Come home Tony!

There used to be a popular ditty titled 'I've been everywhere, man'. Maybe this should be Tony Blair's theme tune - perhaps with self-accompaniment on his own guitar. He was at it again last month, jetting around the world: one moment in Washington, the next in Seoul, then in Peking. It becomes difficult to keep up with the fellow as he gallivants about, seemingly oblivious to the problems piling up here in Britain: rotten public transport; failing hospitals; third-rate schools; industry on the skids and immigrants flooding in as fast as ever (his Government is now telling us that we are going to need a million more homes to cope with them).

Tony Blair is clearly bored and fed up with the country he was elected to govern. His stock here is falling by the hour. But overseas he's the flavour of the moment. A rousing reception in the US Congress; a guard of honour as the guest of China! Vain politicians who have no grip revel in this sort of thing. It's all a substitute for the respect on the home front that they simply cannot earn by positive deeds for their own people.

We started this piece by saying 'Come home Tony', but would it be any damned use if he did? He simply hasn't a clue how to govern Britain, and so for all the value he is here he might as well continue on his global travels - but for the annoying fact that we, the British taxpayers, are footing the bill for all his overseas wining, dining, posturing and inspecting.

What a bunch of no-hopers this Government is, and what a feeble clown we have at the head of it!

The Kelly tragedy and government lies

We pass on our deepest condolences, as everyone should, to the family of Dr. David Kelly, who apparently committed suicide last month after being browbeaten beyond endurance over the affair of the alleged 'sexing up' of the reports on Iraqi's alleged "weapons of mass-destruction." This said, we are disinclined to take the line adopted by many journalists: that the Government and its spin doctor-in-chief Alistair Campbell are to blame for the Doctor's death - not at least unless evidence comes to light that he might have died in circumstances other than those officially reported.

If an individual under pressure finds the pressure too much and takes the option of suicide as an escape from it, that is his decision and no one else's; to us, it seems an extraordinary decision for a man who had a loving wife and family who would be left to grieve over the loss of him.

This said, it seems to us that the controversy over Saddam's weapons is now becoming bogged down in much too much of a morass of detail, all depending on evidence as to whether Dr. Kelly was the source of the 'sexing-up' story. Could it be that certain people in politics and the media are deliberately placing the focus on this argument over detail to distract the British public from the wider picture?

And the wider picture simply is one in which the Government is trying to put over a story which was quite obviously preposterous from Day One: the story that the Iraqi leader had dangerous weapons in his possession which, unless he were stopped, he would use against Britain and/or the United States. Anyone who could seriously believe such a story for two minutes must surely be so feeble-minded as to warrant being placed in a home for people of that affliction. Whilst we do not rate members of Tony Blair's Government very highly in the intelligence stakes, we do not believe they really are quite that lacking in little grey cells. It all means, in effect, that they are liars - liars, moreover, who would gladly consign British service folk, as well as thousands of innocent Iraqis, to their graves in pursuit of their own despicable globalist political agenda.

If there is such a place as hell, Blair & Co. certainly deserve to rot in it.

Life better under Saddam

And while we are on the subject of Iraq, it seems that the consequences of the Anglo-American 'liberation' are quickly being brought home to the people there. A report in the Daily Mail on July 3rd spoke of the growing unrest in the country as many are finding that life is now much worse for them than it was under their former leader.

One complaint was that 400,000 soldiers of the Iraqi army were left penniless when the Americans decided to disband the force. Looting and sabotage at power stations means that there is little electricity. Another complaint is that 30,000 professional people, such as doctors, engineers, teachers and professors were sacked immediately after the war purely because of their associations with Saddam's B'ath party - in the words of the Mail report, "a crucial layer of society stripped away by the coalition overnight." This all sounds like what happened in Germany at the end of World War II, when the hateful mania for purging the country of 'Nazis' resulted in its deprivation of many of its best brains, and consequent suffering for the people who were supposedly being 'liberated'.

The upshot of the 'liberation' of Iraq is that popular anger is growing and intensifying as the people see that the Brits and the Americans are not there to do them any favours, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. This anger is manifesting itself in acts of violence against the occupiers which can only grow as things get steadily worse. There's now talk of Britain and the US sending many thousands more troops to the country at vast expense. Blair and Bush have dug a seemingly bottomless pit for themselves by their ill-considered and wholly immoral invasion - and all at the behest of their Zionist masters.

IDS crawls after black vote

Elsewhere in this issue we are featuring a photograph which illustrates the frenzied efforts the Tories are now making to court the favour of Britain's Afro-Caribbean community. Instead of addressing themselves to the concerns of native Britons, who are gravitating increasingly to the BNP, the Tories are clearly turning their backs on these people so as to 'out-Blair' Blair in winning ethnic minority support.

It was announced at the end of June that the country's leading black newspaper, The Voice, was now championing the Tories, saying that Labour had taken the black vote too much for granted and that the Tories were now showing themselves to be "readily available and easily accessible."

We are sure they are. With the voting power of 'ethnic' Britain increasing all the time, and with mainstream politicians not giving a damn what they have to do or say to cuddle up to it, we can expect to witness an ever-more unedifying contest between the parties to see who can grovel the most shamelessly and brown-nose to the greatest effect.

Thank goodness Britain has the BNP!

Brighter than us?

"Asian children are now outstripping their white classmates in the run-up to the GCSEs," it was reported in the Daily Mail of the 1st July. The report went on to say that "A Department of Education and Skills census published yesterday reveals that Indian, Bangladeshi and Chinese students are outperforming white pupils." Sadly, the report continued: "Afro-Caribbean children are making below-average progress."

These findings could well be true. However, they omit mention of a fact that is known to most geneticists: that different races show different mental development at different ages. For instance, at primary level the difference in school performance between white and black children is less acute than it becomes as the respective groups grow older. Likewise, Asians can excel Whites in the teens but not necessarily later.

If the school performance figures relating to Whites and these various Asians were translated into national performance by countries of origin on the world stage, we would see India, Bangladesh and China showing higher levels of development and achievement than Britain. As everyone knows, this simply isn't happening. It therefore suggests that there is rather more to racial aptitudes than the mere ability of schoolchildren of a certain age-group to get good marks in exams.

For reasons of space, this must exclude consideration of other factors influencing academic effort and performance. For instance, the same report says that girls are outperforming boys in class. No one would suggest that this means that the female sex is necessarily thereby more intelligent, though it may well mean that in today's cultural climate in Britain girls are motivated to try harder.

Women's preference

While we are on the subject of differences between the sexes, another report should cause much interest. This came from the Government's Office for National Statistics. Recent findings in a survey from this department will be disappointing to feminists and the legions of the politically correct.

They stated that no less than six out of seven women would rather be at home looking after their children than pursue full-time careers. Four out of five women think of their husbands as the main breadwinners, and even among the best-educated women half would give up work for their families if they really had to.

This underlines a fact which we have always known but which many refuse to admit: that feminists are less interested in what women really want than in what they (the feminists) think is good for them.

'Russian' takeover?

When the news first broke last month that a 'Russian' billionaire would be taking over Chelsea Football Club, our suspicions were immediately aroused.

Genuine Russian people, whatever their admirable qualities, are not usually distinguished in the field of international big business and takeovers; nor are any but a tiny few of them billionaires.

In due course, all was revealed. The gentleman who had become the new boss at Stamford Bridge was a Mr. Roman Abramovich. Though only 36 years of age, Mr. Abramovich is reported as having £4 billion in the bank, part of full assets adding up to £16 billion. These include, just as minor chattels, a country mansion and a big yacht. He is now reputed to be building a personal gym adjacent to his home which will cost a trifling £2.5 million.

In a page-size story in The Sunday Telegraph of the 6th July, Mr. Abramovich was reported as describing himself as "a Jew first and a Russian second." Fair enough. That is how most of his tribe see themselves. The annoying thing is the way the media persist in nearly always referring to them in terms of the countries they grew up or now reside in rather than by their ethnicity. Thus Dr. Henry Kissinger is a former 'German' now naturalised as an 'American', while Tory Malcolm Riffkind is 'British' or 'Scottish', according to your preference.

Just how does a man make £l6 billion by the time he is 36? Well, apparently Mr. Abramovich got into business shortly after the Soviet collapse. With the privatisation of former state-owned industries, the workers in those industries were allocated shares which were worth very little. Unemployed and hungry, they were desperate for ready cash and more than willing to trade these pieces of paper for the wherewithal to feed their families - if only for just a while.

Along came Mr. Roman Abramovich and people like him and offered to buy up these pieces of paper, the value of which subsequently soared. Abramovich later went into oil and multiplied his gains. He was one of those who mopped up under-priced state assets in return for financial support to the politicians disposing of them. With the coming of 'democracy' to Russia, this is how the system operates.

Anyway, Mr. Abramovich has the blessing of Sports Minister and Chelsea fan Tony Banks, who deems him "a fit and proper person" to run the club.