Monday 30 June 2008

The mounting toll of young lives

With the violent and tragic death this weekend of 16 year old Ben Kinsella, the brother of Eastenders actress Brooke Kinsella, and, like earlier victim Robert Knox, a a budding actor himself, the toll of teen aged victims in London has reached 17 in the first six months of this year. Already 2008 looks set to exceed the record bloodshed of 2007, and once again, not one of those young lives was taken by anyone from the indigenous white population.

I have made this point before, but it needs to be be repeated until the truth eventually hits home. Those of non white, first, second and third generation immigrant origin account for around 10% of the population but they commit most of the street crime and almost 100% of all the street murders.

If or when a white kid does retaliate and stab someone, do not accept it when the media try to tell you that it proves white Britons are just as bad, because, given the population levels, white British kids would have had to murder between three and four hundred of their fellow teenagers to achieve even parity.

That is a conservative figure, given that like Martin Dinnegan last year Ben was allegedly the victims of multiple assailants. Indeed, that is not the only apparent similarity between the two murders, the fact that, like Martin, Ben is said to have begged for help in his final moments is painful to even contemplate.

It has reached the point where even the BBC have been forced to use the word “black” in a crime report, albeit in this morning's reports they were still attempting to get away with blaming Ben Kinsella's death on “youths”. Certainly up until now they together with most of the media have engaged in levels of distortion which would have made a 1960's Pravda, or indeed a current day Zimbabwe Herald proud.

However, the media's concession to the truth only went so far, and I would like to know why both the BBC and Sky chose to use a bleary eyed picture of Ben Kinsella, swigging from a beer bottle in their earlier reports, when so many other pictures were available. Ben was a 16 year old, an age when it is legal to drink beer, wine or cider in Britain. If the reporters from the BBC do not have similar pictures of themselves at 16, they were either never invited to parties due to body oder, or they were at a young socialist meeting.

The media leopard does not easily change its spots, and the use of that picture smacked a little too much of an attempt to blame the victim for what was done to him.

However, surely even they can no longer ignore the facts. How long will it be before someone in the media breaks ranks and tells the whole truth, how many more innocent victims must die before they admit what they and our leaders have done to our country, and our children's future?

Sunday 29 June 2008

The murder or Eve Carson - an update

Back in March I wrote an article entitled "When the American Dream becomes a nightmare", regarding the brutal murder of Eve Carson (pictured above during a trip to Ecuador) the student body president at America's University of North Carolina , allegedly by two African American males, Laurence Lovette Jr and Demario Atwater.

Details of what allegedly occurred have been released and they make chilling reading, a confidential witness told investigators that Demario Atwater admitted that he and Lovette entered Eve Carson's home in Chapel Hill North Carolina through an open door March 5, according to search warrants which have now been made public.

The alleged killers, both of whom have lengthy criminal records, and one, Lovette, is suspected of the murder of a student from nearby Duke University, forced Carson into the backseat of her Toyota Highlander and drove her to an ATM machine, where she was forced to reveal her PIN number.

Having no further use for her, Lovette shot Carson multiple times, and Atwater subsequently shot her with a different weapon. Carson's body was found at 5:30 a.m. on March 5 on a residential street in Chapel Hil.

Over the next two days, Atwater and Lovette took $1,400 from Carson's bank account.

The full article can be read here.

Eve Carcon was what would once have been called an all American girl, before so much of America begun to resemble down town Tijuana, blonde, beautiful and intelligent, having been elected Student President at the age of 22, a glowing future was all but guaranteed. However, her future was snuffed out in an hour or two or terror and violence, when another innocent white woman became a statistic in the multicultural nightmare into which america has sunk even deeper than we have.

Let us hope she finds a peace which is now denied to her homeland.

Saturday 28 June 2008

Beyond the letter of the law

Harriet Harman the, (in the circumstances) somewhat ludicrously titled “Equalities Secretary”, admits that her proposed Bill to enforce equality in the workplace will in fact lead to discrimination against white males saying “You don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward.". However, she fails to admit quite how far this nasty and maliciously motivated piece of legislation will actually push, and what it's true agenda is.

In addition to requiring employers to be transparent regarding pay rates, the new legislation officially now makes it “legal to promote a woman or a black person over a white man if they are equally able”, the same would apply when considering two “equally able” candidates for a new position, where one is a white man and the other is either a woman or a non white person.

Officially the intention is to encourage equality, however, given the woolly manner in which the legislation is drafted, the real intention is clearly to encourage employers to employ woman or black people instead of white males.

Those who cynically drafted the legislation in the way they did, did so in the knowledge that, when it comes to employment legislation, the majority of employers err on the side of caution. They are confident that, once this bill becomes law, human resources departments across the land will adopt a default “If in doubt don't employ the white guy” policy.

The last thing any employer wants is to be sued for discrimination, especially when it is easier and far cheaper to dump on a white man. How many employers are going to risk facing a tribunal and having to prove that the white male whom they employed or promoted was the most able candidate?.

I suspect the answer is very few. It doesn't matter how the law is 'officially worded', it matters how it will be perceived by businesses across the land, who instead of consulting a grand an hour employment lawyer will simply not take the risk. The result will be to force more and more white males out of the work force, which is exactly what Harman and her agenda driven minions want.

We have been here before, governments are very skilled at drafting legislation which will have a more wide ranging effect on society than the letter of the law actually provides for, and the current government is a past master at it. For instance the recent legislation banning violent pornography was officially aimed only at the really extreme material originating from Asia and parts of the old soviet union, in which serious injuries are inflicted or appear to be. However, as a result of the legislation dozens of dirty movie makers specialising in the “grey areas” of consensual S/M and bondage have either upped stakes and moved their operations to Holland and the Czech Republic or simply closed down. Hence, legislation, although officially aimed at a very narrow target, has achieved a more wide ranging social effect than the letter of the law actually permits.

In respect of pornography, many of you may approve of what is happening, however, I take the view that all censorship is dangerous, because you never know where it will end, and we, as a group are, after all no less censored than any dirty film maker. Furthermore, it is another example of legislation achieving an effect through the public perception of it means, which it would never achieve if tested in a court of law.

The most infamous of such laws was the 1976 Race Relations Act the effect if which has gone far wider than the law actually prescribes.

The Act forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services. There is nothing in the 1976 legislation which forbids argued opposition to immigration or the creation of a multi racial society, however, the perception of the legislation has silenced or muted the voices of many thousands of their opponents.

The ban on “Stirring up racial hatred”, has stifled much non-hateful debate, effectively discouraged legitimate criticism of non-whites, and has been abused in attempts to suppress political comment, albeit not always successfully.

The ban on racial discrimination in the work place has unquestionably resulted in black people being promoted beyond their abilities often with disastrous results and to many a blind eye being turned incompetence and bad practice by non-whites, because employers have adopted an “If in doubt don't risk it” default position, which this new legislation will reinforce.

Harriet's law will not result in blacks and woman being treated equally to white men, it will result in more blacks and woman being promoted and less white males irrespective of ability.

As a woman I strive for advancement on my own merit and would be outraged were I to gain it on merely the basis of my gender or race, and I hold in contempt those woman or non-whites who would accept such an unequal advantage as a right. However, many will do so, and many employers will grant them unfair advancement rather that test the law, which is exactly the intention of this invidious legislation.

The 1976 Race Relations act became law because it's relatively modest wording disguised its true intent, however, it has been the main tool of social engineering which has been used to transform the face of Britain, to the significant disadvantage of her citizens, and Harriet's new regulations are in the same mould.

Make no mistake, what ever the media may say about the supposed benefit to women and older workers, the main beneficiaries will be non whites.

The forces of Common Purpose achieve their goals by deception, and this yet another set of regulations which were drafted to achieve more than they appear to. The target again is primarily young white males, because they are the group our enemies resent most, but do not be fooled, we are all in their sights. The programme continues and will do so unless or until the people of Britain wake up and realise what is being done to them.


Also posted to the Home of the Green Arrow


Mandela the legend and the legacy is reproduced as a single artice at my back up blog here

Wednesday 25 June 2008

Mandela - The Legend and the Legacy. Part 2

In the second of two articles examining the life of Nelson Mandela, in advance of Friday's concert in Hyde Park celebrating the living legend's 90th birthday, I shall look at his legacy and the new South Africa which he created after coming to power on a surge of worldwide optimism and hope in 1994, when, following the end of Apartheid, he and his followers promised a new dawn for what became termed the Rainbow Nation.

Today South Africa stands out as one of the most dangerous and crime ridden nations on Earth which is not actively at War. In 2001, only seven years after the end of Apartheid, whilst the city of Amsterdam in the Netherlands with 5,6 murders per 100,000 population was declared the "murder capitol of Europe", Johannesburg, with 61.2 murders per 100,00 population and remains the world's top murder city.

In South Africa as a whole, the murder rate is seven times that of America, in terms of rape the rate is ten times as high and includes the ugly phenomenon of child rape, one of the few activities in which South Africa is now a world leader. If you don't believe me, you can read what Oprah Winfrey has to say about it here.

All other forms of violent crime are out of control, and Johannesburg is among the top world cities for muggings and violent assault, a fact seldom mentioned in connection with the 2010 World Cup which is scheduled to be hosted in South Africa.

As always with black violence the primary victims are their fellow blacks, however, the rape, murder and violent assault of whites is a daily event, and there is more ...

As with the Matabeleland massacres, news of which the BBC, together with much of the world media suppressed for twenty years to protect their one time hero, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, another secret genocide is being ignored by the world media, the genocide of white Boer farmers, thousands of whom have been horribly tortured to death in their homes since the end of Apartheid. Anyone who clicks on this link should we warned that it includes some very gruesome images as the savagery of these attacks belie the authorities attempts to dismiss them as nothing more than a "crime wave".

Given that it is now all but illegal in South Africa to report the race of either victim or the perpetrator of a crime (unless the perpetrator is white and the victim black) and as modern South Africa's official crime statistics are notoriously massaged, it is impossible to know the exact numbers of farm murders that have taken place. Many reliable sources estimate the figure as close to 3,000, but even if we take the more conservative figure of 1,600 quoted in the politically correct South African press (but not quoted at all in ours) this is three times the numbers killed by the South African security forces over a period of 43 years, and which the UN calls a crime against humanity.

To put this in perspective, the population of South Africa is 47 million, (13 million less than Britain despite its far greater land mass) of which the 4.3 million whites account for 9.1%, about 1% less than the immigrant population of Britain. Can you imagine the outcry if 1,600 (let alone 3,000) members of a minority community in Britain were tortured to death by the native population?.

Yet when the victims are white, there is hardly a peep in the South African press and silence from the international media. Compare this to when a white youth is the killer, such as in the case of Johan Nel, who shot three Africans, a story which became instant world wide news with the predictable screams of racism and machete wielding mobs baying for his blood.

(And they accuse us of hate?!! Don't such people nauseate themselves with their hypocrisy?!)

Crime aside, Mandela and his ANC inherited the strongest economy in Africa, indeed, despite economic sanctions, South Africa was still one of the richest world nations, and indeed initially there was a brief post Apartheid boom, resulting from the lifting of sanctions and due to the fact that until affirmative action forced most of the whites out of their jobs to be replaced by under qualified blacks, those who had built South Africa were still in place.

However, any optimism was to be short lived. Now, after just 14 years of rule by Mandela and his grim successor Mbeke, corruption is rife, the country is beset with power cuts and the infrastructure is crumbling.

The nation's great cities like Durban and Johannesburg, which could once rival the likes of Sydney, Vancouver and San Francisco, had descended in to decaying crime ridden slums within a decade.

And in the last few weeks we have seen the so called Rainbow nations ultimate humiliation, as xenophobic anti immigration violence spreads across the country. (“xenophobic” is what the media call racism when blacks do it) As poverty and unemployment explodes and is exacerbated by the floods of immigrants flooding in to escape the even more advanced Africanisation of the rest of the country, the mobs turn on those they blame for stealing their jobs, their homes, and their women.

Thus the cycle turns, and, like watching some barbaric version of “back to the future", on the news we see exactly the same scenes we saw on our televisions twenty years ago, wrecked buildings, burning vehicles, mobs brandishing machetes, axes and knives hacking at everything and everyone which comes within their reach. Most horrific of all, we see the return of that most savage symbol of African brutality, the necklace where, to the cheers of a blood thirsty crowd, some poor trembling soul, with a tire around his neck, is dragged from his home and set alight, exactly as all those other poor souls were set alight throughout the Apartheid years, when we were told it was all the evil white man's fault.

As nothing else the return of the necklace exposes the failure of Mandela's revolution, and those who fought for him should weep.

Under Apartheid, blacks and whites went to separate hospitals but they received world class health care, whatever their colour, now the facilities are collapsing or non-existent. Black children went to different schools than white children, but they received an education, something which is now a privileged luxury. When they grew up, their bosses may have been white, but they had jobs and a living wage, as the recent violence shows us, such security is but a memory for most South Africans.

Eighteen years after Nelson and Winnie made their historic walk towards the cameras, and 14 years, since Mandela assumed power on a tide of optimism, a once proud South Africa slides like a crumbling, crime ridden, wreck towards a precipice created though greed, corruption and incompetence.

For all his gleaming smiles, grandfatherly hand gestures, and folksy sound bites, tomorrow night, when crowd cheers the retired terrorist in the gaudy shirt, they would do best not to focus too closely upon his much admired legacy, as they might just find that the Xhosan Emperor has no clothes. For Nelson Mandela's lasting achievement is that, in the face of a wold wishing him well, he, and the party he leads, have shown the world that, for all its flaws, Apartheid was a more benign system than what replaced it, and that the average South African was immeasurably better off under the hated white rule than they are under the alternative which black rule has created.

That is quite an achievement, Mr Mandela, happy birthday.
Click here for Part one
or back to the Home page
These articles was also posted as a single article at the back up blog Sarah Maid of Albion II. As with the articles posted here, the single attracted a significant number of comments, in addition to those posted here, many were positive, but also some were negative. Those who wish to read the further comments can do so by clicking here.

Tuesday 24 June 2008

Mandela: The legend and the Legacy. Part 1

It is often said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, however, this usually means that the other man has been less than fastidious in his choice of hero, or that the “freedom fighter” in question was on the crowd pleasing side.

On the 27th of June, London's Hyde Park will play host to a concert in honour of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday and we can be assured that it will receive wall to wall coverage by a star struck and worshipping media, who will continue to laud Mandela as one of the greatest, or indeed the greatest, heroes of our time.

No doubt the beaming old man will appear on stage in one of his trademark multi-coloured shirts and cheerily acknowledge the cheers of the adoring crowd, most of whom have been taught to believe in his sainthood since their first days in primary school, which, for many of them, will have occurred around the same time their hero walked free from Robben Island.

The unquestioning belief in Mandela's universally admired saintliness will again be displayed in the press and by the unending line of politicians and dignitaries who will queue up to genuflect before him and sing his praises. It is a brave politician or journalist who would dare to question the godliness of this legend and consummate showman, and hence no such questions will be raised, nor will his much vaunted “achievements” be subjected to any objective scrutiny.

No matter how many speeches are given or how many news articles are written, it is safe to bet that the full truth about Mandela will not be told.

In fact the truth about Mandela is so hidden in mythology and misinformation that most know nothing about him prior to Robben island, and those who do tend to exercise a form of self censorship, designed to bolster the myth whilst consigning uncomfortable facts into the mists of history.

For most people all they know about Mandela, prior to his release in 1990, was that he had spent 27 years in prison and was considered by many on the left at the time (and almost everyone now) to be a political prisoner. However, Mandela was no Aung San Suu Kyi, he was not an innocent, democratically elected leader, imprisoned by an authoritarian government.

Mandela was the terrorist leader of a violent terrorist organisation, the ANC (African National Congress) which was responsible for many thousands of, mostly black, deaths. The ANC's blood spattered history is frequently ignored, but reminders occasionally pop up in the most embarrassing places, indeed as recently as this month the names of Nelson Mandela and most of the ANC remained on the US government's terrorist watch list along with al-Queda, Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers. Of course the forces of political correctness are rushing to amend that embarrassing reminder from the past. However, Mandela's name was not on that list by mistake, he was there because of his Murderous past.

Before I am accused of calumny, it should be noted that Mandela does not seek to hide his past, in his autobiography “the long walk to Freedom” he casually admits “signing off” the 1983 Church Street bombing carried out by the ANC and killing 19 innocent people whilst injuring another 200.

It is true that Mandela approved that massacre and other ANC killings from his prison cell, and there is no evidence that he personally killed anyone but the same could be said about Stalin or Hitler, and the violent history of the ANC, the organisation he led is not in question.

According to the Human Rights Commission it is estimated that during the Apartheid period some 21,000 people were killed, however both the UN Crimes against Humanity commission and South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission are in agreement that in those 43 years the South African Security forces killed a total of 518 people. The rest, (some 92%) were accounted for by Africans killing Africans, many by means of the notorious and gruesome practice of necklacing whereby a car tyre full of petrol is placed around a victim's neck and set alight. This particularly cruel form of execution was frequently carried out at the behest of the ANC with the enthusiastic support of Mandela's demonic wife Winnie.

The brutal reappearance of the deadly necklace in recent weeks is something I shall reluctantly focus upon later.

Given that so much blood was on the hands of his party, and, as such, the newly appointed government, some may conclude that those who praised Madela's mercy and forgiveness, when the Truth and Reconciliation tribunal set up after he came to power, to look into the Apartheid years, did not include a provision for sanctions, were being deliberately naive.

Such nativity is not uncommon when it comes to the adoring reporting of Nelson Madela, and neither is the great leader himself rarely shy of playing up his image of fatherly elder statesman and multi-purpose paragon. However, in truth, the ANC's conscious decision to reject a policy of non-violence, such as that chosen by Gandhi, in their struggle against the white government, had left them, and by extension, their leader, with at least as much blood on their hands as their one time oppressors, and this fact alone prevented them from enacting the revenge which might otherwise have been the case.

As the first post Apartheid president of South Africa it would, be unfair if not ludicrous to judge Mandela entirely on the basis of events before he came to power, and in any event there is many a respected world leader or influential statesman with a blood stained past so in the next part I shall examine Nelson Mandela's achievements, and the events which have occurred in South Africa in the 14 short years since he took power in following the post Apartheid election in 1994.
Click here for Part 2
Or back to the Home page

Sunday 22 June 2008

A lone voice

It seems that Pastor Manning is not popular amongst many America blacks, I wonder why!


Hat Tip Why South Africa Sucks

Spot the Enemy of the state.

In the week which saw Abu Qatada, the Muslim cleric often dubbed Osama bin Laden's right hand man in Europe released back into the community, where he will be subject to surveillance costing the tax payer an estimated half million pounds a year (in addition to the £8,000 a year we will be paying him in incapacity benefit) I note that lifestyle guru Martha Stewart has been refused entry into the country. Those who rule over us have interesting priorities when it comes to protecting us from enemies of the state.

Our laws are now such that we are obliged to entertain, protect and fund an extremist Muslim cleric who has been convicted of terrorism in his own country, who has called for our destruction, and who's preaching allegedly inspired the mass murderers of 09/11. However, it is not all bad news, at least we are protected from the doyenne of dinner party catering.

The proof is now becoming incontrovertible, we have gone totally mad.

Tuesday 10 June 2008

The Execution of Britain - by Fjordman

(From the desk of the excellent Fjordman on Thu, 2008-06-05)

I will defend all Western and indeed infidel countries against Islamic Jihad, but I admit I feel especially close to Britain, not just because of the long cultural and historic ties between Scandinavia and the British Isles, but also because I appreciate the good that has come out of British culture. It makes me all the more sad to see how humiliated this great nation is today, and how many natives forced to leave what once was their country.

In May 2008, 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped in a routine check. The police officer noticed an English flag on the parcel shelf and ordered him to remove it because it was "racist towards immigrants." One of the first things foreign powers usually do when they invade a country is to ban its national symbols. The fact that you can no longer run your flag in parts of Britain – and the Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc. – shows that the country is de facto under occupation, not just by Muslims, but by Multiculturalists and Globalists of all kinds.

Read the rest of Fjordman's article at The Brussels Journal.

Monday 9 June 2008

Credit where it's due

At a time when most mainstream journalists, not to mention the police, would rather have their toenails removed with red hot pincers than admit that anyone, other than a white person, is capable of racism, let alone racial violence, it was interesting to read this report in last week's Asian News.

The report does not make clear whether the victim, of what the police described as "a racially aggravated assault" is white of black, however, it confirms that the attackers were Asian, and the story is a rare acknowledgement of the fact that racial attacks can be, and sometimes are, perpetrated by non-whites.

We still await the day when a newspaper comes clean and admits quite how often that is the case. However, progress is achieved in "baby steps" as they say.

Saturday 7 June 2008

Grab 'em while they're young

I was recently speaking to a friend of my mother's who was educated in the late 50's and early sixties, partially at a convent school. Speaking of her school days, she recounted one history lesson, given my a middle aged, American nun. The lesson had been about Russian history, specifically the Bolshevik revolution, however, the nun soon strayed from the curriculum and began speaking about events which at the time were quite recent, the uprisings against soviet rule which occurred in Poland and Hungary.

According to my mother's friend, as the nun began describing the Russian response to the uprising in Hungary she became quite flushed, her eyes widened and her skin began to redden as she spoke, becoming more excised as she described the means by which the forces of the Soviet Empire crushed those who had attempted to throw off their rule. Finally the holy sister spoke of a huge mincing machine, which, she claimed, had been wheeled into Heroes Square at the centre of Budapest.

Once the mincing machine was installed in the square, hundreds of live, Hungarians were fed into it leaving the square flowing with blood and minced Magyars.

To an impressionable schoolgirl, the story horrified my mother's friend and was the source of nightmares for some years to come, also, as it was a “fact” she had been taught at school, by an authority figure, she admitted, with some embarrassment, that she had continued to believe well intyo her 20's that the Russians had actually minced Hungarians.

Her story struck a chord with me, as it bore significant similarities to an account I heard in a classroom some twenty years later.

However, by the time I was a schoolgirl, the politics of the classroom had undergone a 180 degree turn around, and few were the teachers who would think to speak ill of the Soviet Union or even Communist China for that matter, whatever, they got up to. The story had been updated and relocated significantly by the time it was told to me by a young male teacher with shoulder length hair, who insisted we address him as Andy. When Andy told us the story, he had replaced the grim faced Soviet troops, with sneering South African security servicemen, the Hungarian mincees' place had been taken by youths from Soweto, and the mincing machine replaced by a wood chipping machine.

Also, Andy was more subtle than the nun had been, or at least story telling techniques had been refined somewhat in the two decades since she had told her story. Unlike in the Holy sister's Budapest fantasy, which limited investigation, even in a pre-internet age could disprove, Andy did not suggest that the dismembering of live Africans took place in a public square, or was openly sanctioned by the Apartheid government, however, he assured us that it was happening daily behind closed doors in prisons across South Africa.

Not unlike my mother's friend had believed the nun twenty years before, I and, no doubt many in class that day, continued to believe what Andy had told us for quite a few years after we left school. For all I know, some of my old classmates may still believe it and that the woodchipping of Soweto residents was deliberately hushed up by South Africa's Truth and reconciliation commission.

Andy's target wasn't just South Africa, he was quite a buff on world affairs. albeit they had little to do with the subject he was supposed to be teaching us, which, as I recall was Biology. He was particularly interested in America, not her constitution or history, you understand, but rather more focused on alleged CIA involvement in Central America, indeed it is likely that some of Andy's ex-students left school believing that the United States defining moment was either the Iran Contra scandal or the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile (and they probably now read at the blog from whence our recent visitors came.).

A number of our other teachers has interests which were closer to home. Margaret Thatcher bestrode the world throughout my teenage years, much to the discomfort of those in the staff room, and it was a rare day which passed when the iniquities of the lady herself, or the her government in general, did not dominate at least one lesson. To this day Thatcher is still a divisive figure, however, we were not taught of a democratically elected leader with conservative social attitudes and stringent economic policies, but instead, those charged with forming our minds invariably portrayed her as if she were a cross between some right wing dictator and a serpent like Catherine De Medici plotting the massacre of St Bartholomew.

If it was, as appeared to be the case, that most of those who taught in schools during the 1980's, felt it their duty to ensure that that their pupils did not become part of Thatcher's constituency, some might ask if it is entirely appropriate for an educator to resort to the sort of political propaganda we saw at that time.

I have to admit that the propaganda seems to have worked on me, Thatcher fought her last election before I could vote for or against her, but ever since I could vote, the idea of voting Tory seems an anathema, and I actually moved straight from voting New Labour in the last three elections, to voting BNP last month, without even considering a flirtation with Mr Cameron.

No longer being a schoolgirl, I can not know for sure whether the classrooms of today are as openly political as they seemed in the 1980's. However as my son recently asked me about a great lost sub-Saharan civilisation which was far ahead of European civilisation in terms of education, health care and philosophy, but which was destroyed by white slave traders, and Voortrekkers, who killed all the great black scholars and claimed all their inventions for the West, I suspect they probably are. (Odd that Andy never taught us about that, but to be fair to him, it probably had not been invented when he was teaching my classmates and I.)

I think it unlikely that schools have become less political in the last twenty years, or that the political ideas being taught to our children are any less left wing. In my experience, the average youngster when leaving school is more open to left wing ideas that they generally are after a couple of years living in the real world.

I may be wrong, but it that is how it seems to me, what makes you think the same thought didn't occur to those panicking Labour MP's currently lobbying to get the voting age reduced from 18 to 16?

As the next election approaches, it may be that we see a growing number of odd looking individuals lurking at the school gates, if so, you need not worry, they are only after your kid's vote!

Friday 6 June 2008

I am sure there is an innocent explanation.....!?

Assuming this picture, which appears to show Michell Obama, the wife of US presidential hopeful Barack Obama (top left) in the same grinning group as Mother Khadijah Farrakhan, wife of Louis Farrakhan the Black Supremacist and Supreme Minister of the Nation of Islam (front centre) is genuine, I am sure there is a perfectly innocent explanation.

However, if it is genuine, it will be interesting to see whether the the US media react to it in the same way as we all know they would if an old picture turned up showing Cindy McCain in group shot with a close relative of David Duke.

As I am sure they will if other allegations currently circulating turn out to be true.

Update 7th June 2008

In the interests of fairness and balance 24 hours on, it is beginning to look as if the "great Whitey" rumour, is no more than that.

However, there still remains the question as to what the wife of the possible future leader of the free world was doing in the company of a woman who's husband is the leader of a recognised hate group. That is a legitimate question, if they had both been white, there would have been an outcry.

Wednesday 4 June 2008

Politically correct racism - update

You heard it here first. Some readers may recall that, back in April I posted that organisations like the BBC were using Eastern Europeans as scapegoats and encouraging criticism against them in order to deflect attention from the far greater problems resulting from non-white non-European immigration.

Yesterday Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski, who is of Polish origin, highlighted the problem and accused the BBC of encouraging attacks on Poles, saying that the "liberal elite" at the corporation knew they had to cover the subject of immigration. But they would "not do stories about more controversial immigration" and focused instead on the "soft touch" of "White Christians from Poland".

Mr Kawezynski is absolutely right, anyone who has watched recent news reports on immigration, especially on the BBC can not have missed how strongly the focus has been on immigrants from Eastern Europe, whilst hardly a mention is made of immigration from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. (the ones who more often are mentioned in news stories with the words "a man is in custody" or "the police are seeking three biped male youths")

The media's racist mindset and anti-white agenda is obvious to all who look.

Bardot - the silencing of an Icon (an update)

As an update on the post I made back in April regarding the prosecution of the one time Screen Icon Brigitte Bardot resulting from some observations she made about Muslims in France it will come as little surprise to any of us that she was found guilty and has been fined €15,000 ($24,500). Once again we see evidence not only that, in much of Europe, is a faint memory, but also that telling the truth is no longer a defence.

My friend the Green Arrow comments on the case here.

Tuesday 3 June 2008

Too much Shiraz in this Socialist

Anyone who regularly reads my blog knows that I generally post one or sometimes two lengthy articles (or “Op Eds”) each week, these average between fifteen and twenty five paragraphs, usually including numerous embedded links to the research I have done whilst compiling the article.

People may not like or agree with what I write, but, when it comes to my opinion pieces I usually provide substantiation for the claims I make and back up what I say.

However, I do not have the time to write lengthy essays on a daily basis so, knowing from the web stats that I have a loyal and growing daily readership, from time to time I post links to interesting or off beat stories I have spotted on other blogs, such as the amazing story of the Ethiopian man with 100 children from John of Gwent’s blog, or various pithy essays from South Africa Sucks.

I don’t pretend that that these are my articles or that I have researched or verified them in any way.

Thus it was with the post I made at the weekend, quoting the first three lines from a Daily Mail article regarding a report which claims that life in modern Britain is more dangerous than the Balkans, I then linked to the Mail website in order that readers could read the rest of the article on Daily mail site.

Given how unlike the majority of my posts that was, you would think that not even my most staunch of critics would suggest that it, in any way represented the general content of my blog. If so, you would have thought wrong. It appears that this blog had come to the attention of a blogger who calls himself Shiraz Socialist, and it seems that he (I assume he's a he) doesn’t think much of it, dismissing me as a “Right wing Nutjob”, and mocking the blog title picture, which he fails to gather is a tad ironic. Which is fine, I am a supporter if free speech and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he then proceeds to use the three line quote from the Daily Mail, and only the three line quote from the Daily Mail as representative of the content of this blog, which anyone who has spent even moments here can see is just not the case.

Shiraz actually states that I use the Daily Mail to “back up” my argument, how can that be given that none of it is my argument?, it is a direct three line quote from the Daily Mail. The only words of mine in the whole post is “read the full news report here”. (oh yes and I changed the word “yesterday” to “Friday” as I posted it on Sunday)

It was a news story, which I linked to as I felt people who read here might find it interesting, I made no suggestion that it was my work or my opinion. In that respect, it is for the mail to substantiate their articles, in the same way as I substantiate mine. Shiraz suggests that the Mail is spinning, however, interestingly, he doesn’t actually say the story is untrue.

Now, I am not one of those bloggers who complains when someone takes the pi$$, that goes with the territory, but frankly if someone is going to criticise my writing, they could at the very least do so by criticising something I had actually written.

The link to the Mail column was right next to a lengthy article of my own about the plight of white boys within our society, and covering various issues from feminism to the Duke Lacrosse travesty however, it seems that might be too challenging for Shiraz who is not ready to take me on regarding my own writing, he prefers to hold me responsible for something written by a Mr. Justin Stares at the Daily Mail.

Shiraz says of me that “She witters and wibbles on ad infinitum,” maybe I did, but not about Justin Stares' article, there were only three lines from that on the blog, which, even to someone of Shiraz's limited horizons is not exactly "ad infinitum".

Shiraz Socialist's 'disingenuousness' is nothing new, but it makes an interesting object lesson in the deceit which comes so naturally the opposition. Isn't this always the way with those on the other side of the debate?, it really appears that they are incapable of arguing their case in an honest way. and seem compelled to resort to lies. Shiraz is no different to all the others, as we see, even in that short piece the poor boy can't resist the usual references to “fascism” they always apply to those of us who don't buy into their fantasy that their multicultural experiment is a success, and of course references to limited “gene pools” and “zog” are straight from the beginner's guide to anti BNP humour, come back when you have learnt to write your own jokes. (I have never been quite sure what, or who, is “zog” anyway!?)

As ever with supporters of multiculturalism, Shiraz's attack is based on a lie, he seeks to mock my writing by holding up as an example something I didn't write. His masters have taught him well, if you can't argue with the truth, tell a lie, and rely on the fact that most people will not notice.

Of course, we are in the state we are today, because Shiraz's masters used the same trick, and have lied through their teeth for the last forty years, it's what they do.

After that I need a drink, but tonight I think I will stick with the Rioja.
PS: The link to Orwell's Picnic which Shiraz finds it odd to see on my list of interesting blogs and sites, is there because it is an interesting site, and also which has made some pleasant comments about my writing in the past. Hence, Shiraz may need to rethink his prejudices ..uh .... preconceptions.

Sunday 1 June 2008

Living in Britain is now more dangerous than the Balkans - report reveals

Britain is now more dangerous than the Balkans, it was revealed on Friday.

You are more likely to be assaulted, robbed and burgled in Britain than in the region of southeast Europe once synonymous with war and gangsters, according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Your car is at least ten times more likely to be stolen in Britain than in Albania, Croatia or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Read the full news report here.

White boys in the jungle

Travelling home by train on Friday evening, I shared a carriage with a group of white teenage boys, probably aged between sixteen and eighteen, no longer children, but not yet men, they were average if quite nice looking boys, wearing street sports clothing and speaking in the acquired “Wot I done” ‘mockney’ accents which youths of their age tend to adopt, having reached that stage in their development where speaking “properly” is thought of as somehow unmanly. Contrary to the hysteria, like most such groups, they seemed essentially pleasant well meaning kids, and whatever the media may try to suggest, quite harmless.

They were however, members of the most vulnerable and at risk section of the community.

All statistics show that young males are overwhelming the primary victims of violent crime, however, as must be patently clear to all, young white males are not amongst the primary perpetrators, especially not in the environment in which today's youth find themselves.

It is over twenty years since I was the same age as the boys on the train, but the 1980's were a different world to the one which they inhabit, the journey they are embarking on is a far more dangerous one than the boys I dated, danced with and had crushes on had to travel, and, if current trends continue, one which growing numbers of them will not survive.

It can not be easy being a young white male in modern society, these boys have few if any of the privileges earlier generations of white males are alleged to have had, but are held accountable for their grandfather's “sins”, including many, which, if analysed are no more than myths. However, they are myths which are widely claimed as truth, for we live in an age when new superstitions rule, and where new myths are believed as fervently as were any medieval tales of elves and witches. Fifty years of feminist writers have conspired to strip the young male of his once heroic status and cast him as the primary villain and oppressor, whilst other agendas have been at work seeking to narrow that focus onto the white western males who largely built the modern world.

We may no longer inflict corporal punishment on our young men, but in other ways we punish them as severely as in any previous age, and we do so mainly for no other reason than that they are young men. When exploring the way society views the young male, I would recommend to you the Excellent book “The war against boys” by that most enlightened of American feminist writers Christina Hoff Summers, in which she analyses the damage which misguided forms of feminism are having on young males.

However, what the excellent Hoff Summers fails to acknowledge is that, due to political correctness, the main targets of this war are white boys, whilst non whites are excused on account of long ago and often exaggerated or misunderstood injustices. There are sections of our community, mostly white liberals, but also including some people from ethnic communities who's desire to find fault with white boys goes beyond reason, and this phenomenon is an international one.

Anyone who spent time during 2006 and 2007 reading the legion of US message boards relating to false rape allegations made against three white members of the the predominantly white men's Lacrosse team at North Carolina's Duke University by a black stripper, will have been stunned by the visceral and totally irrational hatred revealed by seemingly otherwise intelligent people, who remained desperate to believe the boys guilty, even after their innocence was proven beyond doubt, the allegations shown to be baseless and the prosecutor disbarred for seeking to hide evidence exonerating the boys he had hoped to railroad in furtherance of his career ambitions.

North Carolina's top law officer took the unprecedented step of declaring that the defendants were "innocent", however, to this day hate fuelled message boards remain active providing a sanctuary for those who can not let go of their hatred to exchange bitter notes muttering that “something happened” or scrutinising the reports of the evening to find support for their belief that even if the team didn't rape the stripper, they were flawed human beings. All this whilst impatiently waiting for their tawdry heroine to write her promised book, in which they are sure the truth (their truth) will be told.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a fascinating revelation of the degree to which political correctness and anti-white racism has poisoned American society, and a warning to us as we follow the US down the same road.

Those wishing to know more about the Duke case will find interesting reading on the award winning Durham in Wonderland and Liestoppers blogs, both of which have followed the case since the false allegations were first made in 2006. There are also a number of excellent books on the subject, most notably Professor KC Johnson's much praised “Until Proven Innocent”.

However, Politically correct zealots and anti white racism are not exclusive to America, and who amongst us has not read the “Have your say” comments following the recent articles about the White victims of black crime and all but seen the venom dripping from those responses which bizarrely claim that whites kill more non-whites than blacks kill whites, or implying that the white victims somehow provoked their own deaths.

The comments tend to be more muted when the white victims are female, but when they are boys, the acid really starts to flow. As someone with a lifelong fondness for the male sex, I find that reaction hard to rationalise.

When I first started contributing articles to the Home of the Green Arrow, he (the Green Arrow) would from time to time suggest that I provide reports covering the killings of young white women who fallen victim to that failed social experiment which is HM Government’s immigration policy. The Green Arrow no doubt felt that, as a woman, I would feel an empathy towards female victims. He was certainly correct that I feel great sympathy for women such as Kate Beagley and American Eve Carson, both of whom I have written about in earlier articles.

However, I have always felt deep sympathy for white boys, who are seldom afforded the same degree of protection granted to girls and are frequently assumed to have contributed to their victimisation, irrespective of the evidence, or even more frequently are further victimised by politically motivated misreporting. (for example the disgraceful CNN, who dishonestly insisted in reporting that Harry Potter actor Robert Knox was involved in a “brawl”, rather than that he was was killed protecting his younger brother from an unprovoked and seemingly premeditated attack by a knife wielding black man)

This difference exists largely because society has a somewhat schizophrenic approach to boys, they are condemned if they show aggression, yet any who shy away from a fight are ridiculed and derided. Take for instance male victims of domestic abuse, most studies indicate that men account for around 19% of the victims of such abuse (although I have seen claims that the figure is closer to 30%) and in around half the cases the abuser is female. Although a much lower number than seen in male upon female violence, given that many male victims suffer repeated attacks even at a conservative estimate it means that, each year in the UK, there are around four million separate incidents where men are subject to physical violence by a female partner.

However, in this again, the double standards applied to males can be seen, any time a man complains of such abuse he is ridiculed and branded a “wimp”, that is unless he uses his superior strength to ward off the attack, in which case he usually becomes known as “the accused”.

Generally, within our communities white boys receive less protection than other groups, yet they are held to account far more severely. In our society boys are expected to swim in dangerous waters, where the government is releasing more and more sharks amongst them, but they themselves are portrayed as top predator.

At thirteen, my own beloved son still enjoys the relative safety of childhood pursuits, but in a few short years he will hear the call of the adult world, and I will have to watch him venture into the depths where danger dwells, it is a prospect which terrifies me.

As we see daily, white boys are the primary target of our new countrymen and yet we know that out courts hold their most draconian retribution in reserve for the first white boy to retaliate, because society has decided that whatever evil is done to a white boy, it is a greater evil if he does it back.

I do not seek to claim that there are no bad white boys or that white boy do not maim and kill, but in terms of parity white boys would have had to have amassed 252 teenage victims, in the first five months of this year, to achieve equality with non-whites in terms of head of population. Indeed Britain's streets would resemble those of Baghdad were the native population to start killing their fellow citizens at the same rate as those of foreign origin do. Remember that when some poor, stupid, white kid responds to the provocation and commits the crime which the press vultures are waiting for.

The media demands that white boys share the blame for spiralling lawlessness besetting our land, some pretend that they carry the greater share, indeed most images relating to the recent spate of knife crime on Britain's streets show white hands holding the knives, but, in the real world, it is seldom white hands which are doing the stabbing or firing the guns.

Despite the shrill claims of political correctness, white boys are not the main cause of the bloodshed on out streets, some may be anti-social, they may drink too much, commit acts of vandalism and (actually) get into brawls, but when it comes to the muggings, steaming, car-jacking, drug pushing, gang rapes, stabbings and other gang related murders carrying on all around them, they hardly feature, other than as a percentage of the victims.

Our leaders who should protect our children have placed them at risk and willingly sacrifice growing numbers of them to their cruel and ever demanding god. White boys now inhabit a world where successive governments have stolen their inheritance and forced them to live with a far more dangerous rival who wants to kill them and then blame them for what is done to them. Is it surprising they are confused?

In earlier ages boys were sacrificed in war, in our age they are sacrificed to an ideology, albeit in lower numbers. However, the numbers are growing as the floodgates are pushed wider, and who knows what numbers the establishment would tolerate in furtherance of their aims.

Its a jungle out there, and our boys are forced to live in it.