The tip of a blood stained iceberg

Something which people may not realise with regard to the record I keep in relation to the killings of white farmers in South Africa, is that these killings account for only a fraction of the many thousands of white people who have been murdered in South Africa in a 16 year massacre which has been hidden from the western world by its media.

The farm murders stand out because they are a particular type of killing, typified by truly horrific degrees of torture and cruelty, they involve a vulnerable and isolated group of people who are deliberately targeted because of who they are. The farm murders are without question hate crimes, more often than not no property is taken because theft is not the motive, these murders are orgies of killing for the sake of killing, and the torture for its own sake. The farm murders are racial by nature and genocide by any definition.

They are, however, only a tip of a blood spattered iceberg. Each year hundreds of urban whites are also murdered and many more are the victims of, sometimes horrific, violence.

Given the level of violent crime in South Africa as a whole it less easy to categorise these crimes as genocide in the way that the farm killings so clearly are. These killings and injuries result during the course of carjackings, mugging, home invasions, and of course rape. Some may even involve the harvesting of body parts for use in traditional medicine, due to the widely held belief that medicine will be more potent if the body part is taken from a conscious victim at the point of a traumatic and painful death.

However, the outcome remains the same, an innocent white minority victim of black majority violence. There are very many such victims, and, although it is less easy to prove as it is with the farm murders, it is my belief that the majority of these crimes are at the very least motivated by racial hatred if not deliberate genocide.

This month alone six pensioners have been murdered in Pretoria, the latest being Theuns Venter - who celebrated his 85th birthday last week - and his wife Suzie, 83, both of whom were discovered by their grandson when he returned from his night shift job last Thursday morning. Investigations are being carried out to determine where Suzie Venter had been raped before she was killed.

Such horrors are now so commonplace in the nation which the Western media is celebrating this week, on the 20th anniversary of an aged terrorist's release from prison, that I am unable to even estimate the numbers involved, it is, at the very least, double that of the Farm killings, some claim that the real figure is considerably higher.

I often hear people say why do whites stay in a country where they are at such high risk of being the victims of violence. The answer of course is that a significant number of them have no option. Many are the direct descendants of the early Dutch settlers, who arrived there in the sixteen hundreds, and have no remaining connection with any other land. How many Americans would be able find sanctuary in the Europe their ancestors came from when the day comes that they face a similar threat in their homeland? A day which may not be as far away as some may believe.

Also, do not forget that South Africa's own version of affirmative action, known as black economic empowerment, has cast at least half a million whites into abject, tin shack level, poverty, such people do not have the financial means to escape their fate, let alone the fact that a brain washed, self loathing world, which has been taught to believe that all white South Africans, even the children born after the end of Apartheid deserve every ill which befalls them will not take them in.

In any event, for how long will Europe remain safe given the invasion it now meekly tolerates.

Remember that when, as I do almost weekly, I publish the name of the latest victim of the farm genocide, I am merely scratching the surface of South Africa's blood stained reality. The frightening truth is that the farm killings are only a part of what is actually going on.

More terrifying still is the fact that today's reality may no more than hint at the nightmare which is to come.

A glimmer of hope?

The Following article actually appeared on the editorial page of today's Daily Express. Sadly, the Express only has a daily circulation of around 700,000, but it is a national Newspaper and does count as the mainstream media hence it is still quite significant.

LABOUR IS GUILTY OF A SICKENING ACT OF NATIONAL BETRAYAL

By Leo McKinstry

OF All Labour’s many crimes against the British public, the worst has been the destruction of our national identity. Since coming to power in 1997 the Government has engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to refashion society, using mass immigration and state ideology to transform us into a multicultural country.

Labour has always denied the charges of social engineering. When former Downing Street aide Andrew Neather revealed last autumn that the Government had deliberately promoted immigration as a means of diversifying Britain, ministers carried on their deceit.

But now the truth has been revealed in official documentation. Thanks to diligent campaigning by the independent pressure group Migration Watch, Whitehall has been forced to release papers clearly showing that labour did indeed have a secret plan to relax border controls in order to promote its goal of changing Britain. One of the reports, a memo written for Tony Blair in 2000, shows that the Government’s strategy was to “open up migration” so that labour could achieve its “social objectives”. Tellingly, Ministers instructed that statements like this be hidden from the public.

EVEN now, in the face of this incontrovertible evidence, Government policy remains cloaked in dishonesty. The Immigration Minister Phil Woolas had the nerve to claim that the Government had actually “tightened immigration rules” a decade ago. It was a patently absurd boast given that 2000 was pre-cisely when the Home Office began to dish out passports, work permits and student visas like confetti, while making little effort to tackle illegal immigration.

In the same vein, the Home Secretary Alan Johnson yesterday performed another of his fraudulent populist routines, trumpeting Labour’s supposed toughness on border controls, this from a man who said only last year he was “not losing sleep” over rising migrant numbers and was “happy to live in a multicultural society”.

But all the Labour lies can-not hide the revolution brought about by the open-door policy. In recent years, gross immigration has been running at 500,000 people a year and the Home Office admits it “doesn’t have a clue” how many illegal migrants are here. Many parts of our towns and cities no longer resemble Britain. All sense of social cohesion has been lost. We no longer have a common culture, shared heritage or even universal language.

Continue reading at the Daily Express

Poor little Janey

A conversation by Robin Hind

"I am worried, Marge. I don't know what it is. Worried, really worried. Perhaps more than that even. Yes, frightened -- it's frightening; I feel really frightened."

"How is that?"

"It's Elizabeth. That's why am worried and frightened and both of them together. All mixed up in me."

"How old is she now?"

"Just six, but it's the girls that she is mixing with. She gets invited out, you know. I am worried about some of these girls, or perhaps I should say I am worried about where they go. The girls in her class, and that's why it's so difficult. I just can't say "no", because I get such backtalk from her. Perhaps I'm unreasonable. I don't know any more. I suppose she could have friends with the other people that she meets. Victoria's mother was telling how she went to this party, which she thought was just an ordinary children's party, but they were lots of these older boys. They all seem to have money and smoked, and heaven knows what else. I just do not know these people. They're not my kind of people. I feel I can't make any decisions any more. I didn't grow up with people like this. I don't want to be unfair to them, but they’re so different. So different. I don't how to relate to them. This is all really my fault? Things keep changing. But I suppose the worst is that I can't talk to anybody about it -- at least anybody other than you. But one doesn't feel safe any more, talking about these things. You never know what could happen with talking. Oh my goodness, I don't know what to do."

"What don't you like?

"She is mixing with girls from families which seem to have a bad omen about them. But her friends are invited to parties, and I noticed that her friends go to parties where there are lots of older boys. There is drink.

The sleepovers are a problem too -- there are girls that I don't like with behaviours that frightened me, and which are quite contrary to the way I would like to bring up my girl. I just don't like it. But I have to invite them, I'm afraid not to. I'm afraid to not let her go to the parties that she's been invited to. She puts pressure on me."

"You have an obligation to be selective about the children that come to your daughter sleepovers, for that matter you have an obligation to highly select all your daughter's friends. It is your responsibility to protect her from people outside the domain of your approval. You have a responsibility to stamp your authority on her now, to make her understand that your family has a pattern of selection, and that her mother is acting as her protector and in her best interests. Although she is only five -- no, it's six isn't it? -- these patterns must be established now. This business begins now. It begins with the selection of her friends at this early age. You must simply determine, forthwith, which stream of friends are appropriate. If you don't do it now then in five or so years those improper associations will still be there, but amplified and by then well beyond your influence and control. Leading to who knows where."

"Look what happened to poor little Janey, poor little mite. We always think it'll be someone else, but when it's someone you know so well... O heavens!"

"It is the unimaginable. That this could have been done to her. But you can trace it back. We should have said something at the time. We always think that things will work out. Actually, I suppose this is happening to all of us. Without us really realising it."

"There are people in the community that I don't like, and I feel bad about it. You know, I feel as though I should get to like them. I should like them, shouldn't I? I'm supposed to like them, aren't I? I'm also frightened to talk about it. In fact I don't talk about it."

"What are you going to do then? Be hypocritically friendly to everyone? You can't do that nowadays, it's too complicated. In the early days you could, but then the neighbours were people like you, who understood you, and that you understood. Are you going to lie down and let them tramp all over? If you become a doormat people walk all over you."

“I suppose so. I suppose I do. What else can I do? You can’t talk to anybody about it now in England. I'm afraid. I don't even know what I'm afraid of."

"Are you supporting people in your community who you don't like, for reasons of your own convenience?"

"What you mean by that?"

"Do they have businesses?"

"Oh yes, there is the shop, and of course the bistro and the Post Office"

"If you are supporting these people economically you are indicating that their presence is needed. You are condoning them. Do not see how distastefully hypocritical you are being? Do you not see how dishonest you are being towards yourself and your community generally?"

"Well what do I do?"

"If there are people in your community that you choose not to deal with, just don't deal with them. Go somewhere else, even if it is out of the way."

"I suppose you are right. It would be awkward of course. Wouldn't people start to ask about it? Am I allowed to do it? In law that is? I don't understand all these laws. It seems people get into trouble all the time about all these things."

"You have the most powerful vote of all. It is a silent and anonymous vote. It is a vote that is supremely democratic. It is the vote of your purchasing power. You can't have it both ways, you can't say on one hand that you do not want some people in your community and yet on the other hand depend on them and bless them with your custom. You get what you buy. If you pay people that you don’t like, of course they will continue to be there.

You don’t have much time. Elizabeth will get into a pattern. She is probably in it or almost in it already. You can think of it like railway tracks. If the children get on the wrong tracks even so young, if it is the wrong track it can lead into heaven knows where as they get older. Once they get towards the teens there won't be any switch points which you will be able to control. You'll find that you're standing there, hating it all, knowing this will be catastrophic and yet not being able to do anything. We have to set up our children early. Much earlier than you think. They must be set in the right way and with the right people, and with the right values. The time is now."

"You know, you're right about voting with your purchases. Me old mum used to tell me about it. During the war they had something called "Buy British". It was written on all the things that were made in England. "Buy British". My mum said it saved Britain. She said it saved the Empire. Supporting those who are like you. Giving them the work. Buying their products, perhaps straight off of the farm. Was it during the war? Perhaps it was after the war? I don't know really. I just remember me old mum talking about it. She said it saved the peace. Whatever that meant. Sometimes I am glad she is not here. It would be awful for her to see what these politicians have done. Lining their egos, that’s them.

But what about being a Christian, I'm supposed to help people. I'm supposed to turn the other cheek, they always say. What does the Bible say?"

"I don’t suggest, not for one second, that you behave in any way that is not totally the Christian way. Consideration, charity and compassion are all so important in our society. More so, as we begin building a better society. I don’t know the Scriptures all that well. But I am sure that Christianity approves of supporting fellow Christians"

_______

Robin Hind

The Macphearson Report: Guilty as Charged - By Dr Frank Ellis

The Macpherson Report: Guilty as Charged

I am a racist. I must be because Sir William Macpherson of Cluny said that I am; the Home Secretary said that I am; countless members of the public at the Stephen Lawrence inquiry hearings said that I am; and I have found inside myself evidence of subtle prejudice, preconception and indirect discrimination. It is for others to decide about their own racism. I am for change inside myself and in the behaviour of myself and others.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is an institutionally racist organisation. It must be because Sir William said that it is; the Home Secretary said that it is; and countless members of the public at the inquiry hearings said that it is.

John Grieve, ‘The evidence against me is compelling. I am a policeman guilty of racism’, The Daily Telegraph, 10th May 2000, p.15.

© Frank Ellis 2010

If there is one thing that symbolizes the treachery and the self-loathing of the Conservative/Labour political class and which characterizes the general contempt for our country and people it is The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (1999). Now widely and infamously known as the Macpherson Report, this document was never exclusively designed, or ever intended, to be what the sub-title promised. From the very outset Macpherson and what are referred to as his advisors – Tom Cook, John Sentamu and Richard Stone – used the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence’s murder as an opportunity to declare war on white Britain, her institutions, her culture, language and her people. Such was the near total grovelling acceptance of the report and its recommendations that any criticism was immediately denounced as racism. The atmosphere towards dissenters can only be described as Stalinist. Having read the Macpherson Report - I suspect that I remain one of the very few people in the UK who actually took the time and trouble to read it – I felt compelled to attack this vicious, racist attack on my country and people.

As I pointed out in my essay, The Macpherson Report: “Anti-Racist” Hysteria and the Sovietization of the United Kingdom (2001), one of the major consequences of the Macpherson Report has been the climate of fear and intimidation it has induced such that it was almost impossible to address black crime, educational failure and other manifestations of black anti-social and pathological behaviour without being denounced as a racist. On the public sector, especially universities and police forces up and down the country the consequences of the Macpherson Report have been insidious and profoundly corrupting.

For example, in 2000, Leeds University tried to prevent me from delivering a lecture on the Macpherson ReportAmerican Renaissance conference. I circumvented this ugly and despicable attack on my intellectual freedom, travelling to, and returning from, the conference over a weekend. It goes without saying that I was never forgiven for attacking Macpherson’s conclusions, certainly not by the university, and my promotion prospects, based on an objective measure of my teaching and research, which were excellent, were permanently damaged. at the biennial

In my essay I predicted that Macpherson’s recommendations would have serious consequences for education and universities. So it proved. The Race Relations Act was amended in order to impose an obligation on universities and other public sector bodies to promote good relations between different racial groups. This clause was used against me in March 2006 when Leeds University under pressure from the Commission for Racial Equality suspended me and then sought to dismiss me through an internal hearing because, once again, I had highlighted the failures of multiculturalism. That attempt failed, and failed badly, but it should never have been made in the first place. I know that I was not the sole objector to the way in which the Macpherson Report and multiculturalism were being exploited by neo-Marxists and their useful idiots to undermine this country. But those in universities who agreed with me remained silent (with some worthy exceptions). Immigration, multiculturalism and Islamic terrorism are not benign: they are deadly threats to the survival of the United Kingdom and it must be possible for academics and others to speak out without their being vilified, harassed and suspended. Leeds University had serious problems with Islamic extremists when I taught there and I saw little evidence that they were being addressed. In fact, the government has drawn up a list of universities in which Islamic extremism is a serious problem. The government refuses to publish the list but I venture that Leeds University would be one of the universities on that list.

The full effects of the Macpherson Report on the police, especially in London, are now fully revealed in the aftermath of the trial and conviction of Ali Dizaei, the criminal in uniform. He escaped prosecution in 1999 because, in the hysteria induced by publication of the Macpherson Report, the will and determination of senior officials to pursue the case collapsed. Regarding the institutional cowardice and loss of will of the Metropolitan Police Service the response of John Grieve, then director of the Metropolitan Police’s Racial Task Force, to the Macpherson Report, cited above, speaks for itself in all its self-incriminating and Orwellian gruesomeness. A malign influence on the whole process, serving to blacken and to poison the waters and ever ready to emit squeals of racism when it suits its selfish and destructive purposes, has undoubtedly been the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association. This clique can insist on evolutionary and genetic origins as criteria for membership while insisting that race is a social and political construct. I have no objection to black-only organisations but how in the atmosphere of the self-righteous Macphersonism that has polluted and corrupted the police since 1999 has it ever been possible to justify and to tolerate the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association? Is the right of association a right that only blacks and other non-whites can enjoy? And what public confidence can repose in an organization whose members are police officers yet are solely concerned to push the black agenda? The fact that Ali Dizaei, the criminal in uniform, was treated as if he was a protected species and got away with his disgraceful behaviour for so long illustrates what happens when the black agenda is put before sound, operational principles of policing.

That the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association puts the black agenda before sound policing and the safety of the public (black and white) was in evidence when John Humphrys interviewed Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police and Alfred John, a representative of the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association on the Today programme (after the 0800 hrs news bulletin, 9^th February 2010). In the preamble to the interview and in the course of the interview Humphrys asked whether political correctness had gone too far. As usual Paddick dissembled, psychologically unable to face up to the obvious that the doublethink induced by multiculturalism and political correctness had indeed made it possible for Ali Dizaei to avoid being exposed and punished for so long. Let us recall that this is the same Paddick who after the Islamic terrorist attacks of 7^th July 2005 said that: ‘As far as I’m concerned Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together’. The truth of the matter is that the criminal in uniform got away with it because senior police officers failed to discharge their duty. What does it tell us about Paddick who knew and worked with Ali Dizaei when, in response to Humphrys, he told listeners that Ali Dizaei was ‘a likeable rogue’ and ‘a useful flag bearer for the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association’?

Both Paddick and John hold the view that the Police are still ‘institutionally racist’. To justify this assertion they pointed out that blacks were 7 or more times likely to be stopped and searched than others (Paddick) and the fact that there were not many ‘senior officers of colour’ was also cited as evidence (John). Both Paddick and John succumbed to the disparity ratio fallacy. Statistical data may well show that blacks are underrepresented in the upper echelons of the police or that blacks are stopped and searched more often than whites but this does not mean that there is some white racist agenda to deny blacks promotion or to stop and search blacks for no apparent cause. Logically, one would have to concede the possibility that there are whites who are racist and utterly determined to thwart the promotion of able blacks. Unfortunately for the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association the well documented cowardice and failure of senior police officers to resist accusations of racism, when baited by black and white hate groups, the BBC and the Guardian-reading classes, militates against such an ego-stroking and self-serving explanation.

Citing under representation of blacks is misleading since it suggests some unknown, malevolent factor is responsible for stopping blacks from occupying senior positions. Of course, as far as the Metropolitan Black Police Officers’ Association is concerned this factor is racism in all its protean forms: institutional; unwitting; covert; overt; and any other still-to-be-invented forms. A suitable response to Paddick and John is to argue that blacks are not underrepresented but that they are represented at all levels of the police commensurate with their ability and aptitudes. In other words, the mean ability of blacks lags behind the mean ability of whites (a finding that would also be consistent with low mean black IQ when compared with mean white IQ). The outcome is fewer blacks in senior positions. The other possibility and one that is credible and probable in view of Macphersonism is that blacks are over represented commensurate with any ability since white superiors will recommend promotion in order to avoid any accusations of racism. That this procedure must inevitably damage the career prospects of able white officers is of no consequence to frightened senior ranks. Nor does it follow that if blacks are stopped far more often than whites that the police are racist. All the evidence shows that blacks are far more likely to be arrested and incarcerated because they do indeed commit more violent crime. The wave of knife and gun crime which afflicts many British cities is largely a black problem. Arrest data from the US support the same conclusion. It is therefore right and proper that blacks be stopped and searched more than other groups. Racial profiling is efficient, saves money and lives. It should be a standard and well publicised police technique in the fight against street crime and terrorism.

The conviction of Ali Dizaei is an opportunity for the government to acknowledge the catastrophic influence of the Macpherson Report and to try to make good some of the damage done. Naturally, I hold no hope that this will happen. The Macpherson Report should be formally and publicly denounced for the slipshod, anti-white and dangerously sentimental work it indisputably is. Many of its recommendations should be urgently reviewed and where necessary revoked. It should also serve as an opportunity to make it crystal clear to non-white, special-interest groups and their white supporters that they shall not receive any special benefits or favours because they are black. Merit alone shall be the decisive factor in career advancement. If that means that there are fewer blacks in senior positions throughout the public sector, then that is the way things should be. The white indigenous population is neither responsible nor liable for black failure and should not be made to feel that it is. Blacks should cease using racism as an excuse for their failure and take a long, hard look at themselves not whites. Naturally, if they find life in Britain so intolerable, a warm welcome awaits them at Heathrow.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving person

Police Commander Ali Dizaei - jailed for corruption

Yes I know he will appeal, and that in all probability a panel of traitorous old judges will find his conviction unsafe and award him more compensation to add to his other race card assisted awards. However, for now lets just enjoy the fact that this crooked little man is going to prison.

Read about it at the Green Arrow or more about him in this unusually well written Guardian article.

Haiti and the Blacks - by Loose Canon

From Botswana's Sunday Standard by an honest black writer

Haiti and the blacks!
by Loose Canon
24.01.2010 4:23:39 P

I hope black people will learn a lesson from the earthquake that hit Haiti. If they don’t learn anything from it, then I throw up my hands in despair and give up.

Let’s start with a few basic facts.

Until the earthquake, I never knew there was a place called Haiti. I was taught geography at school but I cannot remember a time when the mistress told us about Haiti. It must have been one of those insignificant countries that we had no reason to know about.

I was fairly good at geography because I knew which country was on which continent. I also knew many capital cities. But as for Haiti I was clueless.

Now the whole world, including myself, knows about Haiti. I heard news of the earthquake on the radio. I wondered where Haiti was and what sort of people lived there.

Finally, when I switched on the television, I was informed that Haiti is an island out in the Caribbean. Television pictures revealed a place populated by black people.

From the non-stop television coverage of the earthquake, I got to learn about the history of Haiti. It was not a good history lesson. It would seem throughout its existence Haiti has suffered a series of natural calamities. In the process it has sunk even deeper into poverty and deprivation.

Like all places populated by black people, Haiti is poor. As I watched the television images, I felt very sorry for that forsaken place. Then I was hit by a thunderbolt.
I wondered what if there were no white people. You see, when the earthquake hit Haiti somebody had to come to its assistance. There had to be a rescue effort. The Haitians who survived of course did their fair bit by digging out their families from the collapsed ramshackle buildings.

But such was the scale of the devastation and the loss of human life that a bigger effort was needed. For that sort of work, you need heavy lifting gear and other sophisticated rescue equipment. I have been following the story of the earthquake keenly. I can attest to the fact that the first people to arrive with sniffer dogs were white crews from all over the world.

The aero planes that set off carrying water and food were from white countries. Not only that, the teams of volunteer doctors that I saw on television comprised white people from across the world. As the sniffer dogs went into action, the organized rescue teams that carried the stretchers were made up of white people.

It was announced that a mobile hospital was on the way. It was coming from a white country. For all intents and purposes in the aftermath of the earthquake, Haiti was literally swarming with white people. They had all arrived to save the poor blacks. And the locals were so happy to see them. Granted there were teams from the Orient such as the Chinese and Japanese. They too had quickly left their homes and families to go and assist the stricken people of Haiti.
It is obvious to everyone that this was a devastating earthquake and the work to repair Haiti and return it to a modicum of normalcy will take many years. Somebody had to commit funds to this effort. Most of the countries that have committed funds to aid the recovery are white. In fact, it would seem the whites are running the show in Haiti.

What is my point?

My point is that ever since Haiti was hit by the earthquake I have not seen any of my folks from Africa. Unless the television cameras deliberately ignored them, I never saw a rescue team from my motherland. Nor did I see any sniffer dogs from down here.

Heck, I never saw a single traditional doctor busy divining where to find people buried under the rubble.

Continue reading here

______________
Hat Tip: Dina

And yet more farm killings

One mother's son

An elderly Bethal woman Hannetjie Venter, 79 had to walk 4km to get help after robbers killed her son on Sunday.

Mrs Venter was confronted by intruders and attempted to call to her son who was working elsewhere on the farm but was prevented from doing so when one man put his hand over her mouth.

Fanie Venter, who always carried a firearm, was caught unawares and shot in the head.

When his mother got to him, one of the men said her son was just sleeping. But there was blood everywhere and the heartbroken woman could see that her son was dead.

The robbers then held a gun to her head and forced her to unlock the safe. They stole a shotgun and money together with both of the Venter's cell phones

As Hannetjie can not drive and she and their dog walked for help, however, by then the attackers were long gone

source

Elderly farmer shot dead

Intruders attacked an elderly couple on their farm in Limpopo on Thursday night, killing a 70- year-old man.

Koos van Staden and his 66-year-old wife, Henriette, were sleeping in their farm house on Glenco sugar estate in the Hoedspruit district when they were attacked.

According to a police Spokesman, the couple were in bed at about 21:30 when intruder fired a shot through an open window into the Van Stadens' bedroom. Mr van Staden was shot in the neck and died on the scene..

The victim's wife managed to shoot at the attackers and they fled without taking anything.

The number of suspects involved is not known and neither is the motive for the attack.

Source

Third farmer escapes with his life after three shots failed

A further farmer escaped with his life when an assailant's gun misfired three times. Jan van der Westhuizen, 59, a dairy farmer, said he thanks God that all three attempted shots, fired at him by an intruder failed. Full story

________________

Thanks to Dina and Johann for reporting these latest killings in what has been a very violent few days

Dear Miss Norway

Dear Miss Norway,

I am sorry to hear that you were inconvenienced recently by a strike of Muslim taxi drivers.

This clearly could not be considered a strike, nor a trade union related activity, since it had no benefit to the employment security of these drivers.

Instead it was an attempt to create a manipulative cartel, designed to coerce the greater Norwegian population.

The taxi services are important component of the functioning of Norwegian cities and have a significant role in emergencies. Therefore there is a need to prevent this from happening again.

In order to develop a population of taxi drivers who are will not force these tactics in the future, can I suggest that forthwith you habitually choose non-Muslims drivers when you hail a taxi?

Yours sincerely,

August Pointneuf

Another Day in Africa

By August Pointneuf

1. The Cape Times ( Cape Town )

"I have promised to keep his identity confidential,' said Jack Maxim, a spokeswoman for the Sandton Sun Hotel, Johannesburg , "but I can confirm that he is no longer in our employment". "We asked him to clean the lifts and he spent four days on the job. When I asked him why, he replied: 'Well, there are forty of them, two on each floor, and sometimes some of them aren't there'. Eventually, we realised that he thought each floor had a different lift, and he'd cleaned the same two, twelve times. "We had to let him go. It seemed best all round. I understand he is now working for GE Lighting."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Star ( Johannesburg ):

"The situation is absolutely under control," Transport Minister Ephraem Magagula told the Swaziland Parliament in Mbabane . "Our nation's merchant navy is perfectly safe. We just don't know where it is, that's all." Replying to an MP's question, Minister Magagula admitted that the landlocked country had completely lost track of its only ship, the Swazimar: "We believe it is in a sea somewhere. At one time, we sent a team of men to look for it, but there was a problem with drink and they failed to find it, and so, technically, yes, we've lost it a bit. But I categorically reject all suggestions of incompetence on the part of this government. The Swazimar is a big ship painted in the sort of nice bright colours you can see at night. Mark my words, it will turn up. The right honourable gentleman opposite is a very naughty man, and he will laugh on the other side of his face when my ship comes in."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Standard ( Kenya ):

"What is all the fuss about?" Weseka Sambu asked a hastily convened news conference at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport . "A technical hitch like this could have happened anywhere in the world. You people are not patriots. You just want to cause trouble." Sambu, a spokesman for Kenya Airways, was speaking after the cancellation of a through flight from Kisumu, via Jomo Kenyatta, to Berlin : "The forty-two passengers had boarded the plane ready for take-off, when the pilot noticed one of the tyres was flat. Kenya Airways did not possess a spare tyre, and unfortunately the airport nitrogen canister was empty. A passenger suggested taking the tyre to a petrol station for inflation, but unluckily the jack had gone missing so we couldn't get the wheel off. Our engineers tried heroically to reinflate the tyre with a bicycle pump, but had no luck. "When I announced that the flight had to be abandoned, one of the passengers, Mr Mutu, suddenly struck me about the face with a life-jacket whistle and said we were a national disgrace. I told him he was being ridiculous, and that there was to be another flight in a fortnight. And, in the meantime, he would be able to enjoy the scenery around Kisumu, albeit at his own expense."

------------------------------------------------------------------

4. From a Zimbabwean newspaper:

While transporting mental patients from Harare to Bulawayo , the bus driver stopped at a roadside shebeen (beerhall) for a few beers. When he got Back to his vehicle, he found it empty, with the 20 patients nowhere to be seen. Realizing the trouble he was in if the truth were uncovered, he halted his bus at the next bus stop and offered lifts to those in the queue. Letting 20 people aboard, he then shut the doors and drove straight to the Bulawayo mental hospital, where he hastily handed over his 'charges', warning the nurses that they were particularly excitable. Staff removed the furious passengers; it was three days later that suspicions were roused by the consistency of stories from the 20. As for the real patients: nothing more has been heard of them and they have apparently blended comfortably back into Zimbabwean society.

Its different for the rich

Most of us have spent the last few months shivering our way through the coldest winter in years. In Britain and much of Europe it has been the coldest for forty years, whilst, as I write, America is experiencing the heaviest snowfall in over ninety years.

Yet, despite the weather, we have no option but to carry on. Day after day we struggle to work on icy roads and in gridlocked traffic jams, or we stand on freezing railway stations waiting for trains so packed that, when travelling in then, we have no option other than to share intimate bodily contact with total strangers, grateful only for the few months respite from the sweltering heat which will make the carriages even less bearable in that humid sticky time called summer.

At the end of our journey, we will spend eight, nine, ten or even more working in a job we dislike at a wage we know is far below what we are worth, but which we must cling to because there is no alternative.

The endless day complete, we struggle home again through the same gridlocked traffic and in the same crowded carriages, maybe stopping en route to queue in overcrowded supermarkets and pay surly third world shop assistants for overpriced food, which we take home and eat in front of the propaganda which now passes for television entertainment.

Meanwhile, our media regales us with the joys of diversity and how lucky we are to live in this overcrowded, crime ridden, polluted and bankrupt multicultural hell hole. Then we go to bed and dream of something better before we have to start another day,

It is not like this for everyone though, as we stand shivering on West Ruislip station waiting for the next humanity crammed sardine can mascaraing as a railway carriage, others are sunning themselves on multi-million pound yachts, moored in Caribbean lagoons, off Pacific islands or close to the snow white sands of Indian Ocean beaches.

Others still lounge on extensive verandas overlooking private beaches, checking the stock prices online whilst a servant attends to their pedicure.

Those, prepared to brave the cooler climes of Monaco or Aspen dine on truffles, champaign and the finest sturgeon eggs in five star restaurants before taking their beautiful, if surgically enhanced, trophy wives or toy boys for a spin in their three hundred thousand dollar sport cars, planning their next skiing holidays of cruse around the Fiji islands.

Whilst these lucky few enjoy their privileged lifestyles, I am sure they sometimes raise a glass of Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, or maybe two, to the immigration policies imposed by the tame politicians back home, which have contributed so much to their “luck”. For without those policies many of the super rich just might have to cut back on a few of the sports cars, gigolos and sea view enriched Monegasque apartments.

One of the main features of mass third world and Eastern European immigration into once rich Western Nations is that it keeps wages artificially low, and there is one group who benefits massively from artificially low wages. That group are those who have to pay the wages.

There is no benefit to the average citizen, who effectively looses a considerable sum of money as a result of his wages being kept unnaturally low, whilst paying out huge amounts to support an over stretched infrastructure. However, the rich do benefit, and for the super rich the benefits can be massive.

A recent survey of American immigration estimated that by pushing down wages immigration triggers a substantial redistribution of income from native-born workers to native-born owners of capital. It was calculated that this redistribution amounts to about 2 percent of GDP, or a whopping $250 billion annually at current levels. And it is the native elites who gain this sum at the expense of native workers.

A similar figure will certainly apply to Europe, where mass immigration is also forcing down wages, and given the numbers of immigrant workers there are in the UK, it is not too much of a stretch to extrapolate that Britain's super-rich benefit by many tens of billions at the expensive of the native British worker.

On the other hand the disadvantages of employing cheap immigrant labour are minimal, the costs of employing a foreign worker and a native worker are roughly the same in most cases, whereas the savings can be significant. Additionally, of course, when did you last see a company prosecuted for not employing a representative quota of native Britons?

Mass immigration also means that those native Britons who do have jobs dare not complain ,knowing how easily they can be replaced and thrown into a market where there are not enough jobs to go around.

For the non-domiciled, tax avoiding, elite it is a win win situation.

Immigration, of course does not keep down the wages of those at the top of society, judges and top civil servants for instance, who's wages are paid by the tax payer, neither does it penalise television executives, £1,000 an hour Human Rights lawyers or fat cat bank executives, who's £600,000 bonuses mean they can afford homes in leafy glades still protected from the ravages of mass migration, with an overseas bolt hole they can run to when the Cruddas finally hits the fan.

They do not have to suffer the results of the invasion overwhelming great swathes of our nation. For them multiculturalism is still some warm and brightly coloured fantasy which they can condescendingly applaud, but which they don't have to live with. Hence they can loftily attribute labels such as “racist” or “bigot” to those of us who are forced to live amongst it, and don't like it.

It is the same but even more so for the super rich, for whom the huge wage savings made through immigration mean they can live in those marina frilled sanctuaries, where the only ethnics they have to confront, Asian and Arab plutocrats aside, are the ones filling their drinks or sweeping the cigar butts off their private beach.

These are the benefits of immigration, and it is only a tiny few who see them.

As a nation Britain gains nothing from immigration, but loses much. The average Briton pays hugely in terms of lower wages and higher taxes. It is only for a small privileged elite that immigration is a gravy train. When that train eventually hits the buffers and our economy collapses, as it inevitably will, that privileged elite will get on their yachts and sale away.

The next time a politician or commentator starts talking of the “great benefits of immigration” just remember what those benefits are and who is getting them.

Fairy Tales in February

As many of you will be aware, February in America is “Black History month”. (in Britain we have something similar in October, although it has not (yet) reached the prominence it is given in the states) The intention of Black history month was to give the black minority in the USA a month to celebrate their culture, their history and the achievements black people have made over the centuries. Well, at least, that is the official story.

If that were true, who could complain?, all people, black, white and brown should celebrate their culture and be proud of their history. However, that is not what black history month is all about, it is certainly not about the truth. In reality, February in America has become a time when false history is taught in schools, even more than it already is, and the media bristles with historical lies, distortions and pure unadulterated fantasy, even more than usual.

History is re-written to either give it a black focus, which did not exist in reality, to celebrate black achievements which never happened or more insidiously, and maybe more importantly, to undermine and devalue the real achievements of white people.

Of course, that does not just happen in February, all through the year, there is an entire industry hard at work revising history in order to portray whites in as un-heroic manner as possible, downplay their achievements and falsely enhance the heroism and achievements, and, of course victim status of other races. This industry is primarily aimed at the gullible, at the stupid, and at the young. There are thousands upon thousands of writers and academics in universities and colleges across America and Europe who's sole function is to lie to their students so as to create a false (politically correct) history, and they do that all year round.

However, it is in February when the festival of that false history occurs in America.

Amongst the most outrageous traditions of black history month is the annual chanting of the black inventions myths where an orgy of intellectual theft takes place, real white inventors are erased from history books and their inventions and creations attributed to people from ethnic minorities, some of whom may have tinkered with, or revised the original invention, but most of whom played no part whatsoever in the actual invention.

To mark black history month 2010, the Council of Conservative Citizens in the USA are running a series of articles exposing the myths which trundle out on their gaudy floats around this time each year

The black history myths they have addressed so far are as follows:

• The invention of air conditioning
  
• The invention of the cell phone
  
• Peanut butter and Potato chips (crisps)
  
• The invention of the refrigerator
  
• ice cream
  
• black dancers invented the tango
  
• And, turning to the re-drafting of history, the myth of Fort Pillow
  

The C of CC say they will continue the series of black invention myth exposures throughout February.

Some may say, why bother? Isn't it a bit mean to burst these bubbles which merely make black people feel good about themselves even if they are no more than fakes, fantasies and fairy tales, what harm does it do to let them believe these myths? Should we not, like the indulgent mother who allows her six year old to claim she cooked dinner, even though she did little more than some supervised mixing, allow them a few white lies to boost their egos?

In fact, there are many reasons why these lies need to be exposed, debunked and shown up for what they are.

For a start, the inventions myths are, as I indicated earlier, no more than intellectual theft. These myths steal the achievements of the real inventors, they seek to deny them credit for their own, often significant, contribution to society and then attribute the results of what may have been years of effort to someone entirely undeserving, just because they have a more fashionable pigmentation.

Yet the motive goes beyond that, these achievements are stolen from white men in order to falsely claim that other white men stole them from blacks.

It is the same when history is revised and lies become the legends which become accepted truths through constant repetition. It is done for one purpose, and that is to vilify the white race. It's aim is to perpetuate even greater myths such as the exclusivity of white cruelty and black victimhood, and that of noble black heroes (or noble blue heroes in the case of James Cameron's race hate flick Avatar) and evil white villains.

The single aim of these myths, fables and downright falsehoods is to created a revised history and a new truth which otherwise would exist only in left wing political orthodoxy of the foetid and malign imaginings of radical academia, and then pass the lies on to the next generation as an accepted and unquestioned creed.

There is nothing harmless about the myths of black history month, there is no gentle or paternalistic indulgence behind this deliberate redistribution of historical achievements, their design is malevolent and their agenda is deadly. It is being done in order to harm one race no less than it is done to benefit another, in fact, probably more so. In this, as in so many ways, our history is being rewritten and it is being rewritten for a reason.

There is only one reason to rewrite a people's history and that is to justify a future which is planned for them.

If you steal a people's history, deny their achievements, their pride and their worth, if you call them evil call them worthless, and often worse, and them make them believe your lies, it is then they become easier to defeat, and also, it is then they become easier to destroy.

The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back

Written by Selwyn Duke

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.

Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.

The Gathering Threat in the East
While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.

Ah, the Crusades. Along with the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition (both partially to largely misunderstood), they have become a metaphor for Christian “intolerance.” And this characterization figures prominently in the hate-the-West-first crowd’s repertoire and imbues everything, from movies such as 2005’s Kingdom of Heaven to school curricula to politicians’ pronouncements. In fact, it’s sometimes peddled so reflexively that the criticism descends into the ridiculous, such as when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and, writes Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University Thomas Madden, “recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.)” Why, indeed. Yet, it is the not-so-ridiculous, the fable accepted as fact, that does the most damage. Madden addresses this in his piece, “The Real History of the Crusades,” writing:

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

But what does good history tell us? Madden continues:

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War.... In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western [sic] Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

[The Crusades] were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Continue reading at New American

___________________________
Hat Tip: Dr D

More death in South Africa

Man killed, wife badly injured

Although the first crime occurred last week, it has, as far as I can tell, not yet been reported in the English language press. I am grateful to Dina for the summarised translation.

Mr Johan Venter (59) and his wife, Rentia (60), was attacked on their farm near Middelburg Mpumalanga, last week Friday around 01:30.
Mr Venter was killed by a shot in the head, and his wife injured by gunshots to the stomach & arm. The attackers had forced entry through the bedroom window. their son, Jaco (22), heard his parent screaming followed by gunshots. Nothing whatsoever was taken/stolen.

It is reported that the men suspected of the murder, at around 7:00 on the same day, may have kidnapped & robbed a teacher, mev. Hendrieka van der Merwe (59) who were driving to the school where she teaches. An obstruction was placed in the road to force her to stop

The suspects are however still at large

News source

__________

Couple found murdered in their home

Mr. and Mrs. Els

In a separate incident, this Thursday the bodies of a man and wife were found in their Swellendam home, Western Cape.

Police were called to the scene after the couple's gardener saw blood on the front door. When police gained entry into the house from the back, they discovered 63-year-old Nick Els dead on the lounge floor and his 58-year-old wife Elsie dead on the bedroom floor.

It appeared the killers used a blunt object to kill the couple.

It was unclear how the killers entered the house or if anything was taken.

News source

___________________

Arrests in retired Cardiologist's murder

Police have made a breakthrough in their investigation into the murder of a retired cardiologist.

Dr Francois Steenkamp’s body was found in his home in a retirement village in Newlands on Wednesday – it was believed he was beaten to death.

Two men were arrested in connection with the murder.

Police are not willing to reveal any further information, saying the investigation was at a sensitive stage and more arrests may follow.

It is understood investigators are looking for the retired cardiologist’s white Toyota Tazz which was stolen by his attackers.

It is believed Steenkamp was severely assaulted at his home on Tuesday night.

Source
__________________
Hat Tip Dina

The crooked judges of Amsterdam

Click on the image, or here, to hear Pat Condell's excellent analysis of the trial of Geert Wilders at YouTube

Wall Street Observer - Obama White House Is Lying to You

Author, investor and longtime Wall Street observer James Dale Davidson says the US government is lying about the state of the country: There is no genuine economic recovery happening.

“I think what we have seen ... is a simulated recovery which has been generated by the government faking it in a lot of different ways," putting out what he calls statistical falsehoods on economic numbers "to make it seem that the economy is stronger than it is,” Davidson told Newsmax.

For example, calculations for the recently released unemployment figures released failed to include the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics had undercounted the number of unemployed people in 2009 by 824,000 persons.

Video — Davidson: Obama White House Is Lying to You

“They’re supposed to be doing a benchmark adjustment ... and if they do, the unemployment rate will shoot up even higher,” Davidson says.

"A lot of the supposed improvements have been faked by the government," Davidson says.

Davidson believes the government secretly used quantitative easing as an excuse to funnel money into U.S. capital markets.

“It’s not a coincidence that the market started to rally in March at the same time they announced they were going to do the quantitative easing,” he observes.

“In my view, it’s all created by the government as a hoax.”

The whole administration is based on one lie after another, he says.

Source

Czech Cardinal: Europe Will Soon Fall

The Cardinal of the Czech Republic, Miloslav Vick, is concerned about the fate of Christianity in Europe. He argues that Europe must return to its roots, if not the fate of the continent will be to become Islamic.

"Medieval Muslims tried to conquer Europe but Christians expelled them,” he said. “Today there is a similar war but with spiritual weapons. However, Europe lacks the tools and ability for a spiritual struggle while Muslims are well equipped," he says, adding that 'the fall of Europe is close at hand.”

Source

How Do You Say “Kangaroo Court” in Dutch?

By Diana West at the Brussels Journal

Behold (courtesy Tundra Tabloids) the very image of Dutch "justice." After yesterday's "judicial" proceedings in Amsterdam, Holland itself is forever besmirched, its "judges" having made it clear that no semblance of fairness will enter into their proceeeding against Geert Wilders. As noted below, the "judges" slashed the roster of witnesses the Wilders defense team planned to call to the stand from eighteen to three.

John L. Work writes at Newsreal:

Even if you have never been involved in a criminal prosecution wherein your very freedom is at risk, I want you to now imagine that you and your attorney have prepared a defense that includes a list of witnesses that will provide a mountain of exculpatory evidence. Then, imagine that the Court summarily and arbitrarily decides that it will not listen to nearly ninety percent of your case.

“This court is apparently not interested in the truth." Wilders told De Telegraaf (translations from Gates of Vienna). "I cannot conclude anything but that the court does not award me a fair trial.”

Continue reading at the Brussels Journal

Inculcation and Indoctrination: Appeasement and Acceptance. A recent history of Britain.

By August Pointneuf

Part I

When the British (and other Europeans) began to invite immigrants “en masse” into their small and crowded lands, onlookers were astonished.

It was clear that the British were introducing to themselves enormous problems, and that cultural and other conflicts were inevitable. Many of these arms-length observers had lived in culturally mixed communities abroad, where they found that they needed to evolve strategies to ensure their survival in multi-racial societies.

However, what made Britain particularly different was its highly structured society. There was little latitude for change, or space in Britain’s compacted population, to allow for the major social adjustment which would be necessary if transcultural immigration was permitted.

The outsider recognised that this experimentation on the British, by politicians, had no precedent. The lessons of the past had been diametrically counter to this experiment, which planned to reverse the entrenched philosophy of self-preservation and defensiveness against alienisation. For centuries these protective strategies had been in place with demonstrable success. The British governments, however, now waved all history aside with self-satisfied aplomb. It was to be irreversible.

What started it? Small groups were the prime motivators of “pro-immigration” in Britain:

“Academics", seeing themselves as superior thinkers, believed that they had an "enlightenment" which was their own special providence, and claimed they were the authoritative purveyors of morality.

“Ecclesiastics”, from the vacuum of their own deficiencies, grasped the (fundamentally flawed) ethos touted by “intellectuals”, so giving it pseudo-credibility for absorption by their absurdly credulous wards.

Politicians then channelled this novelty into their own domain as a ploy towards their proposed politico-economic engineering.

These politicians were powerful enough to begin manipulating the population and, without specific mandate, imposed their pro-immigrant views on a confused public, often surreptitiously and apparently always with self-serving goals.

Which part of the population surrendered? As a pre-emptive, the British “pro-immigrant cabal” need to be addressed:

These people standardise their techniques of demanding racial fragmentation, despite the racial homogeny which had served the British supremely well for so long past. These preachers blustered "You cannot generalise", "There are good and bad in all people", "There is only one race, the human race" even “Once we are all brown there will be no quarrels in a happy land”. Such trite, if not inane, responses have been repeated mindlessly, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning others into believing these determined, albeit irrational and misguided, airy fabricators.

Their views are counter-intuitive, and show a naivety which is embarrassing. One common motive seems to be an exhibitionistic, self-proclaiming righteousness.

Take these arguments as read and not bother with them further.

There have always been, of course, Britons of extraordinary capacity, intellect, insight, compassion and social creativity. These are the people that made Britain great, and defended its cultural integrity in the past. But unfortunately the recent breeds of politicians knew they could manipulate percentages of the population, and knowing that 50% of the electorate is the least gifted half of the population, that group was targeted. The politicians also focused on the fractions of the population which displayed the worst frailties of the human - laziness, avarice, covertness and the capacity to manipulate - in order to ensconce their authority and tighten their control over the British public.

Therefore this is not a condemnation of the sensitive and capable British; instead is condolence to those who unsuccessfully opposed the blundering political assertiveness, the political manipulation and the perversion of democracy.

So, what were the techniques which the politicians used to woo and beguile their populations?

1. "We will bring in people who will do the work for you". This was the most cynical and surreptitious of promises by politicians to their population. Some British seemed to feel that, having been successful in the war, they were entitled to the lethargy of the superior. The politicians implied that the immigrants would be an inferior group who would do the work which some British. There were some whose misappropriated sense of superiority led them to believe much “service work” was beneath their dignity and saw this as a path up the social scale. Immigrants were to become their transport workers, like the coachmen and chauffeurs of their yesteryears. There was also a strong thread of jealousy. It seemed that the "stay-at-homes" believed their more adventurous colonial brethren lived a superior life with servants at their feet. Those who had not ventured to the colonies began to begrudge the colonists. The immigrant doctrine now lead these to believe that they, too, could become “of the class” which employed the same type of servants. They didn't understand, unfortunately, that the servants of the colonists were not an expression of colonist wealth, but rather an expression of the poverty of those lands. Mostly these aspirers towards grandiosity demonstrated the evil of “wanting something for nothing" and in particular any offer of cheap labour.

2."There are not enough people to do the work". Of course this is dismissible as reason, since transport workers and others could have been easily recruited from the indigenous population, as had already been done in other countries, if sufficient salary were granted. The expectation that the British were led towards was that they were going to get people who would do unpleasant work for less. There was also the implication that these "immigrant workers" would continue to work, as a race, forever in menial jobs. This of course was blatant stupidity on the part of the British politicians. The immigrants would begin, as soon as they possibly could, to compete with the British for the higher salaries, and ultimately out-compete them in many respects. So the politicians were recklessly risking the employment of their own electorate. The British pattern of living and income were to be prejudiced by a delusion perpetrated and promoted by a ruthless set of politicians.

3."You will enjoy a more colourful society". This has been well debated elsewhere. The idea is fatuous, since the "colourfulness" of any group exists only because it is unusual and exotic. “Resident exoticism” fades fast.

4."You will benefit from the injection of new immigrant people, who will fortify and strengthen your race". This was a rather crude extrapolation of agricultural naïveté and was historically false. No non-European group has ever added materially to the civilisation(1) which the British attained in the prime of their civic capabilities. The British had been an enormously successful race, and dilution with other genes and other cultures could be expected (even if one uses simple agricultural analogies of cultivar degradation) to weaken and lessen the inherent superiority of the Briton. This civic superiority should have been obvious to all. What else would have motivated the immigrants to invade?

5."You have a charitable obligation ". Emotional manipulation was applied with leverage like "You people are so successful that you must come to the aid of the poor, starving, diseased, and cold in the rest of the world by sharing the quality of life which you enjoy”. A fatuous argument. The wretchedness of what has been called the "bottomless bucket" of impoverished human beings in the third world could not be altered by inviting a small proportion into the British homeland. Britain had to remain successful if it were to continue to support its charitable beneficiaries abroad. Self-sacrifice is self-limiting.

Part II

Illusion. The gullible Britons fell for it. They believed that immigrants would be imbued with gratitude for the hospitality received and show deference to the host culture. The immigrants were expected to respect an established and sophisticated pattern of living. It was assumed that the immigrants to Britain would have a desire to avoid offence and a willingness to share the products of a civilisation and its social structures in an equable way. These qualities were long embedded into the British culture. This behavioural structure was the contract which the British held amongst themselves, and which had been carefully passed down through the generations. These had been the internal assumptions necessary for the historic success of British society. It was thus implied that immigrants would also honour this contract.

Reality. Self-selected immigrant tranches included sufficient sub-set variants to cause an irreversible alteration of British society. These interlopers had no reason to consider that they should be beholden to their hosts. Theirs was not to show gratitude: Instead they began to believe (assisted by the “intellectuals”) that they were arriving in Britain to receive their "due". When necessary, reasons were invented to “prove” the British were indebted to the immigrant.

Immigrants sought to extract maximally from the social structures of a civilised society, with ruthless tenacity. Instead of the expected graciousness it became the pattern for many an immigrant to slander, diminish and volubly despise the natives whom they planned to eventually displace. Immigrants intended, and demonstrated, that their role would be to inject their imported cultures, and to overcome the established patterns of British life, replacing it with formats of their own inclination. Immigrants began to erode the establishment en route to overcoming and usurp the society, moving to ultimately dominate and control. The immigrant response to their admission to Britain was to display emotional manipulation, aggression, claims of moral authority, and the control of the nubile. Their unfettered indulgences are allowing them feed on, and erode away, the restraints of the civilised world into which they had been invited.

Deadly misinterpretations. Most Britons were, of course, compassionately concerned. They had a sense of charity and hospitality. There was a reluctance to hurt or condemn. There was a determination to overcome what proved to be an uncomfortable ingression caused by aliens forced upon them. But they were also prejudiced themselves by many of their own delusions including their sense of superiority. There was an arrogant belief that all immigrants would continue to appreciate the superior qualities of the British, and would aim to emulate and mimic the existing culture. So it was believed that the alien would eventually merge imperceptibly to become indistinguishable from the native population. Remember that “integration” was the key political word at that time. So arrogant was that assumption that no attempt was made to provide “house rules” of any sort. Not even would capacity in English be a necessary requirement for citizenship.

When it became clear that “integration” was impossible then “multiculturism” was the next political invention, presumably a form of “separate development”.

The British also fell for the nonsense about "strengthening the race", and the even greater stupidity of trying to make their already deep, rich, and highly cultured society "more colourful".

The last chapters. As the disarray imported with immigration started to show, the British governments tried repairs by pasting legislative pastiches over crack after crack. Astonishing legislation was progressively imposed, designed to oppress a people by forcing them into conflict with their own intuition. The population was denied the latitude to express inherent views, and prohibited from reacting instinctively. The people were prevented from expressing their concerns about the loss of their national homogeneity; something which many knew had allowed the Europeans to become the greatest race of history. Whatever this legislation might have done to “assist integration" (and there is no evidence that it has) far more important was the divisive effect it had on the British population. It perplexed and humiliated the British, and cowed them by the creation of inquisitous puppets. These nefarious informatives (which progressively included all financial institutions) became obliged, by law, to report on their fellows. Quislings spread through the population, setting neighbour against neighbour in that most invidious of socially destructive mechanisms.

A people broken. Many say that the pride and spirit of the British has been broken. In the greater part they are no longer people of warmth and hospitality, but rather a nation of the reclusive and defensive. These are the people that look at the pavements and corridor floors, rather than looking their fellows in the face, something so obvious to the visitor. These are the people who have allowed themselves to be taxed more than ever in the history of mankind. These are the people who have allowed their government a total control of their finances and savings (forcing banks to act as agents for the government instead of being the employees of the savers).These are the people who have had their privacy extirpated entirely, to be dispersed into the data banks of their controlling authorities. These seem to be people who now fear to respond and, like the light-blinded rabbit, can only passively plead for “someone” to do “something” while they await immolation.

Social and behavioural patterns destroyed. Once the context of the British culture had been warped, once the behavioural patterns of the British began to be distorted by political manacles, then the fine social equilibrium changed. The alterations have been insidious, slow enough to steal in, unnoticed by most. Long-entrenched behavioural patterns and the necessary working assumptions, essential as the infrastructure of Britain’s functional integrity, now had no footings. Emotional tensions have become universally palpable but none dare speak out. Taught bands of silence have now straight-jacket the nation. Predictability and reasonability can no longer be assumed; and have been replaced by the bizarre, and often risible, non-rationality of asinine legislation.

Immunising defences destroyed. The individual as a decision maker has been stripped of all the natural and inherent capacities to react defensively. Such social “cellular defence systems” can only exist at the level of the individual who has provided the vital immune defence systems of all societies. But the hapless Native Briton has now been forced to abdicate as the traditional defender of Britain’s previous homogenous culture. With the endemic destruction of its immune system Britain’s previous social structure is now awaiting entire collapse.

Finale. Saddest is that most British cannot see, even now, where they have been led, and do not realise that within a generation their impoverished progeny will have a total amnesia for their once great culture.


August Pontneuf

____________

(1) The Moorish exodus from Iberia left architectural and linguistic residua. However there is no evidence that the Moorish presence contributed to Civic capability. Instead, on many accounts, Iberia lagged behind the development of the rest of Europe.