Saturday 31 October 2009

India revokes foreign work permits to protect Indian workers

Indian call center workers - protected from foreign competition

Thousands of foreign workers in India have been given until the end of today to be out of that country in a visa clampdown which is designed to protect Indian labourers from outside competition.

The Indian government has announced the measures to protect its workforce from being undercut by cheaper foreign labourers, who come from South East Asian countries.

The clampdown will also affect all expatriates working in India on business visas. Under the new regulations, a smaller number of such visas will be issued. This is to protect skilled workers as well.

Continue reading at the BNP site

A crime less easy to disguise

Hetta and Leon Steyn

Apart from those employed in the media, who's job it is to suppress and distort news coverage which does not comply with the official message of a thriving, multicultural paradise, joyfully freed from that shackles of an oppressive racist regime, and those who have regular contact with friend and relatives still living beneath the battered rainbow, regular readers of this blog are amongst a tiny minority of Westerners who are aware that all is not well in South Africa.

The official crime statistics are heavily massaged by the corrupt, and sometimes complicit, ANC government, and their staggering lies reported unquestioningly by a media, who earlier this actually reported with a straight face that crime rates were higher in Britain.

However, there is no hiding the fact that South Africa is rapidly becoming one of the most crime ridden nations on earth. Robberies ranging from street muggings to violent gun crime are commonplace. South Africa is often referred to as the rape capital of the world with one male in four admitting to having committed the act . Even that horrifying statistic disguises the fact this is not confined just to acts of sexual violence against adult women, child rape is at epidemic levels, with a recent report estimating that a South African child is raped every three minutes, which is to say that there are 530 children raped there every single day . In addition, although not recognised as a crime, South Africa has one of the highest rates of violent male on male rape in the world, a fact which should be born in mind by male football fans planning to visit for the world cup in 2010.

Victims of crime often find little help by turning to the police, as they are frequently not much better than the criminals they are paid to catch, as white mother of three Martie Olivier discovered just this month when she was repeatedly raped by two uniformed police officers who had arrested her husband Sarul Oliver without explanation, but presumably as a ruse to extort money from the couple.

The rainbow nation is also a world leader when it comes murder, ranked second only behind Columbia amongst those nations which are not actively at war. Although the majority of the victims of murder are black, hidden away within the statistics is the fact that a disproportionate number of victims are white people, who are over represented to a massive degree given their shrinking numbers in the country.

Given how heavily the ANC Government seek to suppress information it is difficult to track down an exact figure however, some estimates state that between 27,000 and 35,000 whites have been murdered since the end of Apartheid in 1994. my guess is that the true figure may be closer to 10,000 but could. well be much higher. One figure which has been widely substantiated, however, is that of these, well over 3,000 killings fall into the category of “farm murders”, the killing of, white, usually Afrikaans farmers and their families.

As has been detailed here previously, these killings seem to have little to do with crime, as frequently no property is taken whilst the degree of torture and brutality involved would lead anyone, who is not completely blinded by their agenda, to conclude that what is taking place are hate crimes, and that a systematic genocide is taking place. An example earlier this year, was the murder of Mrs. Allice Lotter (78) and her 57 year old daughter Helen, which involved such a degree of torture and cruelty that it caused outraged protests amongst the Afrikaans community, albeit receiving virtually no publicity outside the local area.

Compare this to the recent events where white university students were accused of pretending to urinate into a stew prepared for a group of blacks, which made the main news across Europe and America, showing that when it comes to news coverage, what the students pretended to do, the world media do for real.

This of course is the point, the only reason that these murders are able to continue unchecked without turning South Africa into a pariah state and decimating both its tourist trade, and its chances of hosting next year's world cup, is that news of anti white crimes is almost totally suppressed by the local South African media , and completely censored by the outside world.

This has been possible, because, in the main the victims have been ordinary people, known to their loved ones but not to the community in general.

However, a double murder which took place this week will be somewhat more difficult to hide, as the victims were a little more high profile. Leon and Hetta Steyn were a well known couple who ran a popular and award winning restaurant and guest house near Sabie, a small country town nestled in the majestic Drakensberg escarpment mountains of the Mpumalanga province. Their Restaurant, The Artist's café, is located in a refurbished abandoned railway station dating back to the 1920's and appears in many of the top tourist guides to South Africa

According to press reports “Leon and Hetta Steyn were shot with an R5 rifle shortly before 07:00 on Thursday morning in their guesthouse at the disused Hendriksdal Railway Station. Next to their house was their well-known restaurant, The Artist's Café, which was highly popular among locals as well as foreign visitors.”

Sabie police said the motive appeared to be robbery because the house had been somewhat ransacked, but the robbers fled before they could take anything because they were disturbed by neighbours who came to investigate immediately after hearing the shots. (Note: The police always attribute the motive to robbery, even when only a cell phone is taken preventing the victims calling for help, or as in this case where nothing is taken – so much more convenient than admitting race hate could have played a role.)

Acting provincial police commissioner Rex Machabi's spokesperson, Captain Leonard Hlathi, said the case had now been transferred to the Mpumalanga Organised Crime Unit in Nelspruit. "No person has been arrested yet. We are also appealing to the community to assist the police in tracing down these cold-blooded killers," he said

Given the fame of their restaurant, and their own high profile, it will be very difficult for the authorities to bury news of Mr and Mrs Steyn;s death, and already the possible impact is causing concern. Department of economic development, environment and tourism MEC Jabu Mahlangu labelled the double murder "shocking and cruel" and lamented that it took place "while the world is watching us". He added "Tourism is our goldmine in this province, and such barbaric acts could deter people from visiting us. And here we are one of the host cities for the 2010 FIFA World Cup,”

"This could make potential visitors think twice before using our facilities. We cannot accept this to continue. We hope that the police will leave no stone unturned to bring the perpetrators to book," said Mahlangu.

Were the world to be aware that Leon and Hetta Steyn's tragic deaths were just the latest in a string of thousands of such killings, and that, horrific as their killing was, theirs was a comparatively swift death, which escaped the inhuman brutality which ended the lives of so many of their fellow victims, many would think more than twice about visiting South Africa next year.

However, they will not think twice, because they will not be told, they will not be warned. Even if the media and the South African Authorities are unable to bury news of the Steyns's murder, it will be passed off as an aberration, a one off incident, horrid and violent, but a rarity. Then it will be forgotten. Next year thousands upon thousands of football fans and tourists will travel there, unworried, and unaware of what could be awaiting them.

Hat Tip: Dina

Two Years to Save Britain

IFPS-Canada interviews UKIP peer Lord Malcolm Pearson, the man who invited Geert Wilders to show his film, Fitna to the British house of lords. The entire Western World needs to see this. Lord Pearson makes some harsh predictions for the near future of England, it's cultures and laws.

Click to play video

Hat Tip: Green Arrow

Wednesday 28 October 2009

Dr Frank Ellis gives an analysis of Question Time

A personal view by Frank Ellis

Nick Griffin on Question Time, BBC 1, 2235 hrs, Thursday 22nd October 2009

Chairman, David Dimbleby

Panellists: Bonnie Greer, Nick Griffin MEP, Chris Huhne MP, Jack Straw MP & Baroness Warsi

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme”; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

© Frank Ellis 2009

As the leader of a party that has local councillors, county councillors and 2 MEPs, it was entirely proper that Nick Griffin MEP, the leader of the British National Party (BNP), be invited on Question Time. The attempts to apply pressure to the BBC to cancel the invitation say a great deal about the left and indeed the Conservative Party. You cannot deny your political opponents free speech and then insist on your own rights to same.

One of the first questions put to the panel was whether it was right and proper that a party like the BNP used Churchill in its campaign literature given that Churchill had led Britain in a war against a racist and oppressive regime. The assumption is that the BNP is a racist party therefore it must be wrong for the BNP to use Churchillian iconography. It must be made clear that Britain did not got to war against Nazi Germany because the Hitler state was racist or even oppressive. Had Germany not attacked Poland Britain would not have declared war, though given the aggressive expansionism of Germany war would have come sooner or later. In the summer of 1940 after the disastrous performance of the British Army in France, Britain was fighting for her survival. Freeing the world of racism was not a consideration. The obsession with racism comes after 1945. True, Asians fought in both world wars, so did Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and Americans. Does this mean that all these soldiers (Asian or white) have a right of residence in the UK? Griffin made the excellent point that in World War Two we went to war to protect British sovereignty: we did not go war to allow our country to be transformed by legal/illegal immigration. Griffin’s point – addressed to Straw – that his father served in the Royal Air Force, while Straw’s father was in prison as a conscientious objector was a powerful blow against Straw. Griffin also pointed out that many of Churchill’s views on immigration and Islam were somewhat politically incorrect (indeed they were).

Ignorance or obmutescence regarding the crimes against humanity and the genocide committed by communist regimes worldwide are a characteristic of the print and broadcast media, and the left. Straw, for example, made much of the importance of race for the BNP, implying that the BNP was simply a clone of the German Nazi party. What he failed to point out is that race is deemed to be a very good thing for blacks who on both sides of the Atlantic are encouraged to celebrate their being black to the point of making all kinds of bizarre claims about black achievements. In the UK there is an organization called the Metropolitan Police Service Black Police Association. Now, it is not clear to me why blacks working in the public sector can create an organisation membership of which is explicitly racial whereas a political party, the BNP, must open its membership to non-whites. If blacks can celebrate being black, why are whites vilified when they seek to promote and to protect their own interests?

Straw also failed to point out that class war so beloved of communist fanatics and white middle-class revolutionaries in the National Union of Students (no platform for fascists, etc) has been responsible for millions more deaths than the Nazis managed to kill in World War Two. Stalin’s Final Solution of the Peasant Question led to the extermination of about 11,000,000 peasants six million of whom were Ukrainians cruelly put to death by starvation on Stalin’s orders. This genocide was completed 10 years before Heydrich and Eichmann convened the Wannsee conference in January 1942 during which they finalised the plans for the extermination of Europe’s Jewish population. Hitler was not the most terrible mass murderer in history but it clearly suits the left (Jack Straw) and many other establishment figures to have people believe that Hitler was uniquely evil because any opposition to mass legal/illegal immigration can be shouted down as racist when it fact it is rational, morally sound and quite normal.

When we examine the way communist traitors and supporters of the most genocidal and bloody party in man’s history are received by the BBC and other media organisations we cannot help but notice yet another glaring double standard. The former terrorist, Mandela enjoys saint status and the fact that the Labour Party was heavily penetrated by the KGB, Stasi and the Czech StB has not resulted in prosecutions. Ten years ago Robin Pearson, a lecturer at Hull University was exposed as a Stasi spy. MI5 concluded that Pearson had damaged British interests and that there was a very strong case for prosecuting him. Jack Straw – that man again – was Home Secretary at the time and rejected MI5’s recommendations to proceed against Pearson. Ten years later, as far as I am aware, Pearson is still in post. Somebody reading this piece might like to check out the Hull University web site and then ask the university secretary what is going on. One wonders whether Straw’s ideological allegiances informed his decision not to prosecute Pearson. Again, the same people who campaigned to stop Griffin from appearing on Question Time do not seem to mind Gerry Adams and colleagues who have now renounced their terrorist past. As far as I am aware, the BNP was not responsible for the deaths of 3,000 soldiers, civilians and members of what used to be known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The left prostrate themselves before Mandela, ignoring his terrorist past, whereas the Holy Father is the target of constant snide attacks because of his membership of the Hitler Youth.

Bonnie Greer made little contribution to the debate. Her attempts to undermine the notion that there were any indigenous British were grossly incompetent. Speaking as an Englishman, I found her attempts to deny the existence of my people insulting and, to ape the language of The Macpherson Report, unwittingly racist. She clearly has no idea of the evolutionary and geological history of Western Europe. Even if early humans first appeared in Africa – the out-of-Africa theory – the expectation that we should celebrate any African ancestry is sentimental and bizarre. There may well have been a time when we were all Africans, as it were but evolutionary pressures and natural selection have ensured that the basic African blueprint, if the early humans did indeed come from Africa, has changed at the superficial and deep structural level. Blacks and whites are now not the same: there are important psychological, physiological and intellectual differences, and these differences have real world consequences. She also failed to realise that Rome’s multiculturalism was one of the factors for its downfall. America may yet go the same way.

Griffin landed further telling blows on the rather lacklustre Straw when he pointed out that Straw denied the English the use of “English” as a category on the census form. Griffin landed yet another blow when he told Straw that he, Straw, would not go to New Zealand and tell the Maoris that they were not the indigenous people of New Zealand.

The audience had clearly been selected to be as hostile as possible to Griffin. Black and Asians, along with white PC types, were overrepresented and many of them came to shout Griffin down rather than to argue. One of the first to have a go at Griffin was a very emotional black. He was wearing glasses and sitting to the right of the panellists. One of the main themes of his tirade was that Griffin should accept the contributions that immigrants have made. The trouble with this of course is that none of us - the benighted, non-existing English - was asked whether we wanted these “contributions”. Immigrants can kindly offer them but we the owners of this land have the right to decline the offer. In any case the talk of contributions is a debating ploy. It removes discussion of whether these immigrants, or some of them, should be here in the first place and whether they have entered the country illegally so as to make these contributions. If the price of these contributions, whatever they are, is the racial and cultural dispossession of whites, the reduction of whites to a minority in some of our bigger cities, near permanent racial unrest and tension in many other towns and the desire on the part of what the BBC likes to call “British muslims” to kill us, then I suggest that the price is too high.

However, there were members of the audience who supported Griffin. One man pointed out that Griffin was saying the same things as Enoch Powell. Straw pointed out that when Powell was Health Minister he advertised for nurses in the West Indies to come to Britain. Subject to proper visa controls (in and out), an upper limit population control policy and a strictly enforced immigration policy driven by national self-interest, foreigners are welcome. A work permit must not be seen as conferring an automatic right of residence. Foreigners who lied on visa applications forms must be subject to immediate deportation

One member of the audience asked Griffin whether he had travelled. This bone-headed question was presumably intended to show that Griffin’s presumed lack of travelling was what supposedly made him such a bigoted individual. Travel does not necessarily broaden the mind. During the 1930s many admirers of Stalin and hordes of wealthy socialists made the pilgrimage to the Soviet Union. These Terror-Famine Deniers then retuned to the prosperous West and extolled the joys of socialism at the very moment when Stalin was engaging in genocide. A generation later the same types went to pay homage to Mao and came back with all kinds of nonsense about the joys of Maoism. Note, however, that these leftists returned to the West: they decided not to stay in the workers’ paradise. I am reminded here of the diversophiles among us who insist that “diversity is our strength” and then flee it at the first opportunity.

The panel were asked to consider whether a misguided immigration policy has contributed to the BNP’s electoral success. Straw refused to answer the question. He then came out with the slogan that “diversity is our strength”. Straw should ask the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians whether they believe – whether they ever believed – that nonsense. For good measure he should also ask the ANC whether they appreciate the presence of white people in multiracial South Africa. This question prompted other panellists (Warsi and Huhne) to lay into Straw. There was a consensus that the Labour government’s immigration policy had been and still is a disastrous failure. Huhne pointed out the huge discrepancy between the Labour government’s estimates about the number of migrants that would come to Britain from the Eastern European states newly-acceded to the EU and the vast flood that actually came. When Straw tried to evade government responsibility and said that the government had introduced an Australian points-based system and were going to do this and that, one member of the audience shouted out: “Just do it” (indeed). During this phase of the programme it turned out that when visas are issued to foreigners to come to the UK the government does not know whether the visa holder has left the country when the visa has expired. One can assume that applicants intending to violate the conditions of the visa are aware of this lack of control as well. One black member of the audience (not the emotionally incontinent one noted above) made the measured and rational point that immigration has to be tackled. The failure to control immigration and the very high birth rate of immigrants is the main factor contributing to the dramatic rise in population. It was pointed out by Dimbleby that Frank Field had called for a population limit to be set and maintained. Straw argued that you could not stop people having children. Well, as a first phase you can cease to provide generous incentives. Here are some suggestions. First, stop all child benefits. Those who want large families have no right to expect those who are sexually responsible to subsidize their procreation experiments. Second, consider the compulsory sterilization of a man who deserts a woman he has inseminated and who has earlier refused when demanded to make financial contributions to the upkeep of his child. Women who decide quite deliberately to lead a life based on welfare by having children with multiple fathers should have to live in custodial hostels and be subject to a strict control regime. Third, immigrants who come from countries with a tradition of large extended families (polygamy) shall not be permitted to bring them to the UK and shall receive no financial assistance from the public purse. Fourth, recognise that in a country in an earlier age where the population was 8 million and the mean life expectancy was about 50 years, having lots of children was not a problem. In the same country with a population of 60,000,000 and an increased life expectancy, aggressive breeding, exacerbated by uncontrolled immigration is unsustainable. Having children under these conditions is no longer a right it has become a privilege. Governments can do something. If they do not act nature will impose her own solution. The outcome will be collapse and the descent into something very nasty and Hobbesian.

There is no doubt that the standard procedure for the conduct of Question Time was abandoned and that Dimbleby and the other panellists ganged up on Griffin. They may even have colluded with one another in advance. It was not a pretty sight; the BBC has some explaining to do. I was left with the impression that too many of the audience – the tree-huggers and save-the-whale types – would have been quite happy to see Griffin murdered. The BNP, often in the face of violence and vicious media lying, has consistently championed the cause of the white indigenous majority who are quite rightly alarmed – and should be – about the scale of legal/illegal immigration into the United Kingdom. This issue is now critical to the survival of the United Kingdom. For having doggedly exposed the catastrophic immigration policy of this Labour government (and previous Conservative governments as well) or rather the lack thereof and the damage this policy has inflicted on the indigenous population Nick Griffin and the BNP deserve our gratitude. However, Griffin was very obviously and clumsily evasive when challenged about the Holocaust. His answers to accusations of Holocaust denial were patently insincere. It may well be illegal in Germany and France to say anything controversial about the Holocaust but Britain, fortunately, has no such laws and Griffin should have come clean and apologised about having denied the Holocaust. Dimbleby was right to have reproached him for smirking. The Jewish lad who challenged Griffin was hurt and could not understand why Griffin wanted to deny what Hitler had done. It is a wicked thing to deny suffering on such a scale. The evidence for what the Nazis did is overwhelming: we know it happened; what good comes from denying the Satanic purposes of Hitler’s Final Solution? As a matter of urgency Griffin needs to issue an unreserved and sincere apology for past denials (BNP web site). So play the man, master Griffin and do it.

How do we rate the performance of the other panellists? Jack Straw looked and sounded nervous, even frightened. He was fatally wounded by Griffin’s devastating aside about his father and never fully recovered his composure. Chris Huhne’s was an average performance, no more. He seemed more concerned to demonstrate the purity of his anti-racist credentials and lacked the grasp of detail. The same can be said of Baroness Warsi, the affirmative action appointee. As for the delightful and engaging Bonnie Greer, she set a low standard and conspicuously failed to achieve it.

Frank Ellis

Editor's note: I am honoured that Dr Ellis is a contributor to Sarah Maid of Albion. As many will ba aware Dr Ellis was an eminent lecturer at Leeds University (now retired) who received considerable press coverage in 2006 on account of the outrageous way he was treated, and the efforts which were made to destroy him and his career, merely for having the courage to express unpopular and politically incorrect views.

Dr Ellis's review of Qustion time is reproduced here in full out of respect for Dr Ellis and for his right to free speech. I am also in strong agreement with the majority of what he has to say, however, this is a personal view, and Dr Ellis's views do not, in their entirety, represent the opinion of this blog.

Sarah: Maid of Albion

Tuesday 27 October 2009

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

The cover up has already begun, after revelations from a Labour insider that the government pursued a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration in order to destabilise the political opposition, ministers have immediately gone into denial. In Tonight's evening standard Justice minister, and one time home secretary Jack (a lie in every soundbite) Straw has written an article claiming that, far from encouraging mass immigration this government imposed tough controls on immigration.

If anything exposes the level of contempt that the likes of Straw hold for the public it is the fact that he genuinely appears to believe that anyone will actually believe such arrant twaddle.

However, Straw is in a difficult position, he either has to accept that the government did follow the policy which is alleged, or admit to a degree of incompetence which is all but criminal. If indeed this government did attempt to follow a policy of tough control over immigration, it is self evidently one of the greatest policy failures in British history.

Monday 26 October 2009

Another name, another cross

At least 3072 white South Africans have died on farms since the country celebrated the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela to presidency in 1994. Many more urban white have also died, however, their numbers can only be estimate. 25 year old Charl Smuts was in fact an IT consultant, but he died on a small holding west of Pretoria, so I have included him in the figures.

Mr Smuts was shot in the stomach when he woke up to find intruders standing next to his bed. He was declared dead when he arrived at the Brits Medi-Clinic an hour later.

The incident occurred on a smallholding outside Brits (north west of Pretoria) where Smuts and his London based girlfriend Lizanne Nienaber, were visiting friends who are getting married later this week. A police spokesperson said the front door to the house on the smallholding was forced open around 01:40 by at least 3 armed intruders.

The intruders fled after shooting Smuts.

Speaking of her son's untimely death Smuts' mother said "Charl's friends knew him as the gentle giant. He always had time for others. He never differentiated between races. If you were a friend of his, it was for life"

Nobody has been arrested for the murder.

News source
Hat Tip: Dina

Will visitors to the 2010 Soccer World cup be safe

By August Pointneuf

Will visitors to the 2010 Soccer World Cup be safe, secure and have easy access the venues?

This venture capital gamble on the entertainment industry, using the money of the poorest of people as the risked capital, was the product of a small cadre in the African National Congress. Far from being debated, the decision never even traversed the South African Parliament.

South Africa is a country in which the population continues to grow rapidly, and has outstripped every limb of the infrastructure. This failure includes the capacity to maintain law and order, which appears to be failing at almost every level of the legal system.

The 2000 new cars which were being introduced into the road system every day in South Africa were not matched by an equivalent increase in the road traffic infrastructure. Cape Town now has only one traffic engineer (because of “affirmative action” disenchantment). Gridlock is becoming common. Probably the greatest problem which followers of a team will meet will be to get to the next venue, Do not believe that there will be trains to be caught at short notice (people also get thrown from moving trains) or that there will be sufficient aircraft capacity. Even getting to the airports could be agonising.

South Africa has a fundamentally unstable population in an uneasy equilibrium. This is because of the extraordinary spectrum of different social classes, wealth, education, language and race. Part of that equation is sustained because the poor cannot react economically to protect themselves in a way that the wealthy can. Most can therefore only retreat into

non-confrontational poverty: but for many the only way only out is crime. It is an uneasy equilibrium and fragile balance.

Meanwhile, the black “middle classes” have shown themselves to be extractive, corrupt, and spendthrift in an astonishing fashion. 30% of the white population, who effectively operated the country in the past, have left an unfilled administrative vacuum.

The South African government has found it impossible to control the borders with a constant unmonitored flood into the country. There is no prospect of regaining control of “illegal immigrants”. The surge of ambitious pickpockets, cut-throats and HIV positive prostitutes, from the huge reservoir that is the rest of impoverished tropical Africa, into South Africa has already started. So the instability will increase.

As is usually the case when the borders of a country open to the international world, prices increase, approaching (and often exceeding) international prices. Visitors may find that this will not be an inexpensive visit. The resident population will stress under price increases. This destabilizing factor will again damage mostly the poorest.

Visitors should not delude themselves into believing that by spending their Euro in South Africa that they will “help the poor”. That money has not, and will not. go to the rural – there is sufficient history now to show that it will make the black city-rich, richer.

The danger of an event like the World Cup is that it provides great expectations. For most this is the hope of economic salvation.

Once the World Cup is over, what then will be the social stability? There will be large groups of people who have lost their hopes. There will be many who begin to realize that the wealth went somewhere else. Therefore more will migration from the farmlands to the shack-cities. The imported criminals, and those home schooled in crime especially for the World Cup, will remain.

Distasteful levels of wealth, which will be displayed by the political elite, will contrast with the hopeless of others as an inflammatory catalyst into reaction by the proletariat.

The outlook cannot be optimistic.

Is New Labour guilty of an electoral crime?

As we all now know, according to a Andrew Nether, a long term NuLabour adviser and one time speech writer for Tony Blaire, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, the mass immigration which we have seen in the country in the last ten to twelve years, was not the result of inefficiency or cock up but a deliberate, albeit secret, government policy, which the kept from their core voters.

According to Mr Nether, this policy was primarily intended to make the country more Multicultural, which is in itself a political aim. However, he also states that the policy was designed to disadvantage the right wing opposition. The headline statement, picked up by most people, including myself, was that the government wanted to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”, but he goes on to say that the intent was to “render their (the Right’s) arguments out of date”.

That is to say that the policy was a deliberate attempt to place the right wing opposition at a disadvantage, and, as such be inevitably to the advantage of the government.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe there is a term for this, and that term is “gerrymandering”.

It is my understanding that the act of gerrymandering is to deliberately change the make up of a constituency for the purpose of electoral benefit. This is, most commonly, achieved by artificially amending the boundaries of a constituency. However, it can also, as in the case of Westminster council in the 1980’s be the act of deliberately changing the demographic make up of a constituency for the purpose of political gain.

As the United Kingdom is the current governments constituency, and it they deliberately attempted to change the demographic of that constituency for political purposes, such as to place the political opposition at a disadvantage, by, for instance, rendering their arguments out of date, is this not doing the same thing?.

The other thing to note about gerrymandering is that it is illegal, as Dame Shirley Porter, the ex-head of Westminster council, discovered when she was fined over £43 million, including interest, following the “Building stable communities” policy, otherwise known as “Homes for votes” which her party had introduced in 1986.

Lady Porter finally agreed to pay a reduced settlement of £12.3 million, and now lives in self imposed exile in Israel, however, her fate shows that politicians are not immune from prosecution when it comes to such acts.

Once again, as I say, I have no relevant legal qualifications, but if the governments secret policy was indeed gerrymandering, and therefore illegal, what effect does this have on what might be termed the “progeny” of this illegal act?.

Vast numbers of citizenships have been granted and asylum applications approved since the government embarked on this policy, were these a direct result of this policy, or indeed part of the same policy? Any number of funding decisions and planning applications, such as for the building of mosques, have been approved in the wake of this policy. If the policy is not legal, are they?.

I repeat I am not a lawyer, and I may be whistling in the wind, but maybe someone who is a lawyer may wish to comment on these questions?

Sunday 25 October 2009

Britain - who are you?

Revelations from a bear pit - Part three

The fact that the liberal elite have completely lost touch with the heart of this country and its people could hardly have been exposed more clearly than on Thursday night by the jeers of derision which greeted any reference to a native race of Britons, and the cheers of delight awarded to anyone who claimed that no such thing as an indigenous Briton existed. I am sure that such new world orthodoxy was welcomed with with Champers cork popping glee, in the wine bars of Hoxton, and the aromatherapy scented drawing rooms of Hampstead, however, I doubt it played so well in Preston, Burnley or Porthcawl.

The official line of the red clawed multiculturalists, currently holding prominent positions in our country is that the British Islands have no indigenous people and that we are a shifting race of intermingling immigrants with no ancestral roots into into the soil of our homeland. Similar arguments are made against the claims of many native people's across Europe, for instance , as Dr. D a regular commentator at Sarah Maid of Albion recently put it, it is now all but official policy in Sweden that “there is no Swedish identity, no Swedish history, no Swedish way of life. Everything is given over to the Other, the Other that is superior to all things native.” Sweden is an extreme case but the same is happening in country after country across the continent.

In the main, what is said about Britain is that as we have in the past taken in groups of foreign refugees from violence and oppression, we have somehow surrendered our right to sovereignty, rather in the same way that if you invite a vampire across your threshold, he has then the right to take your soul.

Furthermore, the impression given is that, just like the present, wave upon wave of immigrants have arrived on our shores, continually mixing their blood with the local population until there is no defined ethnicity or heritage. This is the official story, but, of course, being such it is not the truth.

Yes, we have taken in refugees, we are good, charitable. people, and now we are paying the price for that charity. However, contrary to the impression which is given, until the human tsunami of the last forty years, the numbers involved were relatively small, certainly not enough to change the bloodline of a nation.

The largest single group of refugees and the closest to compare with the current situation, were the French Huguenots, who arrived here in the 16th Century following persecution by the Catholics and incidents such as the Massacre of St Bartholomew. The Huguenot refugees dispersed across Europe, with some 50 thousand coming to Britain and 10 thousand going to Ireland.

50,000 people may seem a lot but it is less than a quarter of the current Somali population, and the Somalis, which are by no means one of the largest immigrant groups, have only been coming for the last ten years or so.

Furthermore, the French Huguenots were white. Christian, Europeans with strong ethnic and genetic blood ties to the people of Britain, it was certainly not as if a group from an ethnically separate culture had settled here. An equivalent might be for a group of Sioux Indians taking refuge with the Comanche following a tribal war with the Apache, they are people of the same ethnic origin, and nobody would expect either group to surrender their indigenous rights on account of an act of human kindness.

Prior to the 20th Century, the Huguenots and before them the Normans, who once again are part of the same ethnic and cultural groupings as the British people were the only people from across the channel to settle in Britain in any significant numbers in the last thousand years, yet, in terms of numbers percentage of the population they bore no comparison to what is occurring today.

The other groups which came were relatively tiny. The Jewish population of Britain is often used as an example of immigrants to our country, ignoring the fact that Jewishness in itself is not an ethnicity. There have certainly been Jews in this country for at least 1,000 years, give or take three centuries of expulsion, however, the numbers involved were relatively small, sixteen thousand souls when they were expelled in 1290 . Even today, despite being resident for over ten centuries and including those Polish and Lithuanian Jews who are alleged to have arrived in such multitudes in the 19th Century, their numbers do not even match one tenth of the current official Asian population (let alone the real Asian population) and the Asians have only been coming here in significant numbers for the last forty to fifty years.

In any event, the Jews have long held strong and admirable cultural beliefs against mixing their line with non-believers, hence their presence here has had little effect on the genetic heritage of the indigenous population.

There are many claims made that there have been Africans in Britain for many centuries, because some appear in paintings in stately homes, but, these were tiny numbers brought back as servants by Aristocrats who had travelled abroad, and one might as well claim that peacocks are indigenous to Britain because a couple of toffs had a few in their gardens.

Certainly despite the 19th century appearance small pockets of Africa immigrants in places like Cardiff's Tiger Bay or the East End of London, prior to the 20th century the numbers of non-Europeans residing in this country were insignificant, despite the impression which our overlords seek to present. In any event, a claim to indigenous status is not dependant on the fact that no other ethnic group ever visited your land, if it were, the indigenous peoples of Australia and America would have lost their status long ago.

We are being denied our claim to our native land because we have at times in the last few centuries been hospitable to people in need and that is an outrage.

However, let us go back even further into our past, and there we encounter the bizarre ramblings and weird fantasies of Question Time panellist Bonny Greer, in respect of whom I must take issue with Nick Griffin, who apparently believes that, unlike the other panel members, Ms. Greer acted with decency and integrity. In response to this I will merely say that only a man could fail to see the poison and two faced deceit in Bonnie Greer.

This Chicago born playwright and, Gordon Brown appointed. Deputy chairman of the British Museum, who has lived in England since the 1980's but speaks with voice resonating in mint juleps and Acacia blossom, in the apparent belief that an Antebellum note might give her the credibility of a Maya Angelou, whilst at the same time evoking images of slavery, is as fake as is her accent.

This third rate story teller and quango appointee sought to pose as a historian on the basis of an affirmative action appointment and lecture Nick and the audience on the subject of Ancient history, a subject she apparently learnt from a multicultural propaganda pop-up book for under fives.

I will not pay this charlatan the respect of addressing her assertion that Britain has no indigenous population because “the Neanderthals got here first” other than to say that so did the Velociraptors and what the hell have Neanderthals got to do with indigenous human beings you stupid fake?

Bonnie then rushed forward a few thousand years to state that Rome was a multiracial society (oh yeah?, and look where that got them!!) and that the Romans bought battalions of Asians and Africans here, many of whom were left behind to mate with the local population. On the basis of this statement she asserted that there was no such thing as an indigenous race of Britons, and that what there is some global blend of all humanity. (Click here to watch Bonnie speak of the Romans)

I have seen similar claims before, usually in large print and bright colours in publications praising the glories of diversity, and I have no doubt that there is a display of lifelike dolls at the British museum showing Rastafarian Romans arriving in Londinium. However, I have yet to find a serious historical source supporting Bonnie's version of British history. It may be therefore that she is relying on a source which applies a similar degree of poetic licence to British history as they does to black history.

However, let us give Bonnie G the benefit of the doubt and assume that her tale of African and Asian Romans is true and then lets consider the ramifications of this. To take Bonnie's analysis to its logical conclusion, there must also be no such thing as an indigenous African, after all, although it might not suit Bonnie's narrative to admit it, the Arab slave traders got to Africa long before the Romans got here, and they stayed a damn sight longer (in fact they were still there well into the 20th century) they most certainly raped and mixed their genes with the locals. Why doesn't the melodious Ms. Greer pop over to Kenya, Uganda, Zaire and Tanzania and tell them they are not indigenous?

Similarly, I seem to recall that Alexander the Great invaded India, and that he took himself an Asian bride. His lonely soldiers had been away from home for twelve years, so you can be damn sure they mixed with the locals. I am sure we would have a whip round to fly Bonnie out to the Punjab so she can tell the Punjabis they have to give up any claim to their homeland because they are part Macedonian. However, I suggest she makes sure her medical insurance, and will, are up to date first.

Oh my, young Alex got to Afghanistan too didn't he, they will really enjoy being told their country ain't their own!!

However, lets drop these ludicrous claims that a native people can cease to be so on account of rape and hospitality, it is all a smoke screen designed to hide the true agendas of the likes of Bonnie Greer and Jack Straw. They know damn well who the indigenous population of Britain are, because they have sent an adult lifetime conspiring against them.

The indigenous, native, population of Britain are the ones not protected by the race relations act, they are the ones who Greer and others have built entire careers on calling racists. The indigenous population are the ones who any other ethnic group can beat to a pulp whilst phoning three car loads of cousins as reinforcements, after which the police will say “Hate crime? what hate crime?”. They are the people who can be murdered by thugs who shout “That will teach a white man to interfere in our business” but who's killers are not charged with a racially aggravated crime.

The indigenous people of this country are the ones whom the establishment, the media and those behind that shambles on Thursday night have spent the last fifty years discriminating against and seeking to dispossess.

You know who we are Ms. Greer, we know who you are, we know what you are doing, and hear me now, we are not going to let you do it any longer.

Revelations from a bear pit - Part two of three

Following on from my earlier article, relating to the brutal and dishonest show trial which the BBC Question Time programme descended into on Thursday evening, I would now like to focus on some of the claims and allegations made during the show, but which were not fairly or accurately addressed largely due to the hostility of a politically stacked audience and the actions of an outrageously biased moderator.

The first of those which I was planning to address were the allegations of Holocaust denial levelled at Nick Griffin, and the subsequent claims made both on the programme and later by much of the News media, that he failed to answer these allegations. However, this point has already been addressed very eloquently by my good friend and fellow crusader the Green Arrow in an earlier article.

As the Green Arrow points out, Nick Griffin is an elected Member of the European Parliament, a position which requires him to travel to various countries within Europe, including some where the admission to having once expressed views which question the accuracy of the historical account, no matter how long ago, can render one liable to prosecution and a lengthy prison sentence. Griffin states that he no longer holds those views, however, to go into any further detail about what he once believed, and why he changed his mind, would be to put himself at significant legal risk, everyone else on the panel, with the possible exception of Bonnie Greer, who's grasp on reality (as I shall show in part three) seemed somewhat tenuous, knew that.

In the circumstances, UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw's assurance that Griffin would not be prosecuted, echoed by the staggeringly disingenuous moderator, David Dimbleby, were shamelessly dishonest. They knew full well that the risk to Griffin lay in other countries within the European Union, where the assurances of a British Justice Secretary carry as much weight as a cup of cold spit.

It should also be noted that at least two previous NuLabour Home Secretaries, who succeeded Jack Straw into that job, were once members of the Communist party. They have both made many appearances on Question Time, but have never been asked to explain why they once believed in an ideology responsible for the deaths of far more people than those who died in all of World War II , let alone in the Holocaust.

The alleged benefits of immigration

The second point I want to look at was one snarled at Griffin by an audience member of Afro Caribbean appearance, who claimed to be born in Britain, and attacked the BNP leader for failing to acknowledge the “benefits” which his immigrant parents had “brought to this country”. However, let us examine the truth or otherwise behind his assertion.

That Britain has “benefited” from immigration is a claim often made, but seldom quantified, however, is there any truth to it?.

It can not be disputed, even by the controlled media, that we have just lived through twelve years of unprecedented levels of immigration, bringing about a change in the racial demographic of this nation of a level unseen in the previous history of any European country, ever. Moreover, this was a change, which we now learn from a government insider, was allowed by the present government not for the good of the country, but for the adolescent purpose of “rubbing the Right's noses in diversity”. Quite an apt analogy, when one considers what it is that a puppy's nose is usually rubbed in.

At the end of this massive alien invasion, which we are told was of such great benefit to us, growth figures released this week reveal that Britain is experiencing the longest and worst period on recession on record, In fact, earlier this year the government admitted that our economy was in the worst shape it has ever been in our peacetime history, in fact the only time it has been this bad was at the end of the most financially crippling international war in world history.

In addition, two years after we finally paid off the debt left by that very war, we, as a nation, are now in greater debt than we have ever been in our history.

This dire state of affairs follows forty years of out of control immigration, which has escalated beyond measure since 1997. I am not an economist, but can someone please explain to me how this shows our economy to have benefited from migration?.

So if the state of our economy has not improved because of immigration in what other respects might the new arrivals have brought good news?

We are told that, as an ageing population we need immigrants to support the cost of future pensions. This argument might make some sense if we were to assume that all immigrants will either return home when they retire or have discovered the secret of eternal youth, experience shows neither to be the case. Certainly only a statistically minute number of third world immigrants leave the country when they become pensioners, and any day time journey on a South London bus will reveal one of the largest growing sections of our community, the immigrant pensioner.

They will all grow old, and most will retire here, Inevitably, this means that every immigrant entering the country today is a potential future pensioner whom our grandchildren will have to pay for.

To present this as anything other than a massive long term Liability is credit card economics, providing a brief short term benefit now, if benefit there is given the strain on other services, with the prospect of paying double later, or borrow / import more to cover the debt, thus creating further liabilities for the next generation. This is madness, pure and simple.

IN other areas, the health service is forever being held up as an example of how essential immigrants are to our society. However, the fact that there are many immigrants employed within the NHS proves only that we have employed a lot of immigrants in the NHS, it does not mean it is a good thing, or that there was no alternative. As we has seen over and over, the fact that employers, in this instance the Government, wish to import cheap labour does not mean that there is no local labour available, or that the service would not operate as effectively or even more so, were we to train our own people properly and pay them a living wage.

In addition there is also the question as to whether immigration has added to the strain on the health service, and to what degree we are importing immigrant nurses and doctors to care for immigrant patients, in the same way as we will soon be importing immigrant workers to pay the pensions of immigrant pensioners.

As I stated earlier, the claim that Britain, and indeed Europe, benefits from immigration is frequently made, but evidence supporting this claim is somewhat less clear cut, irrespective of how loudly and often it is shouted.

In the third and final part of this analysis of the Question Time ambush, I will assess whether or not there is merit to the allegations often made against the native Britons by our enemies and repeated last Thursday, namely that we do not exist.

Saturday 24 October 2009

Revelations from a bear pit - Part One

There have been a number of articles written since Thursday, covering the infamous edition of Question Time featuring BNP Chairman Nick Griffin, so I am sure that most of those reading this already know what took place, and how the controlled media, in the form of the tax payer funded BBC, attempted to undermine Griffin and his party. For the first time in the thirty odd years during which Question Time has been broadcast and without warning, or, at least without warning Nick Griffin, the format was entirely changed so that, instead of each panellist answering questions on current events and recent news stories, Griffin was subjected to an hour long inquisition by his four hostile panellists, an even more hostile audience and an extraordinarily biased moderator, David Dimbleby, who far from acting as moderator actually joined in the attacks himself.

Every question asked bar one, was effectively a condemnation of the BNP and its leader, each requiring Griffin to defend himself against a baying mob. In fact the only one which wasn't about the BNP and related to the tragic death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately, was clearly chosen as a trap designed to enable Griffin to be accused of homophobia, which he inevitably was, even though his response was far more moderate than those who chose the question no doubt hoped.

I have read descriptions of the program which compared what happened to a show trial, bear baiting and a kangaroo court, all of which are fair comment. To some degree it was expected, one commentator at my blog last week, on hearing that Nick Griffin was to appear on Question Time said “they will be around him like piranha” and they were. However, I doubt many expected the BBC to actually go so far as to change the format of its flagship political program, established over three decades, for the soul purpose of disadvantaging one guest. Indeed they went much further than that, the BBC set out to pillory and humiliate Nick Griffin, and may well have unintentionally gained him a lot of sympathy in the process.

To achieve their aim, the BBC were prepared to sacrifice any pretence of impartiality or the long vaunted claim that the audience for such shows are “representative of the public at large”, a claim we always knew was false but now irrevocably exposed as a lie. The vast majority of the audience were clearly hand picked BNP opponents. Advanced publicity claimed that there would be BNP supporters in the audience, but they were vastly outnumbered and largely ignored by Dimbleby when selecting contributions from the floor.

I may be wrong, and certainly have no evidence to support this, but it seemed that many in the audience not only shared a view but actually knew each other judging from the conspiratorial grins and winks which many appeared to be exchanging whilst the camera was directed at them.

The audience also indulged in, and cheered on, examples of anti-white racism. One suspiciously eloquent audience member, who appeared to be of Asian origin, but who stated that he was born in Britain, and said that he “loves this country” (a statement which I suspect might not be born out were one to look deeply into his background and political affiliations, although once again I have no proof of that, merely an instinct) delivered what appeared to be a well rehearsed soliloquy, from a conveniently prominent positioning within the auditorium. He started to howls of delight from the mob around him by calling Nick, “Dick Griffin” and ended by calling for a “whip round” to send Griffin and his supporters to Antarctica, where he said they would “blend in”. One can only speculate as to the reaction of his fellow mob members had a white commentator made a similar comment regarding African American panellist Bonnie Greer and a coal mine.

The audience were not only hostile, but they were clearly primed to do whatever they could to discomfort Griffin, cheering even the most inane of comments from his opponents, including Liberal Democrat Chris Hulme, who I recall said things, but can't for the life of me remember what. Meanwhile any comment by Griffin was immediately jeered and booed irrespective of it merit.

There was no fairness in Thursday night's Question time, there was no balance and very little humanity, proving again that in terms of pure venom, hate and viciousness, there is little on Earth to match a pack of liberals defending an agenda. I am sure that any fair minded viewer, whatever their colour or politics, will have found it a deeply ugly spectacle.

To his great credit, despite appearing uncomfortable and developing a slightly nervous laugh, as anyone might in the face of such a sustained onslaught, Nick Griffin maintained his composure and treated those attacking him with courtesy and politeness whilst managing to land some some very telling blows on his opponents. I was especially impressed at how Griffin exposed the hypocrisy of the deeply unpleasant Justice Secretary Jack Straw who had just given a pompous lecture about Britain's struggle against the Nazis, implying that the BNP were on the side of the fascists, by pointing out that, whilst his (Griffin's) father had been in the RAF during the war, Straw's father had been in prison for refusing to fight the Nazis.

He also made some very important points, which will have resonated with the viewers, such as pointing out that the government had prevented the English from recording their own nationality on the census form, and that the BNP was the only UK party which stood behind Israel's right to deal with the threat from Hamas during the recent conflict in Gazza which will have gone a long way towards neutralising the accusation of anti-Semitism which has so dogged and damaged the party in the past.

He also succeeded in appearing to be the only panel member who spoke for the white working class of Britain, using their language and addressing their concerns, while being harassed, harangued and bullied by angry foreigners and white liberals who speak like aliens. As such, to some viewers he may even subliminally represented the plight of modern Britain

Sadly he was prevented from stating the unarguable fact that if the current situation continues this generation's own children will live to become a minority on their own homeland. It was clear that his opponents were waiting for him to try to make the statement and were under orders to prevent him from saying it. As soon as he began leading up to the point they all started loudly interrupting him with various attacks and diversionary arguments, and regrettably succeeded in distracting him. Their actions show how sensitive this fact is and how vital it is that we get it out to the public, for the establishment do not want it said as they have no defence against it.

I know that some were disappointed that Nick did not manage to do much more than hold his own, and did not “wipe the floor” with those attacking him, as he might have done in a different format or in a one to one situation. However, given the forces ranged against him, the manner in which he was ambushed and deep unfairness of the entire format, holding his own and maintaining his composure was a major achievement which very few would have been able to match. The media would drink rat poison before admitting it, but everyone who watched knows that the only one to emerge from that bear pit with his dignity and his honour still intact was Nick Griffin and in the circumstances few statesmen would have done better.

One ludicrous line which has repeated frequently before during and after QT is that the programme succeeded in “showing Nick Griffin up for what he is”, in fact Tory token Muslim female Baroness Warsi, who must have practised the line in front of the mirror for days before, made the claim before the show was half over, to cheers of approval from her puppy dogs in the audience. However, this analysis, like so many others had been prepared well in advance, and did not reflect what actually happened.

What, in fact was shown up was the establishment's gut rotting terror that the public might hear the BNP's true message and realise that they are not the knuckle dragging monsters which the New Order demagogues have spent much of the last two decade's painting them.

Many others have commented more fully on the show, on what happened, and what impact it is likely to have on the future on the BritNat party. An impact which I personally believe will be positive. Polls are already showing that a growing number of people, more than one in five, would now consider voting BNP. We can only speculate as to what the number would be had Griffin been given the fair hearing which he was democratically entitled to, and which the BBC's charter required them to give him.

However, that debate will continue I would like to now consider some of the claims and allegations made during the program, such as whether there is such a thing as an indigenous or native Briton, and whether immigration has brought benefits to this country. However, as these issues which deserve a deeper analysis I shall focus one them in part two of this post

Meanwhile, I shall leave you with the thought that Thursday night's Question Time may indeed have been the seminal moment which the BNP hoped and which the liberal elite feared, but it may have been so in ways that they never expected. For the most striking feature of Thursday night was not what it revealed about Nick Griffin, not what it revealed about the BNP, but what it revealed about those who oppose them. In their desperation to humiliate and undermine Griffin, they exposed far more about themselves than they did about him.

It was they, not he, who stood naked before the camera on Thursday, it was their fear, their hatred, their tactics and their deceit which was exposed. In their fear, they revealed a truth about themselves which they will find very hard to ever hide again. In their treatment of Griffin, the New Order may have done themselves far greater damage than would ever have been possible had they treated him fairly.

Thursday 22 October 2009

The Henry Webster case and the BBC Censors (Liars)

Attack victim Henry Webster with his mother

Unlike the wider public, most readers of this site will be aware of the case of Henry Webster, the schoolboy from Wiltshire who was left brain damaged and suffering from life threatening injuries following a an attack on him by a gang of Asian youths, most of them students from his school. and at least one of whom used a claw hammer on him.

Henry is now suing his school for negligence in allowing the attack to take place. A significant aspect of Henry's case against the school is that they ignored the behaviour of Asian students out of political correctness. Henry and his family also believe that the assault was racially motivated. Therefore, the race of his attackers is relevant both to the attack and to Henry Webster's legal action.

However, this is how the BBC describe the attack in a report today on proceedings in court:

The assault on Mr Webster, who was then 15, involved a group of schoolboys and three car-loads of men who came on to school premises after being summoned by the boys on mobile phones.

Thirteen teenagers, and a man who did not attend the 1,400-pupil school, were convicted for their parts in the attack at Bristol Crown Court last year.

The BBC know that, given how the media in general limited the reporting of the actual criminal case, the majority of the public will know nothing of it, and from this report will have no idea that there was a racial element to what took place. Deliberately misleading and deliberately dishonest.

News censorship in this country is now all but absolute, and it is becoming frightening.

World Cup 2010 - the hidden dangers

Did any of you know that there has been serious outbreaks of rioting and violence in South Africa over the last week? In fact, it has been going on for months. Missed it on the news did you? That is not surprising it didn't make the TV news and the BBC website only ran one small brief item, hidden away in the Africa section, where few football fans tend to venture.

I am sure most of you thought that the so called "xenophobic" violence which flared up last year, and resulted in a number of immigrants being burnt alive, was an isolated incident which has now been resolved. If so, you were wrong.

News of the growing dangers are being suppressed, because the media want to keep pretending the rainbow nation is a multicultural paradise. It is not, and in a few months time we will be sending thousands of young men and women into harms way without warning them what they could face.


Hat Tip: Dina

Wednesday 21 October 2009

Rageh on Race

Although most readers will be focused on BNP Chairman Nick Griffin's appearance on the BBC's Question Time tomorrow evening, another TV item may provide a diversion in the coming week. On Monday evening Channel four will be broadcasting a documentary under the heading “Race and Intelligence: Science's last taboo

The show will be fronted by the Somali born reporter Rageh Omaar, the one time BBC news reporter who many in Britain will recall for his somewhat idiosyncratic reporting of the Invasion of Iraq, and his various documentary reports such as “An Islamic History of Europe” for the BBC, “Immigration – the inconvenient truth” for Channel Four and “Islam in America” broadcast last year by his new employers, Al Jazeera. Seems to have a theme, doesn't he?

As evidence of his credentials in what now passes for journalism, in 2003, Omar was the recipient of an EMMA (Ethnic Multicultural Media Academy) award for best TV journalist

The documentary promises to “examine and expose” the numerous myths about race, and Rageh will, amongst other things, interview various academics including supporters of the Bell Curve theory in relation to relative intelligence. WOW! I wonder how those interviews will be presented and what conclusions they will reach?

We all of course know without bothering to watch what approach this so called “documentary” will take and what its findings will be. Anything which fails to comply with the attitudes and beliefs of the multicultural maniacs in our media, or upset their latest darlings would be unthinkable and anyone involved would be instantly unemployable.

The advance publicity for the programme refers to the comments made by the father of DNA James Watson, (a man who won a Nobel Prize when it still meant something) on a recent visit to Britain, suggesting a difference in IQ levels between Africans and Europeans, and effectively destroying his International reputation. No doubt Rageh and Channel 4 will ensure that his reputation is further trashed.

Will it be worth watching? Probably not, but I may do so out of a morbid fascination in how far TV documentary in this country has sunk.

It would be quite hilarious to think that the makers of a program fronted by a Somali reporter, with a track record for making racially attitudinal statements and racially subjective television documentaries (now employed by the voice of Islam) and broadcast on a television channel so politically correct it makes the Guardian seem almost balanced, could imagine for one moment that any viewers will take it seriously.

It is however, a testament to the state which this country has reached that there will be people out there who will watch it and actually believe that Rageh is presenting a balanced, honest and accurate report, and that is really rather sad.

Tuesday 20 October 2009

Response to Mary Riddell and General Jackson by Dr Frank Ellis

Dr Frank Ellis gives us his responses to two recent articles in the Daily Telegraph:

From: Frank Ellis
To: The Daily Telegraph
Re: Mary Riddell, ‘Killing off the Cancerous Spread of the BNP is within our Grasp’, Daily Telegraph, online, 19th October 2009

Riddell permits herself the sort of language which had it been used by Griffin in just about any context would have been cited as evidence of extremism. She refers to the ‘cancerous spread of the BNP’, implying that the people who support or vote for the BNP are some kind of disease to be exterminated. In her language she echoes the remarks of Jeremy Hardy who some 5 years ago told the nation that life in Britain would be better if every member of the BNP or anyone who voted for the BNP were shot in the back of the neck. Who are the real fascists/Nazis here? Riddell then calls Griffin a ‘swivel-eyed zealot’ so mocking a medical condition which she would not have mocked in any other person. So much for her call for tolerance.

Riddell’s tirade about the alleged benefits of mass legal/illegal immigration in Boston (and elsewhere in the UK) reveals her to be economically and demographically illiterate. Legal/illegal immigration is destroying this country. There are too many people here already: we are full up.

Riddell’s solutions to the problems presented by legal/illegal immigration are pitiful. Mass legal/illegal immigration is most certainly the enemy of social cohesion. How in the name of God does Islam promote social cohesion when Islamic terrorists murder people in London? How is the white indigenous majority supposed to react to blacks in London (and other cities) when blacks are a major cause of gun and knife crime? The sensible and rational policy is to avoid blacks altogether. It was a Labour government with the full support of William Hague who accepted the conclusions of The Macpherson Report in 1999. This disgusting report has undoubtedly caused lives to be lost because the Police are too frightened to clamp down on black crime for fear of incurring accusations of racism. A high government priority must be the immediate deportation of the approximately 2,000,000 illegal immigrants in this country. There must be no amnesty which will merely encourage another wave of illegals. There are too many people in this country and legal/illegal immigration has been the main cause of this recent, huge increase. As for social housing, more accurately anti-social housing, how does covering the English countryside in concrete promote cohesion? More cheap, shoddily-built, high-density council houses which is what social housing is, will have the same outcome as an amnesty: it will encourage more immigrants to enter this country in the knowledge that a dwelling of some sort will be provided for them, so creating further huge settlements full of people who hate us.

BNP success is overwhelmingly due to the fact that people like Riddell, Labour and Conservative parties, the Guardian-reading classes, the BBC and the public sector have all conspired to lie about the consequences of mass legal/illegal immigration. Again, the same people who insist that diversity is a good thing flee it at every opportunity. No inner-city, bog-standard schools full of immigrants for their children. Good God no: they hypocritically make every effort to flee the hell of diversity while preaching its joys and spitting abuse at anyone who argues against it.

Writing in a paper that is not what it used to be, Riddell is an ignorant cheerleader for things she does not understand. She is clearly unable psychologically to face up to the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism and mass legal/illegal immigration. Her tirade against Griffin is cowardly and spiteful. She reminds me of some nasty little hack in Pravda who denounced Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov to order.

I note that Riddell lives in Boston in Lincolnshire. In that case, since she is a propagandist for the joys of diversity, she should relocate to some inner-city slum and send her children to schools where whites are a minority: better still go and live in South Africa Then she can preach the joys of xenophilia with a clear conscience. Stupid, wretched woman.

Re: Generals attack BNP for seeking to 'hijack' Armed Forces

Daily Telegraph, online, Date: 20th October 2009

Towards the end of his biography, Soldier, General Jackson argues that: ‘At home, we should make greater efforts to ensure that a clear national identity and a multicultural approach can sit more comfortably together’ (p.375). So far any such attempt has failed. Worldwide, multiculturalism has been a dreadful failure. For how much longer must we be expected to smash our head against a wall and pretend that we like it? Moreover, based on evidence and history, it is a failure that was predictable and predicted. Multiculturalism fails, inter alia, because it is predicated on the ignorant and empirically false view that all races and cultures are the same and interchangeable; that very large numbers of non-Europeans can simply enter the UK legally/illegally and that the cultural and political landscape of the UK will remain unchanged, or at least not changed in ways that are detrimental to the indigenous population. Jackson gives no sign at all that he has grasped this brutal and unchanging human reality. In fact, his urgings are inherently contradictory. He tells us that we should ‘make greater efforts to ensure that a clear national identity and a multicultural approach can sit more comfortable together’ (p.375) and two lines later informs the reader: ‘I am a great believer in live and let live, but not at the expense of my British way of life’ (p.375).

I fully concur sir, but don’t you realise that it is the very ‘British way of life’ which multiculturalists and xenophiles are trying to destroy and to subvert because they know that a strong sense of British identity is hostile to the multicultural agenda. The policies of what used to be the Commission for Racial Equality and a great deal of the legal system hate the idea of ‘live and let live’ which is why millions of pounds are spent in denying the gruesome Third World savagery that makes many British cities unbearable and vilifying any individual who points out what is going on. This explains the concerted campaign to destroy Griffin and the BNP. Yugoslavia was and remains a warning of what happens when coercive, multicultural policies start to fail. The BNP has been pointing out the obvious for some time.

With Sir Richard Dannat’s throwing his lot in with the spiv party and both Jackson and he speaking out against a lawful, political party, it seems to me that a line in British politics has been crossed for good. These officers have done themselves no favours at all and their ill-judged intervention has brought the British Army into disrepute.

Monday 19 October 2009

More deaths at the Cape

I have again had to update the total number of South African farmers murdered since the end of Apartheid in 1994 to 3071 to include the double murder of 53 year old farmer Willem Le Roux and his 50 year old wife Julie, which occurred last week. Mr and Mrs Le Roux were killed at their farm in Plettenberg Bay, Western Cape .

Both of them had sustained bullet wounds to the forehead and their hands were tied behind their backs.

News source here

In other news a couple were attacked by two men on a farm near Fouriesburg in the Free State.

The 81 year old farmer and his wife were watching television when the attackers stormed in through a back door and demanded firearms & jewellery. The elderly female was raped and is being treated at Hoogland Medi-Clinic in Bethlehem Mophiring. Police are looking for the men between approximately 30 & 50 years of age who fled in a stolen white Citroen.

As we see the South African media is equally descriptive when it comes to details of the suspects.

News source here