The Airlander And It's European Union Grant

Being a bit of an "Avgeek" I often read up on the latest aviation news, especially if its research and development happening in the UK. One company that captured my interest recently was a company called Hybrid Air Vehicles. Based in Bedford, "HAV" are currently building a large (as in, it's currently the largest flightworthy aircraft in the world kind of large) concept airship called Airlander 10 which they hope will provide cargo transport in the near future. Incidentally, the hanger it's being developed in was the original hanger used by the Royal Airship Works from 1919 until 1930, when the doomed R101 project being built there crashed horrifically in France killing forty-eight of the fifty-four crew and passengers on-board, effectively ending all further work on airships in the UK. Until now it seems.

The Airlander is unlikely to suffer a similar fate to the airships of yesteryear however as both materials and engineering has come some way in the ninety-odd years! Firstly, something which should seem obvious is that it's not kept aloft by hydrogen. Inside it's aerodynamic body are multiple compartments filled with helium, with the the wing-like shape of the vessel creating around 40% of the lift whilst in a forward motion. The craft will be powered by four, four litre V8 diesel engines, two at the rear and two on either side at the front which have directional thrust which enable it to hover like a helicopter. Although slow by today's airliner standards, the four engines are expected to propel it up to a punchy 80 knots, which might not sound much but considering it's designed to carry ten tons of cargo (hence the name Airlander 10), that is quite an feat in lighter than air (or practically lighter than air) travel. The skin of the Airlander is not the fabric or a thin tin-foil like substance you would expect of an airship either, but is instead a composite made up of kevlar, mylar and vectran, all known for their lightweight but incredibly strong properties.

Whilst the prospect of cargo plodding along at 80 knots may seem strange when we have huge great cargo planes that can travel at over four times that speed, it's role as cargo hauler would come into it's own in areas of the globe where there isn't adequate infrastructure. For instance, it would likely be a much safer option than the 'ice trucker' routes, or provide a much quicker and accessible form of transport for needed aid supplies for remote locations. There will no doubt be some military function these could play too, in providing supplies or light vehicles etc, as well as surveillance or communications which this craft was originally intended for! They would pose somewhat of a vulnerable target though, regardless of it's low radar profile and low heat-signature.

These factoids are however somewhat baseless seeing as the craft has yet to undergo further flight testing. The project started it's life as a joint project between Northrop Grumman and Hybrid Air Vehicles for the US military, but after a single flight test in 2012 it was mothballed. Hybrid Air Vehicles brought the craft back off of the US Government for the small figure of $293,000, and after transporting it to the UK from New Jersey, have continued it's development. The funding for it's continued development has come from a £3.5 million grant from the UK Government, £2 million in crowdfunding and a further £2 million from a European Union grant. Noticing that a significant amount of the money for this had come from the EU, I wondered whether or not an exit from the European Union would affect this companies operation.
Whilst it wouldn't personally change my mind on the European Union vote later this month, it would be an unfortunate consequence if projects like this got derailed by a Brexit vote.

So I emailed them, writing:I'm a independent blogger writing on politics and technology and I noticed that this project is in part funded by European Union grant money.

I'd like to ask, if next week the UK decides to leave the European Union, do you have any idea what might happen to your funding? Has the UK Government implied that they will step in to safeguard the project at all?

As a side note, I think it would be a shame if this should fall through. Its always good to see some new innovation in the UK, particularly as historically the UK Government has always been somewhat slow to act when it comes to developing tech over the last 50 years or so. Particularly in the aviation/space sector!

Thanks for your time in any case, and I do wish this the very best of luck. I hope to see it at airshows soon!

Hats of to Hybrid Air Vehicles, as they got back to me within a few short hours with a really descent answer which I feel might please some prospective leave voters.

Thanks for your interest.  First of all, my understanding is that nothing happens immediately if the public has exercised its voice to ask the Government to leave the EU.  It will take a while for the process of this exit to be decided and for all the EU members to decide how it is best done from their side too.  We don't simply leave the day after the vote is announced, if it is to leave.

In terms of any contractual obligations we have (in this case our EU Horizon 2020 grant), these remain contractual obligations irrespective to whether we're in the EU or not.  Without looking through the legal agreement regarding this grant, I doubt there is a sort of "force majeure" clause about potential exit of any member state, and I also cannot see the EU revoking a huge amount of EU grants or agreements that are predicated on the UK being part of the EU.  They are typically of limited duration (a few years) and it is likely to take this time for the UK to unravel itself fully from the EU, so I think there won't be an impact immediately.  The impact would be felt longer term amongst SME's, large business and academic communities with restrictions on grant funding and collaborative projects that the EU currently supports.

Thanks for your interest in us.

As you can see, whilst I don't personally know this person's convictions when it comes to the European Union referendum, it is clear that they aren't overly concerned about the impact that it might have on their business, despite having running contractual agreements with them! Either way, to many firms such as this, it looks as though an Brexit would have little impact.

Into the future it is expected that demand for these next-generation airships will grow, and as such Hybrid Air Vehicles are already contemplating building the Airlander 50, which as the name suggests is similar to the 10, except it'll be much, much larger and capable of hauling up to 50 tons of cargo. It has to be said that we should all wish this company the best of luck, and hopefully this technology will usher in a renaissance of air-cruises, the likes of which the Hindenburg etc promised, yet could never deliver.

Cyprus: A Lesson Of Turkey, and Britain's Betrayal

For the last three years, with the onset of the ongoing "migrant crisis", we've had it pretty hard going in terms of the constant guilt tripping propaganda in the media. Needless to say I have a long list of outstanding posts I intend to write discussing the creation of the Syrian crisis, and why they're letting literally millions of 'refugees' into Europe, so I won't be mentioning that in this post, but it is important nonetheless. To be fair that information is already easy to find using a search engine, anyway.

What I will mention however is the utterly retarded policy that has been brokered between Turkey and the European Union, in that in exchange for 'stopping' the relentless flow of migrants, Turkish citizens will be given an open borders status to work and travel within the rest of Europe. The tip-toeing towards Turkish membership of the EU goes on relentlessly, as was planned many years ago. (I'm calling it now by the way, "Refugees" will be given fast-tracked citizenship in Turkey so they can move into Europe officially.) The whole EU-Turkish deal is not about stopping immigration, but about making currently illegal immigration that you can rightly protest against, legal.

The real plan seems to be the creation of a Eurabian Union, in which the whole of the Mediterranean and parts of Asia will come under the control of Brussels. Whilst it is no doubt imperative for any sane individual in Western Europe to resist Turkey's budding membership of the European Union, it is those on Europe's eastern (and southern) flank who have already had a historic taste of Islam's wrath. Sure the Moors occupied Spain for 400 years, and Vienna may have survived by the skin of her teeth, but those events are not in living memory. I dare say that those who feel most angered by the EU's appeasement of Turkey are the Greek Cypriots who in 1974, had their island split in two by Turkish invaders.

This post then is an article about how Britain and America effectively shafted a sovereign nation for their own agenda's, and enabled Turkey to claim one third of the island for themselves.

So what happened in Cyprus? 

Britain obtained the territory of Cyprus under loan as part of a deal signed with the Ottoman Empire in 1878. It wasn't until 1914 when Britain found herself at war with the Ottomans in WWI, that the British annexed the territory and wielded total authority over the island. Despite centuries of Ottoman rule, spanning from 1571-1660 and 1745-1748, the ethnicity and culture of Cyprus remained overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox Christian. In 1915, the British offered the whole island of Cyprus back to the Greeks as a bargaining chip so long as the Greek Government at that time agreed to enter the war on the side of the Allies. This offer was rejected and in 1925 Cyprus officially became apart of the British Empire.

During WWII in 1941, the British once again offered Cyprus to Greece in exchange for assistance in dealing with Germany's ally, Bulgaria. Once again, the Greek Government refused. Following WWII, perhaps due in part to war weariness, anti-Imperial resentment grew. New calls for both independence and unification with Greece began decades of political instability. 

In 1950, a petition revealed that 96% of the Greek Cypriot population was in favour of unification with Greece. In the 1946 census, Greek-Cypriots made up 80% of the total population of the island, meaning approximately 75% of the total population of Cyprus was in favour of this union. In 1955, Greek militias began to form and start an armed campaign against British rule under the banner of EOKA. Inter-ethnic violence also flared up in this period between the Greek and Turkish communities, and led to Turkish militias also forming under the name of Taksim and the Turkish Resistance Organisation which clashed violently with the Greeks and called for a partition on the island. It has also come out in the past that Turkish fighters in some instances deliberately bombed their own communities in order to whip up tension and spur them into action against an enemy, who obviously were not as bad as the Turkish communities believed them to be.

Through 1955 to 1958, various conferences including the involvement of the United Nations, failed to come to an agreement on what should happen over the question of Cyprus. Greece was suggesting a self-determined Cypriot Government, whilst Turkey suggested (like it's proxy organisations) partitioning the island to segregate the two communities. With violence getting out of control the British Government were eager for a way to pull out, and in 1959 a deal was struck under the London Accord between the British, Greek and Turkish Governments and Cypriots. The whole of Cyprus was to become an independent republic as part of the British Commonwealth, all with the exception of the bases of Dhekelia and Akrotiri remaining under the British Crown.

When Britain finally gave independence to the Cypriot Government in 1960, there were early concerns that the Orthodox-Christian majority (with a historical resentment towards the Ottomans/Turks) would oppress the Turkish minority. To try and "counter" the ethnic feud, the British Government, acting as a "peacekeeper", gave the Turkish minority a permanent 30% veto power over the Cypriot Government, along with its own police force. This only further exacerbated the resentment that the majority Greek Cypriots felt towards the Turks, and to make matters worse, Turkey and Greece were funding their own ethnic groups and organisation in Cyprus (aka, EOKA and TMT.)

The British Government rather stupidly decided not to come down hard on Turkey's support for Turk Militias. One account tells of a Turkish man found with a weapons cache and only receiving two years imprisonment! The Turkish Government were supplying weapons and explosives to resistance groups and shipping members of the Turkish Resistance Organisation to the Turkish mainland for training in guerrilla warfare. It should be stated that whether or not the Turkish actually ever wanted full control of Cyprus, these fighters were in fact told that their training was part of a plan for the total repossession of the island. Whilst this was going on on the one side, the Americans supported the Greek nationalist group EOKA on the other, both directly and indirectly through the supporting of the Greek Junta which seized power in Athens in 1967. (Years of instability and civil war had been ongoing in Greece since the end of the WWII, between fascist and communist elements.)

The president of Cyprus, Makarios, was calling for amendments to be made to the Cypriot constitution in an attempt and stop the fighting. He tried to open diplomatic talks with both Greece and Turkey through the Non-Aligned Movement and favoured a peaceful solution to the instability through working with the United Nations, however the military Junta in Greece, having only recently come to power were pressuring Makarios into taking a firmer stand than he would have otherwise wanted. The proposed amendments to the constitution and cabinet reshuffles caused by the meddling, created an uproar with the Turk element within the Cypriot Parliament, and it's members left in protest. It should be noted that Makarios did relatively well to convince the Greek population that independence was an acceptable compromise instead of unification with Greece, which afterall had it's own problems. He failed however to convince the Turkish minority that the two communities could work together, possibly because of the constant pressure he was under from EOKA. Whilst the American, British, Greek and Turkish authorities were displeased with Makarios's position, it looks as though the guy was trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation, and in trying not to take a side, ended up with no friends on any side at all. 

It is likely that support for hard-line groups on both sides of the debate were being drummed up because of President Makarios's views on British and American international politics. Because of his isolationist views it led him to be known as 'the Castro of the Med' with both Washington and London suspecting he had 'tendancies towards communism'. Or that he had been speaking with the Soviet Union and other 'rogue' states through such groups as the Non-Aligned Movement. To be fair given the circumstances where he was essentially stuck between a feud with NATO member states, it's difficult to know what you would or could do as a leader to rectify the situation. Desperation may well have been the reason for communication with the Soviets. Either way, like it or not, he was the elected Government of the day.

In any case, Turkey had from the very beginning, even before the end of British occupation, called for a partition on the Island, a request which understandably was seen as being unacceptable for the Greek-Cypriots when you consider the demographics before the 1974 invasion. The Cyprus military cout in 1974 however gave the Turks the excuse they needed to enact what they'd clearly been planning for a very long time.

(The blue represents Greek-Cypriot population, the red/orange the Turk-Cypriot. 440,000 Greek Cypriots in the whole island compared with a 104,000 Turks.)

So the invasion of 1974 is where things get interesting. The British were still meant at this point to be a guarantor for Cyprus's independence and security, so these facts were pretty startling to me personally, but considering US and British activity recently in the middle-east, it's perhaps not that surprising. 

The whole reason why I began asking questions about Cyprus was because I had got talking to a local who mentioned that the UK and US turned a blind eye to the Turkish invasion in exchange for the British and Americans keeping their military bases. The US were also rather keen to keep their bases in Turkey, especially since the Cypriots refused to allow US military bases on their land. 

I've not been able to find evidence of this fact on the internet, but I have read and heard it from more than one person. The theory may become undone slightly by the fact that the Turkish banned the Americans from Turkish airbases after the Americans put a weapons trade embargo on them. It did not take long for the Americans to change their mind however, as by 1978 the embargo was lifted, and by 1980 both nations signed the "Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement".Whether this is just a Cypriot urban legend or not is hardly important however, as there is still evidence that both London and Washington willingly turned a blind-eye towards the Turkish invasion itself, and who were in actual fact always in cahoots with the Turkish side to introduce a divide across the island.

What is most repugnant about the whole ordeal is that America and Britain could have brought about a diplomatic end to the situation had they not continued to support both the Greeks and the Turks simultaneously. It was president Makarios, who sought independence and a diplomatic resolution, and both America and Britain saw him as a threat simply for not wanting to get drawn into political lines on the international stage. The use of Turkish and Greek aggression is just another example of divide and rule tactics, and internationalists using differing factions to suit their own agenda.

The results of the 1974 invasion of Cyprus was the killing of thousands which could have been avoided, as well as the displacement of Greek civilians who were evicted by Turkey and forced to the South side of the island. Their homes, businesses and possessions were then forfeit, a situation which meant some Turks got very rich off the backs of Greek-Cypriot loss.

Turkey then used an aggressive re-population tactic to change the demographics of Northern Cyprus by moving thousands of Turks to the captured territory, a move which could really be seen as a form of cultural genocide.

But could the Turkish invasion have been prevented?

It seems strange that despite Greece and Turkey joining NATO in 1952, and the fact that both of their military hardware came from America, that there could ever be a state of war without America intervening. That is of course if it wasn't preordained. Clearly not everybody involved in the invasion was in the loop over what was happening with the Turkish invasion though, as this article highlights when it speaks from the perspective of then acting British foreign secretary Lord Callaghan.

Essentially according to Callaghan, the British were caught in a situation where they would have struggled to defend the British bases let alone the the whole island without support from the Americans. In fact the Turkish had even threatened that they would bomb the British bases if they did not explicitly confirm their neutral position. Turkish tanks had reportedly fired on British bases in Cyprus in the few days of war, something which seems to have been a 'misunderstanding'. Clearly the Turks weren't going to take no for an answer. This doesn't make total sense however given that following the cout a few weeks earlier, a British task force was already enroute to Cyprus. They clearly suspected something was about to happen.

It would have been possible to defend the island and at least make the Turks think twice about the invasion had the Americans supported the British at the time. Henry Kissinger at that time the secretary of state, squashed any US-British military response. Officially this tied Britain's hands behind it's back. However...

This PDF article allegedly includes documents sent from the British Government to the Australians and detailed information about how and what was going to happen before the Turkish invasion.

If you haven't the time to read through this long and detailed article, then please take notice of this particular paragraph sent as a telegram to Australia from Britain:

"Commenting privately to us on the situation on the 20th July a senior FCO official said that Britain secretly would not object if Turkish military forces occupied about 1/3 of the island before agreeing to a cease-fire. (Please protect.) Such a position would need to be reached by 21st July if peace prospects were not to be endangered further. In the meantime, Britain continued to support publicly appeals for an immediate ceasefire".

If these documents are genuine, and this telegram has been leaked, it explains why despite having naval and air bases in Cyprus, both Britain and America refused to step in throughout the invasion. As a side note, there is also evidence that Britain was supplying information to Turkey about the military strength of Cyprus to help with the invasion. The fact that one third of the island was taken seems to have been agreed in advance, and falls in line with Britain’s previous political handling of the 30% veto power to the Turks and the calls made for decades by the Taksim. In fact the idea of a partition was at one point what the British were proposing anyway.

The result of this invasion has been that to this day, Northern Cyprus remains an illegally held territory, and the border between the two still needs a UN patrolled 'green line' to prevent any incidents.

In any case, all of this information points to one thing. The US and UK are constantly manipulating current political turmoil to suit their own needs and agendas. As we look upon this information in the new millennium with all current ongoing issues in the Middle East and closer to home, we need to be aware of the facts of the past. The same tactics have arguably been applied in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now on the European home front. We must learn to wield this knowledge to our own advantage, we must put pressure on our politicians to prevent unnecessary suffering and war caused by the deliberate actions of our Governments. History has been repeating itself more and more recently, but this fact only relies on a public being unaware and who believe in the biased news and history books.

Furthermore, when it comes to Turkey. Should we really trust a country that would invade a sovereign nation on a whim, and risk a war with a fellow NATO member? Should we trust a nation which buys or at least brought, oil off of the Islamic State? Should we trust a nation which commits genocide and sees the conflict in Syria as an excuse to further assault the Kurds instead of the Islamist threat on their doorstep? Should we trust a nation which risks provoking a world war after shooting down a Russian bomber aircraft engaged in defeating ISIS, which regardless of whether it breached their airspace or not, was clearly not the most diplomatic answer to the issue.

If the answer to all of this, plus the threat of further Islamic immigration into Europe is a 'no', then perhaps the European public should re-think the trust they place in the European Union.

Upcoming Pentr Projects!

I've been neglecting the blog side of things for the past week or so, and my Youtube account for that matter. Although to be fair the only videos I've been chucking out since I started Pentr have been short computer game videos, bar the one podcast trial. To be fair playing the Playstation too much is partly why I haven't got this blog where I want it and that needs to change.

I'm not making excuses (well I suppose I am) but at the moment the missus and I are in the middle of trying to sort out a place for ourselves and our wedding in a few months, and I suppose I'm going through a bit of a growing-up stage at the moment too. In a good way. I haven't given up with this blog project, and the more that time goes on the more work that's piling up on my to-do list. I have a long list of articles I want to write, but it's just finding the time to write them. I have a suspicion that once we're settled into a new place and I have a Man Cave to write in, I'll get more done. And to a better standard.

What I'd like to write here briefly was the projects that I'm considering doing or going to be doing over the following few months.

Podcasts/Vlog

I've managed one podcast so far, but I'd like to start doing them regularly. I'm conflicted at the moment as to whether I should do a Vlog or not instead. The trouble is that I really don't know whether I should keep myself anonymous or not. A part of me thinks writing or talking about certain topics is risky, but then at the same point if I say anything online that goes too far I'll be tracked down anyway. So it's fairly irrelevant. With that in mind it is most likely that I'll start Vlogging as opposed to Podcasting. Not that I have the face or the voice for either.

VR Videos

Tying into the Vlogging side of things a bit, I've been thinking about investing in a 360 VR camera for a more interactive flair, and I think this style of recording would suit the more casual feel that I'm going for anyway. So when I'm out camping or at an event or whatever, I think this format would be great. 

Aside from a personal Vlog though, some months back under a different account I began experimenting with filming locations in my local area with a mind to post the video alongside some historical facts. I've since took them down off of Youtube because I wasn't 100% pleased with the result, but these new 360 cameras would be great for this. So I'll be hoping to make guided tour videos for Virtual Reality users visiting castles or whatnot in this country. Something which I think is ultimately what VR will be mostly used for in the future. I've been behind the curve for so long when it comes to technology (I usually pooh-pooh emerging tech) so when I saw this industry beginning to grow I thought maybe I should take advantage of it for once!

Indigenous Recognition

I know I'm like a lone-dick waving in the wind when it comes to an issue as monumental as this, but I've never been one to shirk away from the big issues. I'm essentially going to try my best at getting white Britons recognised as an indigenous population. All the genetic science and cultural arguments are on our side, but what is lacking is an overwhelming sense of urgency from the dispossessed British people. 

I'll be speaking with the United Nations, our own MPs and the EU (if we're still a member of it come the 23rd of June) in an attempt to gauge their attitude and see where the campaign can go in future. I've been eager to start this as a campaign but figured it was better to wait until after June as the EU referendum looms. More information about this will follow in time, and I'll be needing a lot of help from supporters out there to get the most from this.

Survivalism

I've been meaning to get out and do more outdoorsy stuff. So this means more camping, bushcrafting, hiking and fishing etc. I think given the state that the world is in right now, a bit of attention paid to things of a more primitive nature would be good for everyone. If I can share some information about survival which might help somebody down the line in the future then that's awesome. If not, survival information is still something which should be kindled and passed on from generation to generation. The future of mankind might be technologically advanced but nobody has a crystal ball, and relying solely on technology is a recipe for a disaster.

So that's basically about it. I've got a load of stuff I want to do but I have little time and little disposable income! But with a bit of luck I'll get through it and make some material people will value.

UK Space Agency Fails To Make Contingencies For Possible Brexit

The only one thing which would upset me if Britain decided to leave the European Union would be the potential damage done to the relationship between the UK and the ESA (European Space Agency.) I believe space travel to be one of the most important projects humanity has ever undertaken, and is something that only collaborative efforts can achieve between nations. The way I see it is that the sooner we can leave this planet, the sooner we can get away from the issues of overpopulation, banker-slavery and inter-ethnic troubles. The technology that we may unlock in this pursuit might also help us lessen the impact on nature here on Earth too, and may well enable us to restore this planet to it's former glory for the benefit of all life.

That however is a pipe-dream, something which at this point we can only live in hope of. Nonetheless, it may interest people out there to know that the UK space industry alone was worth a reported £11.3 billion in 2013, and has been growing at an average 7% year on year with 70% of this trade being exported. Britain is obviously a key part of the ESAs operations, particularly in the field of telecommunications. This status is clearly shown by the fact that the ESA opened the science and innovation campus in the Harwell University here. With Government money as well as BAE's being invested in emerging technologies (like Skylon for instance) anyone with half a brain would assume that this industry was being looked after and protected by the UK Space Agency, the Government's own organisation devoted to the UK's fledgling space industry.

With the potential for Britain to leave the European Union, there is a perhaps a small worry that the politics of the day might have an impact on the UK's involvement with the ESA though. Bare in mind that whilst there are countries who are not apart of the EU (like Israel and Canada for instance,) who are members of the ESA, since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, there has been a concerted effort to bring more of the ESAs operations under a more Federalised EU structure. Given all the scaremongering about the economy and so on surrounding the Brexit referendum, I thought I would email the UKSA about what might happen to the UK's space industry should we vote to leave the EU.

So I wrote:

To who it may concern,

I've recently started a blog and website which I hope will grow and get people interested in spaceflight and technology, in particular projects being undertake in the UK by some incredibly innovative companies like Reaction for instance.

In any case, I hope it is not too much of a cheek to ask for correspondence with yourselves. As is obvious by the title of this email, I'd like to ask if the UKSA has looked into the implications of a Brexit vote in the EU referendum, and whether it would have an affect on the UK's involvement with the European Space Agency?

Many thanks for your time!


The response was not particularly amazing.

Thank you for your email. The UK Space Agency has not made any contingency plans for a possible vote to leave the EU at the 23 June referendum.

Warmest regards

Trying to dissect this single sentence answer is difficult, but still possible. Personally this answer either shows one of three things:

A) The Government is "psychic", and already knows the result of the upcoming referendum. Therefore it has been telling its departments not to bother doing research into, or planning possible contingencies for a vote to leave the European Union.

B) The UK Government knows that there will be genuinely little disruption to the UK economy and exports, and the UKSA/ESA partnership will continue regardless of the result.

C) The woman who answered me couldn't be bothered to go trawling through documents to give me a genuine answer.

I'm not sure which one I should take more seriously, but it's still interesting. Call me a pessimist but I'm very drawn to option A.

What do you readers think? Leave in the comments below!

Solving A Housing Crisis- Vote Out of the EU!

Today in the UK, and in South East of England in particular, there has brewed a huge issue that nobody can today deny; there is a lack of affordable housing, young adults are increasingly finding it harder to move out and the housing that is marginally affordable is in short supply. Not to put a too finer point on it, but certain regions in the United Kingdom are now so ridiculously overpopulated, that public services (like schools for instance) are now also stretched to their absolute capacity. 

In my local area of Southend in Essex, a modest two or three bedroom house or bungalow that a young family might wish to purchase to get onto the property ladder, may pay in excess of £280,000 just for the privilege of owning their own property. With rentals for the same type of properties being around the £1000 per month mark, renting doesn't seem a viable option for anybody either. For many wishing to start out in life and move away from their parents, or begin a family of their own, these costs are simply prohibitive. This is partly because wages for the most part seem to have been in decline since the banking crisis of 2008, when factoring in inflation. In many ways given that interest rates have been kept at 0.5% since 2008, we're still very much in the midst's of the same, if not another more serious dip in the economy.

The bottom line is that for the younger generations, things aren't getting much better. A "solution" to the problem of a lack of social mobility for the younger generations, is this new "living wage" initiative started by the Conservatives, which in truth isn't going to help anybody. Any wage increases as a result of this new minimum wage are only going to be short-term. An overall increase in money being paid by companies, will simply lead them to increase their prices ultimately devaluing the currency, and causing inflation. In fact, long-term the effects of increasing everybody's wage may end up meaning more people ultimately end up being paid minimum wage as some companies will refuse to pay more, in a sort of squeezed concertina effect. Ultimately the middle-class is being wiped out by rising minimum wages at the bottom and the 40% tax cap once you begin earning over £43,000 at the top. Essentially there is little incentive to succeed or bother with vocational training in this ridiculous system. Being cynical, the elimination of the middle classes is beneficial for our overlords running international finance, but that is a separate debate for another day. 

There are in my opinion, three contributing factors to the housing crisis that many communities today have felt, factors which in many ways slot into one another as to make them basically the same issue.

Firstly, one of the biggest contributing factors to house price rises is population growth, and the biggest element to population growth over the last few decades in the United Kingdom is immigration. Over half (53%) of the increase in the UK population between 1991 and 2014, was due to the direct contribution of net migration. As a result, the projected population in 2014 for 2030, is 11 million greater than what was projected back in 1994. This shows an enormous disregard by current and previous Governments to plan for and accommodate the influx of newcomers. The lack of precautions to build an infrastructure to cope is only just becoming apparent as vital public services are today already feeling an immense strain. These figures by the way, do not include 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants who were born in the United Kingdom before the 1990s. A recent European Union prediction expects that by 2060, one third of the British population with be 1st or 2nd generation migrants, once again omitting from this data the impact that families that came to the UK pre-1990s have had. The United Kingdom is already the most densely populated country in Europe with the exception of Malta, the population growth caused by further immigrants having generally larger families will only acerbate this issue, with an expected average of 500 people being sardined into each kilometer in Britain by 2046. 

Just so you know, to prevent going off on a tangent I'm not even discussing the issue of ethnic and cultural genocide going on in the UK against those who define themselves as White British on their census forms every ten years. That argument is for another day.

The second reason for the housing crisis is a localised one. Although I personally was born and raised in the South East of England, I am not blind to the suffering of other communities in Britain who suffer for different, although connected reasons. While people living near London struggle to find affordable housing, those living further afield in rural areas, particularly ex-mining or industrial towns, struggle to find work at all whilst the local housing generally remains cheap. In fact, for the price of one family home in Essex you could potentially buy up an entire terrace in an old mining town. Stoke-On-Trent's council, a town long associated with heavy industry and mining, even began selling homes for £1 last winter in the hope that it would kickstart the local economy. Trouble is, nobody wants to move to these places for the simple fact that there's no local jobs, and those who do live there and can move, do move to where there are jobs. When people flock to areas with jobs, they in-turn push house prices higher, leaving those who were born in those expensive areas in a difficult situation where they struggle to buy or rent. 

This issue has mostly been bourne out of decades of Government Ministers simply being disinterested in the problems faced by those who live outside counties that border with London. A lack of investment or infrastructure to assist these communities after the UK was essentially de-industrialised starting in the 1970s, has acerbated the decline of old industrial towns. Although on the face of it, investment seems to finally be taking shape, if you look at the HS2 campaign as an example, this once again seems to mainly benefit London's economy by taking workers out of their own localities and placing them into the capital. 

Towns with transport links with London do grow faster, but are also responsible for the biggest rise in house prices. Take my area in Southend as an example again. With London being only an hours commute away, the area is popular with people who work in the city. It's far enough out to not be of London, but close enough not to make their commute too long. As a consequence, properties here have become desirable. Towns like this, as they begin to attract more wealthy professional city workers, fall victim to their own success though. This process known as gentrification, makes properties become more valuable at the expense of the local communities. As a result, those who aren't high earners get pushed out of the communities that they may have grown up in. They may end up having to move somewhere where houses are cheaper, but perhaps where there aren't so many job prospects. Whilst there is the mantra that there are always winners and losers in the dirty game of capitalism, the fact that nothing is done to at least limit the affect of this situation which is ruining lives and destroying communities is a disgrace. That's without taking into consideration the massive influx of immigrant workers that have entered this country over the last two or three decades.

The bizarre situation we have now in the UK, is that the Government would rather build more homes in these desirable locations at the detriment to local greenbelt land and local infrastructure, than invest in the building of industry outside the tentacles of the City of London. Entire towns remain practically deserted whilst contractors build on flood plains elsewhere. The entire situation is simply retarded.

Thirdly, and essentially combining the first two aspects of this already long post, is that all of these problems are caused by globalism. It is globalist interests within the EU, the UK establishment and right at the top within organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, Goldman Sachs, the World Trade Organisation etc, that promote immigration as an economic boost.

Whilst it might be true that mass-immigration brings short-term economic gains for top corporations, ultimately it is not these corporations who have to deal with a collapse of public services and all of the social issues, like the housing crisis, that emerge from such ridiculously ill-thought-out plans. Like your Mother always used to say, money isn't everything, and it's true. There are things more precious than simple economic gain for the sake of gain. The real economic argument for immigration as seen by these top corporations, is that it lowers average wages by saturating work markets. As I've already mentioned earlier on in this post, this works against the British people who were born here, and who want to work and succeed.

Globalism is also at least in part responsible for the degeneration of British industries, as the Government sits on its hands with it's head up it's arse as British factories are sent abroad to China, India or Turkey. The fact that our Government's inactivity surrounding protecting our own industry is mostly caused by international regulations, usually at the behest of the European Union, is seldom mentioned by the gutless wankers in Westminster. For instance, it was European Union grant money that actually paid the Ford motor company to move the Transit van plant to Turkey from Southampton.  Look at the recent fiasco surrounding the UK steel industry with TATA on the brink of complete collapse. Not one fuck is given by the UK Government because in all likelihood, it's non-competitiveness was caused by the UK and the EU's collusion with Chinese steel exporters who have made steel manufacturing practically worthless by saturating the market. Nothing has been discussed on the issue of protecting our own industry by placing tariffs on Chinese or other imports. (By the way, the fact that TATA's partial closure was announced the same week that China had an official state visit in London was totally coincidental, I'm sure.)

These issues, whilst they on the face of things seem disconnected, form the main crux of the issue in this country with housing. Too much emphasis is being put on the financial industry and the City of London, and as a result the rest of the country is in economic decline. This is clearly obvious from the fact that London is the richest area in Northern Europe, yet Britain has almost all ten of the ten poorest cities elsewhere in the country. This is what is driving those who can to move to the same areas in the South East.

In those centralised areas like London, those who move are then coming into direct competition with an immigrant workforce, which can only drive wages down. It doesn't take a genius to work out that in this situation, short of getting lucky with finding an exceptionally well paying job, or being given inheritance monies, young adults are effectively being priced out of the housing market.

Whilst the majority of permanent immigrants to the UK were not born in the European Union, voting to leave in the upcoming referendum in June would potentially give the UK the ability to put strict new measures on those who entered the country to live and work. Currently the majority of policies governing these issues are the result of unaccountable European bureaucracy. It would also put a stop on the influx of those born outside of Europe, who are encouraged to come to Europe by the EU themselves.

The only crisis in Europe is that the citizens are not being told that this entire issue with refugees is a ruse. The Syrians and North Africans are being invited! Ironically they're being invited because birth rates in Europe are below replacement rate, and they hope this will act as a stop-gap, however the immigrants themselves also cause lower wages for reasons already discussed. Low wages and high house prices are in part, a reason why many Europeans in their peak fertile age (mid-twenties) can't actually afford to move out of their parent's homes and start a family of their own. News reports recently have been stating that the 'remain' campaign are scaremongering the public by saying an EU exit would cause a drop in house prices. This is surely a good thing!

Leaving the European Union would also remove a plethora of regulations to do with housing, and give at least some control of our economy back to the British Government meaning, at least in theory, that tariffs could be implemented to protect British industry and jobs. That is a big but however, considering that the same types in bed with our national Governments, also pull the strings in the EU. But we can only have hope at this stage. Perhaps ridding ourselves of the European Union would also make the politicians consider their commitments to those poorer areas in the UK too, and hopefully do their part to rejuvenate them instead of spunking all of our money up a wall on nonsense European projects. Whilst entire towns and cities in the UK suffer poverty, the British Government funds art projects in Germany, or Syrian migrant accommodation on Lesbos. The time has come to put our own children first for a change.

Whilst short-term, leaving the European Union may have some economic hurdles, it should be clear that long-term, the best bet for the younger people in society is to get control of our country from Brussels so they can one day own their own property, have actual careers and start their own families.

The Haavara Agreement & The Balfour Declaration

As the "antisemitism"  row continues within the UK Labour party, it is somewhat ironic to see those who were once described as "anti-racists" working within Labour backed organisations such as Hope not Hate and Unite Against Fascism, to now be accused of practicing what they've preached about for years. Ken Livingstone, former London mayor for Labour and honourary president of the UAF,  has recently got himself into trouble for making the bizarre claim that "Hitler was a zionist".

It seems inconceivable with all that we've learned about Hitler and his regime that he would support Zionism, which is a philosophy which very much supports a form of world-wide political domination by Jews. In fact it is inconceivable. Any theory which supports the idea that Hitler was somehow working for Jews is nonsense, however there is a very small nugget of truth hidden somewhere in the mix that perhaps the Israeli supporter would not be entirely comfortable with. The mass-media of this country however seems to be pouring so much time into character assassinating those dubbed antisemitic, that they seem to be ignoring any facts they're stating. Perhaps they do this out of fear that the lesser-known information against Israel becomes mainstream.

Whilst we should perhaps refrain from feeling sorry for those who have done much to stifle free-speech through the actions of 'anti-racism' organisations over the years, we should at least come forward and say where and when they're correct.

NSDAP & The Havaara Agreement

So impressed were the NSDAP with how well theagreement was going, a special commemorative
coin was minted in Germany to celebrate the
partnership between them and Zionists in Palestine.

The average person who possesses no further knowledge on how the persecution of Jews began in Germany, would be forgiven for thinking that it began randomly with the boycott of Jewish goods  on the 1st of April, 1933. What is rarely cited is that the German's boycott was in fact a retaliation to a Jewish led boycott that began a month earlier. 

With the German economy still in much disarray after two decades of severe economic sanctions as a result of the treaty of Versailles, the German administration was concerned about the implications of wider economic sanctions and the damage that they could do to Germany's recovery. If anything, the animosity towards Jews was acerbated by a large group of international Zionists who desired to see Germany's economy fall flat. 

A desire to rid Germany of Jews altogether led to an unlikely agreement between the NSDAP and a small group of Zionist interests however (there were different camps within the Zionist movement, and they did not always agree with one another.) The Haavara Agreement, was a resettlement programme whereby German Jews were willingly repatriated to Palestine. This system was funded by those who emigrated, their wealth in Germany was liquidated by the German state, and partly returned to them on the understanding that they brought German goods to export to Palestine once they arrived in their new homeland. This agreement helped German economy in that it kept some profit coming in for German exporters, and some in the Zionist lobby were pleased that the flow of Jewish immigrants back to Palestine could one day populate a homogeneous Jewish state in Israel, which eventually it obviously did.

The agreement ceased with the outbreak of war in 1939 however.

Whilst some might see a connection between the aggressive nature of Israel's border expansion and war-time Germany, the 60,000 Jews who relocated to Palestine were of little consequence in the creation of the state of Israel. 

The Balfour Agreement

A newspaper clipping at the time.

Israel had been an agreed goal of the British in the Balfour Agreement during WWI in 1917. With the French and British losing WWI and Germany being kind enough to offer the Allies terms in 1916, it seems the only way to keep Britain in the war was by keeping certain international financiers sweet who were predominately Jewish, some of whom happened to be incredibly pro-Zionist. The Balfour Agreement was a letter of intent from the British Government to a member of the Rothschild family in the UK, explaining how the British would honour a deal for the creation of an Israeli state.

Considering the incredible amount of money that the British were borrowing from America at that time, it is perhaps conceivable to suspect a conspiracy was occurring during such a tumultuous time. The American economy, through the recently created Federal Reserve in 1913, was very much under Zionist authority with an alliance of the Rockerfeller, Morgan, Warburg and Rothschild dynasties sitting on it's committee. Given that it was America that Britain looked to for it's funding requirements, the decision to offer Israel to the Zionists was more than likely part of a deal, rather than a separate issue, given that at that time, much of Levant was in total chaos.

Whilst any rational human will think the concept of deliberately keeping WWI going was insanity, the truth is that it was massively profitable for many types of industry, and hence politicians can be bribed by said interests into artificially fighting a pointless war. Even more insane is the fact the same banking dynasties that were funding the allies, were also funding the German war machine too.

When WWI ended, the treaty of Versailles was brought in against Germany. This effectively wringed their economy and made most of their revenue payable to the various financiers that had been funding both sides under the monumental amount of reparations it was forced to pay. Germany was also humiliated into accepting sole responsibility for WWI, which simply wasn't true, and by the fact that much of it's territory had been annexed by the newly formed state of Czechoslovakia, with other territories given over to Poland and France. It is often said that the harshness of the treaty of Versailles was what led to the election of the hardline NSDAP. Hitler and many others, blamed the predominately Jewish financiers for their hand in humiliating the German people.

Despite the British giving word to the Zionist world that they would be supporting the formation of Israel, they clearly saw what an issue they would have facilitating this change in an area that was already inhabited by Arabs. With the help of the United Nations, the British tried to partition Palestine as fairly as possible, however Zionist terrorists waged a campaign of bombings and murders, essentially because they wanted the Arabs out, and wanted to claim the entire country for themselves.

Looking at Israel today in 2016, it's clear that the same ruthlessness exists as they unironically declare all Palestinians terrorists, whilst ignoring it's own terrorist past, or indeed the actions of it's well-financed and well-armed military. 

Conclusion

No, Hitler was not a Zionist. Far from it. Considering Hitler confiscated Jewish wealth, including that of the Rothschild dynasty, you would be hard-pressed to claim otherwise. The modest contribution to Jewish settlers that the Haavara Agreement made, would not have in anyway contributed to the troubles that eventually engulfed Palestine. Perhaps ironically, the decision to create Israel had already been made back during the previous World War, as part of a deal which eventually led to the German nation being humiliated and ready for war again twenty years later.
Had Britain been willing to accept peace talks with Germany in 1916 instead of dealing with the Zionist Rothschilds in America, the outcome of European, Jewish and indeed world history today might be very different today.

Churchill: The Unexpected Europhile

A few weeks ago now the mayor of London, Boris Johnson who has been openly supporting the Brexit campaign, found himself in a spot of bother after he spoke about Barack Obama's speech on the UK and the European Union. Obama had, as some might expect, supported the UK remaining apart of the EU, prompting anger for many Britons after the thinly veiled threat made by the president about the trading repercussions should Britain choose to break away.

Boris Johnson found himself under attack after suggesting that maybe Obama's Kenyan ancestry was partly the reason for the US president's Anti-British and Pro-EU attitude, arguing that the removal of a Churchill statue that had been in the White House before Obama's inauguration was evidence of this. The London mayor claimed that Churchill had "fought for democracy in Europe" adding that the EU today threatened Britain's democratic process. 

What sort of a democracy though? The grandson of Winston Churchill, serving MP Nicholas Soames, said that Boris Johnson's claim was appalling, adding that it was “inconceivable” that his grandfather would not have welcomed Obama’s views on the EU.

So who is right on this? The popular, yet misconstrued fictitious character of Churchill we are often given today is that he was the isolationist yet plucky Englishman who dared to defend the British realm from would-be invaders. Someone whom would have wholeheartedly rejected the on-going formation of an ever-closer political union within Europe. Yet that is a facade, probably born out of post-war propaganda intended to cheer up a war-weary nation. Churchill's grandson Soames is correct, Churchill was not anti-Europe in the slightest, in fact he was at the forefront of the agenda to create a unified European state.

This may come as a shock to some, especially in the pro-Brexit lobby. There are many instances where "little Englanders" use Churchill quotes and imagery to give their point of view more of a political punch, but most of these quotes are either taken out of context or entirely fabricated. 

“We have our own dream and our own task.  We are with Europe, but not of it.  We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.  If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”

This above quote is shared often through social media, it's aim presumably to give credence to a isolationist view point, the problem is that Churchill never said this. At least not at the same time, anyway. This quote is a hodgepodge of different quotes disingenuously seamed together to make something altogether different. The first four lines in the above quote were published in an American paper Saturday Evening Post, written by Churchill himself in 1930. The last line was uttered by him during an argument between Churchill and De Gaulle, where he was explaining how he has a preference for working with the United States over France. It's obvious now that Churchill's personal conviction on Europe changed over the following decades. 

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, an important but
hidden figure in the creation of the EU.

During the 1920s and early 1930s, the most prominent proponent of a unified European Union was a man named Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His published thesis called "Practical Idealism" published in Vienna in 1925, was well received by the aristocracy of Europe, and through substantial funding from some well-known (some might argue infamous) financial institutions including the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Zionist leaders including Theodore Herzl, the Pan-European agenda was born.

The European Coudenhove-Kalegi Plan, as it is sometimes dubbed, involved the gradual removal of all borders from Europe, a unified military and economy and the creation of a European Parliament and legal system. With all of these more or less achieved in 2016, perhaps people will take the last goal of the pan-European agenda seriously, as it was theorised that they would eventually wipe out all European genetic homogenity. With the borders today opened to millions of North Africans and those living in the Middle East (not to mention the ongoing integration of Turkey into the European community) the agenda to essentially ethnically cleanse Europeans out of existence has to be looked at with some credence.
After all, Coudenhove Kalergi himself wrote the following in the book Practical  Idealism:

"The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews."

Given that the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl was a family friend of Kalergi's, the above passage drips with a sort of Jewish Supremacist viewpoint, not to mention a racist pro-genocidal intent for all those who are not themselves a wealthy Jew! The beliefs he wrote on this subject go much further than this, but it is up to the reader to pursue more information on it, as quoting too much might frighten off any prospective truth-seeker on the matter!

So why is Kalergi important here when discussing Churchill? 

It would be easy to dismiss Kalergi as a radical who's views today are out of date and which were for the most part irrelevant even when they were written. Unfortunately this is not the case, as his Pan-European agenda and the later Pan-European Congress turned out to be only a stepping stone towards the eventual European Union that we have today.

Within the pan-European and later on, European Union leadership, there has been an annual award given to the individual who has pushed the European agenda the furthest throughout the last 12 months.  Called the Charlemagne Prize, contemporary winners of this award over the last decade or so include well known European leaders such as Herman Von Rompuy, Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel, to name but a few. The very first winner of this award in 1950 however was awarded to one Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His importance in the creation of today's union was immense, but it is incredibly rare that the mass-media or education system of today should name him. I'm afraid it's up to you as a reader to decide as to why this might be the case.

Kalergi's autobiography with
a preface by Churchill.

Both Churchill and De Gaulle became close friends of Kalergi, Churchill even wrote the preface to Kalergi's autobiography which was ominously entitled "An Idea Conquers the World" (which like Practical Idealism, is also mysteriously out of print.) Churchill in his later years became wholly committed to the formation of a European super-state. 

Whilst it is widely unheard of today, faced with the prospect of Germany scuppering the pan-European agenda as they advanced into French territory in 1940, a last minute attempt at a political Anglo-French Union was tried, which despite failing due to political disagreement, makes clear that many of the leaders at that time were well aware of the long-term Europe-wide plan. It has been conjectured that had the deal been offered earlier, the British and French Governments would have had the time to make the necessary amendments that could have seen the deal signed. The wording of the declaration of Union, approved by the British Cabinet which could have been signed by the French the following day read as follows:

The Anglo-French stamp that was being designed for a political
union between France and Britain in 1940.

"France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France."

In 1948, Winston Churchill said “We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieved.” Perhaps that is why, despite Brexiters today conflating Churchill with an undying 'little Englander' philosophy, that Churchill too, like Kalergi, won the Charlemagne prize in 1956. The sobering reality is that Churchill was no isolationist, he was a globalist who fought for globalist interests.