Many should know that wikileaks is a 100% kosher undertaking. The leaks comprise of data that are easily falsified in part. The leaks embarrass America or Arabs, not Israel. The leaks are about relatively trivial matters but never serious issues such as central banks being private banks, not government banks. The “whistleblowers” don’t just maintain official versions of major events such as 9/11 but ridicule dissent as nonsense that detracts from the “serious work” they’re doing with their exposes! The U.S. ICE (Israeli Content Enforcement) agency of the Department of Homeland Security, which seizes domains willy nilly for copyright infringement, hasn’t bothered with wikileaks. And so on…
Some crucial leaks were said to have been provided by Private Bradley Manning to Julian Assange. Both men look effeminate, and one would think they’re homos, which makes for bad PR. So they put on a show where Assange was accused of raping two Swedish women, making him appear a macho man, and used the ruckus to attract attention to wiki leaks. All this would be amusing if it weren’t for the plight of Bradley Manning, who’s been imprisoned in solitary confinement, cut off from friends and family. Long-term incarceration in such circumstances is designed to break people down and make them confess to anything you want them to.
Manning’s trial is currently under way by Americans even though he is British, and there isn’t much that can be done to prevent him from being convicted of bogus charges, but you can help expose the sham to others and make it embarrassing for those working for the Israelis behind the wikileaks scam to be who they are.
Posted by R-news on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM in Activism, Journalism, Links, Media, Military Matters, U.S. Politics, War on Terror, World Affairs
Comments (14) |
Described by the film company Dartmouth Films as “this unique observational documentary”, Laura Fairrie’s “True Lives - The Battle for Barking”, which aired on More 4 on Tuesday night, has been written about at some length elsewhere. The Telegraph, The Independent and, particularly noxiously, The Guardian (twice) have all devoted space to it, along with several nationalist blogs. In fact, as is usual with the BNP, the amount of political and journalistic attention the programme has received most probably contrasts with the viewing potential for a late-evening broadcast on a digital TV station.
I watched the programme yesterday on-line here. Already aware that it was fairer and more politically neutral than other mainstream media coverage of and investigation into the party, I was nevertheless surprised by the tenderness of some of the portrayals - not of Nick Griffin and his (then) coterie but of the local party members and the ordinary people of the borough (the English ones). Its title aside, which bowdlerised the BNP’s own much-derided genuflection to the Churchillian, the film treated of the sincerity and sentiment of these people with something very like compassion turning all the time to a wry recognition that their campaign was, like the people they love and try to aid, doomed. Even the music score plucked these strings, and the whole, I felt, captured the perhaps inevitable unfulfillment and failure that is the lot of folk nationalism in the hard, shiny, Blue State Digital world of modern electoral politics.
But that’s all I want to say myself. True to the spirit of the observational film-maker, I thought I would confine the rest of this post to the voices of some of those BNP supporters and sympathisers who have commented on the various “Battle For Barking” threads. But I will begin with the words of Laura Fairrie herself:
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 07:19 PM in Journalism
Comments (79) |
This story in the Daily Mail - reputedly the paper of choice for middle-brow British bigots - is a fascinating object lesson in what we are up against at MR. It is evident both in the visuals and in the not-so-subtle propagandistic spin of the “journalist” David Gardner (who appears to be a creature of the zeitgeist rather then a Jew - Ed).
A picture of the apparent racial mixing in San Antonio is given the caption:
The Texan city blurs the [racial] lines better than most.
Ah, that word “better”. It turns this article into an instrument of social engineering, intended to assign a positive value to this supposed goal of “blurring.”
Gardner continues in this vein:
Another Texan city, Houston, also shows a richer diversity of races spreading out from the centre.
I wonder if Gardner has ever been to Texas. If he had, he would know that once you get into the rural areas blacks become a rarity.
In Gardner’s mind, the racial separation in cities like Detroit and New York is evidence of white racism (of course!), where Euro-bigots form “rich white enclaves”.
Yet it must be noted that the author’s “blame whitey” mentality gets struck down in the comments section by the reader who has by far the most public support, with a 1545 rating at last count. “karl the Yank”, from upstate New York, says:
Rather than a symptom of “racial divisions” or social problems I think it is very telling that most humans prefer to live with their own. People who share their same history and culture. I dont see anything wrong with that. It is just human nature. Why some people see this fact as an awful thing that needs to be “corrected” is beyond me?
And there’s the question: why do educated whites interpret behaviour understood as normal in other races as “xenophobia” and “racism” in whites?
Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, September 25, 2010 at 06:00 PM in Journalism
Comments (12) |
First, please listen to a ten-minute sound-file on Simon Darby’s blog. His post is titled Sunday Times Donates £5,000 to Solidarity Trade Union.
This details the BNP’s judicious handling of a dodgy £5,000 donation back in January. It was made out to Griffin personally and was claimed to come from an elderly female party member. Griffin recognised it immediately as a set-up and donated the money to Solidarity Trade Union.
Now look at what the fearless and upstanding investigative journalists Fiona Hamilton and Sam Coates of The Times have made of it:
Mystery of the BNP’s general election war chest
The British National Party is facing an inquiry into its funding after its leader, Nick Griffin, paid a £5,000 political donation into his personal bank account without declaring it.
The party’s finances came under scrutiny yesterday after it declared donations with the Electoral Commission of £21,132 for the first quarter of this year. No donations were declared between March and December last year. It has pledged to spend £500,000 campaigning for next week’s European and local elections alone.
Under Electoral Commission rules, donations in excess of £5,000 to political parties and in excess of £1,000 given to party members to be used for political activity must be declared ...
Fiona Hamilton has anti-BNP form. Coates appears to focus quite a bit on party funding in general. Yellow journalists both. The story involves setting up a fictitious BNP member and a chequing account. It must have taken least five to six months in the planning, which gives you some idea how much premeditation has gone into the wider media onslaught.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on. David Cameron has come out all guns blazing at the BNP - no doubt just a consequence of his present embarrassments.
From the BNP website, an article revealing:-
Angered at being exposed in this way, The Times and The Daily Mail have retaliated by making the absurd claim that the Electoral Commission is now investigating the matter after their Communist Party sources claimed to have reported it.
The BNP [Lee Barnes, actually - Ed] has been in direct contact with the Electoral Commission this morning. That body has confirmed that there is no investigation into the BNP, and that they have no intention of launching any such investigation.
The role of the Electoral Commission is to investigate donations made to political parties. They have no interest in ‘investigating’ donations given to private individuals which are then passed on to non-political parties.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 04:34 AM in Journalism
Comments (46) |
George Pitcher is Religion Editor of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph. He was ordained priest in the Church of England in 2006 and is Curate at St Bride’s, Fleet Street, in London – the “journalists’ church”.
So says the blurb on the Rev George Pitcher’s Telegraph blog. It does not mention that George is the most open-minded journalist in the history of the known universe. Just read the comments to his piece published today and titled Why Auschwitz needs to become history.
If every mainstream journalist was as accomodating and open to ideas as this chap we would have knocked the Establishment over years ago. I wonder when his bosses are going to correct this, of course, completely unacceptable situation.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, March 9, 2009 at 06:50 PM in Journalism
Comments (7) |
Leo McKinstry, whose gutsy, journalistic war on our dissolution we admired last month and whose latest offering at the Irish Independent was linked to by snax yesterday, is back on the attack at the Daily Mail this morning.
Patriotism is back in fashion. With the Union flag flying high over Beijing after the golden success of our Olympic athletes, the British public has been given a rare opportunity to indulge in unbridled expressions of national pride.
Yet, in our ever more globalised world, instinctive patriotism is being diluted. The concept of nationhood has been undermined by mass immigration and the imposition of the dogma of multi-culturalism.
Our economy is increasingly tied up with the global financial system, dominated by multinational giants which see borders as irrelevant. Supra-national bodies, such as the UN and the EU, have a mounting influence over our political governance.
The idea of national interest is sliding towards the dustbin of history.
Only last month, in a rhetorical and extravagant speech to the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown called on the nations of the world to ensure that our era becomes ‘the century of the global community’.
In one overblown passage, he pledged to ‘make a reality of the vision of a global society in which we create global civic institutions that turn words of friendship into bonds of human solidarity’.
Not to be outdone, David Cameron has joined this enthusiasm for earnest globalism.
During his controversial visit to Rwanda last summer, when there was severe flooding in his own Oxfordshire constituency, he claimed: ‘There is no domestic or foreign any more. In this world today, we are all in it together.’
Of course, this is the mainstream media, and both McKinstry and the headline writer dance tactfully around the true politics of nation here. The headline man gives us Death of patriotism: How national pride is ‘under threat by a global super-elite’. The picture editor provides us with an image of the Nigerian 400m runner Christine Ohurogu wrapped in a Union Jack. And this notwithstanding the fact that the other seventeen of Team GB’s gold medals todate have been won by native Britons (excepting one mixed-race member of a four-man gold-winning cycling team).
So, McKinstrey’s undiluted truth that “The concept of nationhood has been undermined by mass immigration and the imposition of the dogma of multi-culturalism” has to be finessed into an assault on British patriotism rather than the nationhood and very life of the English. A negress and a drug-cheat, who threatened the British Olympic Committee that she would run for Nigeria unless she was admitted to the British squad, has to be pressaged upon us as the source of our “national” pride.
The article has been triggered by a reading of David J. Rothkopf’s book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Rothkopf appears to be an insider Jew who is happy to spill some of the beans. He has done it before. His motivation, according to CFR member (and co-ethnic?) Anne-Marie Slaughter, writing in the Washington Post, is democratic:-
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, August 23, 2008 at 06:15 AM in Journalism
Comments (34) |
Kevin Myers, probably the most outspoken journalist writing in the British press, evidently indulges in even more page-scorching realism when he goes home to Ireland. Certainly, he treated the readers of the Irish Independent to a refreshing view of the very dark continent.
Africa is giving nothing to anyone—apart from AIDS
No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia’s (and Bob Geldof’s) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia’s population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.
So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn’t count.
One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of ...
Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.
There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.
It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority.
... But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia’s has more than doubled.
Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.
... Meanwhile, Africa’s peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.
... For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.
It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates’ programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.
If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that’s an idea.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 05:58 PM in Journalism
Comments (23) |
By Bo Sears
Yesterday the Observer, which is the Guardian in its Sunday best, published an article about Obama and white America by the journalist Paul Harris “in Williamson, West Virginia”. Mr Harris saw ugliness everywhere he looked in Williamson.
Johnny Telvor was not happy about Barack Obama becoming the Democratic presidential nominee. Not happy at all.
... ‘We’ll end up slaves. We’ll be made slaves just like they was once slaves,’ he said. Telvor, a white Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in West Virginia’s primary, said he planned to vote for Republican John McCain in November. ‘At least he’s an American,’ he added with a disarmingly friendly smile.
Such racist opinions are a rough antidote to the giddy optimism that has swept through much of America’s chattering classes over the past week ... The United States, they have argued, is finally prepared to elect a black president and absolve its historic sins of slavery and Jim Crow. But the uglier truth is that part of white America remains secretly - or sometimes openly - deeply distrustful of the idea of a black president.
... Was there anything Obama could say during the coming campaign to convince him? ‘Nope,’ Spence replied. Then he broached the one issue many Americans consider off-limits: the potential security threat to Obama. ‘Look, someone will kill him. Whoever Obama picks as running mate will end up being president.’ Spence’s ready smile and chatty manner on the thorny issue of Obama’s possible murder gave little clue as to whether he thought it would be a bad thing or not.
Often such sentiments are dismissed as the ramblings of a few diehards, carrying with them the prejudices of a by-gone age.
... Stanley Little laughed when asked if he could support Obama. ‘I will vote for McCain,’ he said. Little, a maintenance man for local offices, had one simple reason why he too was rejecting his long family history of voting Democrat. ‘McCain is one of us. Obama ain’t,’ he said, leaving little doubt as to who he meant by ‘us’.
... In exit polls of the recent primaries in Kentucky and West Virginia, one in five Democrats confessed to pollsters that race was a factor in their voting choice. ‘West Virginia and Kentucky were just more honest than other parts of the country. A lot of other people know it’s not socially acceptable to mention that sort of thing,’ said Professor Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University and expert on racial politics.
... Gillespie points out that recent studies have shown that white voters in US cities that have elected a black mayor for the first time prove far more willing to elect one for a second term. ‘They realise the sky has not fallen in. That life went on,’ Gillespie joked. If Obama does win the White House, that experience could be repeated on a national scale for all Americans. Few things could be more important in finally drawing the poison of racism out of American life.
But behind such optimism, another America looms. It is an America far from the headlines that have proclaimed Obama’s candidacy a revolution that will atone for a race-tinged history. This is the America where outrageous rumours that Obama is a Muslim are readily believed. It is the America where Telvor is able to voice a sentiment that ‘Obama might actually be the antichrist’ without apparent irony or fear of contradiction. It is a slice of America trapped in the dreadful history of race relations and the legacy of slavery and segregation.
On the streets of towns such as Pikeville and Williamson, and in the minds of people like Little and Telvor, that past lives on. It is kept in the present by poverty, joblessness and a fear of the different. It is also a powerful force that should not be underestimated. It could even decide who will be the next President. ‘McCain will beat Obama. There’s a lot of Democrats around here that will be switching side to vote for him,’ Little said. Behind him a white-washed message in the closed Obama Pikeville office read: ‘Vote Obama 08: change!’ In the brutal summer heat it seemed a forlorn hope. It was asking for the overthrow of generations of entrenched prejudice.
In answer to this entrenched anti-white prejudice Resisting Defamation mailed the following letter to The Observer:-
Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, June 9, 2008 at 05:44 PM in Journalism
Comments (39) |
“During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said their spokesman, “that we were astonished to find, after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were, by and large, the same. To get that result in our country we imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?”
... During the 1970s, I filmed secretly in Czechoslovakia, then a Stalinist dictatorship. I interviewed members of the dissident group, Charter 77. One of them, the novelist Zdener Urbanek, told me, “We are more fortunate than you in the West, in one respect. We believe nothing of what we read in the newspapers and watch on television, nothing of the official truth. unlike you, we have learned to read between the lines of the media. unlike you, we know that that real truth is always subversive.” By subversive, he meant that truth comes from the ground up, almost never from the top down.
John Pilger explaining the power of journalism in the West to an audience at Columbia University in April 2006.
Pilger, now 68, has devoted his entire journalistic life to speaking for the (mostly Third World) exploited, degraded or slaughtered victims of the machinery of global power. The precise targets of his withering fire are the Western governments, the Western political system, his so often supine fellow journalists and, most of all, the rapine corporate and financial elites.
The [US presidential candidates] are as one in their support for America’s true deity, its corporate oligarchs. Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. “Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors,” wrote the investigator Pam Martens, “consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.”
A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States. “Washington lobbyists haven t funded my campaign,” said Obama in January, They won’t run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president.” According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists.
What is Obama’s attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy’s. By offering a new, young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party, with the bonus of being a member of the black elite, he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell’s role as Bush s secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.
This is good stuff, from an essay published last week in the New Statesman.
Of course, Pilger cannot process the case for Western survivalism. He stands politically, I think, with the global justice movement, which is an outcrop of the post-communist left. But the older I get the more I realise that dissonance is not a good enough reason to accept the role allotted to us of endlessly quarrelling with the left. There is no left and right in the harsh light of day. There is plutocracy and there is victimhood everywhere that plutocrats reign. There is knowledge and there is ignorance. There is sleep and there is waking. There is the capacity to discriminate human values and there is the absence of it (it’s absent in the left).
In so far as the left leaves us alone to state and restate our own values and to pursue our own cause, we should not quarrel with it for desiring to tend to the poor in the Third World. Ultimately, both our concerns and theirs are just, and both flow from the same hearth of evil.
That’s the lesson I take from reading Pilger’s largely very good material.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 07:12 PM in Journalism
Comments (9) |
The latest example of intercultural dialogue, the knife murder of 18 year-old Robert Knox in Sidcup, has generated unusual behaviour at Rupert Murdoch’s News International.
Time was (like yesterday) when we were never told the race of a black perp until the jury had bought in the verdict. We, of course, came to understand that journalists are poor, squeamish creatures who say “youth” and “teen” when they mean black. We developed exquisitely attuned antennae for the rubric of professional denial and obfuscation. The slightest reluctance to come clean about some random act of inner city savagery was sniffed out and added to the probabilities that, once again, the perpetrator was ... black, of course.
But today, like a throw-back to the 1970s, Murdoch’s Sunday papers gave out the race of Robert Knox’s murderer as reported by witnesses and friends of the deceased. Just like that.
From the The Times:-
Lee Bentley, manager of the Metro bar, said the attack appeared to have been triggered by a row over the alleged theft of a mobile phone.
“Nine days ago, a guy came to the bar and caused trouble,” said Bentley. “He accused [Knox’s friend] Dean Saunders of stealing his phone and hit him in the face. We cleaned up Dean and barred the man.”
But the man, who is black and in his twenties, returned on Friday night armed with two knives and tried entering the bar, where Knox was a regular drinker.
What happened next is unclear, but Jade Nicholson, an assistant bar manager, said: “I saw Rob go outside and shout, ‘You pulled a knife on my brother, someone call the police’.”
Tom Hopkins, 18, who was drinking at the bar, said: “Rob had been trying to stop the trouble, it wasn’t his fault.
“All I remember was seeing Rob get stabbed in the chest. I ran over and me and my mate Tarik both tackled the black man. I jumped on top of him and he said, ‘I’ve got a knife, I’ve got a knife’. As I tried to grab the knife I didn’t realise he had another one in his other hand and he cut me in the back of the head.
Well, I doubt whether young Tom Hopkins really told Murdoch’s hack that he “tackled the black man”. Surely the word “cunt” or “bastard” must have slipped in there somewhere. Boys being boys. But, then, perhaps the sensibilities of Times readers are too refined for an encounter over the breakfast table with a “c—-” or “b———d”.
Anyway, from the News of the World, where no one has to worry about such things:-
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 07:32 PM in Journalism
Comments (54) |
The Daily Mail is a ghastly little rag. It makes its money by throwing tidbits to the apoplectic classes. Apoplectica - never an attractive demographic, but also never slow on the patriotic uptake - duly responds with much harrumphing and general, if meaningless, indignation.
Master valve open. Hot air released. Situation normal.
It’s a curious kind of handcart for the ride to hell. But since 2001 the Mail has been able to boast among its columnists the doyen of thinking cart-pullers, Peter Hitchens. It even gave him his own
Hitchens, of course, is famously conflicted with his brother Christopher, the infinitely more successful and recently-Jewish one-time Bilderberger and liberal galáctico. One can only imagine with what disdain the bibulous god-basher must view his brother’s professional domicile in right-wing populism. But I’ve a sneaking suspicion that matters took a serious turn for the worse over the cornflakes this morning.
The headline won’t have helped: Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq, asks Peter Hitchens.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 05:19 AM in Journalism
Comments (24) |
Every day now a clutch of immigration stories appear in the mainstream UK press. The silence is slowly, irrevocably breaking. Loyal feeling, where it exists, is making itself heard and will not be silenced again.
Over the last two or three days we have, starting with the Daily Mail, heard that:-
If the BBC’s worried about immigration, can we have an honest debate about it?
Ever since New Labour won the election in 1997, there has been a lively debate about immigration in this country, and it has not made a blind bit of difference.
Poles, other East Europeans and illegal immigrants have made a bee-line for our shores in increasing numbers.
Some newspapers, such as this one, have pointed out what is happening, but the tide has flowed on. The think-tank MigrationWatch has ably made its case without any obvious effect.
A few politicians have spoken up, but their warnings have not been heeded - or, if they have, nothing has changed. The Tories have picked up the issue and then dropped it. At the moment they are wondering whether to pick it up again.
We are told that 25 per cent of babies born in this country have at least one foreign-born parent. Within a few years, several cities will have a nonwhite majority.
And here, from the Telegraph:-
One fifth of schoolchildren from ethnic minorities
One in five children educated in English schools are now from ethnic minorities, official figures show.
The number of Asian, black African, black Caribbean, eastern European and Chinese pupils is thought to have doubled in the last decade.
In some parts of the country they outnumber white British pupils. Growing numbers of schoolchildren also speak languages other than English at home, it emerged.
One in eight school children do not speak English as their first language, rising to one in seven for primary school pupils.
According to statistics by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, almost 22 per cent of primary school pupils are from ethnic minority families, compared to 20.6 per cent last year.
Numbers have also grown in secondary schools where almost 18 per cent of the student body is now non-white British. In at least five areas - London, Birmingham, Leicester, Luton and Slough - white British children are now outnumbered by those from other ethnic groups.
And again from the Daily Mail:-
200,000 immigrants to enter Britain EVERY year as numbers soar by 30%
The number of people migrating to the UK will increase by 45,000 a year, according to new official figures published today.
Experts at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said their estimates had increased to 190,000 a year compared with 145,000 in calculations issued two years ago.
Changes to the way migration is estimated would also lead to earlier migration totals being “revised” later this year, it added.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 06:50 PM in Journalism
Comments (93) |
I missed this, in my experience, almost unprecedentedly honest piece of writing by Leo McKinstry when it appeared in the Daily Express on 9th August. He still blames “the left” for our travail, of course - we haven’t reached the stage yet where a wee little journalist can break with that. But it still merits attention.
I have praised McKinstry’s honesty before, here and here. He knows that of which he complains, having worked as an aid for Harriet Harman (who is now Labour Deputy Leader).
The body of the Express article details various instances of discrimination against English applicants to jobs in the state machinery. We know the story well, and I won’t paste it all out here. I will, though, treat you to McKinstry’s bold top ‘n tail for that narrative, which could have been written by any of us.
I also reproduce the entire comments thread as it stands this morning. A good deal of it is probably contributed by BNP members, who are ever-ready to make their point. But anyone who has scratched the polite surface of conversation with the kind of person who might read the Express knows the sturdy soul underneath. These are the sentiments he holds. I am surprised, frankly, that the Express moderators permitted such sound expressions of opinion. Perhaps they moderate according to the tone set by the article. Perhaps the Express has decided to counter falling newspaper readership by breaking with the zeitgeist and ministering to its readers’ true opinion.
Erm ... no, that would be too much to hope for.
HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECLARED WAR ON WHITE ENGLISH PEOPLE
Thursday August 9, 2007
By Leo McKinstry
England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.? ?
In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness.?The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed.?In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.
This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a bright teenager who applied for a training position with the Environment Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and English.?The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to ethnic minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry used by bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the English.
... It is a bitter irony that the Labour?Government,?which works?itself?into?such?a synthetic rage over racial prejudice, should practise overt discrimination on an epic scale.?The remorseless focus on supporting minorities has led to a perverted ideology of anti-white racism.?
Almost?every?interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed analysis of one’s ethnic status.?A vast race equality industry has been built up, filled with overpaid paper shufflers, consultants and advisers with little to do except invent new grievances.??
There is an air of the Maoist permanent revolution about their activities. Since immigration now runs at probably one million?people?a?year,?the make-up of society is changing dramatically.?So, in this climate of endless demographic upheaval, the race relations brigade will always be able to invent more work for itself.
Yet anti-English discrimination undermines the central plank of the propaganda for mass?immigration.?We?are constantly told we need vast influxes of foreigners to boost our economy and fill vacancies but unemployment levels in immigrant communities are so high and skills so lacking that we need to reserve parts of our economy for them.
So if we have to spend a fortune on training schemes, why are we inviting hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the Third?World?and?Eastern Europe here every year?
Economics have little to do with the issue.?The Left in Britain have seized on mass immigration and multiculturalism as a battering ram to destroy?the?society?they despise.?They once sought to change our country through economic?revolution.?That failed with the Winter of Discontent and the downfall of communism.?But demographic change through migration has proved far more damaging.
George Orwell once wrote: “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.?In Left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.”
That is now precisely the mentality that predominates within the machinery of the British state. And our country is dying as a result.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 04:39 AM in Journalism
Comments (19) |
... Watch PBS from 9:00 pm to 10:30 pm on Wednesday, April 25. That 90 minutes will actually save you time because you’ll never watch television news again - not even on PBS.
Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner. He was hailed by media stars as a “breathtaking” example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House’s claim that the war was won. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declared, “We’re all neo-cons now;” NPR’s Bob Edwards said, “The war in Iraq is essentially over;” and Fortune magazine’s Jeff Birnbaum said, “It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context.”
How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? “What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored,” says Moyers. “How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?”
On Wednesday, April 25 at 9 p.m. on PBS, a new PBS series BILL MOYERS JOURNAL premieres at a special time with “Buying the War,” a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
From Bill Moyers journal.
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 06:34 PM in Journalism
Comments (12) |
How far will the momentum of her reputation carry her?
ALL THE ABORTION LIES FIT TO PRINT
Will the Times Pull the Plug on its Ombudsman?
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 09:14 PM in Journalism, Media
Comments (4) |
From Steve Sailer on Erin Aubrey Kaplan’s The O.J.-Kramer discrepancy:
Dept. of “Huh?”
An LA Times op-ed columnist weights in on two recent brouhahas:
The O.J.-Kramer divide: Recent flaps show that we’re more tolerant of a white man’s blunder.
Erin Aubry Kaplan:
But the reality is that there is far more tolerance for a white person’s unseemly behavior than for similar behavior of somebody who isn’t white, especially if the unseemliness involves race. [Michael] Richards’ “racist rant” has been described as a terrible but isolated incident. O.J., meanwhile, is condemned for his character.
No, OJ’s condemned for damn dear sawing two people’s heads off, plus whatever else he did to Ron Goldman.
“Huh?”? More like, WTF?
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 at 03:50 PM in Journalism, Marxism & Culture War, Media
Comments (1) |
Leo McKinstry, a Belfast-born Protestant, has written a fair and honest article which you can read here. Do include the thread, which is perhaps the most illuminating part. Gratitude overflows, although of course it contains a quantity of wrong thinking (UKIP the only hope of the white working class!!).
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 06:45 AM in Journalism
Comments (7) |
Janice Turner is the kind of journalist who should never type the word, patriotism. Or nation, or nationhood. To state the obvious, she is a lady journalist, you see. A woman ... a nice, emolient, “why can’t we all just get along?” sort of soft thingy.
In this morning’s Times she simpers, “Help, I think I’m a little Englander.” But what she really delivered to the doorsteps of the, well yes, nation was a perfectly-honed if unwitting confirmation of my friend Fred Scrooby’s oft-stated view of her sex.
She is unaware that she can’t apprehend race, of course. Not in its fullness. For Janice, her homeland and the interests of its people can be only vaguely perceived through the medium of the economy.
This, then, is how she makes the patriotic case:-
... Does it matter that such a cherished British institution [she means Wimbledon 2006 - Ed] has shacked up with a foreign brand? Lauren’s little polo ponies will trot out of the Wimbledon shop as sure as rain will fall. So he’s worth his £6 million deal. And anyway, what is British fashion? Our designers create from Parisian ateliers, their clothes are cut in Milan, sewn in China, shown in New York. Get with the global economy, grannio, you may think. Well, perhaps . . . except it just feels so wrong.
Likewise, as I glare at the Saharan patches on my lawn and read about Thames Water, which hiked up my bill on a promise to repair leaks but instead decided to award my hard-earned to its shareholders, my fury is compounded by the knowledge that my water is German-owned. I keep imagining the executives of RWE — Thames’s parent company — relaxing by glistening swimming pools, amid verdant gardens.
Deep in the Ruhr or Rhine, they won’t get neighbours ear-bashing them about plants shrivelled by the hosepipe ban. They won’t feel they have failed in their duty to their customers or to this country, because we are faceless, faraway citizens and this is a foreign country. They don’t feel responsibility, let alone shame. ... Am I a little Englander, a petty nationalist, an economic dinosaur because I loathe the idea of British utilities and infrastructure being foreign-owned? In the global free market, the swirling, borderless world of international finance, why should it matter that the Spanish are about to buy Heathrow, Gatwick and five other British airports? Or that 21 ports, including Hull, Southampton and Tilbury — accounting for a quarter of British seabourne traffic — will soon be controlled by a foreign consortium? After all, much of our energy is already owned by French or American firms, or at any rate controlled by non-British shareholders.
... And so powerful and cross-party is the belief that liberalised markets mean the best company — regardless of nationality — gets the gig and provides the best value for the customer, it feels heresy to ask two simple questions: is this safe and is it undermining our sense of nationhood? I cannot answer the first. No politician has ever explained what happens if things turn sour with a country that owns our strategic installations: a bunch of power stations, say, or Mersey docks, now property of the people of Dubai. The British Government has already vowed that Russia’s state-owned Gazprom will not be allowed near our gas for fear it will use supplies as a political weapon, as it did in Ukraine. Yet we are expected to believe that all other foreign companies are benign, have only our interests at heart.
Now, at this juncture MR - if not Times - readers will be connecting the dots pretty damned quick. So what has Janice to say of the surrendering of whole segments of our cities and towns to complete aliens? Does she rail at the paucity of politicians, by which we must assume she means mainstream politicians, explaining that things will turn very sour racially? People like us have, of course. Several times. But our politicos would rather eat sennapods and gunpowder for a week.
Ms Turner, it turns out, feels the same. There seems to be a war going on inside her between her feminine emotion and her masculine reason. Here she is zig-zagging towards an outcome, a synthesis of sorts:-
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 24, 2006 at 05:51 AM in Journalism
Comments (0) |
The American feminist author and London-based journalist Lionel Shriver disappointed a few Guardian readers today with a classic rant against the Mexican invasion.
“I am obsessed with immigration,” she said. She obviously meant it. She railed against “the disappearing ink” of US immigration law, and ended:-
I was bemused to read this week that Mexico has an accelerating immigration problem. Many of the South and Central Americans teeming across its border with Guatemala are heading for the US. But a fair number are staying on in Mexico, where they take “the jobs Mexicans don’t want”. So many Mexicans have left for more lucrative jobs in el Norte that only the Guatemalans will pick mangoes in the baking sun for a few lousy pesos.
Furthermore, foreigners ploughing into Mexico are subject to the same fierce local resentment that brought outraged Mexicans out on America’s streets in April. The coordinator of the government-funded humanitarian organisation Grupo Beta declared, “This society does not see migrants as human beings, it sees them as criminals.” I was startled to learn that Mexico’s immigration law is far more stringent than America’s, even more stringent than the harsher laws now in limbo in the US Congress, over which Mexican president Vicente Fox has been so alarmed.
This is what I mean about double standards. The very same national populations that blithely regard the US as an extension of their own backyard get very stroppy indeed when foreigners start regarding their own countries with the same presumption.
Admittedly, this is a double standard in which American mythology has been complicit. Forever talking up the “melting pot” and our proud tradition as a “nation of immigrants”, US politicians can’t sabre-rattle over stricter immigration policies without sounding like hypocrites. The rest of the world doesn’t believe the US has the right to police its own borders; raised on all that “huddled masses yearning to be free” folderol, Americans don’t either. In short, the US has been helplessly victimised by its own bullshit.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 06:47 PM in Journalism
Comments (17) |
Today Sean O’Neill of The Times deigned to inform us that “Race killings are no longer a matter of black and white”.
Well, thank you very much, Sean. But excuse me if I am unimpressed. Race killings never were the sole preserve of white men. Your headline neatly avoids that, and I wonder why. Specifically, I wonder why you didn’t write a story headlined, “Who wants you to think that race killers are always white?”
The problem, I suppose, is that it has been journalists of both left and right who wanted this. What purpose but the construction of a false public perception did the press feeding frenzy over the Lawrence and Walker murders serve? The Marxist prescription of white guilt somehow became theirs, and they sought to make it ours.
They have no excuses. The purpose and perniciousness of political correctness was well understood in America by 1992, and the term itself was quite possibly recycled from early Soviet communism by right-wing academics as early as 1980. What serious journalist of the right anywhere has not debunked it since, and enjoyed himself hugely in the process?
All the more extraordinary, then, that these proud linguistic gladiators, these professional cynics and modern inquisitors should all come to crowd together on an extreme ideological outcrop way out left of human nature.
Let’s take a look at O’Neill’s article today. The meat of it is this:-
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, May 27, 2006 at 08:38 PM in Journalism
Comments (2) |
ABC Action News Reporter Blasts Media Bosses, ADL!
In an exclusive interview with a local activist, ABC Action News reporter Don Germaise cuts loose with both barrels on his own bosses and the ADL—on subjects such as immigration, race, speech laws and running propaganda.
In this candid 12-minute interview the veteran reporter admits news media influences public opinion and bulks at the ADL’s proposed thought control laws. Don Germaise talks about how the media bosses decide which stories become news and which are buried, why illegal immigration is a problem, his dissatisfaction with the Republican-Democrat government and the way they coddle Mexicans and much more. Don Germaise confirms what many of us have already suspected about ‘mainstream’ media.
A must see!
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Sunday, May 14, 2006 at 07:16 PM in Journalism
Comments (2) |
Daniel Finkelstein, writing in today’s Times, makes an argument for the free-market and individual choice through the guess the weight of the ox analogy. This analogy is as follows: Guess the weight of an ox. You’ll almost certainly be wrong. However, if a number of people all make guesses, the average of their estimates is likely to be closer to the truth, as each is as likely to guess too high as too low. In the same way, decisions made by a multiplicty of free economic actors in the market are likely to be closer to what is best for the nation than the decision of any one centralised authority. This is all very well and good, but I wonder if the Jewish Mr. Finkelstein is willing to follow this through. After all, what if some of us guess “homogenously white communities”?
Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 03:07 PM in Journalism
Comments (11) |
Mary Riddell is a spiteful, intellectally lazy Observer journalist, an egalitarian activist and, apparently, a believer in the dead Marxist, Stephen J Gould. Today she has taken it upon herself to write a hate piece about Leeds University professor, Frank Ellis.
Ellis, you will recall, took it upon himself - not for the first time - to do what Drew Fraser did Down Under and inform the British public about racial differentials. He is a doughty fighter, and has done the same public service in respect to the social effects of The Lawrence Inquiry. His specialism is Russian and Slavonic Studies, upon which he has the soundest view imaginable - though one hardly likely to endear itself to Ms Riddell.
In her bitch-piece today she is, no doubt, reacting to Ellis’s success in getting his views across. He knows perfectly well, of course, that the white population is thirsty for such insights and, too, that his notoriety on the Establishment Left is a threat to him professionally and personally. He is, like Prof Fraser, a brave man for whom the collective cost of silence is greater than any cost to him of speaking out. He has my admiration and, I don’t doubt, that of many others with no website on which to express it. I admire his cheek, too. Last week, Ms Riddell reports, he sent the Observer an “an email offering a resumé of his views and asking what we would pay him”. He must have done it deliciously anticipating the mortification that would ensue among all those so fearful-progressive Observer folk.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, March 12, 2006 at 03:55 AM in Journalism
Comments (8) |
Rod Liddle’s at it again.
It’s past time he had a PC overhaul, but until then let’s all enjoy the show:
It is traditional for sopping wet journalists like myself to avail themselves of a useful get-out clause when obliged to defend the BNP’s right to freedom of speech: that court cases such as this benefit the party, giving it publicity. I’ve trotted this sort of thing out before — but it now seems dishonest. It implies that the BNP was in some way complicit in the charges brought against its leading members. Clearly it wasn’t. Nick Griffin was prosecuted for speaking his mind. There’s no get-out clause this time.
More of Liddle’s work that must have the pinheads at Minutrue scrambling:
Madness at the Met
Fascist and peculiarly funny
Comment: Rod Liddle: Things I shouldn’t say about black people
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, February 4, 2006 at 11:24 PM in Journalism
Comments (4) |
On my Gun Watch blog I reproduce almost every day media descriptions of gun-related crimes. Trawl through the archives there and you will find that the race of the criminal is almost always left for the reader to infer rather than being stated directly. The inference generally is that the criminal is black or Hispanic. But note the following sudden and blinding flash of racial frankness:
“Authorities with the Barron County Sheriff’s Department say that on Thursday, Dec. 29, at 12:33 p.m., they received a 911 emergency call from Trappers Crossing Bait and Liquor Store, located at 2534 8-1/4 Avenue in the Town of Chetek. According to the call, two white males entered the store. One demanded money from the clerk while displaying a handgun. According to the sheriff’s department, the clerk, Tomas Mulrooney of Los Angeles, Calif., removed a loaded shotgun from under the counter and fired one round in the direction of the suspect with the gun. Both suspects immediately fled the store, leaving in a dark green-colored truck. The suspect was not hit or injured by the blast, and no money was taken. The first suspect, the gunman, is described as a white male in his mid-20s with short blond hair and blue eyes. He is believed to be between 6’ 1” and 6’ 3” in height and weighing approximately 210-230 pounds with a muscular build. The second suspect is described as being in his mid-20s with short blond- or brown-colored hair and blue eyes. He is believed to be between 5’ 10” and 6’ in height and weighing approximately 220-240 pounds.
Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 at 11:23 PM in Journalism
Comments (13) |