Soviet Union, a plan originated by President Ronald Reagan, then White House Intelligence Coordinator Lee Wanta and CIA Director William Casey. I have been told that, while this operation went forward under President Reagan, he had ordered that his successor, George H. W. Bush not be “briefed” out of “mistrust” for Bush.
The funds themselves were earned through a scheme of trading Soviet roubles at enormous profit, a practice that eventually collapsed their government.
A portion of the profits are subject to current litigation in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Lee presiding. I have over 2,000 pages of documents on this case which shows a remainder of the original funds had been transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond by the Bank of China, a party to the rouble trading practice, in 2006 and is claimed as totally owned by Ameritrust Corporation.
That amount was $4.5 trillion of which we hold the SWIFT transfer documents.
The other monies, which “likely” make up from the unspent portion of the missing $27 trillion, may well constitute all that is recoverable.
Wanta, sole shareholder in Ameritrust, has offered his companies share, valued by the court now at $7.2 trillion, entirely to the American people as intended by President Reagan.
The origin of the additional funds, issued by the Federal Reserve during the 80s and 90s, totalling nearly $8 trillion is unknown. High ranking sources within the US government indicate that this can only be either the remainder of funds Wanta raised or profits made from them after the majority of funds were stolen.
Stories, some quite good actually, and personal interviews plus my own review of documents would place the theft or conversion of these funds initially with:
The Bush family
The “P2,” a Masonic lodge operating out of Switzerland involved in dozens of terror bombings tied to “Operation Gladio”
People around Wanta himself including the CIA
What is lacking is a source for half of these funds. Technically, they don’t exist as there is no record of them being originated by nor transferred to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York though there are clear and discernible records of them being transferred out of that institution which never possessed them, according to their 2010 audit, in the first place.
WANTA MONEY
The transfer of Wanta funds, they can be assumed to have no other origin as they track into the Federal Reserve banking system while in escrow and are currently awaiting payment based on the orders of President Obama in accordance with findings of the federal court, is complicated by the Scottish transfer.
Either Wanta has claim to the entire amount or it is the property of the US government. That no effort has been made to secure the funds or enforce criminal and civil remedies to recover enough money to pay the entire US national debt and more, as with earnings, we are nearing well over $30 trillion by this time, is an indication that a criminal conspiracy with enough influence to overrule our own government is involved. Whether that “conspiracy is, as noted, the Bush family, rouge sections of the CIA or a secret society such as P2, one we can prove or others we only suspect exist, is another story.
The lack of action, here or as requested by Lord James in Britain, is, in itself, proof of both the seriousness and actuality of these events and the powers that can prevent any inquiry when irrefutable documents such as SWIFT transfers are available.
In fact, Lord James has offered a wealth of documents which, when combined with the 2000 pages of Wanta “discovery” from the Federal Court, constitutes more than prima facia evidence of money laundering, conversion, terrorism or worse.
Thus, the inaction in the face of overwheming and unquestioned proof is inexplicable.
FLOOD OF WANTA LITIGATION AND INDICTMENTS COMING
Currently, Wanta’s legal status is as technical conservator and owner of $7.2 trillion. However, as nearly half that is owed in taxes and the court settlement required Wanta to purchase $1 trillion in treasury bonds, the federal government should show positive interest other than President Obama and a few others.
More are being obstructionist with the payout and exercise of $3 trillion in US debt reduction.
This is, not only illegal but an indication of conspiracy.
In addition, Russian Prime Minister Putin has communicated that he awaits the agreed upon 3% payment of Russian taxes, initially on the $7.2 trillion. Will Putin want to be paid on the entire $15 trillion plus interest and will Russia and/or the US have interest in why the Bank of Scotland transferred these funds to 20 European banks to trade in MTN’s (mid term notes) without any authorization or agreement, any participation or sharing of profits.
As the funds, at least the half which the US government can claim ownership of, combined with the interest and earnings of, would quickly put the US “in the black,” again we look at, not just the press blackout on the Wanta litigation of the last 6 years but the press blackout on Lord James of Blackheath and the wealth of damning documentation he submitted to Parliament.
Nothing has been done since, it is as though the proof submitted was so dangerous that those moments in time have been erased by a mysterious g-dlike power.
What makes Wanta dangerous is that he has begun to distribute funds, some to government entities, counties and states, law enforcement agencies, giving them standing, not just in recovering funds intended for their use but in helping prosecute anyone involved in interfering with or attempting to divert funds.
One grand jury is being formed to investigate diversion of Wanta funds even at this early date. It is likely that Wanta/Ameritrust funds earmarked for border protection could lead to the indictment of high ranking US officials. This is only the beginning.
If the Royal Bank of Scotland doesn’t think it should be expecting the biggest chargeback in the history of the world, they are in for a shock.
This story really shows how far gone we are. Note the Muslim guard wasn't even present when he made his remark but the man was forcibly detained until he apologised to the Muslim!
As David Jones arrived at the security gates at Gatwick airport, he was looking forward to getting through swiftly so he could enjoy lunch with his daughters before their flight.
Placing his belongings, including a scarf, into a tray to pass through the X-ray scanner he spotted a Muslim woman in hijab pass through the area without showing her face.
In a light-hearted aside to a security official who had been assisting him, he said: “If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.”
The quip proved to be a mistake. After passing through the gates, he was confronted by staff and accused of racism.
As his daughters, who had passed through security, waited in the departure lounge wondering where he was, he was subjected to a one hour stand-off as officials tried to force him to apologise.
Mr Jones, 67, who is the creator of the popular children’s character Fireman Sam, said: “Something like George Orwell’s 1984 now seems to have arrived in Gatwick airport.
"I feel that my rights as an individual have been violated. What I underwent amounts to intimidation and detention. I was humiliated and degraded in full public view.
"I am a 67-year-old pensioner and have lived my life within the law. I do not have even one point on my driving licence.”
He said that when he made his initial remark the security guard had appeared to agree with him, saying: “I know what you mean, but we have our rules, and you aren’t allowed to say that.”
As he went through the metal detecting arch, his artificial hip set off the alarm, prompting a full search from a guard. It was after this, and as he prepared to rejoin his two grown-up daughters, that he was confronted by another guard who said he was being detained because he had made an offensive remark.
“I repeated to her what I had said and told her that I had said nothing racist,” he said. “She took my passport and boarding pass and I was then escorted back through the security zone into the outer area. Here the female security guard proceeded to question me further, inferring many things that I had not said.
“It was impossible to get her to listen to reason. We were then joined by a second female security guard who stated that she was Muslim and was deeply distressed by my comment.
“I again stated that I had not made a racist remark but purely an observation that we were in a maximum security situation being searched thoroughly whilst a woman with her face covered walked through. I made no reference to race or religion. I did not swear or raise my voice.”
According to Mr Jones, who was due to board a British Airways flight to Portugal, where he now lives and runs a restaurant on the Algarve, the British Airways duty manager was then called in and sided with the security staff.
He continued: “I had now been detained for some time and my daughters were worried, calling me on my phone asking what was happening. We were going around in circles. I maintained that I had said nothing offensive and the security guard was continuing to accuse me. This had taken about 15-20 minutes and looked as though it was not going to be resolved.
“I asked the security guard if she was going to charge me to which she said no but I could not leave until I had apologised to the Muslim guard.
“At this point I asked for the attendance of a police officer. After some time he arrived but it was also plainly evident that he was keeping to the politically correct code. I told him that if there was a case then he should arrest me.
“I was told that we now live in a different time and some things are not to be said. They decided again that I would only be allowed to continue on my journey if I were to apologise to the Muslim guard. My reply was that as I had not made a racist remark it would be impossible for me to apologise.”
Mr Jones, a former member of the Household Cavalry and retired fireman, added: “I felt that I made a logical observation. That while everyone was being subjected to an invasive search it was illogical that someone should be let through with their face covered. I am not opposed to having this level of security but it must be equal for all.”
Eventually, Mr Jones said, the BA manager suggested that he should agree that what he had said “could” be considered offensive by a Muslim guard.
With his flight departure time now fast approaching Mr Jones agreed to the compromise.
Escorted by the police officer, he was taken through security where he was again subjected to a full search after his hip replacement set off the metal detector alarms.
Mr Jones said he intended to complain formally to the Gatwick airport authorities and British Airways about the incident last Sunday.
Department for Transport rules do not prevent people covering their faces at UK airports for religious reasons.
However, all passengers must show their faces to UK Borders officials when they pass through passport control. Muslim women who wear hijabs can request that their identity is checked by a female immigration officer and they can also ask that they be taken to a private room before they remove their head wear.
A spokesman for Gatwick airport said: “The security team are examining the incident to ensure that the issue was managed in the right way.
"They are talking to the people involved to understand what the issue was and how it came to have the police involved.”
Islamist fighters in Somalia last night warned of deadly reprisals on Britain's streets if the West mounted military action in the war-torn east African state.
As a conference on Somalia's future closed in London, the country's President appealed for bombing raids on the positions of al-Shabaab, which recently merged with al-Qa'ida. Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed said he would welcome air strikes against the "menace" of the insurgents, warning: "This isn't a Somali problem, it has to be addressed globally."
David Cameron left open the option of authorising action against al-Shabaab, which controls much of Somalia, but he made clear his preference for a lasting political settlement.
Last night the spokesman for the Islamist group, Sheikh Ali Dhere, warned it could launch terror attacks in the West if countries such as Britain and the US intervened in Somalia. "Your peace depends upon us being left alone," he told Channel 4 News. "If you do not let us live in peace, you will not enjoy peace either."
Al Shabaab was not invited to yesterday's conference, but Mr Cameron insisted its fighters could be brought into the tentative political process if they laid down their weapons and genuinely renounced violence.
Several dozen Britons are thought to be fighting for Al Shabaab and the fear in intelligence circles is that they could return to this country on UK passports with the expertise and motivation to launch terror attacks. The UK believes that Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan are now the world's main breeding grounds for Islamist terrorism.
The power vacuum in the country has allowed pirates to disrupt important shipping lanes and kidnap several western tourists. The British woman, Judith Tebbutt, is still missing after being seized five months ago from a Kenyan resort near the Somali border. Tanzania has agreed to detain and try suspected pirates captured by the Royal Navy, with Mauritius expected to follow suit.
Britain will lead an international taskforce that will attempt to identify the figures behind the pirate trade and to agree a common declaration that ransoms will never be paid. Somali pirates are estimated to have earned about £110m from ransoms last year.
The conference also called for "new momentum" to be injected into the political process, agreeing that a permanent government should replace Somalia's temporary regime by August.
Terror threat: Who are Al-Shabaab?
The group exercises control over vast swathes of the south, where it imposes its own version of Sharia, and until recently had fought African Union forces for control of Mogadishu. In August 2011, Al-Shabaab began pulling fighters out of Mogadishu, raising hopes that humanitarian groups would be able to step up aid deliveries. Its fighters come from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Gulf region, as well as the United States and Britain.
Last month, the group's leadership announced that Al-Shabaab would be joining forces with Al Q'aida – with whom it had previously shared ideological ties.
THE colossal scale of mass immigration in recent years represents a savage betrayal of the British people by our governing elite.
No one ever voted for Britain to be transformed from a cohesive nation into a fractured multicultural society. Yet just such a revolution has been brought about by the ideological trashing of our national identity and the wilful collapse of our borders, with the influx of foreign arrivals now running at almost 600,000 a year, most from Africa and Asia.
What we are witnessing is the systematic destruction of a once-proud country. As the pace of change accelerates Britain is fast becoming a place without any mutual sense of belonging or any shared heritage or even a common language.
The very concept of our British national identity is sinking into irrelevancy. In large swathes of our cities, amid the burkas and babble of foreign tongues, too many indigenous Britons now feel like aliens in their own land.
The revolutionary impact of mass immigration has been reinforced this week by astonishing figures that show two-thirds of all babies born in London have foreign parents.
In just six of the 32 boroughs in the capital were British parents in the majority, while in Newham, part of the East End, an incredible 84.1 per cent of births were to migrants, most from India, Pakistan or Poland.
Across London’s schools white pupils are now in the minority. N or is London alone in this trend. In the East Midlands’ city of Leicester, where just 44 per cent of school pupils are white, it seems likely that the majority of the overall Asian-dominated population could be non-white as early as 2015, making it the first urban conurbation in Britain to achieve that landmark.
Given the huge levels of immigration and high migrant birth rate several other cities will quickly follow.
In January 2010 Birmingham Council announced that Asian children outnumbered white pupils in local primary schools and it is probable that the city will have a non-white majority before the end of the decade.
The same is true of Oldham and Bradford. According to one study by Oxford University, white Britons will be in a minority across the whole of the United Kingdom by 2066, little more than half a century from now.
In modern history no country has ever gone through such rapid social upheaval without being conquered by an enemy power.
If this kind of enforced revolution were taking place elsewhere Left-wingers would be outraged. Fulminating about the rights of the indigenous population they would portray the change as a colonialist takeover.
But when Britain’s own nationhood is under threat they celebrate because they are the architects of this change. In government from 1997 to 2010 Labour cynically used mass immigration as a vast tool of social engineering to restructure Britain.
The impression sometimes given is that uncontrolled immigration has been an accident, supposedly the result of administrative incompetence.
This outlook was largely adopted over the latest fiasco at the UK Border Agency, which was castigated in an official report this week over its failure to maintain proper checks.
As a result of this condemnation Home Secretary Theresa May announced on Tuesday that she is to split the UK Border Force from the agency to improve efficiency.
Yet the truth is that the Border Agency failed so dramatically in its work because Labour politicians wanted it to. They loathed the idea of a tough approach to immigration.
A free-for-all is precisely what they desired to refashion Britain. As Tony Blair’s aide Andrew Neather famously admitted, Labour sought to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.
That is why they eagerly allowed the immigration rate to rocket by relaxing controls and dishing out passports, work permits and student visas like confetti.
If Labour had really wished to crack down on immigration they could easily have done so. But the integrity of our position was destroyed from within by Labour’s wreckers, who were filled with loathing for the traditions of our country, obsessed with the dogma of racial diversity and eager to expand their inner city client vote.
Their revolution was implemented against the will of the people through repression, whereby open debate was stifled through hysterical accusations of racism and through remorseless propaganda about the benefits of immigration, especially supposed economic growth and the “cultural enrichment of ourcommunities”.
We can now see how hollow all that propaganda was. Mass immigration has brought falling living standards as millions of working-class Britons have been thrown on the economic scrap heap.
The burdens on our infrastructure have become intolerable from the costs of welfare benefits for migrants to the pressure on schools and housing.
Contrary to all the upbeat rhetoric about diversity, immigration has also brought social dislocation, urban crime and gangland violence.
Even Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, recently admitted that “some districts are on their way to becoming fully fledged ghettoes”.
Moreover alien practices have been imported into our once well-ordered society, such as mass voter fraud, sharia law or exploitation of vulnerable white teenage girls.
It is tragic to see Britain’s continuing decline. The only way the process can be halted is by a government tough enough to bring back real immigration controls.
