Friday 28th November: David Cameron delivered yet another defining “big EU speech”. It was much anticipated – again – billed as a UKIP-busting game-changer – again. It was much criticised, as it turned out. But if people had learned the simple lessons by now, they would know that it doesn’t matter if David Cameron promises total impossibilities in return for electoral support. It doesn’t matter that he makes guarantees of controlling immigration – within the borderless EU, and on the back of a broken guarantee to reduce immigration. As much as this sort of thing deserves gob-smacked incredulity, and easy as it is to point to and declare it lies, people should also be well aware that none of this matters to Cameron at this late stage. As this site pointed out to its readership on one of the previous occasions Cameron was going to re-sculpt the political landscape and make the earth disappear from beneath UKIP, it’s not what Cameron declares to be policy that is important – rather it’s all about reaching beyond the rational to appeal to an emotional response. This time, the message was basically reasserting all the garbage that has lodged as a fact in the minds of those desiring a balkanised Progressive-Marxist corporately-governed Police State, which is this: if you were going to sign on to UKIP to fix the problem of immigration (Cameron can’t deny there is one) then you would be unleashing a racist force that would cause a whole world of trouble and usher in some kind of reign of terror.
And suggesting that this meme has been thought up by people higher-up in the echelons of the Establishment than Cameron for dissemination across the wider united LibLabCon front, recently the Labour MP, Diane Abbott, who is firmly on the record as not being above the odd bit of racism herself, has been using similar language in her own race-baiting attack on UKIP. Moreover, having made the 3000-miles-away race-relation trouble in Ferguson, Missouri, her business, Abbott has been referring to it with regards to what she characterises as black victimhood at the hands of the British Establishment. As the first black MP, Abbott is not an insignificant protagonist, but she has also given visibility to an activist movement that is agitating to divide people politically along racial lines – the appalling divide and conquer she accuses white people of. The possible danger, with Ferguson as the model, is all too apparent.
At the tip of the spear, and in his own speech, the greatest proportion of Cameron’s chutzpah lay not in his claims in the face of inevitable EU obstruction to the measures on immigration which he was proposing, but in the way he projected the LibLabCon’s misdeeds of an entire epoch onto the new boys and girls on the block:
“We must anchor the debate [about immigration] in fact, not prejudice.
“We must have no truck with those who use immigration to foment division or as a surrogate for other agendas. We should distrust those who sell the snake-oil of simple solutions.”
This is clearly an instruction to reject UKIP – and what for? Because UKIP’s preoccupation with immigration is indicative of the closet racism which Cameron had already defined as being an attribute of the party of Fruit Cakes and Loonies. Given a chance, it will come out into the open, and then the British electorate would be sorry. Pure nonsense and fear-mongery of course. Controlling immigration, and making it fairer for people coming from Africa, for instance, is definitely not racist, nor of a racist agenda. The accusation of racism levelled at UKIP is a deliberate and knowing lie – this is why Cameron daren’t even say the word at this stage. He would get into so much new trouble if he did.
But to be absolutely precise, it is rich of Cameron to talk about how to debate immigration because the Establishment strategy up until now has expressly been not to talk about it. There has been no debate about immigration all the while it has been allowed to occur, since 1997, at an historically unprecedented rate. This is purely due to the fact that if there had been a grown up and informed debate with a vote to follow, then, considering all the pros and cons, the immigration would not have been allowed. Mass immigration, therefore, has been implemented as a subversive programme of political revolution undermining the sovereignty of the British people – this much is verifiable in word as much in deed; see Andrew Neather’s 2009 admission that immigration was for “rub[bing] the Right’s nose in diversity”. Let us be clear here – for Right read the unreconstructed occupants of the old cultural landscape; i.e. most Britons. For diversity read Equality and Diversity – the central plank of British Marxism. If we are going to talk about prejudice, we need to recognise the prejudice that is the prime cause of all the resultant problems that have been plaguing the UK since Neather’s Champagne Nu-Labour Party unleashed its vicious assault: the prejudice of the Establishment against indigenous Britons. This is the prejudice of a self-entitled elite that sees the country beneath it, whatever the colour of skin, as prey and stock to be used and abused as it sees fit.
As for using immigration to foment division – the British Establishment’s stock-in-trade is divide and conquest. The most immediately dangerous example of the phenomenon has been the importation and accommodation of Islam in order to demonise Muslims amongst the greater population as terrorists. It is also the case in point for immigration being used by the Establishment as a surrogate for other agendas – namely creating pretexts for the police state and otherwise illegal wars on Middle Eastern sovereign states. Cameron’s statement, in which he tries once again to associate his real political opposition as racist, is therefore as diabolically perverse as it could possibly be. Once again a man who must ne’er or rarely see or saw a black face in his privileged private life, and a man who is currently allied in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine with, not neo-Nazis, but proper Nazis with inherited SS-derived insignia, and a man who oversaw the ethnic cleansing of black Africans from Tarwergha in Libya, gets away with repeating the slur that UKIP is motivated by racial hatred.
As this stage we must turn to Diane Abbott. There is no other way to describe her recent activity than using immigration to foment political division along racial lines; or race-baiting, as its exact equivalent in the USA is called. The following, which quotes an Abbott speech, is from an article with the headline: “Abbott: Ukip’s racist rhetoric will lead to violence”.
“Politicians and the media must wake up to the fact that some of the rhetoric peddled to improve poll ratings and sell copy actually fosters violence and abuse on the streets,” she said.
Of course, the most strikingly concerning element of Abbott’s language is the mention of the provocation of violence. In truth, this mention is probably to throw critics off the scent, although it should not be underestimated as an expression of a real threat – this will be returned to by and by. The best picture of what is being engineered with such language is better understood with further detail supplied by the article:
The MPs speech on combating racism in times of austerity was supported by the Muslim Student’s Association and Operation Black Vote (OBV).
OBV director Simon Woolley called for politicians to “realise their moral and political responsibility in articulating a political view that is more inclusive than divisive.”
And he revealed ambitious plans to stop racists claiming marginal seats at the general election by ensuring BME (black, minority, ethinic) voters turn out.
In other words, there is a plot afoot to organise the black and ethnic electorate to vote against UKIP in marginal seats at the 2015 election. Key to this plan is demonization of UKIP by the likes of Abbott who baselessly claim that that party is stoking racial tension to get elected. The startling irony should be obvious to anyone with a brain, for the truth is in fact upside down and the other way around. It is clearly here demonstrated that it is Abbott who is appealing to ethnic minorities to divide politically along racial lines. And it cannot be a coincidence that all this comes after Labour announced the creation of a special unit to deal with UKIP. It’s a good bet that its mode of operation has been revealed.
What with Cameron, and Abbott, and the fact that a meme has been started in corporate-media about how UKIP would treat the children of migrants married to Britons as migrants themselves – which is abject nonsense – there has to be a suspicion that the shadowy Establishment is the prime mover. Primarily through its Red Sock-puppet, the concern has to be that the Government is trying to introduce some American-style deep-level racially-based social division to Britain. It cannot be understated how very serious this is. As Ferguson, Missouri is demonstrating, this can only develop into irrevocable balkanisation and alienation of one community from another, notions of victimisation, protest and violence, which all provokes a level of police intervention that would never normally be tolerated or tolerable. In short, it is the way to the police state under permanent martial law.
As it happens, Abbott has evoked Ferguson as she has been going about her mission of divide and conquer, and its detail must be discussed briefly here. The officer thought to have illegally killed Michael Brown has been adjudged not to be indictable by a grand jury. The physical evidence confirms that there is no whitewash. But at the same time, as American alternative media has documented, the situation in terms of public reaction has been exacerbated into riot conditions by outside provocateurs – in one case these people were outed as working for the Department of Homeland Security. The theory is that the US Government would like a state of martial law to exist to pre-empt wider reaction to an imperial President and his treason by executive order, and would like to see the troubles in Ferguson blamed on Black Victimisation by White Establishment as a fuse for the same sort of turmoil in other cities. Conspiracy theories aside, the very least to be said about Ferguson is, as this article does, that at the root the trouble is the way that Americans have been manipulated by a ruling class for political ends.
Back to Diane Abbot again, for she has been co-opting this specific perceived victimisation of blacks by a white establishment for her own ends – an irresponsible thing to do given how close the situation is getting to full-on insurrection. On Wednesday 26th November there was a protest outside the US embassy to show solidarity with people struggling with the consequences of white Establishment racism in Ferguson. We know this because a spokesman, Sabby Dhalu, of the organising group, Stand Up To Racism, went on the record as saying: “The cheapness of black lives in the US is a reflection of racism that black communities face at the hands of the police that must be stopped.”
Ahead of the protest, Diane Abbott chipped in her own inflammatory two-penneth.
Labour MP Diane Abbott has added her voice to the group’s calls for justice.
“My deepest sympathies go out to the family of Mike Brown,” she said. “Not only have they lost a loved one but following the Grand Jury’s decision they no doubt feel the strongest sense of injustice, which can only make their pain worse.
“The anger and disruption that has already followed this decision extends beyond the killing of Mike right to the root of long standing issues with the criminal justice system. Just as in Britain, the black community in the US has a fraught history with the police. It is one of the reasons I have always been against the arming of police.”
Clearly, then, Abbott is making an equivalence between British and American race-relations between a white Establishment and a black minority group. It’s an equivalence that cannot be taken seriously given any real consideration of actual history. But it has been useful to express a concern that universally armed British police would necessarily kill black people – and the construction from which this statement is built upon provides further sinister nuance: the police would do it because they are white, and they are racist. As Abbot then goes on to insist that she is politically opposed to this, the motivation is clearly to garner political support based on unjustifiable fear mongering.
Across the pond in other states, Abbott’s political kin are doing exactly the same. It has been roundly condemned as race-baiting. In a particular case during the November mid-term elections, Democrats in Georgia used an image of two black children on their political material. The message read: “If you want to prevent another Ferguson in their future…[vote Democrat]”. The reader should note the two hand palms printed on the placard with the caption “Don’t shoot”. This is a reference to the claim that Brown was surrendering when shot – a fiction according to the police officer and which really doesn’t do justice to how aggressive Brown was in the version of events vindicated by the grand jury. Rather disgustingly, given that their immense remoteness from the incident should have provided an opportunity for calm reflection and fair appraisal, the Stand Up To Racism group used this symbolism in their protest, as a picture of the event attests to. Appallingly, Diane Abbott retweeted this image, and so she proudly owns it in her own twitter stream.
The behaviour demonstrates that Abbott and her fellow travellers are intent on insisting on a flawed narrative to sow seeds of discontent where otherwise there would not be any. Abbott depicts black anger against white rule that will even kill rather than act in a conciliatory way to assuage rage stemming from notions of injustice. This is nowhere near a true reflection. In fact the contemporary characteristic of the times is the Country against the Government to reinstate self-rule, not Country against itself. Indeed, the risk of the Country uniting to deal with Government is why the Establishment would always be anxious to introduce a schism in a power that opposes it – indeed, the British Establishment is currently very anxious to introduce one. Cameron’s stinking verbal droppings suggest the scheme involves creating political divides on racial lines over misrepresentations of UKIP’s position on immigration. Diane Abbott works for this agenda, and does so with unseemly relish – talking of violence as a result of UKIP rhetoric as she does.
Abbott’s infamous tweet – the one that got her into trouble at the time – read “White people love playing ‘divide and rule’. We should not play their game.” But it is the Establishment’s game of divide and conquer that she is playing, and as such she does not work for the interests of black British people against a white British people who she would have everyone believe reject them. She is being utterly deceitful. With the mention of violence in mind, of course, of the utmost concern is the fact that the aspiring zeitgeist manifests itself in the language of the Prime Minister of the country; this is a man who is in all sorts of trouble himself with an electorate who have found him out as a liar. Given the rough treatment of Miliband, the Establishment apparently wants him in post after 2015. One really does wonder what lengths it will go to to keep him there.