Closer to the edge

The political establishment continues to assure us that we need more immigrants because they are, they insist, “good for Britain” and “help to boost out prosperity”. Yet after ten years of what virtually amounts to an open door, allcommers welcome, immigration policy, following on from thirty years of “light touch” regulations on immigration, we are hurtling into recession, with inflation galloping ahead and unemployment rising.

For decades we have been told that our health service would collapse without third world immigration, and now, by coincidence or not, we have standards of hygiene in out health service which is not much different to a third world country.

Beyond the issue of hygiene, which may, as I say, be a coincidence, far from assisting the health service, mass immigration is putting more strain on it.

As someone who has recently been required to accompany a relative who has had need of the health service, I have yet to visit an NHS waiting room where we, as white indigenous Britons, were not in the minority. From the array of national costumes one is inevitably confronted with when visiting any NHS hospital within a fifty mile radius of an airport, it is clear that a significant number of those benefiting from NHS treatment have not been in the country long enough to have contributed towards it.

Does anyone believe that as many health tourists would get in if we had proper immigration controls?

The added strain does not just come from health tourism, those immigrants who have settled here place added strain on our infrastructure and services, like everyone else, immigrants get older, those who arrived on the Empire Windrush are in their 80's now, and unlike the Poles, they did not go home, neither did those who followed, and those who came after them. We now have many thousands of immigrant pensioners ending their days in Britain, many of whom are dependant upon the Health Service. I would not begrudge any one treatment they need and have paid taxes for, but it is an open question as to whether, as a group, the immigrant community have made a contribution equal to the strain they place on services.

For example. immigrants still (allegedly) make up around 10% of the population, yet almost a quarter of all births in Britain are by immigrant mothers, and I doubt that many of them went private. It would seem that if we do need immigrants working in the NHS it is to cope with the additional demand on it caused by uncontrolled immigration.

In other areas, I have written frequently about the impact which the open door policy has had on crime, particularly, street crime, rape and knife and gun related assaults. However, on the other side of the coin, we have seem efforts to increase ethnic recruitment into the police service result in millions of pounds of tax payer's money being paid out to people who have made claims of racial discrimination, because tribunals are so dogged by political correctness they demure from calling many of the claimants the charlatans they are.

The downside of immigration is evident in so many areas, another unspoken problem is the disproportionate number of state dependant single mothers who are either immigrants themselves or who have been abandoned by fathers who are.

The terrorist threat we all face, and on account of which so many of our civil liberties have been stripped from us comes either from immigrants or the British born children of first and second generation immigrants, most of whom have been radicalised and funded by people not born in this country.

Tell me again how immigration benefits Britain?!!

If it is not immigration itself, the ideology which tell us it is a good thing can be every bit as damaging. Just this last week we have seen a financial crisis unparalleled since the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which, in part, ushered in the Great depression of the 1930's, and as a result of which hundreds of billions have had to be pumped into the global economy, and huge multi billion dollar corporations have had to be effectively nationalised, whilst major banking institutions have either collapsed or have been taken over.

Surely you say, that was caused by white spivs and speculators, she can't try and blame the world financial crisis on immigration ....can she?

Well, not exactly, perhaps not immigration to Britain, or at least not yet.

However, let us look at the root cause of the latest crisis, the sub prime mortgage fiasco in America, whereby loans were given to people who self evidently could not repay them. There were certainly faults after the event, whereby those loans were repackaged and sold on as something other than what they were, however, the original fault and the cause of the ensuing problems was the initial coal face lending, which was unquestionably business incompetence bordering upon madness.

Why did this happen, and why did banks think it was a good thing to do? The answer may lie in who was doing the lending, and who they were lending the money to.

The two huge mortgage lenders who the American government have been forced to rescue were Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae otherwise known as Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Administration. But who or what were Freddie and Fannie? The very word federal should give you a clue that there were not mortgage lenders as you and I know them, and indeed they were nothing like Bristol and West.

Those of you who think all corporations are the same may find this clip enlightening, it shows Dan Mudd the Chief Executive of Fannie Mae addressing the US Congressional Black Caucus, an organisation to which Fannie Mae has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last decade or so.

Mr Mudd doesn't sound like a conventional banker does he? That is because he is not, he is a man on a mission, Fannie Mae, like Freddie Mac saw themselves not so much as businessmen but as social engineers and in recent years their activities have been less to do with business as they have with ideology. Here, and here and here are further examples of the unconventional activities of Fannie and Freddie, which make what happened a little easier to understand.

These were great American institutions, they play a part in the majority of all US mortgage lending, but they didn't behave like mortgage lenders. What happened in America was the equivalent of what would happen if Ken Livingston and Lee Jasper had been put in charge of Bradford & Bingley, just on a far more massive scale.

Money was lent to people because they were black or because they were immigrants, whether or not they could repay the money was irrelevant if things went wrong the white guys would bail them out, which is, of course, what we did.

Of course there was more to the recent financial crisis, as ever with the stock market one can never underestimate financial institutions ability to self destruct, speculators misbehaved, causing the regulator to temporarily ban the practice known as short selling, which enables cynical people to bet on a company's failure. Furthermore, the ratings agencies did nothing to help the situation, when, for instance they downgraded AIG the single act which almost pushed one of the world's largest corporations into bankruptcy.

However, all that was after the event, at the very root of the crisis was sub prime lending, which could also be called politically correct, or equal opportunity lending.

The media will have you believe that the primary motive was behind excessive sub prime lending was greed and sharp practice, which are certainly part of the story but they are far from being the whole story. The driving force which led us into this crisis was that same ideology which worships multiculturalism and tells us that mass immigration leads to prosperity.

It defies logic, ignores facts and ridicules truths and has embedded itself like a malicious trojan in almost every aspect of our culture, and, not for the first time it has brought us close to the brink of disaster.