What does the town of Reading suggest to you? Like me, you may have thought of it as being in much the same category as Slough or Swindon: a boring place largely consisting of acres of light industry and endless rows of anonymous suburbia.

However, in Blair's seedy and barbaric Britain, Reading has at last become 'interesting'. I hasten to add that the word 'interesting' is only meant within the context of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

In early May, two young girls were found in Reading's 'Prospect Park': one – Mary-Ann Leneghan – was dead and the other was just alive after being shot in the head. Both had been kidnapped from outside a derelict pub in an area known to be frequented by immigrant gangsters, raped and then dumped in the park. The whole background to the case was redolent of a nightmarish town of crack-houses, drug addicts, gun-toting Yardies and enforced prostitution that would have been unimaginable to anyone not so many years ago.

Even if – possibly – this was not in the strictest sense a racially motivated attack, the abduction and murder were indeed a consequence of importing criminality. Just a couple of years ago, 83 Jamaican criminals from the Reading area were deported. It is a sobering thought that if this pair of girls had been brought up as nasty 'racists', one might still be alive and the other might not have suffered extreme trauma.

The situation has become so bad that even Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur – himself a Ugandan Asian – has warned of organised criminal gangs operating within immigrant communities. Indeed some of these criminals engage in inter-ethnic battles with each other for a slice of some illegal enterprise or other. We must be quite mad to put up with this state of affairs.

Keeping the lid down

The operatives of the élite media, of course, do their best to keep a lid on any free discussion of these, shall we say, minor drawbacks of 'diversity', and there is also the Public Order Act to provide a final limit on free speech. Who knows, even a measured and balanced statement such as this one from historian Robert Skidelsky may one day – perhaps quite soon – fall foul of the anti-free speech regulations:-

'The White Man's Burden, which had never been more than a phrase in Britain's period of greatness, became a reality in its period of decline. But, whether one regards the result as progress or nemesis, most people today would agree that it was both a mistake and an injustice to allow the principle of 'laissez-faire' to govern mass migrations of people in the middle of the twentieth century: an injustice both to the immigrants and to the "natives" in this strange reversal of history.'

Incidentally, Skidelsky is now a New Labour peer, and would probably not like to be reminded of the above bit of writing! The salient point to make is that press and TV attempt to inculcate a guilt complex by under-emphasing racially motivated attacks in one direction, while over-emphasing them in the other direction.

Thus the worst racially motivated murder of recent years – that of Kriss Donald in Glasgow – was almost completely ignored merely because the victim was white. It is not hyperbole to describe this media blackout as a conspiracy of silence.

Indeed, 'Steinlight' has written of a "conspiracy of silence in a society where issues of nationhood, sovereignty, race, ethnicity, and culture are infinitely more indelicate to speak of than sex. That conspiracy is maintained by a curious alliance among the leadership of the major political parties, the ethnic lobbies, and Big Business."

Well, big business has an obvious vested interest in maintaining the flow of immigration. Indeed, the Director-General of the CBI, Digby Jones has gone on record as saying that he opposes any limits on immigration because it would be bad for 'business' and the pursuit of flexible labour. This is a mentality common to many big-time capitalists who are quite content to see the essential nature of the country destroyed for no better reason than to obtain yet more cheap, hire-and-fire workers.

These people's nihilistic extreme individualism regards the history, traditions, culture and spirit of this country as worthless, better supplanted by a commercialist monstrosity, driven by cheap-rate labour imported from every comer of the globe. As with Clinton and Blair, the CBI Director's money and security guards are there to protect and shield him from the nastier edges of 'diversity' as experienced by Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan.

Such renegades are both much more culpable and much more dangerous than all the Yardies in Britain put together. Their vision hardly extends further than their wallets and bank balances. This is the appalling world-view that animates the promoters of the EU constitution treaty, a treaty that has now happily been rejected in two countries.

Message from the continent

The voters of France and the Netherlands really gave a strong message to the advocates of a European – and later global plantation, and the response to their action was a satisfying loud yelp of discomfort from some of the usual suspects.

In America, leading neo-con Thomas Friedman complained that the result was "one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac's European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the EU and all the forces of globalization eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35 hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck."

As Friedman indicates, the voters of France and Holland had had enough. They said no to more globalization, more immigration, more export of jobs and further dismantling of social provisions. Incidentally, the piqued reaction shows just how right and essential it was for this treaty to be rejected. A further provision of the integration agreement would have been the creation of a Euro Army, virtually bound to attack whatever target the twisted brain of US-Israel should happen to think up next. Elie Cohen, Director of Research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, commented that the referendum result was "an earthquake, a major historical event... the French people have sent a terrifying message. France's political scene is pulverised. Both major parties are discredited and in disarray."

Well, they certainly deserve it. Did these 'respectable', institutional parties think that they could go on forever acting as the front men for international big money without someone eventually catching on to the game?

The naive and the hard-headed

Like the UN, the Euro project seems to attract the support of naive semi-idealists like The Observer's Will Hutton, while hard-headed and fairly unpleasant people with an agenda of their own lurk in the background.

But in Britain too there was a great deal of whining from the BBC and the broadsheet papers. All sorts of ludicrous talk was bandied about, claiming that it was somehow an 'undemocratic' vote, meaning merely that people who organised the 'No' campaigns tended to come from those parties classed as 'extreme right' or 'extreme left'. But what could be more undemocratic than the determinist view of progress towards an inevitable Euro super-state? This old, patronising idea of leading the 'peasants' onwards, supposedly for their own good, must have been finally discredited by events. The people have made their choice, and they didn't need any 'democratic' guidance from Peter Mandelson, or big business delegates from Davos or Bilderberg.