Call me Tony

Casting himself as a white, messianic Mandela, or maybe a milky Mao, David Cameron’s New Year message promises a ‘long walk to a Greater Britain', when what he really means is a short walk into the deadly embrace of the EU. The future of Britain’s relationship with Europe and the future of Britishness, about to be drowned by uncontrollable immigration, are not even on the table. In his devotion to throwing away the key to the Euro-shackles Cameron has finally ascended the coveted throne and become heir to Blair.

His declared aims are to tackle poverty, extremism, housing and social mobility, none of which will change significantly without the heavy hand of state, backed up by a force he does not command. Necessary to the successful completion of the EU project is a faceless Euro-Army and the British armed forces have been run down for decades. Ironic, because rebuilding our army, navy and air force would help solve poverty, housing and social mobility at a stroke. Oh, except we would have to begin educating people again; if our youngsters can’t compete with itinerant unskilled foreign Labour the forces simply won’t want them.

But how in the name of hell is he ever going to tackle extremism? Before you can fight the enemy you have to name it and so far it is a creed that extremism has ‘nothing to do with’ the enemy that none in government will name. Why? Apart from a political class in cahoots and certain immediately recognisable (I’ll come to that) agenda-driven sectors of the population the people most adversely affected by the overwhelming numbers of inappropriate new neighbours are those who are already the most vulnerable to poverty. The people nobody consulted before planting mosques in their midst.

Immediately recognisable? It can’t come as much of a surprise that those ‘social justice warriors’ who espouse equality for all (at the ironic expense of poor white folk, naturally) also swallow wholesale the guilt-ridden climate change project. They will be ‘anti-Zionist’ and ‘anti-fascist’, believe without question that ethnic culture trumps the indigenous and deny, in the face of all the evidence, that muslim ghettoes exist. They’ll be against hunting, the monarchy, the imposition of gender identity and they will absolutely champion the rights of the offended to never be offended by demanding – much as does islam – that free speech be captured and caged.

They will demand votes for people barely capable of walking erect and shout down anybody who disagrees with them. They will call you racist and bigot and any kind of ‘made-up-o-phobe’, in the belief that making you a pariah will cancel out your reasoned argument or rational fears. They may well also be vegans, Stop The War protesters, Occupy clones in Guy Fawkes masks and have jobs in the diversity industry or ‘the media’. They will certainly have a tinge of the green about them. You do seem to get the whole package; all or nothing. They call it 'progressive' to conceal the reality that they want to reverse progress.

Tony Cameron - a man for our times

But the question still remains: Why? Why would you wish for the death of your own identity? Why would you want to reduce economic and physical security, personal freedoms and tolerance of all views, even if you do disagree? Why would you persist in aiding the enemy in this time of war? When it so obvious that all you have done is create deeper divisions in society, leading to segregation, enmity and fear, why do you carry on without question? We used to have a name for those who betrayed our sovereignty and safety, but we’re probably not even allowed to say traitor any more.

Telling talk from splutter

I heard Roy Hattersley on the radio the other day. The old tub of lard spluttered out aphorisms with his usual bluster and what one can only assume is unthinking optimism regarding Labour's electroal chances. He even felt comfortable enough to use a favourite lefty word and described his beleaguered leader, Ed Miliband as ‘progressive’. Progressive is, of course, a coded word intended to convey the exact opposite of the real intent; political taqiyya, dissimulation designed to mislead. A hallmark of the Labour stalwart is the degree to which they believe the deception themselves.

Once again we are drawn inexorably to draw comparisons with Winston Smith’s dark world of withdrawn words, altered meanings and unsubtle subterfuge to conceal the reality of lives controlled entirely by committees. Hattersley and the other relics of Labour’s militant Marxist past are beyond redemption and should heed well the George Eliot quotation: “Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.” Or as Churchill may have put it: "… he has so much to be modest about." 

Distorting the truth by mangling, or re-purposing words is nothing new, indeed it has probably been happening since soon after language came about. In the world of the progressive, language is just another tool whose ‘weaponisation’ is at its peak in politics. In Orwell’s Politics and the English Language he translates a verse from the bible: “I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”

The result in modern English is the asinine “Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.” It’s uncanny… almost as if Chuka Umunna himself had entered the blog.

To a politico making a commitment to anything means almost the exact opposite of ‘promising’. ‘Full and frank discussions’, while sounding like robust debate means a monologue was delivered and ‘cast-iron’ may as well be a form of silly putty, malleable to resemble any form other than, say, cast-iron. When people mutter gruffly that they don’t believe a word politicians say they perhaps ought to rephrase the sentiment to indicate that they are most likely to believe the exact opposite.

Come on Roy, spit it out!

So maybe, in order to best understand what our so-called leaders are saying to us we ought to filter their words through Google Translate with the destination language set to ‘antonym’. Or in the case of 'Woy' Hattersley perhaps we should filter his words through a sieve – if words are weapons his come with lumps thrown in.