Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction and the main part
We live in times when the application of conventional social, economic, and political terminology, to describe the realities of living in post-industrial world, can no longer be thought of as fully adequate. Nowadays, the politics is much better described in terms of economy, social trends – in terms of psychiatry, and the economy itself – in terms of criminology. The analysis of Tony Blair’s Premiership from 1997 to 2007 substantiates the validity of this statement better then anything else does, because it is namely during this time that British national interests have ceased to serve as the basis for designing socio-political policies in this country. And the reason for this is very simple – ever since he was appointed a British Prime Minister in 1997, Blair had proven his commitment to the promotion of Globalization as being much stronger than his commitment to serving Britain’s citizens. In his article “Tony Blair is Driving Voters to BNP”, Tony Parsons points out to the fact that, during the course of Blair’s reign, the high ranking officials from New Labour Party have completely lost their grasp on reality: “Blair talks about cracking down on organised crime when the working class are far more worried about being knifed by the pack of yobs loitering at the end of their street. The politically correct, metropolitan ponces of New Labour fret about the hole in the ozone layer when most people feel like they have a hole in the middle of their lives.
New Labour waffles about starvation in the Third World when its own people are starved of decent schools, affordable housing and reliable health care” (Parsons 2006). Just like any typical neo-Liberal, Blair had shown himself as being absolutely incapable of addressing this country’s problems in the way they deserve to be addressed, while striving for nothing less then adjusting the objective reality to the set of his obscure beliefs, which is the reason why Britain is now being often referred to as the Northern Pakistan, with British “progressive” politicians seriously discussing the possibility of legitimising the Islamic law of Sharia in Britain. In other words, Blair’s time in the Prime Minister’s office had removed the last doubts as to the fact that neo-Liberalism is nothing but a form of mental disorder, which prompts politicians, affected by it, to commit acts of national treason, without even realising it. It was not by a pure accident that, ever since the beginning of America’s aggression against Yugoslavia and Iraq, Blair wholeheartedly supported George Bush, while he was violating the most basic international laws with unprecedented bluntness, despite the fact that there is seemingly nothing in common between former American President and former British Prime Minister – George Bush is a conservative Bible-thumper and Tony Blair is a neo-Liberal sophisticate, known for his acute sense of political correctness.
Apparently, both countries’ leaders were united by something invisible to ordinary citizens – namely, by their membership in what Dr. William Pierce used to refer as the “Club”: “To have a major policy role in the U.S. government or the government of any major European country, you’re supposed to be a member of what amounts to a private club – the Club – in which you have been carefully checked out and determined to be “safe”: which is to say, determined to be willing to take orders from the secret bosses of the New World Order. You can be a “conservative,” á la Ronald Reagan or George Bush, and be admitted to membership in the Club, or you can be a flaming leftist, á la Bill Clinton or Al Gore. The one requirement is that you be corrupt, that you be a traitor to your people” (Pierce 2000). This is the reason why we cannot seriously consider suggestions that Blair’s reign had even slightly benefited Britain, simply because, ever since he was being appointed a Prime Minister, Bush’s “poodle dog”, became solely preoccupied with undermining the remains of this country’s national integrity – opening doors to the hordes of immigrants from Third World, legitimizing sexual perversions as “celebration of sexual diversity” and passing a variety of so-called “hate speech” laws, which provide lengthy jail sentences to citizens who dare to openly express their political opinions.
It is because of Blair’s strong commitment to shoving the concept of “multiculturalism”, down citizens’ throats, that this country is being gradually turned into a Third World slum itself, where “ethnically diverse” people, with British passports in their pockets, hold mass rallies in the centre of London, while openly proclaiming their hatred to Britain. In the article, from which we have already quoted, Parsons expresses his disgust with innately insane essence of country’s current immigration laws: “Islamic religious fanatics recently paraded through the streets of the capital with gloating slogans promising bombs and murder for the society that gives them a home” (Parsons 2006). The passing of these laws became possible due to Blair’s active promotion of “celebration of diversity” policy. Therefore, it is only very naïve people who can believe that New Labour Party’s social policies have resulted in reducing the gap between country’s poor and rich, or that they helped improving Britain’s educational system, simply because these policies are being based on crazed “lefties’” inadequate perception of surrounding reality, which in its turn, corresponds to their blind belief in people’s “equality”, despite the fact that that the notion of equality is nothing but nicely sounding euphemism for the concept of energetic death. This is the reason why, the more there is “equality”, the less there is “quality”.
In its turn, this explains why, despite the fact that Blair’s government had pumped huge amounts of taxpayer’s money into Britain’s system of education; the educational standards in this country continue to sink ever lower, simply because the dramatic increase in the number of “ethnically unique” students, which had taken place in recent years, cannot be discussed outside of these students’ lessened ability to operate with abstract categories. Nowadays, the British most “progressive” educators even demand that the practice of students’ IQ testing should be banned altogether as “racist”, because it exposes the ideological premise of “racial equality”, upon which Labourites base their worldview, as being nothing but a myth. In his article “Why England is Rotting”, Martin Newland reveals the fact that, despite what it is being commonly believed, during the course of “Blair’s era”, British system of education had actually sustained a heavy blow: “Britain’s record on education declines steadily, despite a doubling of spending from £29 billion ($62 billion, using current exchange rates) in 1997 to £64 billion ($138 billion) projected for 2008.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development last year claimed a quarter of the British population aged between 25 and 34 are “low skilled” in terms of educational attainment, five times the numbers in Japan” (Newland, p. 26). In the same article, author also points out at other “accomplishments” of Blair’s government: “It (Britain) leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Bloody hell” (Newland, p. 26). In other words, the beneficial social effects of Labour Party’s governing solely exist in the imagination of “progressive” political scientists, sociologists, and economists that are being hired to intellectually legitimize this country succumbing to neo-Liberal dictatorship. It is namely during the time of Blair’s Premiership, when Britain had been turned into the ideological state, where mainstream media deliberately misinform people on what is going on in the country.
In the controversial 2005 “V for Vendetta” movie, where Britain is shown under the yoke of ideological dictatorship, there is a memorable scene, when revolutionaries destroy Old Bailey, with controlled media referring to it as the “emergency demolition” – thus, intentionally lying to citizens. In the similar manner, British mainstream Medias used to refer to London’s racial riots of 2001 and 2003 as “racist provocation”, “crime against the spirit of tolerance” and “neo-nazi conspiracy”, even though that Londoners who participated in mass rallies against their country being turned into the Northern Pakistan, were ordinary citizens, which simply got fed up with newly arrived Muslim immigrants’ tendency to explore their “ethnic uniqueness”, by gang-raping White women. In other words, there are many good reasons to think of today’s Britain as ideologically oppressive state, thanks Tony Blair and his gang of neo-Liberal cronies, who actually managed to instill citizens with the fear of being charged with “racism”, “sexism”, “male chauvinism” etc.
In his article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”, Paul Belien quotes a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who had suggested that slowly but surely, EU (European Union), where Britain plays a prominent role, transforms itself into a quasi-state, intended to destroy democracy in countries-members: “I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on Earth defines anything like this as a crime” (Belien 2006) And, who has been the most ardent supporter of Britain’s euro-integration? Tony Blair. Who had suggested that those who oppose an uncontrolled immigration are “bunch of retards”? Tony Blair. Who has taken Britain into five wars, within a matter of 10 years, simply because his membership in the “Club” required him to do so?
Tony Blair. Therefore, this well-mannered politician is best defined as what he really is – traitor of his race and his nation, and it is of very little importance of what had prompted him to act in the way he did, because it is the actual consequences of his reign that count. These consequences are visible even to a naked eye: there are whole areas in large British cities, where only suicidal White citizens would consider setting their foot, there is a heavy burden of excessive taxation, laying on the shoulders of working citizens, and the most important – there is absolutely no good reasons to think that situation will change for better, thanks to the fact that Tony Blair had succeeded in “globalizing” British economy. There is a direct link between today’s staggering rates of unemployment in Britain and the strategy of economic development, pursued by Blair’s government in earlier years. The essence of this strategy can best defined as follows: “Borrow as much money as possible, distribute it among the “underpowered” citizens in variety of different ways, and let whoever will become the next Prime Minister to deal with the debts”. After having immensely “benefited” Britain, Blair wants to do the same to United States – he now gives lectures on Globalization at Yale University.
Conclusion
Thus, the legacy of Tony Blair appears as not being much different from the legacy of other world’s top ranking left-wing politicians, closely associated with international Plutocracy, who after having exploited citizens’ naivety for a while, would always leave the trail of corruption and degradation behind. This is the reason why Tony Blair will go down the history as George Bush’s “poodle dog”, rather than fully independent British Prime Minister.
Bibliography
Belien, Paul “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”. 2006. The Brussels Journal. Web.
Hiscock, John “Why V for Vendetta spells C for Controversy”. 2006. Telegraph.Co.Uk. Web.
Parsons, Tony “Tony Blair is Driving Voters to BNP”. 2004. Mirror.Co.Uk. News. Web.
Pierce, William “The Club”. 2000. Nationalist Coalition. Web.
Newland, Martin “Why England is Rotting” [Cover story]. Maclean’s. (120) 22, (2007): 24-29.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.