Published On: Thu, Mar 1st, 2018

Coming soon: The Cheated

Share This

Brexit has been off-limits here at FBEL because the subject was covered thoroughly ahead of the general election of 2017 (the Day of the Dumb). Knowing the British Government for what it is was enough to foresee the betrayal that is somehow currently surprising and disappointing so many, but in fact that knowledge alone did not need to be relied on; the contemporary literature clearly spelled out what weaseliness was ahead. People didn’t want to take heed, frightened about political bogeymen (who all front for the same entity), and fell in to the old voting habits that have never failed for the Establishment.

FBEL will resume extensive coverage of Brexit after the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed, because at that point the UK will have left the EU. It may well be that the country will be having to suffer a transition deal, and it may well be that the country will be under EU legislation, and it well may be that EU foreign nationals will have the same rights as British citizens; but Britain will have left the EU, and there will be a vast amount of scope through which to attack the British Government.

That being said, we must take a break from our Brexit avoidance for a very short while to acknowledge the news, today, that the British Government intends to let anyone from the EU who comes into the UK during the so-called “transition” to remain in the country for five years, and then win a right to settle permanently. This has been called a U-turn by some, but is it?

The Daily Mail explains the reason for the decision:

In a significant U-turn, ministers announced that any EU migrants who arrive during the Brexit transition period will have the right to settle permanently in the UK

The move appears to be a bid to smooth the path to agreeing a transitional deal.

Previously, a widely-read FBEL article, entitled Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism, predicted that the Government would resort to tricks to make the desired continued parallel development of the UK and the EU appear as if it were attained by concessions necessary to the Brexit process. It also said that at points in the entirely spurious Article 50 negotiations, everyone should expect to see:

a) the setting out of the EU’s position whereby there appears to be little or no flexibility, b) the creation of a scare that seemingly causes the UK Government to surrender to the EU, and then c) the UK Government being justified in the eyes of a nation when it signs up to a deal that is not in its best interests.

And so it happens as it was foretold. Naturally, this “U-turn” already comes upon a UK Government guarantee (that also dates from before the Day of the Dumb) whereby EU nationals already in the UK will have the right to settle permanently – and have, as the Mail reminds, “full access to schools, hospitals, pensions and benefits”.  It’s a pseudo-citizenship for foreign nationals (where there should not be such a thing), and it has been written of at FBEL before.

We are now being told in the corporate-media, after years and years of the numbers being played down, that there are 3.2 million people from the EU in the UK. It’s quite possible that Britons are supposed to be frightened at the prospect of sending too many home lest the economy collapse. Too big to fail; we’ve seen that before, and it’s a con to save the sorry skin of some gangsters. The evidence suggests, actually, that as many immigrants as possible need to go as soon as possible, and there certainly shouldn’t be continued mass immigration once Britain wins independence from colonising Eastern Europe (Migration Watch has stated as much).

The evidence: well, it can’t come from official statistics, because they always tell us that tractor production will be 100% higher over the next year – a la the Soviet Union; and fitting given that Britain became attached to the Warsaw Bloc in 2004. The British corporate-government tell us that the country is experiencing full employment. That is right, folks. More or less, Britain has a rate of unemployment whereby it can be called the opposite of full: empty. At the start of 2017 it was 1.6 million, and towards the end of that year equalled rates in 1975 – before all that Winter of Discontent stuff. Not only that, Britain has achieved full employment despite importing 3.2 million immigrants – so instead of a glut of spare and idle hands because the supply way outstrips the demand, which we would have expected to happen, we are told that there is a supply of labour to match demand – all very cosy and nice. That’s what the figures suggest.

No wonder the Guardian has headlines like this:

UK unemployment is as low as 1975 – but why aren’t wages rising?

The body of the article continues…

Joblessness stands at 4.7%, a level that many economists would consider close to full employment, yet there is not the glimmer of the upward pressure on wages that was so evident in the mid-70s.

It is not until a reader gets to the comments that the elephant in the room is mentioned. The wage stagnation is caused by supply of labour far outstripping demand. The official statistics are just propaganda, as you would expect in the extended Soviet Union.

Let’s now consider some eye-witness testimony. Being an investigative reporter, the author went and had a look for himself. No names can be mentioned, but he witnessed a skills and competency test, English, numeracy, etc, at a factory where two of the examination candidates were applying for a job – both English. There were two other test-takers, both foreign, and making sounds that suggested emanation from that strip of land between the Baltic and the Black Sea. Both of these already appeared to be working for the company – and so appeared to have been hired regardless. As the two English finished the test, one of the immigrants was only finishing off the first portion. The other had only come in to do one part of the test – let us suggest that it had been failed before.

So, what would be the advantage of employing people who have less ability in a simple test than a 5 year old child? The answer must be: to be able to impose low wages, and bad working conditions. Is it, in the end, a wise decision – or is it false economy for a British company? If you are destroying the ability of the society in which you operate to buy your chopped lettuce – and we’ll look at how that is happening in a moment – then why do it? If you are handing over the future of your capability to produce (because some management must come from the work force) to people who had to move to a foreign country to get a job, then how secure is your future? Well, one answer is that the profit garnerers of corporate-government just don’t care, and they somehow think that they are going to be untouchable when the economic chickens come home to roost. If they have made their bunkers nice and deep, they may well think that they are untouchable. We’ll return to this idea in a moment too.

You might well have noticed that a gaggle of small businesses have closed down in your town centre – shops that can’t pay the rates because the council needs to pay the welfare bill. Yes, it’s true. Being an EU migrant in work doesn’t guarantee that the local council doesn’t have to pay the rent. And everyone also forgets the people who are displaced; they need to be paid for too [when they aren’t living, and dying, rough on the streets]. If the official statistics tell us one thing, it’s this: for every EU migrant in work, there is someone else who isn’t. The welfare bill could be saved, but the corporate-government is only interested in profits. And so, forget being able to buy your speciality olive oil – which actually raises another point. Just because the 2 million (and the rest) EU work force in the UK is being paid in British pounds, it doesn’t mean that it is supporting the British economy – and factors relating to this deficit range from a simple matter of culture and taste (so that it is only the colonial outpost – the Eastern European shop – that benefits) to orphaned children back east who need money sent to them.

There is not a lot to be found in corporate-media about the (negative) impact of EU immigration on the state of British culture, or its impact on the very identity of things you took for granted, like the High Street – all through the burden placed on local government. It is not hard to understand why corporate-media keeps away from the subject. The author, however, did find this from 2015, updated a year later (for some reason):

Hotels and B&Bs for Manchester’s homeless costing nearly £1m per year

Manchester town hall is now spending nearly £1m a year putting destitute people in bed and breakfasts the M.E.N can reveal, at least THREE times more than in 2010…

Council deputy leader Bernard Priest added: “It will come as no shock that budget cuts to local councils and the effect of austerity have impacted most keenly on the most vulnerable people in our city.

“Changes to welfare and reduced employment opportunities have seen a sharp increase in both families and individuals finding themselves destitute and homeless…”

So, we pretty much have it spelt out for us. At the root of the problem is zero chances for employment – zero prospect of paying one’s way. We discussed above the fact of how displacement from employment and a surfeit of labour supply means a welfare bill both for those in work, and of course those out of it. Of course, councils can’t afford it – so the welfare bill is cut, or the council tries to raise the money, which affects everybody because middle class business closes down (and the business owning middle classes are a high-value target in the economic war). The article linked to here is what we could call a follow up piece, talking about how Manchester City Council has to choose between raising the council tax bill, cutting council jobs, or cutting welfare and creating destitution.

This is the true cost to British society of EU immigration, and somehow the people who facilitate it in corporate-government think that they are going to be immune to it. Yes, they are indeed protected by the State security apparatus, and corrupt councils that fix election results, and corrupt courts that deny prosecution, but all this is also subject to the same decline as other areas of public spending have been, so can it be relied on? It’s something for the British corporate-government to give serious consideration to. For a long time the author has been wanting to write about a radio talk show that he happened to hear last year in which Michael Savage (the author isn’t a usual listener) spoke of the time coming where people, who had been born in the same country as their ancestors – their ancestors (whatever the skin colour)  – who had built it and contributed to the common pot, and who had been overlooked for jobs, promotion, etc, in preference for foreigners and affirmatively-actioned politically-useful minorities, are going to realise that they strived for nothing. Then there will be trouble, said Savage. Real civil war†. As it applies in the US, so it applies in the UK (arguably, it applies wherever the English-speaker is suffering as a second class citizen in his own land). The question posed at the start of this paragraph was “are the bunkers of the corporate-government deep enough?” It wouldn’t be fair for these people to hide, and have their exposed pawns suffer the wrath of livid “Eddie” (as Savage calls the decent, hard-working, cart-horse citizenry). But, be warned, that is what they would do to save their skins, and indeed, they would stage events to demonise the Briton who is at long last ready to stand up not just in defence of his country, but for his living, first and foremost. Don’t fall for it. Britons are already being told “don’t blame it on the EU immigrants” [the author has it on good authority that this is happening], so that the expectation pre-exists for these false flags. Don’t fall for it.

The real targets are the corporate-types engaged in the economic warfare against Britons – and violence isn’t necessary even then. To be proactive, all one needs to do is put these types out of business by boycott (all part and parcel of the resistance to the electric-circuit model for economic dominance). They will be in industry which relies heavily on slave-wage immigration; making product that is incredibly labour intensive but is relatively cheap – like ready to eat pasta salads and sandwiches; stuff that you don’t really need, but buy because it’s affordable. Stop buying it.

The British corporate-government knows what it wants, and is determined, and so it needs to keep pulling the wool over the eyes of the British – the Cheated – to get it. But be assured, the social and economic failure will continue, and British people will be able to see it, and most importantly feel it. There is going to be anger; but it is going to be focused in the proper and effective direction.

Will the bunkers of corporate-government be deep enough?


† [Update: 2nd March 2018] While there is truth in the idea that people will lose it when they’ve nothing to lose, an element of this is undoubtedly about incitement. After all, Savage can be counted as an Alt-Right operative. On this day there comes news that Hope not Hate is characterising the prospect of “far-right” violence as a civil war against Muslims (expect a write-up at FBEL soon). It is crucial not to fall into what is an Establishment trap, and to understand that the Muslim terror has been Government-run exactly in order to create this state of tension that we are these days witnessing. The Government also controls the “far-right”, and it wants you to pick a side so that it is easy to criminalise you. Don’t fall for it. The target is the corporate-government – and no one on our side should be talking in terms of war. If there is going to be a civil conflict, it needs to be the people versus the State. If the Government wants a war, it will have to start that.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image