The following three letters are of general as well as particular interest. The first is from our contributor Reece Haynes:


Time and again, the Daily Mail’s Comment page laments the decline of the Labour Party because “The Daily Mail has never been a Labour-supporting paper but we recognise the vital importance of a strong opposition to hold the government to account” – or words to that effect. The above is from Friday 22nd July’s edition, but a similar message has been written there on several previous occasions.

My bone of contention is: why don’t they seem to consider the idea that UKIP could supplant Labour as that “strong opposition”?

And what an opposition UKIP would be, instead of those misguided Labourites we have chatting about such important issues like whether this or that organisation is ‘diverse enough’ to reflect ‘multicultural Britain’.

On a more serious note, I believe the reason for this is that the Daily Mail have a vested interest in keeping the Establishment in government and in opposition because that would keep the status quo, thus allowing the paper to please its mainly anti-Establishment audience with diatribes against our foul immigration policies and other political scandals.

Also of note is the fact that its owner, Lord Rothermere, is one of those infamous ‘non-doms’, meaning non-domiciled individuals who don’t pay UK tax on foreign incomes. This means keeping the Tories in power with their generous taxation policies is to his advantage. But nevertheless, seeing the same comments about the necessity of the Conservative/Labour duopoly is incessantly frustrating.

Best regards,

Reece Haynes

The next letter, from a reader, raises points which we really ought to debate, and which we’ve overlooked for too long:


I think you’re right to point out how TPTB are reluctant to acknowledge the very problematic nature of certain interpretations of Islam. I’d attribute this, however, to slightly different causes.

If we are serious about tackling the extremism that has resulted in these mass killings, then we have to seriously tackle the underlying ideology – Wahabism and its offshoots – and that means seriously tackling friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. It means recognising that Saudi is not a ‘friend’ of the West, that its funding of the spread of extremist ideology underpins movements like Islamic State. It means recognising that effective measures have to be taken against Saudi Arabia, and that means accepting we’re going to lose the Kingdom as the major customer of Western arms industries.

That’s geopolitical consequence number one. Geopolitical consequence number two is that if we are serious about tackling Islamic terrorism, it means we have to stop using such groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Western elites condemn the ideology that has led to deaths throughout Europe but cheer on (and materially aid) groups with the self-same ideology bringing the self-same carnage to Syria as long as those groups aim to depose Assad. Most Western countries but especially the US and the UK, have long and dishonourable histories of using the most aggressive, most blood-thirsty, most socially regressive Islamic groups to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Geopolitical consequence number three is that if we are serious about tackling terrorism, we’d need to stand with Russia. I’ve personally never felt more ashamed of the UK than when witnessing the MSM response to atrocities like the Moscow theatre siege, Beslan and the recent downing of the Russian airliner over Sinai. The West has rushed to give safe passage and shelter to those who’ve carried out acts of terror in Russia – Amnesty International even campaigned on behalf of the guy who later masterminded the Istanbul airport bombing to prevent his extradition to Russia to answer terror charges.

What are the odds of anything changing?

One further point I intended to make: in relation to the specifics of the most recent attack in Munich, it seems to me to resemble a US-style school shooting rather than what is understood as a terror attack. The gunman was allegedly the victim of at least two assaults, claimed to have been bullied for 7 years and seemed to have a particular beef with Turks.

This, I think, touches on something TPTB and the MSM are also reluctant to confront: the relationships between different ethnic groups as opposed to the relationships of those groups to – for want of a better expression – mainstream society. I see this all the time in London where there are often very significant tensions between the many immigrant communities who’ve settled here. Anyone who observes that these maybe don’t bode well for the future, is dismissed as a xenophobe or racist.

Best regards,


And finally, a brief communication from our contributor in the USA, on the occasion of the Democratic Party Convention which has now started:


The debacle that is the Democratic Convention is hilarity on crack.  My favorite part is where Hillary’s campaign manager, a testosterone-free simulacrum by the name of Robbie Mooks, gravely warns us that ‘experts’ have told them the Russians hacked their emails and are releasing them to help Trump. Cue loud laughter! Let’s just ignore their comrade in socialism, Bernie, and point to the billionaire capitalist … Of course, nobody knows who did it, so they might as well make it up. Also, if you’re still using ‘Robbie’ after your 12th birthday, you aren’t allowed to hunt with the big dogs, get back under the porch.

Make no mistake. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the Democratic Party) is an appalling human being, period, full stop. But she did exactly what she was hired to do – get Hillary the nomination. Everybody knew what was going on from the day boxes of uncounted ballots got shoved in the trunk of a car and driven away by a Democratic operative during the Iowa caucuses. Debbie’s problem is that she got caught in such a way that implicated the entire process and everybody in it, so she’s the sacrificial goat. To be absolutely clear, one person gets to remove her. The President. And he did. She was fighting the inevitable so Obama made the phone call to ‘thank her for her service’ and Hillary gave her a nothing burger job title.

The real story, the stench of corruption, isn’t coming from there, tho.  It’s coming from the emails that show the collusion between the media and the Dems.  Also nothing we didn’t know, but nobody in the media will lose their position. You know why? Because that crowd thinks it’s a trophy to be in cahoots with these politicians. They think they’re helping pull the levers of power, and influencing which levers get pulled. The Debbie Wasserman Schultzs of the world are a dime a dozen, but these people need to become intimately acquainted with lamp posts and strong hemp rope.


P. Gray

Print Friendly, PDF & Email