By Man of Kent -Settlers could not have come to our country in such vast numbers without the connivance of traitors among us. The biggest of these, the one who has wielded the most power, is Jack Straw, home secretary in the last Labour government.
The Labour Party’s election manifesto of 1997 said, ‘Every country must have firm control over immigration, and Britain is no exception.’
On being elected the new leaders secretly adopted a different strategy, that of initiating unrestricted immigration with the deliberate aim of transforming it racially; partly, it seems, according to a gabby former Labour adviser who in 2009 revealed the deceit, to spite the Tories.
The edicts encouraging hordes of settlers were concocted with great subterfuge by Straw, who knew that the indigenous people would strongly object if they were made aware of the full details and implications of such a policy.
The former adviser revealed in the Daily Telegraph that Labour ministers secretly threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a ‘truly multi-cultural’ country, and exposed their reluctance to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its core working-class vote.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: ‘Now the truth is out, and it’s dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock-up but also a conspiracy.
They were right.’
Labour wanted mass immigration to dissolve English national identity and advance the cause of international socialism.
Another possible motive, suspected by many, was that settlers would be likely to vote for Labour in elections.
In the publicity that followed the revelation, it emerged that 20 per cent of Labour seats, INCLUDING STRAW’S, depended on Muslim votes.
His constituency of Blackburn has the highest proportion of Muslims in Britain outside London. Twelve per cent of the population of Blackburn was not born in Europe, and no fewer than 25 per cent of its residents are Muslim.
Surely Straw did not care so much about remaining MP for Blackburn that he would jeopardise his civilisation? Was it misplaced altruism or political cynicism, or a mixture of both, that led him to pass his calamitous act?
Such mixtures can easily happen and are in fact quite common.
Exactly opposite qualities may on occasions be blended in someone’s nature.
Straw in fact even admits in his autobiography that he owes his political survival to the votes of settlers, and praises influential Muslim settler Baron Patel of Blackburn for his help in securing these votes.
Patel in turn praises Straw for his work to solve the race problem, saying, ‘Jack is making more progress on the race issue than anyone ever before.’
So the main culprit in creating a problem is praised for his efforts in solving it!
Straw and Patel are such close chums that Straw spent his honeymoon at Patel’s house in Gujarat.
Like all close chums, they are forever doing each other favours.
Straw helped pal Patel secure a £1.5m donation from the Emir of Qatar to build a mosque in Blackburn.
A Muslim Lib Dem councillor said that the Blackburn Labour Party used Straw’s involvement in the mosque donation to garner votes from local Muslims.
The £1.5m Qatari gift was half the £3m that pal Patel needed to build the five-storey mosque, which is one of 35 mosques in the town.
He disclosed that Straw gave him ‘a reference letter’ that helped him solicit the donation during an appeal for funds to several Middle Eastern governments.
Inevitably, Straw suffers from the misguided guilt, revels in the pleasurable masochism and displays the astonishing ignorance all now prevalent among our leaders.
In 2002, when foreign secretary, he blamed British imperialism for most of the problems in the Islamic world, and in 2005 he told the UN that Muslims invented mathematics (more than a 1,000 years after Pythagoras!) and the ‘digital age’.
Throughout his career, from the very beginning, Straw has championed foreigners as a fundamental policy.
Before 1997 immigration was unplanned - bureaucratic drift, lack of concentration.
No one wanted it and the Tories tried to limit it, for example with a rule that restricted large numbers of male settlers’ wives and extended families entering Britain by a marriage deliberately arranged beforehand to enable them to follow the male to Britain.
As soon as Straw became home secretary, he first abolished this rule and then, the following year, with dubious arguments, passed the Human Rights Act, a piece of political posturing that was to have devastating consequences.
When it was ratified, he said the act ‘makes it clear that it is the duty of states to promote and protect all human rights. Human rights are for everyone to enjoy everywhere’.
‘Human rights’ entered the vocabulary of political discourse as a throwaway line in an Allied declaration in 1942, which included among war aims the defence of ‘life, liberty, independence and religious freedom’ and the preservation of ‘human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands’.
It was mere sloganeering designed specifically to bolster the war effort.
But two decades after the end of the war universal human rights slowly began to dominate international law.
The European Convention on Human Rights was formed in 1959; by the mid-1970s its court in Strasbourg had only judged 17 cases; now it has 120,000 undecided cases.
Clearly the process no longer properly functions.
The court’s impressive increasing volume of business, far beyond what it can cope with, is due to the fact that it has treated the convention not just as a safeguard against despotism, the specific original aim of human rights legislation, but as a template for most aspects of human life.
Enthusiasts keep discovering more and more rights, so that there seems to be no end to them. A woman from Oldham who claimed her baby daughter was wrongly taken into council care took her case to the European court.
Over the years, its language seeped into the language of British courts until, following pressure from the likes of top judge Lord Bingham, it was enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
Making British law subject to the European Convention on Human Rights confused the whole issue of mass immigration, enabling its apologists to mix together economic, moral, philosophical and political justifications, to adopt new arguments in its favour as earlier ones were too strongly disputed and disproved.
When home secretary, every now and then Straw vowed to be tough on bogus asylum seekers.
These statements resemble the nonsensical comic song ‘I’ve got a little list’ (of society’s offenders who never would be missed) sung by the Lord High Executioner Ko-Ko in The Mikado - just a bit of fun not meant to be taken seriously.
Possibly on one such farcical little list presented to the House was the Colombian drugs baron fleeing from the revenge of a rival gang whose members he had murdered, and the deposed African dictator responsible for the execution of political opponents. They both got in anyway.
A Bolivian illegal immigrant was allowed to stay after being found out because he had a ‘settled home life’ with a legal UK resident, the proof being that they had a cat.
It was decided deportation would breach his human rights.
One of the few Straw actually did refuse asylum to was a man fleeing Saddam Hussein’s regime, because, said Straw, ‘We have faith in the integrity of the Iraqi judicial process and that you should have no concerns if you haven’t done anything wrong.’
Six years later Hussein was hanged for crimes against humanity. Whether the unfortunate man Straw so unwisely returned was still around is unknown.
By then Straw was the foreign secretary who had approved the invasion of Iraq, presumably having changed his mind about the nature of the regime.
He recently said, ‘I could have stopped the war… I could have stopped Britain’s involvement.’
All politicians make mistakes, but to be responsible for TWO mistaken devastating invasions, that of Iraq and the ethnic invasion of Britain, is a record that would have made any honourable Roman senator contemplate suicide.
I do not know how Straw lives with himself, the main policies of his career so clearly turning out catastrophic.
Everything Straw did has miscarried.
All he touched he blighted.
He was the key figure for 13 years in a government that tore apart the fabric of Britain. Through his ideological enthusiasm for mass immigration, parts of our towns now resemble Islamabad, complete with burkas, sharia law, political corruption, paedophile grooming gangs, oppression of women and female genital mutilation.
Twenty-five thousand immigrant girls suffer this abuse every year in Britain, with not a single arrest for this criminal offence.
How many types of foreigners can a people reasonably be expected to put up with?
How many alien practices? How much difference? Respecting the diversity of dozens of cultures is not only beyond the mental capacity of the most well-meaning of indigenous citizens but such race-mixing is one theory for the cause of the fall of Rome.
Britain is now a society loosened to its very foundations by a copious admixture of foreigners, an imperfect fusion of races, its people disunited by successive immigrations and threatened by a totalitarian religious ideology.
And all this was deliberate policy, epic treachery on a scale with that of classic traitors such as Coriolanus, who waged war on his native Rome, and Judas, the greatest sinner in Dante’s Inferno, in which traitors suffer the worst torments in the deepest part of Hell.
(The Prophet Mohammed is also consigned to this part of Hell by Dante, as a ‘sower of discord’, described split down the middle with his entrails spilling out.)
At the age of 13, Straw wrote to each of the main parties asking what they intended to do for their country if they won the forthcoming 1959 general election.
Four decades later he said, ‘The English as a race are not worth saving.’ Who could have thought that such idealism in adolescence would have become so perverted in adulthood?
Playing God, Straw imagined he was creating a new race upon the Earth, an island rainbow nation. And all he has done is destroy.
Next: Ken Livingstone