Category Archives: Economic Dominance

Pertaining to industrial matters, unemployment, and anything that affects wealth

Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part Two: the Modern Industrial Strategy

As far too many people get excited about the prospect of Theresa May & Co. negotiating with the EU to achieve Fake Brexit (i.e. continued compliance and subjection under Globalism with a priority on ensuring the survival of the EU), passing completely under the radar is a sinister Government plan to inculcate normalcy bias about the outcome; in other words to manage perception against expectation to mitigate the impact of disappointment and to stifle opposition. It’s all part of The Modern Industrial Strategy that has been touted by Theresa May as a means “to ensure every nation and area of the United Kingdom can make the most of the opportunities ahead”, but it looks like 1) a reinvigoration of David Cameron’s Big Society (the author’s criticism of which is to be read here), tweaked with Corporate intervention in communities for isolating people from information that threatens Globalism, 2) a doubling down on an insistence of the authoritative voice of the Establishment in media and in education, and 3) a strategy to hasten the onset of robotics and A.I. in the workplace as a development of the economic attack on Britons through displacement (with immigrants currently being deployed in that capacity). If the reader is sceptical, please see the seemingly leaked Government plans to wage a £60 million Public Relations war on “Breitbart and stuff like that, the conspiratorial media”, and the increasing efforts to make the public aware of the certainty of job-losses through “human superfluity” – as in the article here:

Please also notice that first article in the same series as this one – which can be found here – has since been vindicated by the revelation of the intention of Government ministers to pass a statutory instrument (that doesn’t require a vote on it), the Unified Patent Court Agreement, into law which will mean that the “standards for products and inventions are set in Europe not Britain” (from here).

As in the previous article, this one will analyse recent speeches made by Theresa May about Britain “leaving” the EU. These speeches show that May has correctly identified the negative impact of Globalism as being the cause of the EU Referendum result. The reader might have thought that it was EU membership that people didn’t like, and on the surface, that would be true. But the EU is the starting node of a centralised system of worldwide corporate-Government known as Globalism, which has the objective of destroying the middle class, national unity and identity in regions of the globe that before Political Correctness used to be known as the First World – and thus ridding itself of effective political opposition. As was pointed out in the first article, Theresa May used the word “globalisation” when she means “Globalism”. (Again, all the extracts that follow are from Theresa May’s speeches unless otherwise stated.)

Because talk of greater globalisation can make people fearful. For many, it means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut. It means having to sit back as they watch their communities change around them.

And in their minds, it means watching as those who prosper seem to play by a different set of rules, while for many life remains a struggle as they get by, but don’t necessarily get on.

Theresa May says that she will make Globalism work for everyone. If we keep reading May’s speech, though, we begin to reconcile what is being proposed with what is already known: Globalism isn’t meant to work for everyone; it is wholly and entirely about preying on the mass of humanity.

And these tensions and differences are increasingly exposed and exploited through the expansion of new technologies and the growth of social media.

Here we are then, this is not about changing Globalism, but changing perception of it. Just look at the dishonesty of Theresa May. Exposing the injustices of Globalism is characterised by her as exploiting tensions. The former cannot be done without angering the people who suffer. The British Establishment has Apollo syndrome. It regrets that Daphne should turn into a tree to avoid being raped, and it certainly doesn’t expect her to assert her humanity and fight back.

But let’s just pretend that Theresa May is genuine, and wants to change the truth of the matter rather than perception of the truth. Let’s look at what can be treated as a defining statement about what is planned:

Because if you are someone who is just managing, just getting by, you don’t need a Government that will get out of the way. You need an active Government that will step up and champion the things that matter to you.

This is horrifying stuff. Government should certainly get out of way. Government should not be involved in any aspect of a free person’s life. It might be hard for a Briton to appreciate this idea, being coddled as they are from birth to grave – a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. Britain is a Marxist state, and it’s humorous to the Nth degree to see people campaigning against a socialist outcome which has already been implemented. The British Government has been “stepping up” for 60-plus years – governing for Globalist congruity.  The decline in living standards and expectations will continue as it “steps up” anew.

But May continues…

I believe such a strategy – that addresses the long-standing and structural weaknesses in our economy – is essential if we are to promote the benefits of free markets and free trade as we wish.

A quick note; here she equates Globalism with free markets. The essence of Globalism is crony capitalism, where a person or a corporation, usually on its way to becoming an arm of Government itself, is favoured by legislation – that it has probably lobbied for. This is not the same as a free market, where everyone has a naturally equal chance of selling his wares. That aside, what are the weaknesses that are obstacles to promoting the “benefits” of Globalism?

As we continue to bring the deficit down, we will take a balanced approach by investing in our economic infrastructure – because it can transform the growth potential of our economy, and improve the quality of people’s lives across the whole country.

The national deficit is indeed decreasing – and you’ll probably see that your local council has sold off premises and property to make this happen. In other words, how much is being borrowed every year is decreasing because less is being borrowed to spend on the welfare state (the extent to which Government is involved in one’s life). This frees up borrowing to spend on “infrastructure”. Now, the naïve may think that May wants to attempt to generate tax revenue so that it can outstrip that which is borrowed (creating a surplus instead of a deficit), and debt can be paid down. But this would be very naïve. It follows that if Government can’t exert control through welfare, then it must do so through anything that replaces it. There will still be welfare, but its quality and quantity will degenerate even more. Welfare is crucial as a social control mechanism, and so can never be driven out like the social ill it really is. And the overall Globalist scheme continues; to swap real wealth out from the masses and replace it with something that has value only through corporate-Government fiat.

Our strategy is not about propping up failing industries or picking winners, but creating the conditions where winners can emerge and grow. It is about backing those winners all the way to encourage them to invest in the long-term future of Britain.

This is outright lies. Globalism is all about picking winners, and then propping them up when they are deemed too big to fail. Corporate giants don’t like new boys, and don’t like competition. The following are extracts taken from a Government press release entitled “PM unveils plans for a modern Industrial Strategy fit for Global Britain” which adds some depth to May’s outlining (it’s one of two press releases quoted in this article; the other is “Technical education at heart of modern Industrial Strategy”:

Upgrading infrastructure

We must upgrade our standards of performance on digital, energy, transport, water and flood defence infrastructure, and better align central Government infrastructure investment with local growth priorities.

Delivering affordable energy and clean growth

We need to keep costs down for businesses, and secure the economic benefits of the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The proof that the Government is yanking everyone’s chain is in the claim that it will keep costs down as it continues to roll out renewable energy – which has long been established as being a scam; making people pay above the odds for energy is the whole point. But consider the statements under the umbrella heading “Upgrading Infrastructure”. The author might be missing something, but he would say that there isn’t much room for anything new in terms of physical infrastructure. A handful of companies already own the established transport, energy, water, and communications networks, and people just can’t go out and dig new tracts of network, no matter how entrepreneurial they are. Even new digital communications companies usually must deal with the previously State owned BT for access to physical cables. So, for the Government to invest in infrastructure, it must invest in corporations and companies that are already extant and massive. Not only that, if these organisations are not monopolising the infrastructure in certain regions, then they operate cartels with other operators. As a result, people in the UK pay far too much for their amenities, and for their communications; the infrastructure fails through lack of real competition and accountability. Who is really going to benefit when the Government rewards this with new shovels of tax payers’ money?

We will go further to reform our schools to ensure every child has the knowledge and the skills they need to thrive in post-Brexit Britain.

In its press briefings, the Government talks about “ensuring everyone has the basic skills needed in a modern economy”. The obvious riposte is to say that the UK has had 40 years of post-Grammar education, and the Government is still talking about skills shortages. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of Grammar schools where people can generally get a good education. Officially, supposedly, the Government is opposed to grammar education on grounds of Equality and Diversity. As always, underneath the Leftist exterior beats the corporate-monopolist motivation: the UK Government doesn’t want everyone who can to get a good education, because then everyone who can, will start to compete.

The plan seems to be to have technical colleges as an alternative to universities – rather like polytechnics then, the reader might think? Well no. This statement makes the intent clear (emphasis added): “building a new system of technical education to benefit the half of young people who do not go to university”.

This is what Theresa May says of it (as quoted in abovementioned press briefings):

Our action will help ensure young people develop the skills they need to do the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future. That means boosting technical education and ensuring we extend the same opportunity and respect we give university graduates to those people who pursue technical routes.

So, the people who can’t make the grade to go to university (and this is definitely easier than it used to be) go into technical college. The comparison one would like to make is, as mentioned, the old polytechnics, but this wouldn’t be fair. These institutions were for a vocational/academic mixture, and most who attended them were quite capable of going to university. In the end, technical institutes, polytechnics and universities offered much the same sort of thing. The Government proposal seems to be that it wants to put the people who don’t go university through technical college. And so maybe if we have to compare Theresa May’s Technical Colleges with a classification of educational establishment from the recent past, then they would surely be more like municipal Art Colleges. Doesn’t it just stink of keeping people off the unemployment statistics in the absence of heavy industry and skilled apprenticeships? Doesn’t it smack of tax-payer subsidised play-school for overgrown children who, in a proper country, would be in serious employment?

On the other hand, given that the Government is currently in the process of closing down technical colleges for post-school students, perhaps we should consider the promise of universal training to be another big lie. Greater Manchester University Technical College in Oldham is the seventh “university technical college (UTC)” to announce closure at the end of the 2017 academic year. The article reporting this implies that the college is somehow at fault and being punished for bad performance. This isn’t exactly correct. The author happens to know that a number of colleges in his region are going to be consolidated together, meaning towns suddenly being devoid of further and higher education institutions, and meaning that students will have to travel large distances to do a course they want – meaning that ultimately people are not going to be able to train in the way they would prefer. It appears to be part of a review by Government, which is discussed in this article on the Unison website (here). One suspects that actually the Oldham closure is part of this review.

Another clue about the real intention of Government is the press release statement that there would be “£170 million new Government funding for prestigious Institutes of Technology”.

This isn’t a lot of money, and one wonders if it’s enough to build some infrastructure in order for private companies to take it over. Moreover, the statement implies that there aren’t going to be many of these schools. Far from being widely available, Theresa May’s Technical Colleges are probably going to be farms for corporations. Having had that realisation, it is hard not to see the data fit in to an Agenda 21 Plannedopolis-type scheme for the future. The administrative, systems-implementing and political class goes to university. A button-pushing class to work the machines goes to technical school.

Of course, Theresa May frames the inevitable doom of communities to be “operated” for the good of the One-Percenter – as if they were plantations – amongst all the loving, benevolent things that she says she’s going to make Globalists do.

It means businesses paying their fair share of tax, recognising their obligations and duties to their employees and supply chains, and trading in the right way; companies genuinely investing in – and becoming part of – the communities and nations in which they operate, and abiding by the responsibilities that implies; and all of us taking steps towards addressing executive pay and accountability to shareholders.

Some people will read about level playing fields and believe Theresa May to be reasonable, and even worth a vote in an election. The author focuses on the bit about corporations becoming part of the communities in which they operate. To be fair, lots of people now appreciate the plan, excused by Governments because of faux concerns about sustainability, to deliberately inflict poverty on as many people as possible in the name of control. The UK Government is now taking some pretty skittish horses to the abattoir, so everything has got to be doubly appealing and super-duper future-tastic. So, social engineering and psychological conditioning will now have a name that conveys the loving intent of the benevolent Government: the Shared Society

The mission I have laid out for the Government I lead – to make Britain a country that works for everyone – goes further. It is to build something that I have called the shared society – one that doesn’t just value our individual rights but focuses rather more on the responsibilities we have to one another. That respects the bonds that people share – the bonds of family, community, citizenship and strong institutions.

And that recognises the obligations we have as citizens – obligations that make our society work.

It is these bonds and obligations that make our society strong and answer our basic human need for definition and identity.

And I am absolutely clear that it is the job of Government to encourage and nurture the relationships, networks and institutions that provide that definition, and to correct the injustice and unfairness that divides us wherever it is found.

Too often today, the responsibilities we have to one another have been forgotten as the cult of individualism has taken hold, and globalisation and the democratisation of communications has encouraged people to look beyond their own communities and immediate networks in the name of joining a broader global community.

Focus on this: it is the job of Government to interfere in the things that give people definition and identity. And if your definition and identity is a problem for the Government, then it’s the Government’s job to correct it. Already we are being shown what this means by the abovementioned plot to psychologically assault people who read Breitbart. And getting right down to the brass tacks, dear reader, is that the British Government sees opposition to it, as it carries out its nefarious and criminal activity, as “cult of individualism”. A cult of individualism. It’s High Orwellianism. Cultic behaviour is all to do with conforming, as zealously as possible, with gang prohibition and culture. If anything is a cult, then it’s the society that the British Government is desirous of – unquestioning and controlled in thought and action. Look at the way the British Establishment accuses its enemies of racism to keep its cult followers through shame of being remotely connected with the other side. What May is really talking about here is objection to the way that people have moved away from centralised control of information – so moving away from being in a cult, in fact – to using, and relying on, free forms that come in from outside. One immediately thinks of the Libertarian Movement that has mobilised on the internet, and real alternative nationwide networks of people to achieve the Brexit referendum result and the election of Trump. As we know from her 5th October 2016 Tory conference speech, May doesn’t like Libertarianism.

Time to reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right and to embrace a new centre ground in which Government steps up – and not back – to act on behalf of us all.

Forget left and right. Socialism and libertarianism are indeed opposites, but there isn’t any centre. That’s the big con. The “centre” is control of society for the State’s own purpose. The plan is, post-Brexit, to reassert centralised control through corporate-government “investment” in communities, and doubling down on engineering society so that Government can get on with the job of preying on the masses.

In Britain’s House of Cards economy, growth means adding more cards

According to David Cameron, writing for the Guardian after the G20 summit in Australia, “six years on from the financial crash that brought the world to its knees, red warning lights are once again flashing on the dashboard of the global economy”. In contrast, said the Prime Minister, the British economy was growing, but still at risk because it could not be fully insulated from global outcomes. Nevertheless, he had concluded that the best way forward to guard against exposure from a downturn was to apply the same policies that had already seen the growth.

Be that as it may, the truth of the matter is that British economic growth is a phantom for all the good it does; it is a fact that exists in the statistics on paper only. In reality, hidden negating factors are the reason why there is a new phenomenon being reported by politicians of an economic “lag” whereby if the recovery never seems to be felt in the pocketbook of the working man, then it will be sure to arrive soon. This is nonsense, and surely the evidence should tell of an economy that has just not recovered. And far from Britain being safe from a recession because of Cameron’s governance, the exact opposite is in fact true. Britain’s economy is, compared with itself historically, as weak as soggy paper, and only as robust as a structure made of that material precisely because of Government policy. The other great job of work that Cameron finds he has to do is manage expectation in what will be continuing failure – the British economy is going to fail, because the measures to fix the decline are ideologically not an option for the British Government. Naturally, the insurgency of a political party that hasn’t signed up to this project will cause the sort of desperate negative reaction that UKIP is causing in the Establishment at the moment.

RT’s John Wight offers a guide to the policy that is going to create recession out of a supposed position of recovery in his own response to Cameron’s writings, and if readers would like to examine those, there will be no need to recreate the same analysis here. Cameron spoke of red warning lights being an indication of global weakness, and forgot to mention that he had slap-happily engineered his dashboard to disconnect sensors that tell all too clearly of Britain’s problems. And so the focus here is going to be on examining those signals, and looking at some aspects of the overall general ailment of the British economy.

In true Luikkerland/FBEL tradition, there must be a disclaimer that the author is not an expert in economics – not anywhere near. However, the British Government routinely uses the economy – or public perception of it – as a tool of propaganda, and anyone interested in understanding the method has to explore the subject and acquire at least a rudimentary understanding. And so, while there is an inclination to investigate, the findings may as well be published – which, it is hoped, will also increase the visibility of economic issues amongst others who may be, like the author, not in natural territory.

The latest statistics concerning the British economy showed that in the 3rd quarter of 2014 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by 0.2 percentage points from 0.9% to 0.7% (source). Furthermore, in the last quarter of the year, GDP is expected to shrink to 0.5%; the Guardian article which is the source of this latter piece of data offers an explanation as to the reason why:

The pace of Britain’s recovery is expected to almost halve by the end of the year after a survey showed the service sector expanded at the slowest pace in almost 18 months in October.

What is being referred to is how growth in the service sector of the economy slumped from 1.1% to 0.7% – and, in addition, how much of an influence the service sector, which happens to be the largest constituent part of Britain’s industrial landscape (as it is, admittedly, in most Western countries), has on the entire economy for good or bad. It might be a surprise to some readers to learn that between 1948 and 2013, the service sector’s share of the economy jumped from 46% to 79%. Another unexpected detail, at least from a position of prior relative ignorance, is that this economic sector has a  technical term ‘Tertiary’ – which infers a lower place on a hierarchy of economic components. Investigating more, it will be discovered that the Primary Sector (according to Wikipedia, at least) is the extraction of natural resources; its economic worth is not hard to imagine: clearly when people are engaged in this activity they are bringing forth new material which has inherent value. So whereas before the extraction there was only unrealised wealth potential, value is suddenly added afterwards. Moving on, and the Secondary Sector is manufacturing: turning raw materials into products and thus increasing the value of those materials. Then there is the service sector, which delivers services instead of tangible products – although there is a relationship between the two; services influence costs by affecting the way manufactured products are communicated between buyer and seller, and the costs of products involved in delivering services contribute to the costs of the service.

Just from an intuitive response to this information, one can see a problem arising from the fact that in the service industry, there is no base raw commodity upon which any relative added value can easily be determined – as Wikipedia puts it: “potential customers [may have difficulty] understand[ing] what [product] they will receive and what value it will hold for them”. For as far as the gauging of economic well-being with GDP is concerned, value added is the central concept. [Value added; a definition: “the value of…  [the product] minus the value of goods that are used up in producing it”].


The number of mortgages being taken out with smaller deposits is climbing (ThisIsMoney).

Bringing this to a point, it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that there would exist from time to time a scenario where the cost of a service product is well beyond any real value; indeed, there was a famous scenario in 2008 where financial service products suddenly had no buyers because of a discrepancy between inflated and real value (the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression ensued). This is an appropriate example because critics of Britain’s recovery suggest that it is being driven by the Coalition Government’s tax-payer subsidised sub-prime mortgage bubble. Certainly, house price rises are being attributed to this scheme, and the American experience demonstrated that price rises stimulate a desire to provide more mortgage products on increasingly easier to obtain terms.

But there is a general problem about determining value to do with how the human resource – which is the main input component of a pure service provision – must be rated. The nice answer would be in terms of quality, but in reality, with culture in general decline, value could be more a reflection of confidence and low cunning. As such, value will inevitably be subject to price fixing and arbitrary numbers that bear no relation to the quality of service. Potentially, all goods and service saleable to a consumer will compensate for inflated people costs in a service-dominated economy – and at the thick end of the wedge, shelf stackers, cleaners and coffee servers will be under paid to reduce overheads. Indeed, in the British economy, a situation has been created whereby there is a disconnect between the number of people in employment, which is the subject of much Government crowing, and added economic value. Common sense suggests that such an economy as Britain has is at risk of being wholly scam-comprised – a house of cards that inevitably delivers little return for most of its participants. This latter is certainly true and is evidenced; perhaps here then is the real reason for the “lag” phenomenon of the supposed recovery.

Corroboration of the shakiness of Britain’s service-reliant economy from officialdom is not hard to find, but one suspects it would never raise the subject of charlatanism as economic buoyancy. The following is from an April 2014 Guardian article on the comparisons between Britain’s economy, and that of other G7 nations; an unsustainable economy is explicitly connected with the distinct lack of a manufacturing component:

It is the received wisdom that in the runup to the financial crisis that hit in 2008, the UK economy was too heavily dependent on credit-fuelled consumer spending and on financial services. A shift towards more manufacturing and exports is required if a sustainable economic future is to be built.

On this matter, surely there can be no better demonstration of unsustainability than in how the British Government cannot reduce the extent to which it borrows and the extent to which it allows national debt to accrue. And it should be no surprise that it cannot act against these things when there is no spending empowerment in the service economy of its armies of lower scale operatives, as above mentioned. Zero hour contracts look good for employment statistics, but the resultant shortfall of tax revenue, and the fact that an in-work benefits claim becomes necessary for people to subsist, means that even if an economy looks good on paper, it can’t create conditions for debt-busting growth. Moreover, neither can borrowing be expected to fall when there is a large section of the service sector that depends on Government spending. The State, in partnership with private firms or charities, has invented many wholly new ways in the last few decades to provide services to people who are ill, or are dying, or who don’t speak English, or who want to organise their communities, or who don’t have work, or have learning difficulties, or can’t afford private housing. On top of all this, Britain’s open border, in relation to this service sector industry, is about importing clientele much more than it is about creating growth. (This site has previously covered the fallacy of trying to cut Government spending while borders are wide open).

Manufacturing in 2013 stood at 14% of the British economy – this figure was down from 41% in 1948. There is no political will to do anything about this appalling state of affairs because creating genuine conditions for general affluence is not the objective of the British Government. Instead, it is determined to create a control grid of micromanagement of the population  and a captive consumership for corporate-government financial services (and no alternatives will be countenanced) by which another strand of control – debt slavery – has long been exercised. At the same time, Austerity – a pretence at fixing the economy – has been about stripping the middle class of real wealth through siphoning taxes straight into national loan repayments. Britons have been warned that austerity will last for years – and why not; the British Government can keep borrowing (and skimming off taxes) until Britons are poor enough and controlled enough and until a stage is reached where it will be able to afford to let those elements in the economy that aren’t valuable find their natural levels. The bubble can be allowed to collapse. The ensuing chaos will require a global solution, which will be that long-threatened cashless single currency and transnational political union. Resisting will be viewed as criminally counter-productive, and the control grid will be locked rigidly into place to deal with it. With the people impoverished, homeless, incarcerated, who will be able to do anything about it?

Economic warfare against Britons by the Westminster Puppet – a taboo subject

The Tory Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, came under fire this weekend from the thought-control apparatus of the British Marxist state when he said that British towns ‘felt under siege’ from EU immigrants. It is true to say that this is the sort of utterance that UKIP has learnt to try and steer well clear of in its official expressions and interfaces with corporate-media consumership, fearful that it would be fodder for pretend-liberal-authoritarians to beat them up with. Nevertheless, Downing Street let it be known that Fallon’s was a bad choice of language, and at the same time in several state-controlled places on the internet, it was labelled as being of UKIP (see here and here for example). In other words there was an effort made to stigmatise the phraseology, and to have that stigmatisation stick to the mortal enemy. This could only be expected. For the truth of the matter is that, although UKIP won’t even talk about it, Britons are being subjected to a kind of no-bullets warfare – executed through the economic outcome of EU legal supremacy and EU immigration – that is designed to bring an occupied people – the British – to a point of being completely dominated. It is only natural that the British Government would want to censure any semblance of the expression of the idea, for the British Government never wants the truth of its unlawful activity to become common knowledge, or any language properly describing it to become common currency.

The result of a Mirror poll as of 14:10, 27/10/2014

The result of a Mirror poll as of 14:10, 27/10/2014

All things being considered, it is probably the case that Fallon’s words had had the official go-ahead from the Tory HQ for the purposes of programming his audience and in order that the resultant demonstration of censure, and a complimentary faux-outrage on social media, be triggered. (It is telling that the word ‘swamped’ – one that Fallon also used – seems to be attracting most of the vitriol – it is clearly a tradional trigger word that has been used to feed conditioning about another hitherto neutral word).

The strategic advantage to the British Government of there being a taboo about the appalling conflict of attrition waged against Britons is that no one talks about the facts around the idea – it’s quite obvious. At a time when it is imperative that Britons wake up to how the British Government has become a puppet of powers that the British Constitution expressly forbids, the Government naturally doesn’t want Britons joining the dots. But the undeniable fact of the matter is that the British Government is a vassal government that occupies Westminster, and therefore the entire land, on behalf of offshore interests. The EU is the overt power that rules through the British puppet – although in truth there is a shadowy conglomerate of extra-national corporate and financial powers that uses the EU as cover to regulate a British soviet for the purposes of control for gratuitous self-enrichment. However, it suffices to identify the EU as the power holding the reins, and this is a tangible reality that is clearly evident in the EU treaties, as well as the plethora of both official and off-the-cuff bragging that EU honchos have made about an EU superstate.

Obviously, while there is a threat of the British People becoming aware in sufficient numbers of the situation abovementioned, there is always a danger to the puppet government – who would expect to be punished. Unlike the Normans, this modern invader may have cut the head off the old country, but it didn’t do it through military dominance; it doesn’t have the traditional means to guarantee that any revolt against it will fail. This is why measures have been taken to compensate – namely, the opening of the borders to the European continent, and in particular, the poverty-stricken post Warsaw Bloc countries of Eastern Europe.

The great lie about EU expansion into Eastern Europe told by the puppet government at Westminster was that no one expected such a massive influx of people from Eastern Europe. (While on this point, please note that the official statistics do not do the situation justice. Even in the first few years, Polish immigration on its own was in the hundreds of thousands. There have to be millions of Eastern Europeans in Britain). Part of the big lie was to pretend that when the EU met the old Warsaw Pact countries, it was Western economic culture that was colonising the East. In fact, what really happened was the Warsaw Pact territories, now dislocated from Russia of course, expanded into the West. And leading up to this event, the economic terrain in Britain, without people even realising it, had been terra-formed to accommodate the communist East. It was tantamount to opening up virgin territory into which the people of the East could colonise. It is here that America offers an appropriate comparison (it was UKIP’s Gerard Batten who pointed out that Britain wasn’t the 19th century Wild West). When first the pilgrims and then the pioneers settled America, they were moving into a land that was already occupied by a relatively indigenous people. The difference between the two was that the English settlers had a concept of ownership of land whereas the Indians did not. These days, the Eastern Europeans who come to the UK are facing a similarly disadvantaged native. Britons do not understand the context of the mass movement of people into their nation which is this: Britain has become the most prosperous Soviet welfare state. People who were collectivised and controlled by government for generations in the East have been told that they can now claim entitlement (not property this time) in the new territory, and the entitlement is worth slightly more in the new land. And so they come.

To collect this together, then, in order to deal with the threat of the angry hordes of Briton, and therefore the threat to itself, the vassal British government has had by necessity to import a client population (with voting rights at local level – the pathway to direct governance by the EU) who were not only encouraged to see Britain as an extension of their own country, but who could recognise it as such. Although many Britons recognise this as having all the trappings of an invasion, not many vocalise that recognition out of fear of being slapped down as an extremist. In truth, the invasion itself will not deliver the coup de grace to the British nation; nothing about killing the United Kingdom has been shockingly immediate – the game has always been about slowly catching the monkey. Likewise, the invasion is in fact a platform built stealthily, upon which siege economic warfare can be waged.

Economic warfare is all about limiting the economic activity of an enemy; to weaken it through restricting its ability to operate against one’s own interests. There are certain traditional ways that this is done. Consider first the denial of economic capacity to an enemy, and think about the closure of UK power stations that many commentators say is going to precipitate an energy crisis – and very soon. In a war, one side would bomb the other’s factories. In the EU, the vassal government merely had to cave in to a diktat from Brussels; and in fact, the UK has suffered from this on a catastrophic scale and for a long time – see the Thatcher government era shutdown of British heavy industry.

That being said, the focus is on the economic attack that mass immigration represents. So consider economic warfare as done by blockade – or besiegement (sanctions are the equivalent in an undeclared war). There is also preclusive purchasing, where one side buys from a third party all the stock of something required by the enemy so that the enemy is denied this stock. As surprising as it may be to the reader, these very tactics are being subjected in an applicative way to Britons. To explain: the British Government can be said to have ‘bought’ much of the stock of low-skilled work places in return for supplying that low-wage labour force. Hundreds of thousands of low skilled labour jobs are now denied to British people. The same can be said of a rightful share of the welfare pot – if it is taken up by immigrants who never put in, Britons who did are denied it.

The other tactic of economic warfare follows from this situation; when Britons do not have work to purchase goods and services, then they are effectively being blockaded from normal trade activity – they are not able to operate optimally and they are permanently weakened and contained. Of course, besiegement ends when the besieged gives up, and surrendering in this case means giving up economic independence and capitulating completely to the whim and dictate of government officialdom in return for scraps. Slavery.

Of course, some may say in criticism that ‘it is a dog-eat-dog world and that these economic battles are ones being faced by individuals. As hard as their suffering may be, in general immigration is good for the British economy’. Unfortunately, this is not true at all; there is a very generally damaging effect on the entire economy caused by immigration from the EU. Even a rudimentary understanding of the mechanics of a national economy reveals the methodology – if only more Britons would acquire one. This author was able to glean his from a man who by his qualifications and his Nobel Prize should know what he is talking about:

In a depression… interest rates cannot be cut.

So there is no channel through which lower wages can raise employment! And the likely effect of wage cuts is in fact to reduce employment.

Why? Debt… When individuals have run up debts that are now considered excessive, these debtors end up being forced to slash spending in order to pay that debt. Meanwhile, creditors face no comparable pressure to spend more. So debt… creates a ‘deleveraging’ environment in which overall spending is depressed, possibly depressed enough to cause a depression.

In such an environment, what happens if the level of wages falls? Prices and incomes fall too – but debt does not. So the real burden of debt rises, reinforcing the depressing effect of debt on spending. This means that having ‘flexible’ labor markets, in which wages fall quickly in the face of unemployment, is actually a bad thing under depression conditions.

Paul R Krugman; Economics for the Curious: Inside the Minds of 12 Nobel Laureates (p15/16); January 2014

Britain entered a depression in 2008 – it’s one that experts believe the country never left. Even laymen can see that the much vaunted recovery is merely a corporate buoyancy surrounding the sub-prime mortgage scam being operated by the Coalition. Between 2008 and the present day, millions of Europeans have entered the country. This has had a deflating effect on wages. In addition, the debt burden has grown worse, and interest rates are set to rise, not be lowered. The result will be less employment, less investment in the economy, more failure, and a downward economic spiral. Everyone suffers, not just individuals who are competing with immigrants for low wage jobs.

The reality of the warfare being perpetrated on the Britons by the vassal government at Westminster is precisely why there is a great insistence that the subject not be discussed, and language that describes its reality is rapidly denounced as being prejudiced and almost immoral. However, the outrage being perpetrated by the British Government cannot be hidden from wider appreciation as the general topic of immigration has historically been, and patriots have a duty to make sure it does not. The attack on Britons by their government needs to be talked about so that it can be defended against – ultimately by the removal of the LibLabCon (at the 2015 General Election preferably) from its hitherto permanent office of government. And please note, to recognise EU immigration as a weapon against Britain is not the same as stigmatising EU immigrants. It does mean, however, that in the end, the weapon must be removed in order for the wound to heal, and there are civilised and reasonable ways to do this. This topic must also be talked about in an open way. There needs to be a rational debate so that realistic choices can be made about which people should have leave to remain after the EU treaties which have legalised their sojourn have been revoked, and which cannot. Political pressure that results in any crucial topic having to be discussed in some coded fashion is exerted exactly because of that outcome; any utterances become grist to the mill of people who want the failure that full exploration of the topic would otherwise avoid – and this, above all else, needs to be in the forefront of the minds of those doing battle to restore economic health to Britain, and economic independence from the State to Britons, and, of course, who want human beings from other places than Britain to be treated fairly according to the British tradition.

Pertinent quotations:

“The Bank of England cut interest rates to 0.5% in early 2009, and has kept them at this record low ever since.”

Source: BBC

“UK household debt has more than quadrupled since 1990, despite interest rates being at historic lows, a new report out today has showed.

“The study came with a warning that the high levels of debt being serviced by Britons posed a ‘serious threat’ to the economic recovery, especially as rates are due to start rising next year.

“In 1990, total household debt in the UK stood at £347billion, but it soared by 314 per cent to £1,437billion in 2013, with people in their thirties and forties carrying most of its weight, according to financial research firm Verum.”

Source: 14 August 2014

“On the impact of immigration on average wage levels, the evidence is again inconclusive (5.1), but there is a strong consensus of opinion that immigration has harmed the earnings of the most poorly-paid UK-born members of the labour force (5.2)”

Source: MigrationWatch

“Between 1995 and 2010, the [Migration Advisory Committee]…found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.”

Theresa May, 2012

Source: BBC

Tesco gets the bill for EU immigration – tries to pass it to customers

Although it encourages its customers to remember that “every little helps”, it seems that Tesco shoppers are still not helping enough. The multinational has been struggling with continued profit loss and, ironically, the old corporate desire to cast the net of profit-making overlordship far and wide and as cheaply as posible has lots to do with it; there is a correlation with Tesco’s active collaboration with and embracing of the invasion into the UK of Eastern European immigrants. Like other British corporate business, Tesco was keen to seize on global scale profit-making at the expense of local well-being, but somehow did not account for the consequential damage caused by the displacement of Britons out of work or into zero contract jobs. In short, Tesco’s perilous record of profit loss suggests its customer base has shrunk away from it and, with the growth of no-thrill competitors and even the Food Bank phenomena, many of the old shoppers can no longer afford Tesco prices.

Even before the accession into the EU of the ex-Warsaw Bloc A8 countries, Tesco supermarket was a cheerleader for the spread of the European superstate into the east. In a 2011 article at the predecessor to this site, Luikkerland, it was recorded how in 2002 the then-Tesco CEO, Sir Terry Leahy, was already an advocate of such EU expansion (and the article in question can be read here). The sentiment was one broadly shared across British corporate business which looked forward to exploiting a low skilled, low expectation work force. In addition, in 2006 the corporate-media made a record of how Tesco was at the time actively targeting the 600,000 Polish who had already arrived in the UK in the two years since 2004 (these numbers suggesting that the Polish in the UK in the year 2014 should probably be counted in millions).

Since then, the general level of wages has fallen, but far from ever being perceived as a problem for Tesco or any other big business, historical documentation shows that at the start of the 21st century, British corporations and big business welcomed this as an inevitable consequence of unfettered immigration. As the aforementioned archived article reports, in 2004 the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) predicted that “the arrival of migrant workers from the EU accession states will help to relieve upwards pressure on wages, without creating downward pressure”. Put succinctly, wages would stagnate because the newly arrived workforce which would receive them were already used to a pittance.

The CIPD analysis didn’t tell the whole story, however, and maybe reflected wishful thinking in the face of hard-nosed economic reality. If wages stay low against inflation, and in the context of an indebted population, then there is less disposable income. In particular, Tesco and other corporations looking to harvest the “Polish Pound” may not have accounted for what would be discovered later to be a tendency of the new work force – and that was to send billions of £s out of the British economy. On a wider scale, the fact that EU immigration generally costs Britons £3000 a year obviously has an impact on everyone’s disposable income.

The upshot seems to be that there has been considerable consequential economic damage that has hit Tesco particularly badly. Tesco’s shares have dropped some 30% over the last three years  and are now close to a 10-year low. News of the 6% reduction in Tesco’s underlying pre-tax profits in the last financial year is relatively hot off the presses. Relative to two years ago, Tesco’s profits have seen a dent of £500million. Shareholders are up in arms.

The chief cause of Tesco’s woes – although many other causes are proposed – must be the general decline in the standard of living in the UK; this is evidenced by the way shoppers have abandoned Tesco to shop at the bargain-basement rate chains of Aldi and Lidl, and this competition is recognised in a recovery plan devised by new Tesco leadership. However, nothing quite demonstrates the plight of British people in the context of the open borders that Tesco has  advocated more than the growing number of Food Banks – and herein is signified the real source of not just Tesco’s, but all of British corporate-business’ current and future problems.

Britons have been displaced out of work or into zero contract jobs at the same time as the introduction of what some would call a callous welfare administration – not to mention general austerity measures. All the while, real income remains deflated thanks to a combination of factors. Even if an inflation rate is kept to a target, as the Government may be able to boast, it still produces a negative effect on prices if wages are not kept in line. This is certainly the case, and undoubtedly related to EU immigration (the Labour leader thought it was advantageous to admit to the relationship in 2011, but generally the corporate-media, which is full of types that want to see Britain fundamentally altered, doesn’t like to acknowledge this particular reality). Unemployment that is measured in terms of how many job vacancies are filled will always paint a rosy picture if many of those jobs are part time, and there is a glut of labour from other countries to fill the positions. However, the laws of the universe, let alone economics, dictate that when there is a surfeit of one thing, then it is not as valuable as when there is a deficit.

Cynically, Tesco has tried to capitalise on what are the real signatures of the parlous state of the British economy, and since 2012, has been involved in a scheme which appears, in the context of its year-on-year failure, as an attempt to access and make good from what is surely the growing charity-industry of food banks. Not only is there much money in good causes, but grabbing a stake in this one must be for Tesco about recouping lost business. Customers are encouraged, in store, to make donations to food banks, which, in the corporate cold light of day, is a marketing ploy to create sales. But such is the out-in-the-open brazen and bold-faced chutzpah of corporate outfits such as Tesco. The sudden appearance in the UK of a wide spread need for free food is something that Tesco, in its advocacy of the invasion of the UK, has had a hand in creating. Thus Tesco has received the bill for its treachery, but still expects its oblivious and deceived customers to pay for it.

Reminding us that ours is a government of thugs with book-burning tendencies

There is nothing that the corporate-media likes to do more than be able to present a case of a state primary school where none of the children speaks English as a first language, but which still gets top ratings by school inspectors. It’s supposed to train native Britons that they are second rate to immigrants – and it’s all a huge hoax. The Government’s approval of a school’s ability to “educate” children is worthless because the whole point of the state education system is to dumb UK citizenry down.

Getting good Ofsted results reflects the schools ability to deploy Marxist conditioning techniques (see here for example), and generally bewilder a child rather than instil him with a command of his environment. The cultural and economic vandalism that is British state primary and secondary education, followed by attendance at inauspicious and low-grade university, is hidden in plain view, and remains secreted until it is glimpsed from a perspective which has knowledge of corporate-government’s designs for society. Such is the confidence of the ruling elite (and its wannabes) that Britons will remain oblivious of their own intellectual castration, they feel quite at liberty to make public references to it.

Most recently the Tory Party candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, Maria Hutchings, caused a stir by seeming to claim that her 12-year-old son was too talented or ambitious for the local comprehensive schools: “William is very gifted, which gives us another interesting challenge in finding the right sort of education for him – impossible in the state system. He wants to be a cardio-respiratory surgeon”.

The Establishment, which wants low standards for the masses in order to baffle them and make them easier to control, was predictable in its response, but can perhaps be best summarised by the utterances of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who in a piece of fake left/right theatre, insisted that Hutchings had insulted every pupil and teacher at state schools “including those in Eastleigh.”

But the scandal in this case was not that Hutchings had hurt the feelings of some inadequate teachers or conditioned children; what was horrific for the likes of Miliband was that she let the truth slip out. There is also no scandal in Hutchings wanting the best for her children to the detriment of anything that government has arranged for her. The scandal here is that society has been engineered, especially by the Tories who abolished grammar schools, so that people who are not already in the upper-middle and upper ruling classes cannot obtain membership through their own efforts, nor without becoming beholden to powerful controlling interests. The truth of the matter, as Hutchings revealed, is that state education is just not intended to catapult council estate children into careers as journalists, surgeons, politicians, judges or any other position in the top and ruling rank of British society.

As for education at UK universities that aren’t in the global top lists – meaning anything else but Oxford and Cambridge, and perhaps a handful of others – Iain Duncan Smith recently made an illustrative remark after his flagship back-to-work scheme was ruled legally flawed. Seemingly annoyed because his will to rule had been challenged, and perhaps letting his power-maniacal tendencies get the better of him, Duncan Smith (as the Daily Mail reports) “issued a direct rebuke to university graduate Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, who has a degree in geology and challenged having to work for free at a local Poundland discount store or face losing jobless benefits”.

The incredible admonishment came as Duncan Smith spoke on BBC television last month, and accompanied a revelatory comment about what the ruling elite actually thinks of university education, and its worth for betterment:

Most young people love this [work] programme and I am sorry but there are a group of people out there who think they are too good for this kind of stuff…

The next time these smart people who say there’s something wrong with this go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question: when they can’t find the food on the shelves, who is more important: them, the geologist or the person who’s stacked the shelves.

This comment provoked a response from the Geological Society of London which pointed out that “without geologists, there would be no way to supply supermarkets with produce, no transport for customers or staff – no shelves, in fact.” The society said that it was surprised at what Duncan Smith had had to say, but in fact, no one should be surprised. Britain’s current government is a corporate government, or in other words, a fascist government, and Duncan Smith’s comments illustrates that it is every bit as much a government of book-burning thugs as any Marxist-derived totalitarianism that came to power in the 20th century.

In a free country a university education is supposed to be valued as a means for the betterment of citizens to improve the condition of the common wealth. However, by his comments Duncan Smith shows that he and his ilk do not think very highly of what intelligent people, who otherwise would be destined to stack supermarket shelves or do other menial labour, can achieve with a proper education. This is not to say that Duncan Smith undervalues the universities themselves, he just knows that they are not supposed to produce a challenge to the corrupt hegemony, and as such is entirely dismissive (he was equally dismissive and in the same sneering way ahead of the  Eastleigh by-election result when he indicated to a RT reporter that UKIP was like a harmless toy dog around his ankles). In fact, it became clear to this author soon after the Coalition Government came to office in 2010 that universities were only valued by the ruling class as factories for producing minions for corporations or government; there is no concern for enlightenment in the tradition of Renaissance Humanism or the Reformation.

Without having enough leading members who can understand the Western human condition through its real Judeo-Christian historical experience, or by applying a real scientific approach – rather than through a Marxist (made trendy) construct or through post-normal consensus-based science – our society has become ruled by self-elected mega business technocrats (not meritocrats), and political minions, who are without scruple and only convinced of their right to dictate truth or to rule; this is why Duncan Smith seems to think that Britons should accept their own exploitation and have no right in law to protect themselves from it, and becomes incensed when Britons challenge his and the thuggish corporate-government’s book-burning activities.

Immigrants’ welfare eligibility undermines claim that benefits freeze is motivated by fiscal conservatism

In the same week as the British Government hinted at an end to inflation-linked rises in benefits – potentially rendering essentials more expensive for the most vulnerable – a Latvian woman who is claiming £34,000 worth of tax-payer funded state-handouts per year featured in a Daily Mail article and served as a reminder that the British Government is not acting out of economic conservatism when it applies Austerity measures in what it says are attempts to reduce the national debt.

Linda Kozlovska is a self-employed cleaner – who, therefore, is supposed to be an economically beneficial asset to this country according to the Progressive/Marxist mythology about immigration – and a single mother of 10 children – only 3 of whom were born in the UK. Living in a council house in Boston, which neighbours seem to imply is a half-way house enabling Latvians first coming to the UK to have somewhere to stay, each week Kozlovska receives £527 in child tax credit and working tax credit as well as £127 in child benefits. In total, she is in receipt of state-handouts that outstrip the average working salary by £8,000 per annum. Kozlovska rightly pointed out to the Mail that as she was an EU citizen, and as the British Government has only a risable amount of control over the country’s borders, she had as much right to live in Britain, and draw assistance from its welfare system, as anyone who had actually been born in the country: “I came to England to live – because we are from Latvia, which is in the EU, I could just come,” she said.

As such, Kozlovska’s case demonstrates that it is entirely futile for the British Government to reduce individual benefits payments in the name of reducing public expenditure when untold numbers of Europeans on an entire continent, after only having to meet extremely lax and flimsy conditions to qualify (which the EU now wants to eradicate entirely), are eligible to increase the burden on the welfare state – i.e. the steadily-robbed tax-payer - by completely unsustainable factors.

This situation is one of many indicators that the British Government – and the same would apply whichever established political party was incumbent - is using the impossible-to-repay national debt as an excuse to socially engineer British people in a particularly damaging way towards a kind of poverty-stricken society that could only be propped up through overt totalitarian government.

The Government is itself part responsible for high inflation because of George Osborne’s hike of VAT to 20% in January 2011. Because Whitehall officials say £14billion could have been saved since 2009 if the increase in benefits had been pegged to earnings instead of inflation, this relationship too is now an excuse to make the already welfare-dependent much poorer. Moreover, by spectacularly reducing the value of their welfare cheque, the Government may be trying to provoke an underclass, who generally may be more susceptible to criminally, to a level of civil disorder which would frighten an easily malleable public into accepting draconian legislation.