Friday, 22 May 2009

A Beautiful Way to Protest

Just had to link to this.

Pants protest in NYC. Wish i had been there (and there, and there, and there....)

Immigration and Response

Most of us see a person not a colour. But at the same time the issue of immigration and the composition of our society is a serious one and cannot be shoved under the carpet. Except that it is, because people are terrified of being accused of being racist if they express an opinion that digresses from the liberal left zeitgeist. A lot of people are angry though, and this anger is likely to find its way into support for the BNP on June 4th. The establishment want us to think of this as being a terrible thing, but this phenomenon is their creation, they’re responsible for it.(See *4 for more info on this)

[Edit : To be clear i certainly do not support the BNP. Dig a little deeper and you will find that they want an all white Britain. This grates against principle of fairness and decency you can think of and is genuine bona fide racism -unsurprisingly) (*3)

Also you dont have to look round too much to find such quotes like this : "[Winston Churchill] was a f***ing c*** who led us into a pointless war with other whites [Nazi Germany] standing up for their race.'- This was said BNP director of publicity Mark Collett (*5)]

The prevailing culture in this country, we are told, comes from the British Christian tradition. It has been melded by hundreds of years of common history. Our rights and freedoms have been bought at the highest possible price. Our sense of morality and decency we thought we had in common with each other often seems to be under assault.

It is the people of a country that determine a country’s culture and values. It would completely daft to think that huge bodies of foreigners moving to this country will somehow adopt our ways by osmosis. Thanks to the stupidity of multi-culti it is almost guaranteed to not happen.

The culture and values of the country must inexorably continue to change as a result of the deluge of immigration that has happened as a result of a Labour government. The news today is that not only are the majority of babies born in London not from what could be called the 'indigenous' community, they’re born to mothers who were not even born in this country themselves.(*2).

The end result of this will mean that ever increasing political power will reside with 'communities' that many of us are unlikely to have much in common with. To exemplify how values affect behaviour you can't help but notice that a very substantial majority of all of the high profile knifings of 'youths' involve BME people, black in particular. This isn’t random chance – this comes from their values, or rather, lack of them. These are most certainly not traditional British values. Of course, this pales into insignificance if you consider the threat from the enemy within who (we’re told), ‘pervert’ Islam. The problem of wannabe exploding holy warriors is going to get even worse too because of birth rates.

Even if net immigration were to be halted today (and it most certainly will not be) then the birth rate of born abroad mothers is 2.54 children versus 1.79 to mothers born in the UK(*2). This means that the indigenous population is just go to keep on shrinking and shrinking. Meanwhile total population will just keep on growing and growing. We have millions of new immigrants here under Labour, many of child bearing age.

It would be easy to make a cheap and easy assumption about this post. I am not saying all people of non white origin are bad or anything like that. Not at all, I reiterate, I see people as people not a colour and so do most ordinary decent people. Most have no time for actual racism. It’s up to us to make sure that genuine kindness and kinship are offered regardless to our decent countrymen. Who in their right mind would support the BNP’s eugenicist fantasises of an all white Britain.

However the issue of immigration has far more reaching implications than the skin pigmentation of the high street. There are very substantial considerations of identity and values as I have already mentioned, we can’t ignore them.

If there is some light on the horizon, it is that 7 in 10 adults want immigration cut by 80% (*1). If you agree with me, and I hope you do, we’re not exactly alone in our views and that is encouraging.

This issue is such a difficult one to deal with. Discussing the issue and finding a sensible way forward is a minefield but that’s what politics is about. Most certainly it has to take account of the fact that no-one wants any ordinary decent Brit who happens not to be white to feel ostracised or tarred by the actions of others.

We shouldn’t be in this position at all though to the extent that we are. There has been very little economic or social case at all for immigration such as we have seen, but thanks to the systematic deliberate failure of Labour and their open door policy here we are. They know what percentage of born-abroads vote Labour. Was this the primary concern in their minds all along? If this is the case how could you describe such a thing except as a serious abuse of power that surely would have to go down in huge letters in the history. Surely there would have to be a case, were evidence to be found, of legal action and some kind of impeachment.

We have an obligation to deal with facts .We mustn't be hamstrung, silenced or trampled on by politically correct goons and their 'received wisdom'. The change being wrought on us by immigration is huge and has many consequences, many are negative.

We’ve got to speak our minds. We shouldn’t be coerced into staying silent any longer.

(1* -


(*3 -

(*4 - A supporting view comes from Rod Liddle in the Times, though as you expect he doesnt mention immigration. : "There is no doubt that [Nick Griffin] has managed to secure the angry support of some white working-class British people, a tranche of the population that has been neglected by the mainstream parties and by Labour in particular."

Oh and a certain pint sized ginger prat called Hazel Blears said something similar. Didn't mention immigration either though of course :

(*5 -

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Hat Tip to Mark Russell of GQ

The Minister for Trichology I presume.

Tony Bliar - remember him? He was the one who decieved and manipulated you into thinking that a New Labour victory in 1997 would result in good governance.

Of course, you might not have bought this idea. I certainly never did and just maybe you didn't either.

Amongst other things Blair's years were characterised by spin, aka manipulation and deceit. One of the things that was spun was that the female contingent of Labour MPs were somehow 'babes'. Erm, excuse me?

I read a great piece by Mark Russell in GQ Magazine the other day (April 2009 edition). This article compared the relative attractiveness of British female politicians to their continental counterparts. All rather tongue in cheek of course , but I just had to share this quote :

"...that mendacious moniker 'Blair Babes' was surely a spin too far. Look at the famous 1997 photograph of the 101 female Mps alongside Blair on the steps of Church House in Westminster - its like a gaggle of underperforming supply teachers from the provinces out in the metropolis for an NUT conference."

I can only say : hahahahahaha!

Monday, 11 May 2009

Where really driving some of them?

I was reading the comments on an article by George Monbiot on the G20 protests recently. Being a Guardian piece, most of the comments are predictably naïve, though if you cut through that to some of the legitimate points they can be quite interesting. Most comments are very one sided and basically anti police as you might expect.

One of the commentators makes the assertion that the Police exist to protect the interests of the wealthy (*1).The patent dumbness of this assertion makes me wonder sometimes how people can blinker themselves to reality in the pursuit of attempting to support their prejudices.

So do the Police exist to protect the interests of the wealthy alone? Since when have the police had a general policy of failing to respond to an incident due to the socioeconomic circumstances of the victim? A policeman said to me once that most the victims of, and perpetrators of crime are usually the lowest rung on society. Therefore taking that observation as accurate a great deal police time is taken up dealing with the less well off not only as offenders but also as victims.

Its not too hard to find where some people draw their inspiration. Elsewhere in the comments for the Monbiot piece you can see references made to Friedrich Engel’s writings about the capitalist state and how it is maintained by bodies of armed men - (unlike totalitarian states obviously).

Ah, so now we’re getting down to the real motivation of some of these people – their communist or neo communist beliefs.

I read through the comments on this article to try and get a better understanding of the political viewpoints of those who see things differently to me. And what I have seen is that a fundamental driver for some at least is not simply a desire to ‘make things better’ as we all do but simply coming at it from a different perspective, but an altogether more suspicious and dodgy mindset.

This is all useful knowledge of course, because once you realise where people are really coming from then it is clear that it is even more important to resist them than you first thought!

P.S. Who are these ‘working class’ any way? The last time I looked many people in the trades (plumbers, electricians, builders) were on more money than a lot of white collar professionals, especially junior ones. This talk of class and such is mostly completely out of date. Naturally organs such as the BBC routinely use terms such as ‘the Workers’ belying their own left of centre orientation which is common knowledge of course.

*1 - (see comment by Seenitalready)