The bleating British sheep of all three major parties at Westminster have just handed Mr Cameron a massive vote of support for his Libyan military adventure with barely any proper debate and virtually no consideration, all eager to be seen supporting a politically correct “humanitarian” mission. The English Radicals would like to know – how do the British always find the money to wage war, whilst there is huge national debt? Do they have a special “magic sofa” full of pound coins down behind the cushions?  In fairness to Cameron, he cannot help himself – he is programmed from birth and upbringing to drag Britain into “gunboat diplomacy” at the drop of a hat, and by jingo, he'll make sure the money is found for this wizard wheeze, even if English citizens have to do without. 

The English Radicals suspect the Downing Street PR machine is behind this action – short, successful wars are like a shot of Viagra for a flagging government’s popularity - but we feel no case can logically be argued for such intervention, as it contravenes one of our most basic principles – that English servicemen should only be deployed in the event of a threat to the Realm, or in extremis a close ally with common cause. Libya does not qualify on either count, and should have been left alone to sort out their own affairs. That may sound harsh, but we would like to offer a strategic overview of the situation from an English Radical perspective.

Our opinion is that western support for the Libyan rebels is based on a gamble that Gaddafi can be toppled and a pro-western puppet regime installed in its place, who will keep us supplied with cheap oil (rest assured if Zimbabwe had oil, allied troops would have been in there years ago to liberate them from Mugabe – and their oil). But what guarantee do we have that any new regime will be grateful? The majority Sunnis are not known for such sentiments - the Taliban are Sunnis, indeed once Gaddafi's failed socialist experiment has run its course they are more likely to establish an Islamic theocracy than anything that resembles a western democracy.

Gaddafi is a bad man and no mistake, but he was also serving two very useful roles for the West, and Europe in particular – he'd stemmed the flow of African migration to the EU, and he kept a tight lid on any Al Qaeda activity, because of the totalitarian nature of his regime. However the Sinjar Documents held at West Point military academy show that the vast majority of known foreign fighters in Iraq have come from – who'd a' thunk it? - Libya! So obviously, in spite of Gaddafi's regime, militant Islamist sentiment is thriving in Libya, and unable to find an outlet there has found a ready home in that other roaring success of western “help” and intervention, Iraq.

So realistically, if Gaddafi survives the West’s attempt to replace him, won’t he be mad as hell and probably retaliate with terror attacks of his own on innocent western civilians? (virtually every town in England has Libyans working in pizza and burger joints, how many are “sleepers”?) – or, if Libya ditch Gaddafi, why would they be remotely interested in stopping African migrants heading north to Europe via Tripoli? Are they likely to adopt democracy with pro-western leanings, when as devout Muslims they are more likely to follow the path of Iran and instead become an Islamist state? If that happens, why would they object if Al Qaeda set up shop there to plan more jolly pranks like the Madrid, Mumbai or 7/7 London bombings? If an air strike hits the wrong target and innocent civilians are killed in any numbers (always a possibility if the Americans are involved), won’t Arabs and Muslims in England start demonstrating against the latest imperialist crusade, thus heightening racial tension and increasing the risk of terror attacks in England?

By attempting regime change in Libya, the British government are undoubtedly replacing an unfriendly neighbour with an outright dangerous one, and rousing even more Arabic/Muslim anger on our own turf. Good thinking Dave, well done! Sometimes not getting involved is hard but the smart thing to do, and it’s a pity that Mr Cameron - a man with no previous ministerial or armed forces experience prior to becoming PM - and his tame flock of war-happy British MPs, don’t consider the long term effects of their military actions on the people who will ultimately pay the price – the English public.
Add Comment
 
THE 300 06/23/2010
 
Picture
As the 300th British serviceman to die in Afghanistan is laid to rest this week, David Cameron tells us it is “desperately sad”, but “essential for British security” that we are there. I’m sure the English Radicals are not the only ones who find this “security” angle impossible to swallow. On the contrary, the British presence in Afghanistan is endangering the safety and security of the British public, by inflaming the anger of British Muslims – as can be seen from the Islamic “rent a mob” presence every time a regiment returns from a tour of duty. Lest we forget, the 7/7 bombers were almost to a man, British born Muslims, protesting against the British presence in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

And unless the Taliban are planning direct action by driving across Asia and Europe in Toyota 4x4’s to spray us all with semi-automatic gunfire, the security angle doesn’t really bear scrutiny, does it, Dave? 

You can’t invite people with strong links to other countries to live here, and then expect them to keep quiet when you start a war in that country. So in fact, the British presence in these Islamic countries is undermining British life, by dividing its citizens.

The British state wants its cake and to eat it: an idyllic “multi-culti” Britain, with all colours and faiths holding hands and skipping joyfully through the meadow together, while it occupies a land many of those British citizens hold dear, to prop up a corrupt regime on behalf of a bigger corrupt regime. And there lies the real reason Britain is in Afghanistan: to legitimise the American presence there. Why are the Americans there? Because of its strategic importance, oil pipelines, opium (production is up since the invasion, strangely) and mineral wealth recently estimated at one trillion dollars. 

If you look at the operation from an American viewpoint, it’s been a fantastic success: through warfare, thousands of miles from your own borders, you have destabilised a country with incredible resources and strategic value which you are now the ruler of, your local puppets are in place and doing your bidding, all that remains is to strip it of its value, and when that’s achieved you can pull out, job done. What’s a few thousand NATO dead, or a hundred thousand Afghan dead, when there’s big money to be made?

So in effect, the “300” that the title refers to – the dead British servicemen who lost their lives in Afghanistan – did not die to bring democracy to the Afghan people, or to safeguard women’s rights as we are sometimes told, but to promote and safeguard the commercial interests of global capitalism for our “special relationship” partner, America. We really should be more choosy who our friends are.

For the love of Allah, Dave, grow a pair, stand up to “hopey-changey” Obama, and pull our troops out of Afghanistan, before another “300” die in vain. British Muslims will thank you for it (could be votes in it, Davey boy!) and the wider British public will thank you for it. As you are fond of telling us, sometimes difficult choices have to be made: you make one for a change, and see how you like it. The English Radicals would do it in a heartbeat.


+ click here to return to home page & menu +
Add Comment
 
 
Picture
The British government, through its mouthpiece Mike O'Brien (Health Minister – no, I'd never heard of him either) is apologising to the victims of Thalidomide for the pain and suffering caused to them by its prescription to their mothers fifty years ago. This is shortly after the British government apologising for the slave trade of over 200 years ago – what's next? The Bubonic Plague? The Crusades? The Norman conquest?

Quite apart from the lesson that governments and the medical profession are often mistaken in their judgements about the safety of drugs and “terror diseases” like Swine Flu, the English Radicals ask: why apologise for something you HAVEN'T done, when there are a hundred things you SHOULD apologise for? For instance:

The thousands of British, Iraqi and Afghan dead, as a result of our devotion to America and their desire to control Iraqi oil and the Afghan poppy crop?

The thousands of English “A” level students who won't get a University place next year, because the British government would sooner fund war in Afghanistan than education?

Our continued membership of the EU, when the majority of English people want out?

Labour’s refusal to have referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, an election manifesto pledge?
 
The scandalous taxation on private pensions, while the cost of taxpayer-funded public sector pensions is going through the roof?

The 88 year old English war hero Spitfire pilot John Mejor, forced to sell his home and make his elderly wife homeless, to pay for his medical care?

The Mosedale family returning to their Tottenham home to find it full of Romanian “asylum” seekers, who have a “tenancy agreement” from a scam merchant, and so cannot be evicted?

The fishermen of England, who watch European super trawlers steal their catch every day and ship it straight to Europe?
 
The coal miners of England, who, unarmed, were forced to face police cavalry to try and save their industry after Scargill and Thatcher decided to have a class war?

The car makers of England, watching their factories being dismantled and shipped to China?

The steel makers of England, as they watch their Teesside steel mill mothballed?

The people of England are facing the same fate as the American Indian – a proud, brave race forced into reservations (council estates) their buffalo (jobs) all gone, with only “fire water” (coke and smack) to dull the pain of their existence, with little prospect of breaking the cycle of despair. That's why we are radicals: we can see the problems, and we have the answers. 

ARE YOU BRAVE ENOUGH TO FOLLOW US? 

Picture
ONE STAR THAT WILL BE SHINING THIS CHRISTMAS
The English Radicals would like to offer their congratulations and best wishes to the new owners of the Star Inn in Broughton, Greater Manchester – the local community who scraped together £80,000 to buy it off the brewery at auction. No mean feat in these difficult times, but they are not the first to do this. That honour goes to the Old Crown pub in Cumbria, which was bought by a consortium of local residents in 2003, and is still thriving today.

This is exactly the type of effort which we, as Distributists, applaud: the Star may have closed for good, like so many others up and down England, but the locals who use it now own it, and it will  presumably be a “free house” – meaning they can buy their beer cheaply from competitive local sources, instead of being forced to buy ale from a “tied” mega brewery, often at inflated prices.

Although pubs are probably ideal for this type of community buyout, we hope to see this practice expand to fund other types of business - because businesses generate employment, which we need desperately now our jobs are being outsourced to the slave labour economies abroad. 

The English Radicals believe that every pub and bar should, by law, be a free house, and we would like nothing better than to see every local pub community owned, and supplied by local breweries, with the global breweries that once owned them forced to compete in the “free” market, instead of running the cosy scam that forces pub managers to buy only their products. 

A toast to the Star Inn, and may they always prosper.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE & WEBSITE MENU
Picture
ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT.........

Eight years on from their original deployment and the UK’s armed forces in Afghanistan have just been informed that £150 million will be made available to provide extra funding to combat improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Happy Xmas guys, and Gordon Brown is sorry that after all this time as Chancellor and Prime Minister he didn’t realise that you had to defuse a lot of bombs out there! Nor did he realise that you needed helicopters to get about, because the roads were full of IEDs; nor did he realise that the snatch Land Rovers you have were a tad vulnerable to both bombs and bullets. But you are getting proper armoured vehicles now, even if they don’t like the sand too much. Sad really, when you hear how our armed forces are sent to war without the right equipment; pathetic, even, when you hear that UK generals have been cadging lifts from US Army helicopters, but disgusting when you hear that British soldiers are buying their own body armour and other vital equipment on Ebay. So, Mr Brown, where has all the money allocated to fight the war gone? And, lest we forget, this is not a recent event, for one of the very first British casualties in Iraq in 2003 died because he had given somebody else his body armour due to shortages!

How treacherous is it for a government to despatch men and women to war but not provide them with the equipment necessary to fight that war in the safest and most efficient manner? For that is what this is, treachery of the highest order. Politicians and their banker friends rewarding themselves with mega-bonuses, repairing their moats and their clock towers, fiddling whatever cash they can out of the taxpayer and then denying the funds needed to support our services in the face of a vicious and deadly enemy. Moreover, an enemy that this same Establishment has told us it is vital to take on and defeat to make our streets safe. Yet history teaches us that this betrayal of our armed forces is nothing new. In the First World War there were often supply problems and in one famous incident the artillery that should have been sent to the men who had secured a beachhead at Gallipoli ended up in Egypt. So those men were stuck on the beach, under heavy enemy artillery fire and without the means to respond. In more recent times the first soldiers deployed onto the streets of Northern Ireland waited years to get the proper riot equipment and had to resort to using bin lids and shoving copies of ‘National Geographic’ magazine down their trousers to combat stone-throwing youths. Whilst the Task Force that was sent to the Falklands found that the warships melted when struck with missiles, and even the humble army boot disintegrated when it made contact with the Falklands mud, British soldiers ended up robbing the boots of dead Argentinian soldiers in order to finish their forced march across the island.

The English Radical Alliance does not think that our soldiers should be deployed anywhere in the World except in England to defend our streets and our shores, but whilst our troops are on active service, as they are today, they should be provided with the necessary personal and tactical equipment to do the job. To do otherwise is not only undermining the military campaign, it is also a crime!

.............AND A DECENT ROOF OVER OUR HEADS

Having denied the men in the frontline the proper equipment to do their job, the Ministry of Defence is trying to further undermine their morale by delaying improvements to services’ accommodation in order to help the department save money. In a recent letter from the head of the Army, Sir David Richards, it was announced that there will have to be a 10% cut in capital building programmes in order to help plug the £1.5 billion deficit in the MOD budget and this can only be achieved by postponing promised repairs to barracks and married quarters. Thousands of soldiers currently live in damp, poorly maintained barracks that have leaking roofs, broken windows, faulty heating and blocked lavatories. Just what kind of people inhabit the MOD? These are the same people who took disabled soldiers to Court to reduce their compensation for wounds received on active duty and yet who awarded themselves massive bonuses recently, no doubt from the savings on providing body armour and helicopters to soldiers in Afghanistan. No wonder Gordon Brown wants to send even more soldiers to Afghanistan, that’s less who will need a roof over their head in this country. So, when the General Election comes along and you are thinking about where to place your cross, please remember just how the Labour Party and gutless politicians in the other parties treated the people who they sent out to fight its illegal wars.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE & WEBSITE MENU
Picture
MORE JOBS GO TO THE LANDS OF CHEAP LABOUR
England's last remaining piano manufacturer - Kemble, based at Bletchley near Milton Keynes - has now closed with the loss of more than 90 jobs. Its parent company, Yamaha, is moving production to the land of cheap labour in the Far East. The company which has been owned by Yamaha since the mid 1980's claim the marketplace for mid-range pianos has come under increasing pressure, and in order to improve their long term competitiveness, the best solution is to fully utilise their manufacturing capacity in other locations! In simple terms close down the company here in England and relocate abroad where labour is cheap and working conditions much poorer!

In 1986 when Yamaha first became involved with what was then a family owned company, workers felt the Japanese multinational were their saviours. Yet this action has proved that Yamaha and the entire capitalist system cannot be trusted and that Kemble is just one of a long line of companies who are relocating to the lands of cheap labour at the expense of the workforce here in England.

English Radicals have a very dim view of such action and an even dimmer view of the lack of action by the British government. ERA believes when a company relocates to the lands of cheap labour, its workforce should be paid a lump sum equivalent one years wages on top of any redundancy pay. This would give the workforce a real financial cushion and the opportunity to start their own business if they wish. In addition to this ERA believes that the workforce should be given the opportunity to buy the business at a reduced rate and to run it as a co-operative.

Only ERA offer policies that provide greater job security for the workers of England, reducing the fear at cheap foreign labour taking their jobs, and at the same time offering real opportunity.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO HOME PAGE & WEBSITE MENU
Add Comment