The Romans used to subdue their conquered lands by transporting tribes from place to place. They used the Frisians to pacify the British and much of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in the English is actually Frisian. These displaced tribes were usually Foederati - tribes that had agreed to become auxiliary troops and were settled where they were stationed.

The Romans understood that demography was the ultimate weapon. If the tribes give you trouble then change the tribes.

The governing class in Britain have always hated the English and have become enthusiastic supporters of demographic change. The English people were suckers for this demographic assault because of their ingrained classism. When people hate their own neighbours as much as the English middle and upper classes hate the English lower classes you can understand why the English are gonners.

See:

The English upper classes would rid themselves once and for all of the tattooed, beer drinking, disgusting, working class yobs who thought this was their country. The upper class identified this indigenous sense of ownership as ‘Racism’. See:

Of course, the governing class rules the country, not the English chavs.

The most pathetic part of this story is that the English actually helped in their own destruction as a People. They are still doing it, they all know they are for the high jump but they are completely unable to unite against the demographic change being inflicted on them.

(Source: Daily Mail: If the three parties on the Right can’t do a deal, the Left will take power again)

Getting rid of the English is like taking candy from a baby.

We even hear the young British saying how the old English should relinquish their property to the young. We never hear that almost half the young British are not English and it is the imported people who benefit most from this shift of wealth from the old to the young. Demography rules.

The English could stop the demographic change at the next election. All they need to do is all unite behind a single party that represents them. But will they be patriots or just blame each other for their demise?

The English only have one election left before they are permanently erased as a People.

They said that they would deal with overspending, woke legislation and mass migration but did very little. They even enthusiastically implemented the Equality Act 2010 and the ‘Prevent’ program. It was the Conservatives under Theresa May who instructed Prevent to focus on Nationalism and it was Kemi Badenoch who sanctioned two tier policing. It was Kemi Badenoch’s work as Minister of State for Equalities that was the basis for the Police Anti-Racism Committment. Badenoch’s work led directly to the police stating that a commitment to racial equalty “..does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”. She, and the Conservatives, believed that Justice should not be blind but should discriminate against English people.

Subscribe now

The Conservatives advertised themselves as offering a choice but they were just like Labour.

Conservatism was historically about continuity. It embodied the idea that the Nation is a constant and governments should strive to improve the management of the country for the people who live in it. Labour also, once upon a time, believed in the continuity of the Nation. In the 1990s this belief in Britain was broken by all of the major parties. Civil Servants and politicians imagined their careers extending into the EU.

As the Nation was abandoned the Civil Service began to act as Internationalists. The Treasury have been particularly egregious and favoured mass migration as a direct way of increasing total GDP whilst making us all individually poorer and creating division in the country. The great attraction of migration driven, rapid population growth was that it pushed up rental and hence property prices. Rapidly growing property prices encouraged massive overseas investment in UK property. The Treasury desired this outcome to pay for the deficit in the UK Current Account of the Balance of Payments.

Labour now blames older people for living in these expensive houses.

The success of governments should be measured by how far future generations benefit from current governance. We should be passing on an economy and society that enhances the ambitions, health and happiness of our children. The long term National Debt is a direct measurement of the success of governments, because it is the money that we have spent today that must be paid for by future taxpayers. The Governments that spend our children’s money give the appearance of relative prosperity. They do this to gain votes. They are failures.

It is customary to label the National Debt figures with “Financial Crisis 2008” or “COVID 2020”. However, historically, borrowing on a massive scale was mostly used during wars. It was Gordon Brown, the man who always emphasised “fiscal rules” before borrowing billions, who broke with tradition and broke the economy. He really did not care about future generations, his imperative was to keep the electorate happy now. In contrast, in 2020 the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, resigned rather than use debt to ‘pay for’ COVID.

Source: Economic Research Council.

The role of Gordon Brown’s borrowing binge in 2007 and Johnson’s destruction of the economy in 2020 is very clear from the annual borrowing figures:

(The more negative the figures, the greater the borrowing. Source: ONS )

The current Labour government is borrowing at the same rate as the previous Labour government did during the financial crisis. They are supported in this by a leftist media.

They are buying votes at the expense of the younger generation, who foolishly vote for them even though they have no jobs and no prospect of home ownership.

Over the past 50 years the Tories have only had one truly bad Prime Minister when it comes to running the economy: Boris Johnson (See Liz Truss). Johnson was a duffer. He had little idea of how to run an economy and should have listened to his Chancellor to moderate the spending in response to COVID.

The 20th century was proof that Socialism fails. Every Socialist state outside Europe collapsed in poverty, to be replaced by National Socialist governments (Russia, China, Vietnam etc). Every democratic socialist state depressed their economy. It was clear as daylight in 1999 that Socialism was a menace. Democratic countries were condemned to an absurd cycle of conservative governments trying to pay off the debt, followed by socialist governments spending the savings with no thought for the future.

In the 21st century the Socialists have learned nothing but the conservatives seem to have decided that if good economic management just means building up a pot of gold for the Socialists to spend then they will abandon good economic management.

We can only fix our problems if all parties believe that they are creating a country for their children.

The Socialists know that creating a country for our children means elevating the prosperity and cohesion of families. The objective of Socialism is to erase the role of families so that there is complete Equality of Outcome.

There is no way to fix the UK while the electorate are seduced by Socialism. The fix entails eradicating the Left from politics. Somehow the electorate must be made aware that the current Postmarxist Left are fruitcakes. Those who are ardently on the Left should adopt the outlook espoused by Blue Labour rather than Postmarxism.

Governments in the UK have used the problem of refugees to cloak the far, far larger problem of legal migration. It has not been in the interests of Labour or Conservative governments to stop illegal migration and it has certainly not been in the interests of France to stop it. Every £billion of costs that asylum seekers inflict on the UK is equal to a similar amount saved by the French.

The invasion of the UK by illegal migrants from France is not a new problem. In 2002 there were 100,000 people being smuggled into the UK on lorries etc. The Channel ports were secured and the numbers fell to about 20,000 a year. The introduction of small boat crossings has been a significant factor in raising asylum claims to nearly 100,000 again. However, asylum claims are also occurring in high numbers through other routes such as tourist/study visas etc.

Graph: Number of People Claiming Asylum in UK (Source UK Gov):

The UK and EU are both now granting asylum to about 40% of applicants although prior to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA) the Home Office was basically rubber stamping most asylum applications, granting about 75% of applications for asylum.

(See Migration Observatory)

The UK will always be the preferred destination for illegal migrants because the EU is far more racist and discriminates heavily against foreign citizens.

See more data on EU discrimination in:

If you read the 1951 Asylum Convention it is obvious that it was about the emergency resettlement of people after WWII and the Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe. The Convention defines a refugee who deserves asylum as follows:

“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-
founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, national-
ity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is out-
side the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The “1 January 1951” limitation was removed in 1967, so an emergency Convention became co-opted as the standard treaty on asylum. Most importantly the 1951 Convention requires little proof of actual persecution. This absence of proof was rational in 1951 because, for instance, a Pole who had fled the Far Left, Soviet invaders of Poland was obviously in danger of persecution. However, it is not rational today to accept an illegal migrant’s claim of persecution. proof should be required: the Convention is seriously out of date.

It is interesting that widespread discrimination means that the EU constitutes a place where foreigners might feel at risk of persecution under the 1951/1967 Convention.

Prior to 2024 the Conservative government almost ceased hearing asylum claims from illegal migrants (only 10% of claims were heard within 6 months). This was in line with a policy of intending to ship claimants to Rwanda. However, when Labour became the government they abolished the Rwanda plan and were then faced with a huge asylum backlog (70% of claims are being heard within 6 months now there is no chance of removing the asylum seekers).

The asylum system in the UK is costing about £5 billion a year.

Labour has now recognised its mistake and is proposing to reopen the Rwanda plan.

Part of the reason for turning to Rwanda is that it will reduce the ‘pull factors’ that make the UK look like an attractive destination. The government had made claims that the numbers of illegal migrants would be reduced by ‘smashing the gangs’ or paying the French. None of their ideas were effective. Only the winter weather seems to dent the number of people crossing the Channel in rubber dinghies, as the official graph of arrivals shows:

Something stronger is needed to make the UK less attractive. The Conservatives had prepared the ground for Rwanda and the first flights were due to occur just after the general election. Labour cancelled them but is now able to use the legal groundwork that was done by the Tories (and claim credit for themselves).

The absolute number of boats is decreasing because the boats are getting bigger, sometimes much bigger. This has allowed disingenuous government spokespeople to claim success as the numbers of small boats have been reduced. Of course, the real figure of interest is the number of people, not the numbers of boats.

The other statistical trick used by government spokespeople is to compare a month in 2026 with the same month in 2025 if the difference makes them look good. They will be comparing 2026 with 2022 soon.

(Source: The Economist)

However, the new broadcasters, such as GBNews, are reducing the power of the government to pull the wool over our eyes. The government knows this is happening and this is probably why it is turning to Rwanda again.

Only 3,427 migrants who had arrived in small boats were deported in the year to July 2026.

Most countries outside of Europe throw illegal migrants into jail or shoot them. I was recently in Africa and small boats from the DRC were stopped by the cheap expedient of a few men with elephant guns. This is a highly effective disincentive but it is unacceptable to the British media.

We are left with a choice between providing spartan, true detention centres, that migrants can only leave by going home, or transporting them to a country far away such as Rwanda.

There could be technical solutions to this problem. As an example, given that almost all small boat migrants are currently intercepted at sea it should be possible to stop the boats at the French 6 mile limit and exchange their outboard motors for ones that are under remote control for an immediate return journey.

Subscribe now

The media are reporting that he committed suicide.

The pundits and BBC are suggesting that he was hounded to death by the media coverage of his appointment as a Professor at Cambridge University. Some might even go as far as to suggest it was death by social media.

The media outcry had two sides. On one side there were those who wished Cambridge University to guard its reputation for academic excellence and on the other side there were those who defended the application of postmodern standards to appointments and condemned a lack of postmodern morality in their opponents. The Cambridge dons appointed him, knowing that there were problems but convinced by ideology that this was the right thing to do. They put him on a pedestal believing that this would reflect on their postmodern virtue. They extolled his colour, background and personal problems without a thought for the man. Their ideology killed him.

The mind virus that infects the Cambridge Dons kills. It was designed from the outset to destroy people and civilisations:

Perhaps the Cambridge Dons who appointed Arday should be identified and brought to account for their actions, like employers would be prosecuted for negligence if they employed steeplejacks with declared narcolepsy. Cambridge University allowed ideology to replace their legal duty of care and should be prosecuted.

The Copernicus project calculates that the SE half of the UK is in extreme danger of catching fire.

Lets hope that we have some hosepipe water to douse the flames as they lick round our houses.

Fortunately the UK media and population are in zombie mode, worshipping Andy Burnham’s massive policy drive such as action against subscriptions. This is puzzling because the economy would surely benefit from resurrecting the electronics industry (govt support for chip makers) and from home grown solar panels and heat pumps for hydronic air conditioning (the sun shines on our houses when we need hydronic cooling). Anyway, Handy Andy has thought it through: the cure for the ‘cost of living crisis’ (ie: a bad economy) is laws about subscriptions.

But don’t blame Labour, blame Labour voters and the Postmarxist media propaganda that convinces people to prefer sweeties to adult policies.

I sincerely hope that the Copernicus warnings do not come true.

This ‘morality’ is sometimes called the ‘mind virus’ or ‘woke mind virus’.

Subscribe now

The virus is serious, as Carl Jung put it: “Indeed, it is becoming ever more obvious that it is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man, for the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural catastrophes.”

The current mind virus was traced to the use of ‘Equality’ as a moral foundation. When a side accepts or creates inequality they lose the argument. It is now normal for politicians and pundits to claim victory in a discussion if they can show this ersatz moral superiority.

The ‘mind virus’ infects people with the belief that Equality is the foundation of morality.

Creating and disseminating this virus was truly the great success of Post Marxist political philosophy. It appealed to adolescents who were rejecting the Christian faith and to students who had lost their moral compass. All political and social issues could, naively, be judged using a single question: ‘Does this create equality?’.

The Marxists have already had great success using early versions of this meme and those who are losing their belief in God or Marx can cling to ‘Equality’ as a moral life raft.

Equality of outcomes is a rotten ambition. It is uniformity. The WEF attempted to avoid this accusation by including ‘Diversity’ in its DEI campaigning so that ‘equity’ was linked to opportunity rather than to the ‘right’ to equal outcomes. Unfortunately the postmodern concept of Equality of Outcome is now mainstream. Figures like Sadiq Khan argue that imbalances between the ethnic groups are due to systemic racism (New Statesman). This is the postmodern interpretation of inequity: that inequity exists wherever outcomes differ and that inequity is always ‘wrong’.

However, at the personal level, there are blindingly obvious flaws in the mind virus. The most obvious is the belief that it is moral to steal from anyone who has an above average level of wealth. Another flaw is that by working working too hard, or becoming expert, a person becomes unequal and this is held to be immoral. At the social level the virus is also flawed because it favours uniformity and uniformity contains no aspiration for a better life for anybody.

The Post-Marxist, Post-Christian who is infected with the mind virus will begin to flounder if they are forced to consider what Equality actually means or how it can be implemented. Like all fanatical believers, its adherents will cancel and suppress any challenging ideas.

Equality is not a foundation for morality. It is a foundation for leftist political movements. Teachers and academics who are infected spread the virus to children because they have no other concepts on which to base their morality. Unfortunately the simplicity of the ‘Equality’ mind virus means that it even infects conservatives who have not thought through their politics.

The term ‘mind virus’ for postmodern ideology was probably first coined by Elon Musk. You can test whether you are infected by your reaction to this. Musk was a software engineer and familiar with software viruses. He could see how naive brains could be infected with malicious code like computers and how the media, corporate and educational establishment could spread the damage.

The Left has spent the past century attempting to create a mind virus that would spread through society. This was the subject of Russell Kirk’s philosophical reflection in 1984 where he identified how ideology corrupts society and mentions how it was resisted by:

“..an underlying set of moral and political assumptions, common to nearly everyone in these societies [USA & Britain], which were the products of a venerable historic experience, and which served the purpose that political dogmas serve in nations less governed by general prejudice, prescription, and custom”.

The creators of the mind virus also understood Kirk’s analysis and targeted the expression of the virus at Britain’s historic experience and customs. They undermine our history and even attack Christmas, calling it ‘Winterfest’. Replacing the national culture is essential to any attack on the West. We can see how using mass migration to drastically reduce the numbers of English people in the working population was the weapon of choice for removing historic experience, prejudice, prescription, and custom.

Many people understand the mind virus. The latest case is that of Professor Jason Arday who realised that most Cambridge Dons had been infected and played them for all it was worth. I have a sneaking admiration for the ‘professor’ despite his corruption and lies. He saw the Dons as mentally sick people who had lost their grip on reality. He laughed in their faces and declared that if they truly believed in their postmodern ethics they would make him, a proven liar with a degree in PE and 2 GCSEs, into a professor. The damaged Dons complied.

Even some of the infected briefly shook off their virus at the absurdity of Cambridge University. Poor Professor Arday was driven to suicide by the results of the Dons virtue signalling ideology.

We can all shake off the virus if we once again believe in our own identity embedded in our history and customs. Once we are free we can find a true meaning for our lives rather than a one word path to extremism like ‘equality’.

The virus has horrifying real world effects. Only the infected would vote for those who enabled, and covered up, this:

See:

The Forsaken

Pakistan is Right. Britain Did Groom Shabir Ahmed.

When Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry announced that Shabir Ahmed was raised, groomed and spoilt in Britain, the words were chosen to wound. Its spokesman reached for the vocabulary of child rape to tell us the ringleader of the Rochdale gang is our problem, and he wanted that to be the end of the matter…

Read more

a month ago · 98 likes · Raja Miah

Whistle blowers, victims and campaigners are screaming:

“What is the point now? The man who buried the cover-up question in Greater Manchester runs the country, so we will never see justice done.”

But no-one seems to be listening.

This is serious. The paedophile rape involved organised crime gangs that tortured, gang raped and even murdered thousands of girls who were as young as 11 years old.

Subscribe now

Readers of this Substack will know what the rape gangs do but new readers should be reminded:

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997-2013 says of the 1,400 girls who were assaulted:

“In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.”

This is from an official inquiry by Alexis Jay.

Why doesn’t the BBC repeat this summary every time that Burnham is mentioned?

Think for a moment about the last line:

“Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.”

Andy Burnham was Mayor of Manchester. He was the police and Crime Commissioner for Manchester. His dominion, shown below, encompassed most of the districts where the Rape Gangs operated:

(Source: Wikipedia)

Almost all reviews of the Manchester Rape Gangs mention that an “anti-racist” conspiracy among Labour Councillors, Social Services and the police protected the Rape Gangs. As Mayor, Burnham is the man who should be jailed for Misconduct in a Public Office. Instead, he is Prime Minister.

What sort of country do we live in where the main suspect in the most terrible, organised, criminal conspiracy to occur in the UK over the past 50 years is Prime Minister?

See the article below for an account of Burnham’s whitewash of the rape gangs.

There is a layer of evil in British society. It lives in our Journalists and Public Sector. It also lives in academia.

The whole world can see the evil here, in our own country. Next time you put a poll card in the ballot box know that you are part of this evil unless you actively vote against it.

The Uniparty, especially Labour, are telling the electorate that dealing with the Organised Crime of the Rape Gangs will give Reform UK power. They portray the desire to purge the evil of the Gang Rapes as ‘Far Right’ or ‘Dog Whistle Politics’.

If you have a moral compass it should be obvious that people who vote Uniparty, especially those who vote Labour, are part of the layer of evil in British society. We will never purge ourselves of evil if we keep supporting it.

How do you know you are part of the evil? In Rotherham 11 year old, terrified little girls were doused in petrol and threatened with being burnt to death, they had guns put to their heads as they screamed and cried for mercy. The men who did this were almost all foreign. Most were Pakistanis. They targeted the white children of the previous population in the City. This happened. In your mind you might have an indoctrinated picture of a Reform government issuing deportation notices to illegal migrants. If you decide that deportation notices are worse than actual instances of the terrifying torture, trafficking, gang rape and murder of little girls you are evil. It is clear as daylight.

It is only because we have a layer of evil in British society that lives in our Journalists, Uniparty and Public Sector, that the electorate cannot instantly see the truth: the evil people want you to protect them. They protect themselves by indoctrinating us with a fear of Reform ‘hate’, They want you to elect them as Prime Ministers and form governments that will let them continue in their evil.

Those who protected the Rape Gangs should be prosecuted, starting with Andy Burnham, Mayor of Manchester and now Prime Minister.

See

There are numerous examples of absurdly inflammatory language against Reform. The stupid David Lammy told his audience that Nigel Farage was a member of the Hitler Youth. The Post office persecutor, Ed Davey, alway calls Farage a “grifter”. Words like “fascist” and “nazi” accompany every other speech about the Reform Party.

The whole Uniparty (Labour, Tories and LibDems) and mainstream media in Britain have adopted the “fascist” narrative about Reform. There seems to be a general agreement among the Parties threatened by Reform to declare that it is a party that is focused on “hate”. Of course, objectively, Reform is a conservative party. Such parties have never given rise to fascism. Fascism and Nazism always arises from the Left. See:

The hateful rhetoric of the Uniparty may well have tipped people with poor mental health and little political knowledge into murderous action. But is the danger in the language or is the danger due to the entire political establishment feeling threatened and turning their terror of losing their seats and jobs on Reform?

It is interesting that Uniparty and Mainstream Media pundits have been most avid in their condemnation of language despite being the people who have used this language. These people are only weakly attached to the idea of Free Speech and will have rejoiced at the opportunity to link Free Speech to harm.

Subscribe now

The effect of the whole Mainstream Media condemning Reform is more likely to be responsible for murderers feeling empowered than any stray comment by a politician. In particular, the Biased BBC, which always declares itself to be the voice of unbiased truth, has presented a brick wall of opposition to Reform and seldom corrects Uniparty speakers, such as Lammy, who spew hyperbolic lies. The endless social sanction of Reform by the BBC might even affect people with poor mental health who look like they would never be violent.

The banning of inflammatory expressions in political debate is not justified (who would define ‘inflammatory’?) except in the case of direct incitement to violence. However, the banning of the Biased BBC is probably a worthy cause. We are forced to finance a National Broadcaster that is disloyal to us all and normalises hatred of a political group. All Reform supporters will have been on the receiving end of the mindless social bullying engendered by, and approved by, the MSM.

In these days of a Uniparty that supports population replacement and transferring economic and political sovereignty to foreign powers (such as the EU), there are some terms that are descriptive and justifiable. The most important of these is ‘Disloyal’. It clearly describes how Britain is torn between disloyal Internationalists and Nationalists.

Could the word ‘Disloyal’ lead to murder? It should lead to a discussion of how ideology should never lead to the loss of our country. The word ‘disloyal’ should be used for those who wish to give away the place where all our future generations are likely to live and enjoy the peace, freedom, independence and prosperity that we should be creating and defending for them.

It would be fair to treat disloyalty as an attribute that disqualifies people from senior public sector posts or the army. However, even when people in the UK have been convicted of treason they have not then been murdered by vigilantes. Even the term ‘traitor’ seems less dangerous than the BBC and MSM normalising hatred of political groups.

Labour has hundreds of MPs but these MPs were so bereft of talent that they could only find a new leader from outside their ranks.

Subscribe now

Burnham received billions from central government (our taxes) to regenerate Manchester. The mouthpiece of Labour, the BBC, portrayed the new buildings and buses that our billions had built as Burnham’s great achievement.

Words like ‘King of the North’ and ‘Messiah’ crept into BBC descriptions of Burnham. We have all been forced to pay the BBC to indoctrinate us with this air of holiness.

Burnham’s platform? Constitutional change.

The one change that must always demand a General Election is Constitutional change.

But here we are. Bewildered. The bad guys have captured the mainstream media and have indoctrinated the majority. They are now shoving us into a future that they desire.

One thing is certain. A Labour Party that could not even find a leader among their hundreds of MPs is not controlling our future. Who is?

Burnham was implanted in government because the Tories are known liars and he is the only chance to defeat the nationalist Reform Party. Who has most to lose if we elect a Party that governs in our national interest? It is Multinational Corporations and Banks.

The parallel between the UK and a 20th century banana republic is too close for comfort. The International Banana wholesalers set up a whole series of coups and government changes in the 1910s to 1930s so that Central American states would act in their commercial interests..

(Anyone hearing the ‘Ode to Joy’ at Andy Burnham’s speech today will know that fanatical Internationalists are the main problem faced by the UK).

Well done England! The team should get the trophy cabinet ready. If they keep this up they will win the Euros and be in the top four teams in the world for a generation.

Subscribe now

It is a pity that England lost to a second rate nation that has a first rate football team.

It was extraordinary that, at the end of the game, the Argentine players held up a banner declaring that “the ‘Malvinas’ are Argentine”.

The aggression from Argentina on the subject of the Falkland Islands has been increasing since the government decided to give away the Chagos Islands to the Mauritians. See Today Chagos, Tomorrow Malvinas in La Voz, a leading Argentine newspaper.

In 1980-82 the Argentines did not believe that the British would defend the Falklands. Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary after it was clear that his weak response to Argentine claims was the proximate cause of the 1982 Falklands War. David Lammy’s gift of the Chagos has repeated the same mistake. The current foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, should make it clear to Argentina at every level of contact that a powerful military response will follow any Argentine invasion.

Britain needs to robustly defend its position in the Falklands. They must press FIFA to sanction the Argentine Team, withdraw visas for Argentine players in British leagues, finance the Mapuche Liberation Movement, publicise the Argentine treatment of these people, press for Mapuche sovereignty of Patagonia and get on with re-arming our military. Chile should be befriended and helped with a project to return the Chilean Mapuche to an autonomous Patagonia. Every opportunity should be taken to publicise the fact that the Argentine claim to the Falklands is a lie that violates the UN Charter and Resolutions. The truth about how the fascist Peron re-awakened the Falklands claim in support of the Nazis in WWII should be told.

The current legal position of the Falklands is determined by the UN Charter and UN resolutions. Both Argentina and the UK have signed the Charter and both should respect the wishes of the people who live on the Falkland Islands.

Morality is powerful in politics. Once a political idea become a moral imperative it becomes dangerous because individuals believe that the idea transcends all other authority.

Subscribe now

Humans operate in discontented, competitive social groups. Morality is the internalised model of how the members of a social group should interact. The violation of the moral code is seen as being like a crime. Offenders against the moral order are excluded from social interactions, assailed by laws and bullied by groups.

In European history from AD 1000 to AD 1850 most political claims were moral claims and morality was difficult to distinguish from politics. In the medieval period English kings would even ask the Pope to resolve political matters.

Morality evolves over several generations and the groups with the most successful social model become dominant. The victors write down their morality as a story, usually as a struggle from humble beginnings, that ends with a moral prescription for everyone.

Notice that the story of a moral code is a story of how a particular group gained power.

Those who link their politics closely to their moral code are dangerous. Islamic fundamentalists have this link, as does the left wing in Western politics. The Far Left killed vast numbers of people in the twentieth century and the Far Left has been by far the greatest man-made scourge in human history (see Details).

What makes Islamism and the Far Left so dangerous is that both idolise violent revolution as an acceptable way of imposing a moral and political order. Individual Communists, Trotskyists and Islamists can gain moral inspiration for murderous acts by reading any historical documents about these movements. They are then morally primed for murder. We have seen this with the recent murder of Ann Widdecombe where Left Wing commentators have been inclined to describing the heinous murder of a little old lady as justified in some way (See ‘Socialist Worker’ newspaper which had the headline: ‘Ann Widdecombe is strictly dead! Don’t let media force us to mourn a bigot’).

The other force that leads to murder and mayhem is nationalism and internationalism. Nationalism can entail a belief in a moral code, in the sense that that moral codes are part of a national culture, although specious moral justifications are much more common for internationalism. The invasion or absorption of a nation by an empire is almost always ‘morally justified’ rather than treated as simply expedient or profitable.

Nationalism is often conflated with internationalism when a nation becomes imperialist. Imperialism may entail the dominance of one nation over others but all empires eventually become internationalist collections of nations, each nation losing its uniqueness, and even the identity of the founding nation becomes damaged or completely changed. Nowadays empires, such as the EU, can be formed by political agreement based on majority morality. The nations then become victims of the Political Class who imposed the agreement.

Although most political murders in the UK have been accompanied by specious morality, the most publicised political murder in the UK, until very recently, was the dreadful murder of Jo Cox, who was a young mother. Her killer is routinely referred to as ‘far right’ by left wing journalists (most journalists are left wing). The killer’s motivation is still a bit of a mystery. However, it is most likely from his cries during the murder that he was a fanatical Nationalist and not motivated by a moral belief but was impelled by a particular political belief. It is notable that no Nationalist publications treated the murder of Jo Cox as morally acceptable.

We may disagree with the politics of others but any moral code that does not have ‘Thou shalt not kill’ as its first article is deeply suspect. A stable society cannot survive the murder of its politicians. Anyone who is motivated to political murder should inspect the foundations of their moral code.

Details

Foundations of Morality

Foundations for morality are problematical because, even where they appear to exist, the link between a foundation and a moral concept is always shaky. The concept of morality and its foundations is as slippery as an eel.

Suppose we propose an omniscient God who has given us His moral Commandments as the foundation of morality. Immediately we must ask: ‘Does He exist?, if so, why doesn’t He impose moral behaviour?’, ‘Are the Bible, Koran etc. His Commandments or those of the people who wrote or compiled these documents?, ‘Why didn’t He just dictate one book of commandments?’ etc. etc. A morality based on God or gods gains its authority from the power of the belief in those gods that is enacted through law and by social punishment or approval.

Suppose we propose that the centre ground of how the whole people feel about morality should be the foundation of morality, ie: that morality is the majority view. We must immediately ask: ‘Is democratic dictatorship any more acceptable than any other dictatorship?’, ‘is this form of moral foundation hopelessly flexible’, ‘is indoctrination possible?’, ‘can the mass media create the current majority morality?’, ‘is a foundation that has no foundation the basis for anything definite?’ etc. etc. The morality of the mean, or the average, of social views, gains its authority from the power of the majority.

Another proposal might be that morality is founded in empathy and love for other people. Forget ‘morality’, lets just have empathy and love. Immediately there are questions: ‘What is empathy, what is love?’, ‘What is this ‘person’ who is the object of empathy and love, is it their external appearance, their actions, their beliefs, all their attributes?’, ‘what happens when you run out of resources to demonstrate your empathy and love?’ etc. etc. The morality based on ‘Empathy and love’ is very prevalent in Europe because it was much of the basis of Christian morality. In the absence of Christianity, empathy and love gain authority from the inclusion of these ideas in law and education.

Yet another idea is that morality is founded in an economic system that provides material equality for everyone. Immediate questions are: ‘how much material does each person get?’, ‘is material equality preferred to material quantity? ie: if everyone had no material wealth would this be better than everyone having a lot of wealth with a few having even more wealth?’, ‘how do we translate material equality into moral action and who does the translation?’ etc. etc. The idea of ‘morality as equality’ is derived from the Bible (ie: people should give according to their means and receive according to their needs or work ). It gets its authority from both the Bible and the laws and education imposed by socialists.

Nowadays moral ideas in the democratic, post Christian West are based on individuals claiming to have empathy and love for other people. This is known as moral posturing or virtue signalling. Politicians use their declaration of ‘empathy and love’ for the People to gain support and, once empowered, use it to shame the People into supporting actions. Almost any action can be spun as being about empathy and love. Anyone who opposes the action offends against the moral order and invites moral condemnation.

Utter Equality is the favoured foundation for morality among the modern ‘Left’ (Postmodernists, Poststructuralists, Postmarxists). It redefines empathy and love to mean sympathy for the materially unequal (disadvantaged). The Left has developed a mind virus to infect the population with this concept.

The murderous nature of the Left

Islamic fundamentalism and Far Left groups are murderous because both have violent revolution in their foundational texts (The Koran and the Communist Manifesto).

The death toll due to the Far Left is appalling.

Genghis Khan has been included in the table below for comparison with Far Left atrocities. The upper figure for the Far Left is 90 million. If the 20 million killed by National Socialists is included (National Socialism was an offshoot of Marxism) the total death toll is 110 million or about 5% of the average global population in the first 60 years of the 20th century. If we add in the second world war we get to about 8% killed as a result of Far Left fanaticism.

Most of this killing is based on equality as a moral foundation, or perhaps, as the Left would put it, inequity as a provocation to those who believe in equality.

See:

Postscript

Should you have a moral code? It is difficult to be a member of a human society without a personal moral code. Employers, friends and family require that your behaviour is, to some extent, predictable. Codes such as the Ten Commandments are practical, however, notice that the first four or five commandments are directed at securing the foundation of Judaeo-christian morality.

The last five commandments are an absolute minimum for maintaining a stable social group. Don’t kill, lust, steal, lie or envy are a most basic list for being moral. But what foundation will you give these? What authority could justify them for you?

(Met Office)

Subscribe now

There are problems.

We are running out of water, especially in the South East and East Anglia:

As you can see above, population growth is a major factor in water shortages, it is as serious as climate change. All population growth in Britain is due to migration - the the UK is being colonised to replace the current population.

The frequency of wildfires is increasing:

The fires are even happening in suburbia:

But go-ahead colonists from South Asia are not at all bothered and propose that more colonisation will solve all our problems:

The colonists want to feel at home with overcrowding in sweltering streets. The native English are too disloyal to their land and neighbours to do anything about this. They reward Labour and Conservative Parties with their votes for increasing the population with foreigners.

How bad is this global warming going to get? It is going to get really toasty. Most predictions are for 2026/27 being very hot due to an ‘El Nino’. If you like climate alarmism take a look at Arctic News Blogspot which has stirring data on the ‘End is Nigh’. The site doesn’t need to make up its data although it makes dubious extrapolations to provide a frisson of menace.

What can we do? I am fairly ‘Green’ and have a solution.

The UK is insignificant when it comes to CO2 emissions.

The first thing we need to do is get rid of the idea of achieving ‘net zero’ because we will need all the energy we can get to adapt to climate change. We will also need it to power all the robots that will be working in the care sector in 10 to 20 years time. Sustainable energy will be adopted when, and if, it becomes competitive.

The second thing we need to do is to have an ‘optimal population policy’. The population should be stabilised at 70 million and then be allowed to decline in numbers. Almost all population growth in the UK is due to migration so it is extremely easy to meet this population target. Just stop issuing residence and work visas and never, ever, join Schengen. The push to overpopulate the UK comes from Internationalists who seem to hate you and your children, the country will not need a large workforce in 20 years time. It will need water and food.

The third thing we need to do is to plan for the sort of agriculture that will be successful in 20 - 30 years time. Food prices will continually rise over the next 30 years and food supply will be a problem as well as water supply. A high population will make food and water supply far worse. This agricultural planning is being done at a superficial level but we need to get serious. UK temperatures are going to be a bit like the current Mediterranean. Hooray! (See Met Office).

What can we do ourselves? Don’t go vegan, cakes should be made with butter and eggs. Don’t vote for the Green Party, they are just chancers who want the pro-Gaza vote and free movement of people into the UK. They seldom even talk about Green issues publicly.

The best thing you can do for yourself is to get hydronic air conditioning powered by solar panels (the sun tends to shine when it is hot). The second best thing you can do is never vote Tory, Labour, LibDem or Green.

Details

The ONS Data below shows how migration is the source of population growth. In fact the migrants not only enter the UK to boost the population but have about half of children which means the UK is being given to a foreign population. The English don’t seem to care but it will obviously erase their heritage. The spectacle of a People deliberately destroying itself is almost unprecedented, it is the result of an epidemic of utter disloyalty by the English to their children. They even call loyal English people ‘racist’.

(Source ONS)

Our politicians are a hateful bunch. Their solution to water shortages and global warming is to bring in ever more people to settle in the UK while telling the People that they are stopping migration. And why not? The English electorate are also disloyal and hate themselves and their neighbours in the same way as their politicians hate them. They reward the parties that threaten them with replacement and extinction by voting for them. This country could be a utopia if politicians and voters cared about it and its People.

It is all very simple. The government should manage the economy, health, education, judiciary etc. so that the People can live in prosperity and peace. This is a practical objective unrelated to ideology. It is about management. The government should never replace the People, that is pure ideology.

Some people believe that the BBC is ‘left wing’. This is true in the sense that it is staffed by narcissistic humanities graduates who are disconnected from ordinary people. BBC staff are also paid for by taxpayers. On top of this, the BBC is inherently a left wing structure. The BBC is an example of what happens to a corporation that is divorced from market pressures and has no accountability to its customers. The staff have adapted to this leftist, socioeconomic unreality as though they were entitled to it.

Subscribe now

The obvious truth is that BBC bias revolves around the views of the BBC Staff. The staff lack insight into the difference between biased views and views that depart from the BBC centre ground.

Any viewpoint that is not held by the BBC cult is either cancelled or labelled extreme. Most BBC news and editorial staff have done a stint in BBC World or the World Service and are Internationalist. In consequence any British nationalist or patriotic viewpoints are not BBC views. ‘One of us’ would lose their career if they supported such viewpoints: it would show they are no longer ‘one of us’.

The opinion polls show that Reform has been in the lead for voting intention for over a year and the Conservatives have adopted many Reform policies to try to recapture their voter base. The reaction of BBC staff has been to use their platform to disparage the 45% of the population who do not have the BBC viewpoint. BBC presenters routinely treat the 45% as outsiders and make it clear that they are not ‘one of us’. They are especially fond of the anti-democratic term ‘populist’ to imply that their opponents are just offering gifts to ignorant chavs.

The BBC are creating a problem for themselves by making enemies out of half the population. If these enemies obtain power they will probably want revenge. The BBC know this and are doubling down on the propaganda against these enemies. Elections are in danger of becoming polarised into contests between the BBC and its enemies.

The BBC used to be governed by a strong Charter that contained necessary structures, such as Broadcasting Councils, that provided feedback about bias. Tony Blair realized that the BBC was insufficiently radical and revised the Charter so that the BBC was regulated by Ofcom. Ofcom is a government appointed Quango that is increasingly being used for indoctrination. It is run by Melanie Dawes who is clearly ‘one of us’.

The people of England are lucky to have their national broadcasting interests overseen by Yolisa Phahle, the Southern African, Content Board member who represents the interests and opinions of people living in England:

(Source: Ofcom).

Peter MacMahon looks after Scotland’s broadcasting interests for Ofcom, but what’s in a name?

Across all campaign groups Remain spent £19.3m and Leave spent £13.3m.

The lead campaigns each had a spending limit of £7m but other campaigners had their own spending limits. Remain had more campaign groups so had the higher spending limit of £31m compared with Leave’s £21,500,000.

Spending of largest campaigns

Labour and Lib-Dems together spent as much as Vote Leave Limited. The In Campaign was a front for the “European Movement” and Leave.EU was a front for UKIP. The official Leave campaign was Vote Leave.

These are the Electoral Commission figures. However, the Government backed the Remain Campaign and boosted Remain expenditure in two ways. It directly spent over £9m on pro-Remain publications including sending a pamphlet that backed Remain to every household in the country. It tipped off foreign contributors to Remain about the cut off date for declaring contributions, this allowed several millions to be contributed by the US Investment Banks. As the Guardian put it: “The US banks are free to make donations now because the rules of the referendum have not been set and the campaigns are not officially registered. Once the rules are established, [foreign] businesses’ ability to contribute may be restricted.” (See Guardian Article).

A strange feature of the Electoral Commission figures is that StrongerIn spent more than the official figure for the entire Remain referendum campaign but only declared under £7m. See StrongerIn(In Campaign) Accounts (Open Britain Ltd):

In Campaign (StrongerIn) spending

How could StrongerIn have spent more (£19.7m) than the entire Remain campaign from all sources yet not be held to account for this? According to the Electoral Commission “The two designated lead campaigners reported total spending of £13,510,049 - The In Campaign Ltd reported spending £6,767,584; and Vote Leave Ltd reported spending £6,742,466.” Some £13m has gone missing from the In Campaign declaration. The In Campaign declare in their accounts that the £13m was spent before the regulated period (ie: before 1st February 2016). The early financing of Remain due to a probable government tip-off about the date of the referendum was highly effective.

Remain spent at least £41m when the true In Campaign and Government expenditure is included. Leave groups spent £13.3m. Remain spent three times as much as Leave and lost.

A great deal of publicity has been given to Arron Banks for excess spending. Mr Banks’ donation has been covered in the media as £8m rather than £2.9m. £8m was indeed donated but only £2.9m was spent owing to the rules for spending limits. Banks was referred to the Met for prosecution but the investigation was dropped by the Metropolitan Police. There was no huge Arron Banks electoral fraud. It was a feature of the EU Referendum campaign for prosecutions and investigations to be mounted that received huge publicity only to be withdrawn or fail later with scarcely a word of the withdrawal or acquittal appearing in the Media (‘Lawfare’). Darren Grimes (BeLeave) was also prosecuted and was subsequently exonerated.

Successful penalties for false declarations of spending/donations were applied against these Remain groups: The European Movement, the Liberal Democrats, Best for our Future Ltd, Unison, StrongerIn (In Campaign) and these Leave groups: Constitutional Research Council , Leave.EU, Vote Leave.

There were numerous small penalties for late filings and erroneous filings that were corrected. These involved many of the minor campaign groups. Most of these were genuine mistakes by inexperienced campaigners.

Overall the fraudulent donations/spending that the Electoral Commission intercepted were less than 10% of spending.

Significant Supporters of Remain

The “European Movement” (President Lord Heseltine, Vice President Kenneth Clarke). It set up StrongerIn/The In Campaign, which was the lead Remain campaign.

The Conservative Party and Government in 2016.

The Labour Party
The Libdems
The Green Party

The SNP

The Guardian
The Daily Mirror
The Independent
The BBC
ITV
Channel 4
The Times

The CBI

The TUC

The Bilderberg Group
The World Economic Forum

WPP
George Soros
US Investment Banks (Goldman Sachs etc).
The EU
The USA
The IMF
The OECD

Significant Supporters of Leave

Nigel Farage
Boris Johnson
Kate Hooey
The Daily Mail
The Express
The Sun
JD Wetherspoon
UKIP


Foreign Interference in the Referendum Campaign

Far and away the greatest social media interference in the EU Referendum campaign was from Irish and EU social media campaigning. The European Movement is a pan-EU organisation and mobilised its membership base, especially in Ireland (The European Movement in Ireland is largely financed by the Irish Government).

The EU also campaigned for the UK to Remain, fielding officials and politicians throughout the campaign and after the vote, and modulating its negotiations to disturb UK politics. The EU industry groups such as Bilderberg encouraged their members to campaign (RyanAir, Airbus, BMW etc., Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan(Tony Blair is their International President)).

The House of Commons’ “Russia Report“ says that if you watched RT you would have had biased news but does not say that the Referendum was in some way fixed by the Russians. In fact the Russia Report is a damp squib. It failed to refer to real studies of Russian involvement because they show it was minimal. Facebook undertook an internal review and found that there was “no evidence of Russian interference“ in the Referendum. Investigations of Twitter show a similar outcome. Prof Laura Cram, director of neuropolitics research at the University of Edinburgh, found that at least 419 Russian accounts tweeted about Brexit a total of 3,468 times – mostly after the referendum had taken place... “the content of the Brexit tweets overall was “quite chaotic and it seems to be aimed at wider disruption. There’s not an absolutely clear thrust. We pick up a lot on refugees and immigration.”. About 78% of the tweets came after the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016 so less than a 1000 tweets came from Russia during the campaign. ( Guardian ). Compare this with the millions of foreign Social Media Remain posts made during the Referendum by the Irish.

The BBC was forced to turn the story into how it believes the government did not order a good enough investigation into Russian influence. The BBC showed utter arrogance by not understanding that people, and Leavers in particular, had decided about the EU long before 2016 and had made up their own minds. It was the sheer ferocity of the Remain campaign on all media channels that reduced the lead for Leave, not Russian influence that won it for them:

Given that Irish and EU interference was intense and obvious it is peculiar that a small amount of Russian interference always gets covered in the headlines. Clearly the Remain press and broadcasters still cannot believe they lost. If hundreds of German and thousands of Irish European Movement members were campaigning with millions of tweets and posts on Social Media why would 4000 tweets originating in Russia (equivalent to 10 active normal users?) be creating such a stir? They should not have happened but are a drop in the ocean compared with foreign interference favouring Remain.

There is also strong circumstantial evidence that the Twitter platform itself worked on behalf of Remain. (See Is Twitter a Menace?). The use of shadow banning and the direct expulsion of Leave campaigners by Twitter probably dwarfs any other foreign Social Media bias (This was before X, when Twitter was an Internationalist platform).

The democratic legitimacy of the Referendum

There can be little doubt that without the massive outspending of Leave by Remain, the Government interference (the failed Treasury “Predictions”), the huge US Investment Bank funding, the BBC Bias and the vast foreign Social Media campaign by Remain the Leave margin of victory would have been far higher. However, Leave did win. The Leave victory was confirmed in two subsequent General Elections. There can be no doubt that the decision to Leave the EU is legitimate and entirely democratic, perhaps the most democratic decision ever made in the UK. It was not fair because the margin should have been far higher for Leave had the biased practices and finance been removed. It must rank as the greatest triumph of the ordinary citizen against the Establishment, especially the Corporate Elite, in British history.

Fallout

The failure of the Remain Media to cover the legitimacy of the Referendum is astonishing. The huge imbalance in financial support between Remain and Leave is never mentioned. The failure of the Remain Media to mention the fact that Brexit will be almost impossible to reverse because Re-joining the EU is very different from Remaining is having a corrosive effect on British politics.

It is crucial that the BBC is brought to account for its bias during the Referendum. The BBC are the worst of us.

Lawfare is a political weapon that uses regulatory processes and threat of legal prosecutions to harass opponents and, most importantly, to preserve a constant atmosphere of wrongdoing around a politician.

Subscribe now

There has been a global epidemic of Lawfare, from the multiple prosecutions of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump and the banning of Marine Le Pen to the ruthless victimisation of Imran Khan. Johnson won his legal cases during the Referendum campaign but an air of misdeeds was constantly fanned by the media. The personal case against Darren Grimes was overturned on appeal. Donald Trump has had most of the cases against him dropped now that he is President because US Presidents have considerable immunity from prosecution. The case against Le Pen was probably amended to allow her to stand for President because Jordan Bardella, the National Rally substitute, was proving even more popular than Le Pen. Bardella looked certain to trounce Macron in the 2027 elections. The Lawfare against Imran Khan was total and he is now going slowly blind and dying in jail. Every possibility from framing him to trumped up charges has been applied and the judges have been nobbled to ensure convictions.

The Telegraph report on the arrest of Le Pen is telling:

“.. there was open glee and gloating in newspapers such as Libération and the Communist-run L’Humanité, whilst the main television channel in France, TF1, wasted no time in taunting Le Pen’s followers on its nightly satirical programme Canteloup, caricaturing them as beret-wearing, gun-toting rustics, describing them as “ploucs”, an old Breton word meaning gormless yokels totally unsuited to the modern world.”

It is the process of Lawfare that is important. If a public figure can be pilloried for months in the dock or Commons Committee Room the mainstream media can slowly skin them alive. Even if they emerge with an acquittal the media will imply that there is no smoke without fire.

Farage knows what is happening. He could see months of hearings and innuendo ahead of him. He knows that, whatever the outcome, the mainstream media, with its daily sneers from Laura Kuenssberg and Nick Robinson, would slowly eat into the national psyche. He could emerge as an entirely innocent man and the result would be little different from being found guilty. That is the whole point of Lawfare.

Farage, with typical political brilliance, has taken the best way out. He has removed himself from the process and will be able to re-enter Parliament with an entirely, administratively correct catalogue of Member’s Interests.

Which brings us to asking who these slimy practitioners of Lawfare represent. All of the major examples of Lawfare have entailed Internationalists attacking Nationalists. We can only hope that one day soon the electorate come to their senses and see the terrible threat to their countries posed by globalist internationalism.

Of course, Starmer did not do these things personally and knows he is only apologising to pose as holy.

Subscribe now

Starmer’s apologies seem harmless but by suggesting that the British State is responsible for actions that were morally acceptable in the past he exposes us all to paying hard cash for imagined wrongs.

Activists are already pointing out that the Australian taxpayers have paid compensation to people considered to be victims of actual forced adoptions in Australia.

If the acceptance of responsibility by the State for historical ‘harms’ leads to financial payouts by the current taxpayer then Prime Ministers and other spokespeople for the State should be extremely careful about their apologies. The State should also be very careful about the effects of historical practice on current legislation. Legislation that awards compensation of any type will need to be assessed for possible claims over the past two thousand years of British history. The bill for poorly worded legislation could be enormous. According to the logic of compensating people for historical events, claims should be awarded as index linked payments to people whose ancestors died in wars, industrial accidents etc.

I might have admired Starmer if he had followed his apology with a statute that limited the liability of the current British state to 25 years. This would also put a stop to vexatious claims about slavery.

I would have admired Starmer if he had explained why coercion occurred instead of apologising.

The only people who can give meaningful apologies to the women in Britain who were coerced into giving up their babies for adoption are the girl’s parents. Most of the girls were children and it was their parents who signed away the baby. I can understand the parents: if their 15 year old daughter had a baby and refused to have it adopted they would be forced into another 18 years of parenthood. Parents went along with the agencies in supporting coerced adoption to escape from being cornered by their wayward daughter into a prolonged life of hard work and parental responsibility.

The coercion and forced adoptions worked to keep down the rate of teenage pregnancies. Girls are especially affected by the criminalisation of events around pregnancy as can be seen from the ending of forced adoption in Australia in the late 1970s:

Percent of Children Born out of Wedlock in Australia. Sources: ABS, Births Australia (various years); Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics (1964, 1973).

Whatever you may think about forced adoption, effective decriminalisation led to a 500% rise in births outside marriage. Decriminalisation has a serious effect on women’s approach to pregnancy.

Modern teenagers avoid the issue because the morning after pill and abortions have solved their dilemma of what to do with the baby.

(Source: UK Government)

In 2021 there were 276 abortions of babies over 24 weeks that were known to government agencies. Most of these abortions were for legal and acceptable reasons, many of the illegal abortions would have been registered as stillbirths. The true figure for late abortions is unknown (this was a crime until June 2025). Expect the figure to rise as late abortion becomes legal. See:

Will a future PM apologise for our current behaviour?

The State has taken over the role of providing a cuckoo’s nest. Single parent families are now a major burden on the welfare system. Who pays now? Not the grandparents, it is you and me. See Who gets benefits in the UK?.

Subscribe now

Any clown could say these things but even clowns would not be so arrogant as to expect that the People will just believe them like sheep. Burnham displayed utter contempt for the electorate.

Not a single mainstream media outlet reported that Burnham’s ‘Manchester Miracle’ was paid for by central government as regeneration funds. It was financed by you and me. Burnham is getting away with a gigantic lie. (See Integrated Settlement for Manchester (£311m in 2025-26), Manchester Transport (‘his’ Buses) (£1bn), National Wealth Fund (£500m in March). The annual funding of Manchester has recently been at a similar level to the amount spent on Reconstruction of Manchester after the 1996 IRA attack (£411m). Imagine what your town would look like if the government gave it billions over the past ten years instead of transferring your taxes to Manchester. Any clown could be a ‘master of growth’ if handed billions by you and me.

Burnham’s devolution is a con. Every city in the country cannot be given billions of taxpayer money from elsewhere.

Manchester is being praised to the heavens for ‘growth’ but all of the elevation in growth compared with elsewhere is a consequence of massive spending by you and me. Why are the mainstream media cancelling the truth?

The mainstream media are building up this fake messiah in the hope that he will defeat Reform. They hate Reform because it spells an end to cheap foreign labour and an end to crawling back to the EU on behalf of international companies and banks. It’s always about the money.

Burnham demonstrates the huge problem that we have with our Political Class: they are overgrown children. Adults leave education and get a job in industry or commerce. They learn about the working life of adults and how business works. In contrast, overgrown children leave university, become political activists and join the Political Class or work in further education. They then tell us what we want but have no idea how to achieve it.

If we want to be prosperous we need only look at success stories like China or the USA. China puts China first. The key indicator used by China, and the current US government, is the Balance of Payments, especially the Balance of Trade. The international companies and banks that control our Political Class do not want us looking at these indicators. Their apparatchiks and indoctrinated followers will jump on anyone who mentions the Trade Deficit.

A continuing, huge Balance of Trade and Balance of Payments deficit indicates the slow hemorrhage of business strength from a country. The deficit means that British businesses are forced to close and we have to pay for the deficit by selling assets. The EU is the prime source of the deficit (£90 billion in 2025). The deficit with the EU swallowed the entire benefit to the UK accounts of the UK financial services and banking sector.

Balance of Trade in Goods and Services with EU (Series l86i):

Any Prime Minister who fails to begin and end any discussion of the economy without mentioning the Balance of Payments is either an idiot or in hock to big, multinational business or China. We will not have growth and we will not even be able to defend ourselves without home grown industry.

(PS: The Trade Deficit of £90bn pa. includes financial services sales to the EU. It is fortunate that there is a strong financial services trade with the USA etc. Although profitable, financial services were only about 15% of UK exports in 2025 and are no substitute for a strategic economy).