The first chapter of another of my books that will never be written. A fiction today. But one hopes that one day the important parts of it will be fact.
“The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in perfectly fluent but by no means native English. For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three days. No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase. This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at the Hague before one judge from Alsace, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue.
“Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation. George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench. He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain pat of the neat rectangle of papers on the table in front of him, began his work for the day.
“Learned judges will be fully aware that this is a complex and, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention. If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and to future interpretation of Article 2.
“Mindful, therefore, of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present you with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us. It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissable and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers.”
Paul Weston’s blog: http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/
Liberty GB: http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/
Hat-tip to Morgoth
We are down to 80/20 per cent. But read on.
■ White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British1 was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent).
■ The White ethnic group accounted for 86.0 per cent of the usual resident population in 2011, a decrease from 91.3 per cent in 2001 and 94.1 per cent in 1991.
■ White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 percentage points).
■ Across the English regions and Wales, London was the most ethnically diverse area, and Wales the least.
■ 91.0 per cent of the usual resident population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British) in 2011.
■ The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011.
■ Most residents of England and Wales belonged to the White ethnic group (86 per cent, 48.2 million) in 2011, and the majority of these belonged to the White British group (80 per cent of the total population, 45.1 million). In London in 2011, 45 per cent (3.7 million) out of 8.2 million usual residents were White British.
■ Twelve per cent (2.0 million) of households with at least two people had partners or household members of different ethnic groups in 2011, a three percentage point increase on 2001 (nine per cent, 1.4 million).
■ Of the 13 per cent (7.5 million) of residents of England and Wales on 27 March 2011 who were born outside of the UK, just over half (3.8 million) arrived in the last 10 years.
■ Nearly 4.8 million residents held a non-UK passport that was either an EU passport (2.3 million) or a foreign passport (2.4 million).
The full ONS report on ethnicity is here (pdf).
One quote from that report:
Well, the population of England given in the Census is 53 million (Wales 3.1 million). On that basis we were actually at 61% in March 2011. But that is very unlikely to include a satisfactory total for illegals or for legal, non-white non-respondees to the Census.
We will minoritise within a decade by a strict reading (ie, excluding Scots, Welsh, N.Irish, and Irish admixtures as fully English).
I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey. Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science. But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.
It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history. Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos). Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion. But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel. One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.
Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance. It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant. Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race. In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.
I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument. Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.
I doubt it somehow.
My reply is reproduced below the fold.
It was claimed that the devastation of the Third World by bankers creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. The retort was that this is a Judeo-Marxist canard used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. The retort added that parts of Africa in 1812 had yet to see the wheel, the implication being that Third world nations have been built or economically enhanced by the West. The retort also blames slaughters and devastation in the Third World on their natives alone.
Let’s see. Civilization shouldn’t be confused with economic security. An isolated hunter-gatherer tribe living in a jungle typically has sufficient food to eat, clothing and living structures; they are willing and able to provide for themselves. Whereas in a modern civilization such as the U.S., tens of millions are unable to provide food for themselves, in spite of being willing and able to work, and must depend on government handouts such as food stamps, and there are millions of homeless people.
The reason for the economic problems of Western nations is that malicious bankers issue and control money, which is also the case for nearly all Third World nations. So how does the Third world fare under banker control?
For a while now, this is how the international bankers have dealt with the Third World [some things apply to some Western nations also]:
Naturally, Third World nations will experience significant emigration pressures. Residents of some European nations will better understand what the Third World experiences when austerirty measures in their nations become more severe to pay the interests on loans they need from banks.
As of now, people are rioting over gas prices in Nigeria, but before one brings in the violence proneness of blacks, take a guess at what’s caused the rise and toward which purpose. One has to wonder how many other instances of rioting in Third World nations have their root cause in what the international bankers do, not in violence that would occur no matter what. These international bankers are behind numerous wars in the Western hemisphere, and they surely haven’t left the Third world in peace.
Notice that some black African nations are resource-rich but the masses live in poverty. Is this due to the corruption of their elite? They have corrupt elite, but if this were the reason, there would be lots of black billionaires [U.S. dollars] in some African nations, whereas the natural resource-related wealth is siphoned out by the international bankers, in the manner detailed above, and scraps, in comparison, are given to the corrupt elite.
People complain about me focusing on money and the community disproportionately controlling it when there are serious immigration issues to be discussed, but what’s causing the immigration issues? It takes more than merely opening Western borders to immigrants; Third Worlders need an incentive to emigrate en masse, too.
Will the masses be willing to go to a land far, far away where people speak a different language and have a very different culture if the masses have a reasonable income/sustenance where they live, and live in a relatively peaceful society? Will the masses be willing to give up the security of their existence for discordance, learning and re-learning skills in a foreign nation and the uncertainty of having a similar level of economic security there? These are important questions to reflect on. A desire to emigrate will be true of some individuals, but not the masses if there’s basic economic security [food, shelter, clothing, base medical facilities] and no warfare or civil strife.
But economic devastation provides a strong incentive for mass emigration pressure in the Third World. And thus we have the demand and supply of contemporary mass immigration into Western nations:
So is it wise to complain about immigration levels and focus on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims----like Amren, Vdare, the masses of the “alternative right” or “Third position” crowds----or is it wise to aim for the root cause, which lies in malicious bankers controlling the money supply? And is it wise to just focus on the money issue or also expose some of the other major crimes of these people, such as 9/11? They bring in all these immigrants to undermine ethnic cohesion in the West. Complaining about immigration doesn’t help and exacerbates division. But the money issue and 9/11 are of universal significance and unite the divided against the bankers. And some people complain of conspiracy and detraction from the important issues, such as immigration and multiculturalism, when 9/11 is brought up!
A Pee-Cee news report, with comments switched off, is here.
So reads the immigration e-petition posted on the Downing Street petitions site by Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch. It is doing a brisk trade. Only two petitions so far have scraped together the 100,000 signatures that triggers a House of Commons debate. The government allows a full year for this total to be reached. The immigration petition did it inside a week.
Of course, it’s weak tea stuff. Sir Andrew is involved in the balanced migration campaign, which only seeks to match immigration numbers with those emigrating. But it’s a start, and the explosive success of the e-petition is not an endorsement for balanced migration.
Some time in the next two years the government will have to make time for a debate on the 70 million issue. The debate itself will be no less controlled than the EU debate of a few days ago. Nothing will come of it. It is inconceivable that there will be another large-scale rebellion among Tory MPs. But the petition could easily be several hundred signatures strong by then. It will feel very lonely in the “we love migrants” camp.
I have signed the petition. Every loyal Brit should do so.
Next stop Cool Britannia?
This piece in Saturday’s Daily Mail could not be allowed to pass without comment here, even at the very real risk of re-igniting the Cock-up or Conspiracy debate that inflamed passions around these parts not so long ago. Has there been a single confirmed Scrooby sighting since?
While the Mail article succeeds in its obvious aim of getting the readers stoked up (almost 600 overwhelmingly hostile comments so far) it fails to add any real context or search for greater meaning, taking the opportunity to slag off Tony Blair being apparently an end in itself.
But, we perhaps we need to probe a little deeper ...
Ultra-social conservative crypto-something Laban Tall blogs on the riots in France:
You’ve got to love those quotes around youths. Laban is criticizing the beeb for leaving out the criminals’ ethnicity, while avoiding mentioning it himself. Well, I’ll say it: they are Muslims, which means Turks or Arabs in France (or just possibly Pakistanis). Members not just of more or less the same religion, but also of more or less the same genotype.
I was fourteen years old at the end of July in 1966 when, with my parents, I took my seat at Wembley Stadium to watch England win the World Cup for the one and only time. I’ve seen the match and, especially, the goal replays on TV so many times since, most of my memories of the actual game have been blotted out. But one memory that survives is driving away from the ground afterwards with the team page from the Daily Express’s World Cup Final Special pressed against a rear window of the car, so the residents of north London would get the message, if they had not already done so.
Without ever considering the fact, of course, I had just witnessed twenty-two white men playing football in front of 94,000 white spectators, and now we were edging through the traffic in a Wembley populated by, as far as I recall, white people, my people. To the south-west, in Greenford and in Southall, there was an enclave of Indian immigrants, to be sure. But Wembley was still ours, and there seemed no reason to think it would ever be otherwise.
That was four decades ago. Here is the situation today as explained, partially anyway, by Andrew Neather and recorded for us by the South Wales BNP activist Roger Phillips:
The video is on the BNP’s website. A long thread is already appended, with comments like: “Slough is exactly the same, Reading and Maidenhead are due to follow” ... “And its exactly the same in South London, e.g Balham, Tooting, Lewisham, right through to Bow, Leyton and Walthamstow in East London” ... “Bradford Dewsbury large parts of Leeds…the list goes on” ... “We have two areas, here in Glasgow, called Govanhill and Pollokshields, both predominately Muslim, so much so, that it is unsafe to be there after a certain time of night.”
About Wembley and, more generally, London, one BNP member notes:
And what should be the proper response to this political crime? Well, possibly not the BNP’s realpolitik. First, for me, mourning for what has been done to our people and our land. Second, a deep, cold anger that nothing can placate. Third, an unbending determination to undo it all - absolutely all of it, so that nothing, no detail however small, will speak treachery to posterity. Not the people who did this to us, not any part of the political structure they created, not the human tools they employed ... none of it must remain in place. This isn’t simply about our genetic continuity. This is about the completeness of our political victory, too.
UPDATE - 4th November 2009
Surely, Herr Kramer has also spotted the subtle variation on the Kühnen-Gruß:
I’ve had this piece on the back burner for a little while now, waiting for the main protagonist to re-surface and provide a little topical interest. However, except for a cameo appearance on BBC Radio 4 earlier this month Philippe Legrain appears to have gone incommunicado. It seems he’s writing a new book, supposedly nothing to do with immigration this time, so there wouldn’t seem to be reason to dilly-dally any further.
According to the liner notes of his 2006 book Immigrants – Your Country Needs Them, Legrain is “… a British economist, journalist and writer. Previously trade and economics correspondent for the Economist and special adviser to the director-general of the WTO, he is the author of Open World: The Truth About Globalization, and has written for the Financial Times, the New Republic, and Foreign Policy, among other publications.”
His website and blog provide further biographical detail (although Legrain has a British passport, that appears to be his only claim to any local connection), as well as links to his many articles and media appearances, and is well worth spending some time there to get a clearer understanding of the way which the argument for ‘Open Borders’ (a euphemism for mass immigration from the Third World) is mutating and is becoming reconfigured in response to recent (successful) efforts to refute government propaganda about the economic benefits of immigration, as well as the new economic realities which are not conducive, to say the least, to arguments calling for further mass immigration for labour purposes.
The rate at which Legrain’s argument for mass immigration is mutating is quite apparent from the change of emphasis now evident in his writings and speaking compared to when he was framing his Open Borders case for his book. In the book – published little more than two years ago – Legrain focuses largely on the economic arguments pro and contra, such that the US edition carries the following tribute from the Economist on its front cover: “Mr. Legrain has assembled powerful evidence to undermine the economic arguments against immigration.” In the aftermath of the Lords Committee report which fatally torpedoes those arguments [see below] that’s probably one endorsement that the Economist’s editors might now wish to retract given the opportunity.
Legrain himself has, in the meantime, rather overtly changed tack. His more recent paeans to Open Borders have tended to continue to pay lip service to economic aspects, however, now he prefers instead to focus on what is presumably felt to be firmer ground: the humanitarian rationale for migration, as well as the benefits of the diversity and the cultural enrichment that only migrants are considered capable of providing. One of Mr. Legrain’s more recent missives in this vein is this contribution to the “Migrant Voice” project on OpenDemocracy.net, in which he proposes what he terms as an alternative ‘win-win’ scenario.
I’ve taken the liberty of abbreviating and recasting Legrain’s piece to frame his case in a more thematic manner than in the article. When the argument is distilled to its essentials, as in the following, it clearly demonstrates the effort being made to move the debate away from a morally-neutral discussion of economic benefits to one which focuses on the ‘softer’, more humanist aspects of the immigration question. The clear if unstated intent in this new approach being to construct a value-loaded narrative in which anyone disagreeing with it, and the Open Borders manifesto in particular, can be monochromatically denounced as a ‘bad person’. This is where, it seems to me, that the frontline in the immigration war is now being drawn, and it is the terrain upon which we must become increasingly accustomed to campaigning.
by Dan Dare
Readers may recall the brouhaha that erupted several months ago when Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, announced his intention to commission a study of the economic aspects of an amnesty for illegal or ‘irregular’ immigrants. Hundreds of thousands such migrants are suspected to be present in London, as well as Britain as a whole. Boris was roundly scolded for his troubles by political leaders across the spectrum, including his own party leader, David Cameron. Nevertheless Boris pressed ahead and the study, prepared by specialists at the LSE, appeared in final form on June 16th. It is titled “Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK”.
Unsurprisingly, the report reaches the conclusion that the overall economic effect is positive, and recommends that Boris and the GLA should just get on with their plan. More interesting than the anodyne conclusion, however, is the additional light that the investigation sheds on the scale of illegal immigration into Britain. It indicates that there were between 417,000 and 863,000 irregulars present in Britain as of 2007, with a central estimate of 618,000. The report states that around two-thirds of this estimate consists of around 400,000 failed asylum seekers, which can actually be confirmed through inspection of the Home Office’s quarterly statistical reports on asylum.
A fissure appears to be opening between the views of some national governments in Europe struggling with recession and those of the more detached and strategically-inclined EU Commission. Among others, Greece, France, Spain and now Italy have adopted some strict measures to discourage immigration. But Italy’s populist center-right coalition, which includes the Northern Leagues, has gone a good deal further than the others, even criminalising those who house illegals. On Thursday the senate, Italy’s upper parliamentary chamber, endorsed a vote in May by the lower house. Unmoved by the left’s inevitable comparison with Mussolini’s racial purity laws, and by criticism from human rights groups and the Vatican, the senate voted 157 in favour and 124 against to bring the package of measures into force.
1. Illegal immigration becomes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and immediate expulsion.
2. Anyone caught housing an illegal immigrant could face jail.
3. Unarmed citizens patrols will assist the police by mounting patrols on the lookout for public order offences.
4. Parents will have to prove their legal status by presenting their passport or residency permit when they declare the birth of a child.
The European Commission, meanwhile, is looking for ways to strike at least some of these provisions down. It has announced that it will examine the new law to determine whether it complies with EU norms. “Automatic expulsion rules for entire categories are not acceptable,” it says. The Commission is probably miffed because it has only recently opened the first of several African migration offices, this one in Bamoko, the capital of Mali. The plan is to bring in 50,000,000 + Africans over the next few decades to counter the ageing European demographic.
If national governments will only now address the ageing issue, the Commission’s race-replacement scheme could be in terminal difficulty.
The Establishment’s tale:-
Seasoned MR readers might remember that we’ve featured a couple of posts about the English accoustic folk duo, Show of Hands. I was much taken by the simple trust for and faith in their own English people that Steve Knightley and Phil Beer display. But I’m posting the video of their number The Flood from the 2001 album Cold Frontier for a different reason.
A Lewes resident during the floods of 2000, I recognised straight away Steve Knightley’s descriptive account of “the Southern Chalk downland ... soaked after weeks of hard rain” and “streams that were dry since the war, they’re flowing again”. But it was what followed that surprised me. Here is Knightley linking the flood we saw with climate change and desertification, African boat people, the Sangatte crisis of 1999-2002 and most remarkably and presciently, the debt crisis of today. The central theme to all of this is the “cost of the flood” that “everyone round here is counting”.
Naturally, this conjunction of folk music and protest of social issues would have moved Knightley and Beer - men of my age - in their youth. But how refreshing to encounter it today allied to an overarching concern for the real people of this country. The more I hear of these two guys, the more I find to agree with and admire.
By David Hamilton
New-born babies are now tested for tuberculosis in UK hospitals. TB was the biggest killer in this country during the 19th century. It had nearly been eradicated. But Third World immigrants have brought it back.
The first duty of Government is to protect the population. But for sixty years successive governments have been neglecting this responsibility and exposing innocent members of the public to deadly diseases. They should have reversed the idea and not allowed immigrants into the country without proper health checks - all should have been screened for TB.
The Daily Mail of 5th July 2001 described Newham, London as TB capital of the West. It had 108 cases per 100,000 people which over twice that of India, where there are 41 cases per 100,000, and more than Russia, where there are 91 cases. On an average day, seven people in London show the first symptoms of TB - a persistent cough, chest pains and sweats.
What do I admire about Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman?
From the Daily Mail:-
The clue is in the last line. The election could be up to 600 days away but the electoral strategies are already deployed. Woolas’ appointment is intended to forestall both the Tories and the BNP from making capital out of the former “open-door” policy. It might well prove a clever play in a time of recession when migrants are not much needed industrially anyway, and the level of bad feeling among the populace inevitably rises.
The game has changed a little. The BNP will need to adjust its rhetoric accordingly.
By David Hamilton
The rulers try to build a multi-racial society from mixed motives: some have high-minded ideals, others are out to exploit cheap imported labour. They invite immigrants and legislate us into sharing everything we have with them, while the global elites living here and multi-national corporations who are present too pay derisory taxes. Our shameless politicians are no better, claiming vast and deceitful expenses. If they want immigrants they should put them up at their houses - they can certainly afford to. But it is not as if the imports are all needy or in danger, though we pretend they are because, in our folly, it makes us feel wanted and righteous for offering aid.
The message conveyed to them is that we are weak and scared and this makes them despise us for not standing up for ourselves. When immigrants arrive they are welcomed by hordes of do-gooders - they can tell any lie and it is accepted. The elites hope there is no threat from them, and pretend they are essentially good. They appeal to their good-will by being fawningly nice to them, hoping they will reciprocate by being nice back. This mentality was expressed neatly by Jens Orback, Sweden’s one-time Minister of Democracy, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
The Government is cunning and manipulative, and allows things to happen through a negligence that is quite intentional. It does not want to be in control in certain key management areas. The inadequacy of its positions is the best and, importantly, least blameworthy way to bring about its objectives.
In a normal time in a normal country these objectives would automatically focus upon strengthening our peoples, and that would include strengthening our national character. But our rulers strive to achieve the opposite, constantly blaming us and using us as scapegoats (racists) if anything goes wrong in the utopian plan. It affects our everyday lives because social relations now have to be regulated and, post 7/7, restrictive anti-terrorist laws are imposed on everyone, not just the likely suspects.
We used to be homogenous and trusted one another. In general it was peaceful. We queued. We relaxed with each other, and sought to get along by using good manners and showing consideration. Is the breaking up of that life through uncontrolled mass immigration an accident? No, the importation of cheap labour and new voting constituencies is wholly intentional.
This is the enemy in smooth and self-confident action. Elsewhere on the site, in its advertising blurb to the Rüdiger report, it urges “policymakers” to:-
“The problems of a purely native labour supply.” Quite outrageous. I have searched the full report, and the “problem” is described there in the singular, and is an ageing native demographic. But that’s not really it, because the report plainly states that the cause of skilled labour shortages in “IT, science, healthcare and technology fields” is the government’s success in promoting Britain “as a location for foreign investment”.
From the Daily Telegraph:-
Lynn and Vanhanen already have the answer to that. But, then, so have we. It seems that the only people who haven’t are sitting in government offices.
As one of these, the NCII cleaves unquestioningly to the official line. It’s LA report (pdf) is a typical government document, full of the presumption of men who are not paid to think. The word gang does not appear in it. Nor does the word crime. Nor does the word trust. There are only challenges. Lots of them. As in ..
And there are opportunities, too. As in ...
and, my favourite ...
What this report really says in its 74 windy and repetitive pages can be reduced to one sentence ...
The government machine is institutionally incapable of absorbing evidence contrary to its foundational belief in the imminence of the multiracial paradise.
That’s it. There isn’t any more.
Ironically, the degree to which the collapse of trust and racial balkanisation can be countered is the degree to which LA eventually becomes a Mexican city. It might be pretty quick - the report states that in 2000, 36% of the LA population was foreign born, but 55% of the children were second generation.
And what will the NCII write about then?
The Hooda Problem
During my first faculty meeting at the Middle Eastern university where I recently taught, one of the female teachers expressed her unhappiness that the faculty was not freely associating with her.
This female teacher was wearing a black abaya covering her body, a black shela covering her hair, and an impenetrable black veil covering her entire face. She was not wearing gloves so it was possible to see that she had a dark African complexion. Her English was clear and native to either Canada or the United States
Here are two video reports on immigrant Africans’ perfectly shameless demand for racial integration in Ireland, and the response from Ireland’s very modern politicians. All at once it’s tardy, piecemeal, submissive and just plain ethno-masochistic.
The first video documents an African immigrant demonstration outside the Dáil. Speakers from the political forces opposed to, one must suppose, the callous, head-in-the-sand policies of the Irish government included some nameless old lady who must be the light and life of Residents Against Racism, Ciaran Cuff of the Green Party, Seamus Healey (described as an Independent), Joe Costello of Labour, Arthur Morgan of Sinn Fein and his party president Gerry Adams.
The second video is an Al-Jezeera report on the Irish government’s tardy response to the integration and, specifically, education issues. It features an Emergency School in north Dublin set up by an uncharitable body of unCatholic, school-building Marxists named Educate Together. Ninety-five per cent of the children in the Emergency School are black, bro.
Actually, that should be brá. But there’ll be no lilting brogue for lil Obi unless the damned, racist Dubliners can understand how happy diversity will make them. Educate Together says that they will. Galloping secularism is the key. In a country where 98% of the schools are Catholic, the 48% of parents that are non-Catholic or non-practising Catholic have no condign educational choices open to them. As so often, it’s the clever traitors who spot the gap in the market. Educate Together has applied to open twenty new schools in the next year alone, and fully, naively expects its green, green la-la land to materialise and the rainbow peeps to skip happily over the peat bog and far away.
Among the talking heads in this second video is a gentleman named Jeanne-Pierre Eyanga Ekumeluko from Congo. Sorry, make that Integrating Ireland. He is sufficiently unsubtle in his pleading “to be one” with the good citizens of Dublin that he promises them another Clichy-sur-Bois experience if said oneness is delayed. But that would only be the fault of the damned, racist Dubliners, of course.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa