Tony Blair Is a Traitor. Where’s Capital Punishment When You Need It?

Charles McQuillan/Getty Image

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” (Attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero)

Even though Cicero almost certainly never used those pungent lines above so frequently attributed to him on the internet, it’s blindingly obvious whom he would have meant if he had been using them: Tony bloody Blair.

Read the rest on Breitbart.

Lord Tebbit Is Right. Martin McGuinness Was a Cowardly, Murdering Scum Bag

Bruno Vincent/Getty
According to Lord Tebbit, “the world is a sweeter and cleaner place” thanks to the death of ex-IRA terrorist Martin McGuinness, “a coward who never atoned for his crimes”.

But according to various other talking heads at the BBC and at The Guardian this morning, McGuinness was a warm, family man, a sort of latter-day Nelson Mandela, capable of great tenderness, a “formidable peacemaker” and “a very warm human being.”

Gosh, which version of reality should we believe?

Well, perhaps I can help you by pointing out that the “formidable peacemaker” accolade comes from a disgraced former Prime Minister by the name of Tony Blair; and that the even more revolting “very warm human being” tribute comes from Blair’s former chief gofer, bottlewasher, and propagandist Alastair Campbell.

Both Blair and Campbell have a very large dog in this fight. It remains a great source of pride to them that they helped mastermind the Good Friday Agreement which in their view was the glorious moment that brought peace to Northern Ireland but which others still see as a shameful and unnecessary surrender to a defeated terrorist movement, a betrayal of the Protestant majority, and a shoddy, craven, cynical – and typically Blairite – exercise in papering over the cracks which led to the overpromotion of grisly extremists like McGuinness and his fellow IRA man Gerry Adams at the expense of moderates.

Lord Tebbit inclines to the latter view. He too has a dog in this fight, having nearly been killed at the 1984 Conservative Party Conference by the Brighton bomb planted by McGuinness’s IRA associates. Worse, Lord Tebbit’s wife Margaret was paralysed in the explosion. He has spent a good chunk of his time and money since lovingly nursing her, so not a day goes by when he isn’t reminded of that moment over three decades ago that so cruelly snatched away his happiness.

But it’s not bitterness that informs his opinion so much as the intellectual integrity which we’ve long come to expect from Margaret Thatcher’s most forthright former Cabinet minister.

Lord Tebbit tells it like it is because he isn’t – and never was – one of those cringing, oily, greasy-pole-climbing surrender monkeys who believes that “politics is the art of the possible”.

Tebbo has always believed in speaking truth to power and in doing the right thing rather than settling for ugly, shaming compromise.

His view on the IRA and the Good Friday Agreement is of a piece with this. It wasn’t principle, he maintains, that drove the IRA high command to negotiate but desperation.

“He was not only a multi-murderer, he was a coward. He knew that the IRA were defeated because British intelligence had penetrated right the way up to the Army Council and that the end was coming.

“He then sought to save his own skin and he knew that it was likely he would be charged before long with several murders which he had personally committed and he decided that the only thing to do was to opt for peace.”

And, no, he definitely doesn’t accept the idea that – as is often said of that other former terrorist, Nelson Mandela – McGuinness’s change of heart was somehow noble because it led to peace.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Lady Thatcher Was a Statesman. Blair and Cameron Are Mere Politicians

Blair and Cameron are mere politicians

Cometh the hour cometh the man. (Or woman).

Except it’s not always true, is it?

In 1940 we had Winston Churchill. In 1979 we had Margaret Thatcher. But I’m not sure even the most generous apologists for our current Prime Minister would bracket David Cameron in quite the same category.

What did Mrs Thatcher have that Cameron doesn’t?

For me the essential distinction is that between being a statesman and being a politician. Maggie was the former, Dave is evidently the latter – as, I think was Tony Blair. One of the key differences between the two lies in their attitude to personal popularity. To the politician it matters greatly, for the primary aim of the politician is to gain and maintain power at regardless of what cost to his principles. To the statesman, however, the political process is little more than a necessary evil. What matters to the statesman is striving to do what they believe is right rather than what is merely popular or expedient – even if, as in Maggie’s eventually defenestration by the Tory wets led by Heseltine, this results in being kicked out of office.

Time and again there were moments in Margaret Thatcher’s career when political expediency would have demanded that she soften her position: the time when all those economists wrote so expertly to The Times insisting she revert her supposedly disastrous monetary policy; the time when her cabinet were advising her not to go to war in the Falklands; the time when – ultimately fatally – she chose to face up to Europe rather than go native and cave.

She was proved right every time, of course, while all those who counseled otherwise have been proved oh-so-wrong. But is this because Margaret Thatcher was an intellectual genius blessed with magical insight into correct geopolitical strategy? Of course not. She would, I’m sure, have been horrified at the suggestion. Rather, what she believed in was old-fashioned commonsense. Or, what you might more sophisticatedly call “first principles”. So, for example, if thrift and hard work and self-discipline and honest aspiration work well on a household level, then the likelihood is that they’re going to work on a national level – regardless of what your clever civil servents might be telling you.

The Lady was not for turning because the lady had the courage of her convictions.

Convictions. Remember those, anyone?

Related posts:

  1. Margaret Thatcher dies; Dave basks in the limelight
  2. Cameron’s dream comes true: Prince of Darkness officially anoints him ‘Heir to Blair’
  3. Margaret Thatcher: Climate Sceptic
  4. David Cameron skippers Morning Cloud, conducts LSO, etc

Why Should Broke Britain Bankroll Immigrant Spongers?

Insidious Marxist assault

“Yoo hoo! It’s me again!!”

A couple of days ago I posted on the heartwarming story of Firuta Vasile, 27 – the Roma woman with four children who came to Britain five years ago, claims not to have been able to find work except as a Big Issue seller, and currently snaffles in excess of £25,000 in benefits, courtesy of the British taxpayer. And who has just snaffled another £2,500 in housing benefit having argued – through an interpreter, also funded by you, the British taxpayer, and with the support of a Welfare Benefits Adviser called Andy King – that this is no more than her fair entitlement.


What shocked me almost more than the story itself was the reaction from some of our menagerie of trolls.

Here’s one of our friends from across the water:

Vasile says that she looked for work, and the only work she could find was selling The Big Issue. Obviously it is not a proper job if it pays only £100 per week, and obviously she cannot pay all her family’s expenses on that … hence the housing benefit. Would it be better if she were doing nothing and receiving more in benefits?

To describe Vasile as a ‘greedy shyster’ really shows what a vindictive worm you are. How much do you earn?

And of course, having lifted yet another rock, you will watch as the lowlife crawls out from under it to advocate Final Solutions of one form or another.

Here’s another:

I am delighted that Firuta Vasile has won this victory for two reasons.

1. She and her family need the money.

2. It makes Delingpole even more angry.

and here’s one from a caring young lady called @mariannepowell on Twitter (apparently she campaigns for Roma rights in Budapest: well done, Marianne, love! Bet that makes you feel all warm and gooey inside, yes?) who Tweets:

Something vile from James Delingpole. Apparently we are living under ‘cultural Marxism’. Can’t say I’d noticed.

There are plenty more in this vein but you get the idea. Out there, in the world right now, not in lunatic asylums but on the streets with actual voting rights, are angry, quasi-articulate people who sincerely believe that:

1. Mentioning Roma in any vaguely critical context puts you one step away from endorsing Hitler’s death camps;

2. Criticising welfare tourism means you’re heartless and probably a Nazi;

3. The British exchequer is a source of limitless bounty. If there are any poor people out there in the world, it is entirely right and proper that they should partake of its largesse. To argue otherwise is morally indefensible.

I wonder how these people will respond to today’s Telegraph scoop that there are 370,000 economic migrants currently claiming the dole in Britain. Actually I don’t wonder at all. I’m quite sure they’ll think it’s great, in the same way some people think the foxhunting ban is great because of “what Thatcher did to the Miners” or that HS2 is great because it will teach poncy Southerners a lesson by destroying their countryside, or, most appositely, that unchecked immigration is great because it will smash the Tory fascist vote base for ever and dilute our filthy, reprehensible, hideously white Anglo-Saxon stock with people of all colours and creeds holding hands underneath a rainbow.

I wish that last bit was an exaggeration. But it’s not. As former New Labour speechwriter Andrew Neather has revealed, between 2000 and 2009 Tony Blair and his bien-pensant ministers (among them Jack Straw) cynically and very deliberately used immigration policy as part of their Kulturkampf against the right:

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

We need, I think, to be far more courageous and outspoken in resisting this insidious cultural Marxist assault on our values. Since Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech, the liberal-left has successfully created a climate in which any criticism of immigration is considered tantamount to racism. This is a grotesque mispresentation of reality. We are – even now, amazingly – for the most part a hugely tolerant nation. But we also have a very refined sense of “fair play.”

It is clearly not fair play when, at a time of severe economic crisis when many of us are feeling the pinch, that we should have our taxes raised and be forced to borrow more money on the international markets in order to fund immigrants who are here merely to leech off our generosity.

Like many of a libertarian persuasion, I have few problems with immigrants who have come here to work. I have major problems with immigrants who are here to sponge. As, I hope, does anyone out there with even half a brain or a scrap of moral integrity. (Guess that doesn’t mean you, trolls).

Related posts:

  1. Why Britain is stuffed: an unintentional masterclass courtesy of the BBC
  2. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  3. If this is Britain’s energy policy, we’re toast
  4. Oasis are vulgar, over-hyped, under-talented and the face of yob Britain

Posted on 22nd January 2012Author jamesCategories Blog

2 thoughts on “Why should broke Britain bankroll immigrant spongers?”

  1. Nige Cook says:24th January 2012 at 12:13 amJames, this is an EUSSR story: if you watch the BBC news, they only report immigration problems of people coming in from outside the EUSSR, like hard-working Americans who can’t get work visas here. They won’t report problems of people coming from within the EUSSR for benefits handouts.This is your friend Cameron’s fault for staying in the EUSSR. We have no border controls against EUSSR benefit seekers from communist Greece, Spain, Greece, France, Greece, and former communist states like Romanian gypsies don’t go through the green channel and aren’t even recorded in statistics when they arrive, so there is no hard data, just anecdotal cases which Cameron easily ignores.

    Of course Britain is the soft touch. The irony is that Cameron – instead of telling the EUSSR to **** off and getting out of that new Warsaw Pact – is punishing British people by tightening up welfare for all here. If he had quit the EUSSR and stopped this benefit scam, the money would be available for the people already here. Instead, Cameron believes leaving the EUSSR is immoral. So he has to limit benefits to large British families and force them to move into cheaper areas to survive, instead of cutting the benefits drain by quitting the EUSSR and controlling immigration from Europe.

    I can’t watch the BBC anymore. They keep claiming that because there are no statistics kept on immigration from Europe anymore, there is no immigration from Europe. This is the delusion Cameron is in. Avoid keeping records, and then conflate the absence of data with the alleged absense of a problem. Socialists who claimed immigration controls from Europe are racist will, we can predict, next start complaining that the benefits cuts needed to the welfare state (due to immigration) are even more unfair.

    Of course Britain’s benefits culture, the most generous in Europe, is a magnet for these EUSSR immigrants. Nobody with more than a single brain cell could ahve failed to see this problem emerging from the EUSSR. We can’t afford it. Ultimately, benefits will be cut for all, just because Cameron doesn’t want to stop further abuse by those responsible for the drain, by ending our EUSSR membership. It reminds me of a mentally weak socialist school teacher, who refused to punish or deter disruptive students and instead kept the entire class in during breaks, in the belief that it was more “fair” punish everyone for the excesses of a few. This is Cameron in a nutshell. Political correctness on EUSSR membership, to help prop up a few losing big brand names whose chairmen he is friends with or whatever, who keep our “balance of trade” with the EUSSR a trade deficit, but insist that it is somehow vital for British jobs that we’re controlled by slimy eco-socialists in Brussels.

  2. Terrywiltorn says:26th January 2012 at 12:35 pmWell done JD. I have just read that Gloucestershire Police have closed 19 police stations and plan to cut more officers and even reduce neighbourhood policing! Perhaps if we started to look after the British tax payer and used the monies spent on immigrants being paid welfare, then, these cuts would not happen. On a similar note I hear that the Overseas aid budget will increase to some £11 billon in 2014! Why oh why do we put up with this?

Comments are closed.

An Ppen Letter from My Old Mate David Cameron to the People of Britain

August 25, 2011


Cameron: an apology (Photo: Rii Schroer)

Cameron: an apology (Photo: Rii Schroer)

In the latest Spectator I have written an open letter to my old university mate David Cameron. Here is a companion piece: the letter I’d like to see him write to the nation, having at last recognised the gravity of the crisis we’re in.

He won’t write it, of course.

Dear Britain,

If you realised just how totally stuffed we are you wouldn’t waste time getting to the end of this letter. You’d already be outside Number 10 with pitchforks demanding my head on a spike – and you’d be quite right to do so, for I have failed you. My cabinet has failed you. My Coalition government has failed you. And it’s no good our trying to blame the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown administrations for having failed you even more. We are where we are – and where we are is about as dire a place as Britain has ever found itself in in its entire existence.

That includes, let me assure you, even the darkest days of the Second World War. Back then, however bad things might get, we were cushioned by an empire, by America, by a sense of unity and purpose, by a national character defined by resilience, self-reliance, patriotism, decency and an absolute determination – even unto death – never to surrender to tyranny in any form.

Today, none of this applies. Our empire is gone; the US – read Mark Steyn’s brilliant After America – is now owned by China; our national character has been diluted by waves of unchecked immigration and by the sapping of moral and intellectual purpose which comes with decades of ingrained “progressivism”. As for tyranny we’ve already long since surrendered to it. It’s called the EU – and the fact that it has a caring, sharing, equality-loving, nurturing, “communitarian” face does not make it any less dangerous or anti-democratic than the kind of regimes that Louis XIV or Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin were trying to impose on Europe’s once-sovereign peoples. It just makes it more subtle, and sly, and ultimately more effective, that’s all.

Some people will laugh at me for telling you this. They’ll say that I’ve lost my head; that I’m panicking you needlessly. Oh really? And which one of the problems facing us, would you say, was overstated: the fact that the European economy is on the verge of collapse; that Britain currently has a £4.8 trillion debt, which it is nowhere close even to beginning to shave off; that our best ally, America, is in worse shape than we are thanks, not least, to the reckless spending of President Obama; that one in five children have parents who have never been in work; that, thanks to our abysmal, dumbed down, low-expectation schooling we have two generations without literacy, numeracy, or even the beginnings of an understanding of what it might involve to pursue a career which doesn’t depend either on crime or state handouts; that we can no longer afford an effective military; that our police force is so hamstrung by political correctness it is incapable of protecting people or property; that our political class is so utterly remote and ineffectual that voters can scarcely see any point in going to the ballot box any more, for wherever they place the X it won’t make the blindest bit of difference. First came Blair; now you’ve got the Heir To Blair. Nothing has changed; nothing will change until a politician of principle stands up and says: “Enough is enough.”

And that’s why I’m writing this letter to you now. I want, first, to apologise for the disaster I have been since “winning” – or rather “not quite losing” – the last General Election for reasons which were almost entirely the fault of myself and my political advisers.

We took the view – the cowardly, defeatist and wrong view, I now admit – that Britain had grown so irredeemably socialised under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that the only way a Conservative administration could ever regain power was by offering still more of the same (only with a green-tinged blue rosette instead of a red one, to give the punters the illusion they had some kind of democratic choice). The problem with adopting this attitude of “managed decline” – as my ideological soulmate Ted Heath found in the 1970s; and I’m finding now – is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what’s to be done? The good news that what needs to be done is very, very simple: the exact opposite of what got into us this mess in the first place. And what got us here, is excessive taxation, regulation, and government spending. We need to remember that there are only two kinds of government money: the kind it rips off from taxpayers in the productive sector of the economy; and the kind it borrows at rates of interest which mean it either has to borrow still more money or take still more money off the taxpayer. Either way the result is the same: an economy in which it becomes increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs, traders, small businessmen – the backbone of an economy – to go about their work. If they can’t go about their work then the economy cannot grow. And if the economy cannot grow, the government will need to take still more money from the taxpayer, or borrow still more money (at possibly even higher rates of interest) merely to maintain its current spending levels. The inevitable result is a spiral of decline.

But while the good news is that the remedy is very simple, the bad news is that it will be extremely hard to apply. One of the main reasons for this is the nature of the political class: whether on the Left or what currently passes for the “centre-Right”, its instincts are much the same – always to ask “what more can the Government do to help?” This is the wrong question, for the answer is always the same: more stifling bureaucracy; more parasite-like layers of administration; more regulation; more spending of money that the government simply does not have.

The other main reason is you, the British people. Far too many of you, for far too long have got far too used to the idea that government’s job is to wipe your backsides for you. And it’s not. Not from now on, at any rate. For one thing we can’t afford the paper. For another thing we can’t afford the staff to do something which most of you are perfectly capable of doing for yourselves. It’s a scandalous waste of other people’s money – taxpayer’s money – and the very last thing we need if we’re even to begin to hope to compete in a global economy against places like India and China and Brazil where the work force are perfectly capable of putting in 12 hour days and wiping their own backsides without any expectation that the state’s role is to do their dirty work for them.

That’s why I’m writing to you now to tell you like it is. What I’m hoping is that I’m straight with you, you’ll be straight with me in return. You’ll never again take the soft, easy, head-in-the-sand path of voting for which ever political party offers to bribe you the most with money it doesn’t have. You’ll vote for the one which acknowledges the scale of the problem facing us all and which has the courage and the will to deal with it.

That political party ought, by rights, to be the Conservatives. And perhaps – before I embarked on my misguided quest to “detoxify the brand” – it would have been. But as you may have noticed recently this is no longer case. We have a Justice Secretary more interested in the rights of criminals than law-abiding citizens; we have a Home Secretary who believes that policing should primarily serve the interests of Britain’s senior police officers rather than the citizens they’re supposed to protect; we have a Foreign Secretary – formerly a principled Eurosceptic – who has since done a Portillo and decided that his post-politics employment prospects are better served by selling British interests down the river at every turn, for that way a comfy future on the Euro gravy train lies.

And if you think the Conservative wets in my cabinet are a liability, imagine what it’s like having to govern with Liberal Democrats. We have an Energy and Climate Change Secretary whose primary purpose is to bomb our economy back to the age of the wattle and daub and the coracle; we have a Business Secretary who loathes business; we have a Deputy Prime Minister who doesn’t know what he wants except that it has to be the opposite of whatever Conservatives want otherwise he’ll get torn to pieces by his own party.

This is no way to run a country. It is especially no way to run a country on the brink of a precipice. That is why today I’m going to offer you a clear political choice. I’m scrapping the Coalition, because 2013 is far, far too late to start out on the rescue package which needs to be initiated now. Instead, I’m going to stake my political career and the future of Britain by calling an immediate general election.

After that it’s up to you: liberty or the soft, enervating tyranny of the Left; growth or stagnation; future or no future; jobs or no jobs for your children and grandchildren. You choose.

Related posts:

  1. Cameron’s price for saving his Coalition: the destruction of Britain
  2. Climategate: why David Cameron is going to be disastrous for Britain
  3. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election
  4. David Cameron’s shale gas lifeline


O’Bama? Oh Puh-lease!

Barack Obama plants a tree at the Presidential Residence in Dublin (Photo: Reuters)

Barack Obama plants a tree at the Presidential Residence in Dublin (Photo: Reuters)

Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when hes in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of a Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

And in the Middle East, where he is Al-Barak Hussein Obama, Protector of the Holy Shrine, Smiter of the Kuffar, Lion of the Desert, Tent-Loving-Aficionado-of-the-Oversweetened-Coffee, Chomper of Sheeps Eyeballs, Restorer of the Caliphate.


Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime often in the course of one Downing Street reception the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

My colleague Damian Thompson appears to be under the impression that Obama is a great guy because he said nice things about the Queen. Look, I think the Queen’s great too, but did it really not occur to my distinguished colleague (and editor) that there might have been a hint of an ulterior motive here? Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like some presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

Related posts:

  1. My problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he’s black…
  2. Cap and trade: which part of ‘We can’t afford it’ doesn’t Obama understand?
  3. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  4. Why the Prince of Wales’s letters shouldn’t be kept secret

25 thoughts on “O’Bama? Oh puh-lease!”

  1. David Donald says:24th May 2011 at 10:39 amDear James,
    Superlative,-but I think he could be the new St paul ,if we are not careful.
  2. Neil says:24th May 2011 at 10:44 amHear! Hear! we, your American cousins heartly agree!
  3. Paul Herrmann says:24th May 2011 at 10:48 amnothing more to say, other than AMEN…
  4. Mac McKenna says:24th May 2011 at 11:51 amJust read your blog. Laugh…………………..I nearly pissed myself, and that is something when you are on dialysis!!!!!!!!!!!!! To the point and never a true word spoken. No doubt he’ll tell the Queen that he has found out he has English roots dating back to the 17th Century. A whippet breeder from Salford, called T’old Barmy Barry from dow’nt road next tud pennines cafe, Ye knows, twon that looks like he’s bin dow’nt mines.
  5. Mac says:24th May 2011 at 1:25 pmJames, it’s nice to see there is at least one real Brit left across the pond. I spent many summers in England during my youth, dividing my time between my grandparents in London and my Aunt in the IOW. I haven’t been back for some time, but I was deeply saddened on my last trip to see how much the country has changed in the last 30 years. It’s as if some sort of slow malaise has crept across what was once the best country in the world. Everyone is so concerned about being tolerant, they are blind to the loss of their heritage and culture.

    I heard more Farsi than English the last time I visited London. The only resistance I saw to the plague of political correctness came in the form of a rather gruff Scot. He marched down the stairs of a number 52 bus (the last one that evening) and came to the defense of a man who had sprinted to catch it and has being berated in barely intelligible English by the Pakistani ticket man. Myself and another American stood up and supported him and the man got to stay and catch his ride home. What amazed me was the shock on the faces of the other Brits – they were actually embarrassed that the Scot had dared to say something to the Pakistani. Sad, really.

    Furthermore, it seemed like everywhere I went people were actively defending this slow decline into mediocrity. Even in Wales (unbelievably), there was blatant kowtowing to the new world order. I was able to actually locate some old school Brits in Salisbury, and felt like I’d gone back to 1968 or so. So I know there are probably some over there yet.

    For the past 10 years I’ve watched the signs here in the USA. We are headed down the same path as you lot, and we haven’t bothered to consult history. Our cities are becoming third world mini-nations, and what was once a melting pot has become a salad bowl. Otherwise intelligent people are buying into the socialistic rhetoric and there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop this decline.

    Obviously, the blame falls squarely on the hippies. I was just a kid in the 60s, but even to me it was obvious the world was changing.

    Keep up the fight.

  6. Jane Franks says:24th May 2011 at 1:59 pmRight on! I’m an American and share your views as do a growing number of our citizens. Thank you for being honest about our undesireable president, and be assured there are many true blue Americans who are honest and truly love Britain for Britain. And many of us have “true” roots in your country!
  7. Dave Edwards says:24th May 2011 at 3:51 pmThank you for having the courage to say what the American press refuses to!
  8. Cardinal Mazarin says:24th May 2011 at 4:23 pmThis is nuts. There’s no analysis, no perspective, no facts – just a raw howl of hate for Obama. What’d he do to you? Run over your dog?
  9. An American Admirer says:24th May 2011 at 5:22 pmMr. Delingpole, this blog is brilliant, witty and so refreshing. Thank you and keep it up!
  10. JimmyGiro says:24th May 2011 at 6:53 pm@ Mac,

    Where on the IOW?

    I too was a child of the 60s, and regard the Island as a cultural paradise at that time. The Island has NEVER returned a socialist MP, and I think the absence of that religion had left us in that sublime state.

    These days however, the change by political subversion is painful to witness, like the ravishing of the shire, in middle-earth; there were 8,000 votes for the socialist candidate in the last election here! Total treachery.

  11. Nancy says:24th May 2011 at 8:03 pmAs an American, I have to say bravo to this very funny and brilliant column. I agree with Mac – I visited London in 1978 and 2010 and I couldn’t believe the difference. For one thing, I could hardly even find a native Englishman in 2010 – everyone I met seemed to be from somewhere else! Are all these foreigners trying to adopt British culture, or are they just trying to preserve their separate little cultures under the cloak of “diversity”? The tour guides in 1978 were proud of their country and heritage. The tour guides in 2010 were just making jokes about Americans – which I didn’t mind by the way, some of them were pretty funny, but I did not sense the same pride in British culture and accomplishments. And we as Americans are caught in this same political correctness/diversity madness. Before someone out there accuses me of being racist, I am a member of a minority group in America, but I consider myself “American” before anything else. Yay for the Royal Family for not inviting our President to the wedding – he and his wife have shown contempt for our British friends.
  12. Mac says:24th May 2011 at 8:08 pm@JimmyGiro

    Back then I stayed mostly in Shanklin, where my aunt and uncle had a small bungalow. They moved around over the years, but never left the island. I remember collecting sand at the Needles, and as a teenager walking down to the ferry (in Cowes, I think) to watch the Swedish school girls arrive. I spent much more time in London, wandering around Shepherds Bush Market, the Serpentine, and Holland Park – and riding the tubes all over creation.

    I like the Tolkien reference, but it sounds like we need to skip to the chapter entitled “The Scouring of the Shire” and clear out Saruman (who do you pick to play him?) and company. My wife is half-British as well (Welsh to my English) and we had planned to spend some of our retirement years there as I am eligible for dual-citizenship. However, now it seems positively dismal, and horrifically expensive. I might be able to rent something in a caravan park, but that would be the only way I could afford it. I will, of course, have to come and inspect things personally but I’m afraid of completely spoiling my memory of it.

    My most recent visit was in the mid-90s and it was to attend my Nan’s funeral. Things were getting grim in London by then but I had hoped the countryside would still be free. Regrettably, it sounds as though even the archetypical British village is a thing of the past.

    BUT, I have seen the EDL at work and I have to give them some kudos. Maybe if enough people wake up soon enough, the “Politically Correct” crowd can be cowed and some semblance of Anglican society can be saved.

  13. Joe King says:24th May 2011 at 9:28 pm(Disclosure: I’m American.) Bravo! Replicate yourself, and send some of the clones over here. You have opened my eyes about Tony Blair. (I already knew about Obama.) It makes sense. Regarding this Obama trip, I noticed that there was no condescending pat on the queen’s shoulder by Michelle O this time around. You are right that Obama in reality has no use for the UK, at least not as long as it’s a country of greatness and its people take pride in their tremendous heritage. He feels the same about the US. I would like to see the bust of Churchill returned as soon as possible. This is not pleasant to say, but from the sound of things, the Brits could use a bit more of ol’ Winston themselves. (After reading this article, I believe that just maybe you really are always right.)
  14. JimmyGiro says:25th May 2011 at 12:13 am@Mac,

    All my childhood was in Newport, though as kids we walked freely as far as our dinner would carry us.

    I too remember the Swedish girls; they were later joined by Danes, even Spanish and Japanese. All part of the ‘EF’ exchange scheme. Then a Danish child was raped by a man from the mainland, and that pretty episode of summer ebbed away.

    The Island which had its very first armed robbery in the 80s, is now littered with CCTVs, and the police force from Hampshire, prides itself on being the most gay friendly. They are also fairly expensive to run, and thanks to ‘elf and safety, they insist that the little festivals and carnivals that made up the Island’s summer culture, are well policed or not allowed. And the cost is shared by the organizers, who naturally can’t afford them, thus the Island gets duller and more neurotic.

    The wild life has changed also, not so many little birds, but lots of sea gulls; or should they be called gutter gulls, since they seem to have given up on the sea?

    The local council are the only growing business on the Island, and I suspect they fill their coffers by accepting lots of mainland city overspills, thus the Island is becoming a dumping ground for lost souls. They’re building 6,000 new cheap homes, to become next decades slum estates no doubt. This is on top of the fact that at best there are 10 JobSeekers for every vacancy on the Island; with a high spot of 50 JobSeekers to every job opportunity in January 2010!

    Who plays Saruman, he comes in many guises, but he always leaves with a golden “fuck off”.

    It would be worth visiting the Island, not for a golden quiet and charming holiday, but more for an anthropological object lesson in the vagaries of social engineering, by self serving shysters.

    All the best from the sunny IOW.

  15. Mac says:25th May 2011 at 12:39 pm@JimmyGiro

    You paint a very bleak picture, my friend. Perhaps it is sadder still, in that many of my relatives on the IOW seem as oblivious to these changes as the proverbial frog in a pot. These are professional and intelligent folk who fail to realize their peril and view opinions such as ours as alarmist. I tend to agree with them but that doesn’t make the alarm a false one.

    I will return to the island and see for myself. I used to know some of the Hampshire Constabulary and it pains me no end to hear that the police are complicit in this PC nonsense. My great grandfather and his father were both London Bobbies. They are likely rolling in their graves.

    Perhaps you could pop over to Avalon and wake Arthur. I fear it is time.



  16. Andrew Ryan says:25th May 2011 at 3:37 pm“He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.”

    I don’t understand what ‘roles’ James is referring to here. Does he mean ‘If Obama was the one with the power rather than, say, David Cameron’? If so, this strikes me as bizarre. Does James see the UK as the ‘dominant partner’ in the Special Relationship.

    And if Obama is being a slavish suck-up by visiting the Queen, does that mean that the Queen is too? Does she get the same criticism when she’s on state visits?

    Finally, the very fact that James needed to exaggerate so much about Obama’s actions in Ireland and Africa lends a clue that he didn’t actually have much to work with. Obama spent a day or say in Ireland, he had a Guinness in a town where he genuinely DID have an ancestor… and that’s about it. He didn’t adopt an Irish accent, put on a green hat, tell Irish people that he was one of them.

  17. Widdershinnz says:26th May 2011 at 4:01 pmWhat a racist jackass. I hope carnival barkers piss on you.
  18. Evan Marks says:26th May 2011 at 5:49 pmThis was the first article I’ve ever read by you. Fantastic! In fact, it was read on the air by a talk host on one of the usual talk radio stations i regularly listen to. I will be following you from now on. So few writers, media wonks, or even office workers have the courage to criticize Obama, or should I say O’Bama, for fear of being called a racist, Even if the criticism is unrelated to race. God help us all around the world if this guy is re-elected. Thanks for a very entertaining article.
  19. David Arnett says:26th May 2011 at 9:00 pmVery good work. I featured a preview and posted a link on to you. We are the oldest (est. 1996) independent (owner/operator) local news service on the Internet (years before Al Gore even invented the thing). Not really a blog as we pay writers statewide, we hosted 2.5 million page views in 2010 and are now running at about 1,000 unique visitors per day which is not bad for a local site of general interest. It may not that big a deal, but I wanted you to know that here in the heart of America (what some call “fly-over” country) we appreciate your work.
  20. Gordon Rabon says:27th May 2011 at 3:17 pm@ Andrew Ryan

    “Finally, the very fact that James needed to exaggerate so much about Obama’s actions in Ireland and Africa lends a clue that he didn’t actually have much to work with.”

    Don’t expect too much from James. His comedic performance on the Horizon documentary shows the only information he works with are from his own opinions. Won’t be long before he starts advocating the return of the Confederacy in the US and Nazism in Europe. Judging by this piece, James could even be the star columnist for Der Stürmer.

  21. Mac says:27th May 2011 at 5:17 pm@Gordon and Andrew, did you guys take a look at the top of the page? It says BLOG, from which you should infer that anything written is “opinion” unless otherwise cited.

    As to your liberal hyperbole, turnabout is fair play. If you look in the mirror you might just catch a glimpse of Goebbels.

  22. Gordon Rabon says:28th May 2011 at 9:27 am@Mac

    Mac, opinion is what I wrote. Looks like you make about as much sense as your grand master Delingpole. Unfortunately for some of you, his opinions are taken as fact.

  23. Andrew Ryan says:28th May 2011 at 2:30 pmMac, I DID take it to be opinion. That’s what I reacted to – his opinion. If you want to argue that his opinion is completely divorced from any reference to facts, then go ahead and make that argument. Otherwise, as Gordon points out, your post doesn’t really make sense. All my points stand, none of which you addressed.

    David Arnett, I’m afraid that Al Gore’s work in creating (not inventing) the Internet precedes the establishment of your site by almost two decades.

  24. Mac says:31st May 2011 at 1:04 pmGood God. Have they stopped teaching History, English, and Social Studies altogether? If this is an example of the new liberal world order we really are doomed.
  25. Frank Tavos says:1st June 2011 at 5:28 pm@ Mac:

    Are you really that surprised? Surely you know that the left has always had its head firmly lodged up its @rse. That’s the only way to explain how they can believe in the codswallop they’re continually spouting.

Comments are closed.