Posted by Matra on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:59 | #

There’s also a mini-debate on immigration taking place in Canada.

The Conservative minority government has proposed changing immigration policies to attract more skilled workers and get them into the country quicker and to clear up the backlog of some 900,000 applicants. Most pro-immigrant groups - from immigration lawyers to ethnic lobbies -  oppose the changes as they all seem to agree that fewer immigrants will get into Canada and there will be room for discrimination against particular nationalities. (I highly doubt that last part). There’s also agreement that the Tories want to emphasise economic qualifications at the expense of family reunification - something that is upsetting the ethnic lobbies in particular, but is probably what most Canadians want.

The government has put its proposed changes into the federal budget so a vote by the opposition would be considered a ‘no confidence’ vote and would trigger an election. The Liberal Party doesn’t want that as their leader, Stephane Dion, is a joke with no chance of winning at present so they will probably go along with the changes even though they claim the proposed changes are anti-immigrant. The more left wing NDP will vote against the government.

Here are Globe & Mail reader comments on the issue. You will notice they are nowhere near the standard of those GW posted above from the Daily Telegraph. Canadian readers emphasise procedural, partisan,  and economic aspects of the proposed immigration bill. On immigration Canadians are far more politically correct than the English.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:49 | #

So, what do you make of it all so far?  It seems to me the MSM just feed the ducks by chucking them some scraps, and then forget about them until the next time.  INOW, they are still confidently controlling the whole debate - no change there then.

The increasing amount of explicitly revealing stuff being published by posters is intriguing, truth to tell I can’t make it out, I suppose my gut reaction is, they (MSM) are confident (at this stage) that most folk can’t get their heads round the enormity of the consequences that are being pointed out to them (readers) so damage is negligible and manageable.  Am I bovvered?

The general tone of posters (this minuscule group of keyboard warriors) are getting bolder and even more aware than ever, even so there is an overwhelming majority who just don’t get it and by the time they do it will be far too late.

As for the BNP, they have got to raise their game and tell it as it is, but as they say I shan’t hold my breath.

Sometimes I feel the herd is pawing the ground and sniffing the wind (hat-tip Mathew Parris) and is ready to charge, other times, the herd is contentedly munching away - God we are living in interesting times.

Oh, and one more thing, the current debate is still being couched in terms of EU migration (has third world immigration ceased?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:35 | #

There is a repeat dose of thread-freedom in the Telegaph today.  Here’s “Miranda on April 1, 2008 12:13 PM”:-

It is quite amazing how even in the face of conclusive proof that immigration is neither good economically, socially or culturally, that some people still persist in believing that it is.  Is it stupidity, or just an inability to accept they are wrong?

Then, of course such people always insist that we have no right to what they deem our own ‘shameful’ culture and history - whilst in the next breath always demanding that we respect everyone elses - they just love the ‘curry house’, or the little shop that sells hand made pottery in India, and that ‘architecturally out of place mosque’ just adds wonders to the landscape.  But they have never properly studied the glories and battles and triumphs of our ancestors that created this ‘great’ cradle of democracy and free thinking.

Anyone who thinks society is not ‘broken’ after 10 years of socialists has their head in the sand.  Broken homes, ministers in flack jackets, crime in all our neighbourhoods, no-go Asian areas, ignorant unintelligent children, record migration, old age poverty.  The list goes on and on and we all see it all around us - apart from those who do not want to see.

Such people then kid themselves that they are in the majority.  Probably because they read The Guardian, listen to the BBC and do not talk to anyone other than their own kind.  When they do come up against another view, because they read the Telegraph comments page, then they get out the list of ‘socialist’ insults that brook no divergency (despite being in love with diversity) and assume that everyone else - but themselves is wrong.

One day these people might wake up - until them it is more than pleasing to find out through conversations, properly researched studies, and opinion polls that they are only a minority.  And long may they remain, someone has to keep reminding us what ‘lack of common sense’ looks like.

What to make of it?  I find it heartening.  OK, it’s not exactly national liberation.  But it’s better than what went before, and may it always continue.

Both The Times and the Telegraph post about two-thirds of my stuff.  The Telegraph is good enough enough to include a link to MR.  This is pretty decent of them considering I am trying to educate their readers in certain key areas, not least the Geneva Convention and the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenes (both of which got aired by other commenters in yesterday’s Times thread).

It sure beats the Guardian.  I’ve been banned now four times by its moderators (one of whom is a black activist - one really can’t call him a journalist).  What a wonderfully Orwellian stroke it was to call the Guardian opinion page “Comment Is Free”.

Very occasionally I do a quick check on the threads in the Express and Sun.  The pissed-off English have been the loudest voices there for quite a while.  A number of them are BNP activists, of course.  But I don’t think that is the case so much on the Telegraph and Times (The Mirror and the Daily Mail you can forgot - neither allow independent thinking to sully their websites).

Lastly, I don’t think the papers are allowing us to post this material at this point in time because they are cock-sure.  They are journalists, and they are bound to be drawn to dangers in the vox populis like a racing driver is bound to test his and his car’s limits.  They just haven’t realised yet that they aren’t in control of how far this could go.  We shall see.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:27 | #

And this, again from today’s Telegraph thread, right on the nail from Jane Evans (on April 1, 2008 5:15 PM):-

The prevailing political agenda is pursued by the hard left (Labour, NuLab) vigorously whether they are in power or not. If they are in power it means they can go that bit faster. The centre left (Tories) are just a holding action for the agenda. They do not question this agenda when they are in office, they just gently apply the brakes, so that we continue to coast in the direction pre-determined by the hard left. The Tories do not slam the brakes on or attempt to put them into reverse because (as Conservatives) they naturally want to preserve the status quo. The Tories basically exist to keep the chair warm for the hard Left.

This is the CON trick. It is an illusion and it allows people to believe that the Tories are an alternative to Labour. In reality, they aren’t – it is simply a question of the pace of change. The correct way to look at the Tories is that they are slackers. When they leave office, the pace of the agenda quickens, when they are in office the pace slows a little. The course is set though, and that cannot be questioned by any of the main parties. The LibDems seem to want to go even faster because they are the furthest left of all.

Immigration/race replacement is a crime that has been perpetrated against the indigenous populace of these islands. It was totally unsolicited and unauthorised. We cannot say ‘it is a done deal so we’ll all just forget about it now and manage the situation as it is’. Only one ethnic/religious group can dominate these islands and we must change course completely if that is to be us. We are in an either/or situation -there is no in between. To opt to do nothing at this stage is to decide for someone else to do something to us, and that something will not be in our best interests it will be in theirs. We are being destroyed in slow-motion, generation by generation. The only people who seem to have grasped this are the BNP. They are the only ones talking about this existential problem. All other political issues pale into insignificance beside this issue:

Education? For whose children?
Defence? For which people?
NHS? Whose nation?
Foreign policy? Depends what you mean by foreign? Increasingly, I feel foreign.
Crime? Of no interest to me if no-one I care about lives here.

That is also the first non-MR related usage I have seen of the term “race replacement”.  Well done, Jane.

Posted by Englander on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:28 | #

Very occasionally I do a quick check on the threads in the Express and Sun.  The pissed-off English have been the loudest voices there for quite a while.  A number of them are BNP activists, of course.  But I don’t think that is the case so much on the Telegraph and Times (The Mirror and the Daily Mail you can forgot - neither allow independent thinking to sully their websites).

I would have thought that the Daily Mail would be the most open to this.
It is heartening to read these comments. I have definitely noticed a change in attitudes, or at least an increasing willingness to speak up.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:37 | #

Englander,

Try it.  You will find that the Mail is very dictatorial.  It is pleased to run anti-immigration stories because its demographic is the classic reactionary Little-Englander (sorry, didn’t mean you!) and Europhobe who gets some meaning into his or her life through the ritual off letting of steam.

Providing your comment is no deeper than “Nu-Labour must pay for what they have done to this once-great country” it will be passed by the moderators.  Anything else, and you can whistle for it.

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:08 | #

That repulsive “Keith Best” of the Immigration Advisory Service was offering his usual advice on the BBC: “Open the borders and let ’em in! Our economy would collapse” etc ad nauseam. There’s something “vengeful anti-English minority” at work in his lying. I’d assume he’s Jewish, but he might be homosexual. He’s certainly as crooked as lawyers very often come.

‘Immigrants are better citizens than the British,’ says Government advisor

Immigrants are “better citizens” than those born in Britain, a migration expert has said. The extraordinary attack came from Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service - a government-backed charity which receives £13million of public money every year. The former Tory MP was responding to an article in the Mail revealing that a foreigner is granted a UK passport every five minutes. He said: “These people have actively sought British citizenship because they want to make a contribution to the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=468039&in_page_id=1770

After his election to Parliament, Best’s reputation began to suffer when he was involved in a road accident in which his personal assistant was killed, although he was cleared of responsibility for the crash. He eventually stood down after admitting fraud; during the privatisation of British Telecom, individuals were limited to one allocation of shares. Best was prosecuted and found to have submitted many applications by using minor variations of his name. He was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for this in October 1987, although he only served five days… In 1993, he became chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service. In 2003, he was named by The Guardian as one of the 100 most influential people in public services in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Best

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:21 | #

Keith Best, race traitor, is employed by the Brown government to chair its Migration Advisory Service.  They don’t take any chances with the advice they receive.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:24 | #

I would have thought that the Daily Mail would be the most open to this.

Maybe the Daily Mail wants to control how their Middle England readers’ anger is directed?  Besides they wouldn’t want to give the public the opportunity to offend certain ethnic groups . The paper has a bad enough reputation with the hip set.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:37 | #

The Jews have their sacrosanct 6 million.  Gordon Brown has his 6 billion.

Brown rejects cap on immigration

Gordon Brown says immigration is good for the UK and has rejected suggestions that an annual limit is needed.

The PM was responding to a report by a House of Lords committee saying record immigration had had “little or no” impact on people’s economic well-being.

Mr Brown said the concerns raised were being tackled by a new points-based system that will allow only highly skilled workers into the UK.

He said migration had added £6bn to the economy and was a “substantial income”.

Most British businesses who have faced labour shortages had benefited from being able to recruit more widely for skilled labour, he said.

... Mr Brown’s comments follow a report by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee which says competition from immigrants had had a negative impact on the low paid, on training for young UK workers, and had contributed to high house prices.

The peers called for a cap on immigration levels, saying the government “should have an explicit target range” and set rules to keep within that limit.

They raised the prospect of cutting the rights of people to follow relatives who have settled in the UK. And they rejected claims by ministers that a high level of immigration was needed to prevent labour shortages as “fundamentally flawed”.

They also warned that the points-based system carried a “clear danger of inconsistencies and overlap”.

The committee, whose members include two ex-chancellors and other Cabinet members, took eight months to consider government immigration policies.

Inquiry chairman Lord Wakeham said: “Looking to the future, if you have got that increase in numbers and you haven’t got any economic benefit from it, you have got to ask yourself, is that a wise thing to do?

“That is why we want the government to look at it.”

<u>‘Lost track’</u>

Committee chairman Lord Vallance of Tummel, a former CBI president, said the government’s analysis of the economic impact from immigration was “very shaky”.

The report claims that if net immigration of 190,000 people per year continued over the next 20 years, it would contribute to a 10% increase in house prices.

Posted by Englander on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:39 | #

A convicted fraudster heading an anti-British ‘charity’ that we pay for?  Lovely.
Immigrants don’t want to make a contribution to the UK, they want to exploit it, and that includes the entire range of immigrants, from those who want to scrounge benefits through to those who’re rich and want to get richer. In all cases the motives will be self-interest, just as they are for the vast majority of working natives.

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:27 | #

Some interesting responses at the Guardian to Phillippe Legrain’s goodthink:

“Ultimately, migration is about creating an open, dynamic and progressive society, rather than a closed, stagnant and reactionary one.”

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philippe_legrain/2008/04/bordering_on_clueless.html

GW: You will find that the Mail is very dictatorial.

It gets a lot right, but its anti-PC has to meet kosher standards and a paper run for women isn’t going to encourage free debate.

Posted by Proofreader on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:32 | #

Fascinating! Too bad the British can’t throw their treacherous MP’s and Lords to the Thames,, and make a brand new start.
GW, is there a similar report studying the effects of the previous post-war commonwealth wave of inmigration? You know, the impact of West and East Indian immigrants and their descendants on the economy thus far?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:58 | #

I would doubt it, Proofreader.  These parliamentary reports are themselves a sign of pressure building in the system.  If the ruling class could easily swat objections to The Project they would gladly do so, and ignore all demands for reporting of the facts.  But the steam is escaping from the valves, and the engineer’s normally repairing cries of “racists ... xenophobes” is no longer doing the trick.  The racists and xenophobes appear to be anyone who wasn’t a Chairman of a local NUS branch thirty years ago.

One of the CiF commenters offered the thought that globalisation and mass immigration are going tit-up at the same time and for the same reason: because they do not accord with the reality of the human experience.  What a hopeful ray of light that thought is.

The question is: what will Brown and Labour’s financiers do now?

Posted by English Martyr on Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:23 | #

Regarding the Mail’s message board, i’ve successively watered-down each post of mine until they no-longer resemble my true opinion, but that of a mildly miffed librarian Kosherative voter from Tumbridge Wells - and i’ve still not had one appear on the board.

I assume that the Mail must have employed some leftard, media student graduate to moderate, or, the mod is dead, or something.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:47 | #

“The question is: what will Brown and Labour’s financiers do now?”  (—GW)

They’ll fight a rear-guard action every step of the way.  The financiers, I mean — poor Brown is merely a subordinate, a puppet, who does what he’s told.  It’s Labour’s Jewish financiers who give him his marching orders.  This lot are extremely tough and they take no prisoners. 

We have to be tougher. 

The Jews’ next move is going to be to restrict our side’s access to the internet.  That is coming; they’ve been working steadily behind the scenes for many years to bring it about.  When it comes we will need to throw everything we have into the fight against it because if they succeed — and they’ll be throwing everything they have — it’ll be our side’s death.

When they make their move to restrict our side’s access to the internet, if our side fails to thwart them — if the authorities refuse to listen to us, to our pleas for fairness, to our lawyers’ arguments in court — that’ll be the moment to descend into the streets and show them we’re not taking it any more.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:41 | #

Trying to make sense of it all

Is conservatism dead?  I’m not very nuanced as regards politics but I would have thought Britain was still a conservative people, even today.  What is fooling a lot of people is this accord of the left Liberal (New Labour) and the right Liberal (once known as) Conservatives.  It’s difficult to say when this convergence took place but took place it did, cultural Marxist Cameron did a Blair and hijacked the Tory party the same as Blair hijacked the Labour party.  (We are all cultural Marxists now)

Long before I tried to figure what was going in this mad world, my instincts told me that whatever it was must have the backing of the capitalist, otherwise it just wouldn’t be happening.  So it comes to pass that my instincts proved correct, lo and behold, the left and right are in bed together – who would have thought it?

If ever a marriage was made in hell it must be this one, I know the capitalist doesn’t give a damn about the colour of his money but even so, there are limits –aren’t there?  It is clear that after the collapse of Soviet Communism, (1989) the vacuum was immediately filled by the new communism of the cultural variety, all of this coinciding with post-modern philosophy, and the politics of Clinton’s America.

If we in Britain want a clue of what’s ahead, then it is to America we must set our gaze, for it is from there that all this sh*t has comes from.

I spend more time looking across the water than I do here; the American giant (Gulliver) is straining at his bonds.  Watch this space! 

Brown is now a man in a hurry, for he is about to be substituted, but who will the people choose to take up the baton?  Non other than comrad Cameron, who has already indicated he’s just the man for the job – steady as she goes number one.

As an afterthought, have the Left given up the idea of ousting capitalism and where does Islam fit in all of this – cozying up to the Left and by extension to the Right as well.  Who will be the last man standing?

So the beat goes on – what a crazy world we are living in.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:07 | #

It’s funny having just posted the above, I nipped over to Prozium’s blog and what did I see but this, What’s Wrong with the Right?/Why the Left Has No Future

Here’s a taster.

…….. “The left sees nothing but bigotry and superstition in the popular defense of the family or in popular attitudes regarding abortion, crime, busing, and the school curriculum. The left no longer stands for common sense, as it did in the days of Tom Paine. It has come to regard common sense—the traditional wisdom and folkways of the community—as an obstacle to progress and enlightenment. Because it equates tradition with prejudice, it finds itself increasingly unable to converse with ordinary people in their common language. Increasingly it speaks its own jargon, the therapeutic jargon of social science and the service professions that seems to serve mostly to deny what everybody knows.
Progressive rhetoric has the effect of concealing social crisis and moral breakdown by presenting them “dialectically” as the birth pangs of a new order. The left dismisses talk about the collapse of family life and talks instead about the emergence of “alternative life-styles” and the growing new diversity of family types. Betty Friedan expresses the enlightened consensus when she says that Americans have to reject the “obsolete image of the family;’ to “acknowledge the diversity of the families people live in now;’ and to understand that a family, after all, in the words of the American Home Economics Association, consists simply of “two or more persons Who share values and goals, and have commitments to one another over time.” This anemic, euphemistic definition of the family reminds us of the validity of George Orwell’s contention that it is a sure sign of trouble when things can no longer be called by their right names and described in plain, forthright speech.”……..

Well worth a read.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:11 | #

Bill,

You have to go back to 1902, when Salisbury retired, to find the last true Conservative in public life, and to 1827 to find the last unadulterated Conservative administration.

The party was set upon the path of redefinition as liberals a very long time ago - by Disraeli, in fact.  Read Coningsby to see how he picks out a specifically non-Conservative passage through the history of conservatism in Britain.  It was a classic piece of Jewish redifinition of the goyim, wholly akin to the neocon’s takeover of the Republican Party 150 years later.

Yet you are right, the Conservatives under Cameron have gone further than the merely self-estranged right-liberal party they were under Thatcher.  How, exactly, did that come about? 

Long story.  Let’s start with the fundamental nature of liberalism.

It’s discourse on liberty, being a secular alternative to religious discourse, lacks the religious attachment to the eternal.  It cannot indefinitely restate its principles and purpose in the same terms, but is forced to re-invent and re-interpret them.  That renders liberalism, as an endemic system of political ideology, inherently unstable and ideologically mobile.  And the direction of its movement is perennially leftward.  (This is just another way of saying that in all the most important ways liberalism’s freedom does not exist.)

Left-liberalism has two philosophical wings, the radical utopian wing which interprets Man’s purpose as the pursuit of the unfettered will, and the social democratic wing which also pursues liberty, of course, but through the agency of mandating equality.  One can see the split running through Labour Party history.  In common parlance, think in terms of social engineers and class-warriors.

However, the same division is reflected in the Tory Party of the second half of the 20th Century.

The MacMillan era of Conservatism was forced to respond to the class-war zeitgeist of the post-war years.  After Selsdon Park, so were the Heathites.  But by 1975 the proto-Thatcherites had understood that the next shift in the zeitgeist was not going to come from the old and exhausted socialist analysis.  The ruler of the new age would be the pursuers of a radical definition of the individual, and they saw the opportunity to step into that role.

The Thatcherites seized the hour with the Friedmanite-Hayekian neoliberal analysis (free markets, low taxes, sound money, rolling back the state) as the means to their own petty-bourgeois version of individual freedom.  They were never true Conservatives, and never looked beyond economism for the meaning of Man’s existence.

When, during the 1990s exhaustion again set in, “New Labour” found it both electorally necessary and ideologically possible to borrow from neoliberalism.  But the core programme was not this expediency.  It was the radical, self-defining individualism which had emerged out of Jewish left-intellectualism in post-war America, and given rise to the culture wars there.

We often refer to it, somewhat sloppily, as cultural marxism because of its antecedents in Frankfurt.  It’s perfectly fair to do this, but one has also to account for the influential contribution of homegrown American intellectuals such as John Rawls.  He is particularly important to the story, notwithstanding the fact that he himself travelled leftward with the culturalising zeitgeist from his social democrat beginnings in distributive justice and the social contract.

In the Britain of the sixties we had critical theory but not really culture war.  The socialist grip on the Labour Party was too strong.  But after the cultural marxisation of the Birmingham School by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams in the early seventies that began to change.  It presented not as a war - a direct challenge by political activism - but as a discrete change at the level of power: the long march through the institutions.

After 1989 and the collapse of communism in the east the radical programme was all that remained, in practical terms, for the British left.  People of our age, Bill, can recall the extraordinary speed with which the left re-invented itself as a socially engineering, hegemonically-analysing force.  That’s because everything was already in place.

So this is how the Labour Party became New Labour, and instituted its great project of re-engineering Britain.  In this it was only half-supported but also only half-opposed by the surviving egalitarian imperative.  And in the final analysis it has proved dependend upon that imperative, since people have had to be coerced by law towards the self-authorial utopia the cultural left expected them to willingly choose.

David Cameron, having found it necessary to acknowledge the suzereignty of the new dispensation, has perhaps borrowed more from the left’s social democrat language than radical individualist.  I don’t know how keen on a brown-skinned Britain he is.  I suspect that if the BNP continues its electoral progress we will see some Cameronian triangulating going on - until such time at MI5 manages to compromise Griffin.

So, Bill, the left and the right are in bed together.  But it is all about expediency for the right, and, with the one partial exception of the neoliberal interlude, has been since Disraeli’s time.  The future of Conservatism may be more Conservative than its past.

Posted by 'Fist of Fun' on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:59 | #

Whenever I see Phillipe Le Grain’s ugly, smug, self-satisified big face on my screen (why does love flashing it around so?), I feel an irrestible urge to punch it very, very hard.
Bonecrushingly, permanently maiming, tooth-smashing and retina-detaching hard in fact.
In fact I feel the urge to keep punching, punching, punching rather in the manner of a steam piston or a pile-driver until my clenched fist is totally scraped red-raw of skin and my fractured knuckes are exposed and the said stupid physignomy resembles no more than the bloody pulp that can be seen issuing from a butcher’s mincing machine.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:02 | #

A little harsh, that.  Phillipe should be asked nicely to spend a little time in the homelands of those diverse wonders of humanity he admires, so he can sample for himself personally and with the maximim intensity of experience the enrichment they bestow upon poor, inadequate white men.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:39 | #

“I don’t know how keen on a brown-skinned Britain he is.”  (—GW)

If his paymasters the Jews are keen on it, what difference does his opinion make?  He either follows orders or gets not one penny, same as Blair and Brown.  In Britain, as in Kwamerikwa and France, the Jews control both the government and the opposition and there is no Jew who isn’t keen on a brown-skinned Britain. 

“I suspect that if the BNP continues its electoral progress we will see some Cameronian triangulating going on”

Yes because the BNP in that case will be showing the beginnings of successfully challenging Jewish power and Chamberpot’s opportunist nose will be sniffing the political air. 

Hey, “Fist of Fun” really sounds like my kind of guy!  I’m saving that comment to re-read whenever I’m feeling down — for those times when we all need to lift our spirits a little, now and again ... 

“A little harsh, that.”  (—GW)

Harsh but fun, there’s no denying it.

“Phillipe should be asked nicely to spend a little time in the homelands of those diverse wonders of humanity he admires, so he can sample for himself personally and with the maximim intensity of experience the enrichment they bestow upon poor, inadequate white men.”  (—GW)

Yes, with one of those explosive collars around his neck that Arnold Schwarzenegger wore in the film “The Running Man,” the ones that explode the instant you try to leave the place.  Port Moresby would be nice.  For LeGrain I mean ...

Posted by Steve Edwards on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:12 | #

For the present system to continue, I think it is indisputable that the internet will have to be shut down. If they don’t get the internet under firm control…the whole racket will under threat. That’s the irony of globalisation - having allowed an unprecedented flow of information to cross national borders, it will be soon forced to censor and close down a substantial portion of public opinion in order to keep the globalist system going.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:50 | #

“For the present system to continue, I think it is indisputable that the internet will have to be shut down.”  (—St3ve)

They certainly see that, and are going to try to shut down our access completely here in Kwamerikwa, permitting only their access.  The grounds will be “the war against hate” and the Jews will have clueless Euro women (les mal baisées, the kind who are either without a man in their life or married to a lisping eunuchoid “liberal” pantywaist) and dimwitted Euro Christians the likes of John Zmirak, Rowan Williams, and the Pope as their staunch allies against us.  In Europe they’ve partly succeeded in excluding normals from internet access.  When the big crunch comes in the ‘Kwa we have to defeat them or we go down, and down for a long time — hundreds of years perhaps, who knows?  When the big Jewish crunch comes, the ADL/Jewish attempt to kick us off the internet, we have to defeat it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:27 | #

Fred,

You are getting very hot under the collar about Jewry.  I keep looking at your remarks and thinking to myself, “Is that really wise?”  Then I google “Cameron major donors” and first on the list is this Jewish Chronicle article from 13th October 2006 on the funding of the Cameron leadership campaign:-

Special report: Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers

Prominent members of the Jewish community are playing a major role in financing David Cameron’s bid for power, a JC investigation can reveal.

The biggest Jewish donor to the party while Mr Cameron has been leader is gaming magnate Lord Steinberg, who has donated £530,000, plus a loan of £250,000. Hedge-fund owner Stanley Fink has donated £103,000, even though he was a declared supporter of Mr Cameron’s leadership rival, Liam Fox. A further £250,000 has been loaned by philanthropist Dame Vivien Duffield.

During Mr Cameron’s campaign to lead his party, Jewish figures gave his team (as opposed to the party) additional donations of more than £60,000. According to the JC’s inquiries, direct donations to “Team Cameron” in the leadership battle came from philanthropist Trevor Pears (around £20,000), Bicom chair Poju Zabludowicz (£15,000 plus £25,000 to the party), Next chief executive Simon Wolfson (£10,000 plus £50,000 to the party), former Carlton TV boss Michael Green (£10,000) and Tory deputy treasurer and key Cameron fundraiser Andrew Feldman (£10,000 through his family firm, Jayroma).

Beyond the donors, a small but influential group of Jewish Conservative officials and politicians were also key players in Mr Cameron’s campaign for the leadership. Among them was party treasurer and managing director of Cavendish Corporate Finance, Howard Leigh, who stressed that Mr Cameron was preparing a new policy on political financing.

“He is preparing to cap donations at £50,000, combined with some state financing,” Mr Leigh told the JC. “The aim is to prevent people from buying influence. We think a £50,000 cap is reasonable.”

Mr Leigh worked closely with Mr Feldman in running the so-called “Team Cameron,” and both will now be charged with broadening the party’s donor base. Mr Feldman is a close friend of Mr Cameron, whom he met as an undergraduate at Oxford University.

Other senior figures around the leader include Oliver Letwin, head of policy. A former shadow Home Secretary and shadow Chancellor, Mr Letwin is, like Mr Cameron, an Old Etonian.

Welwyn Hatfield MP Grant Shapps, who seconded Mr Cameron’s bid to become Tory leader, decided early on that he was the man “of the future.” He backed his campaign, he told the JC, because “I saw that he had great leadership qualities.” As a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, he said, he would be taking the Cameron message to supporters around the UK.

Although he is popular with Jewish Tories, Mr Cameron’s criticism of Israel’s actions in Lebanon sparked doubts about his stance — voiced particularly by Tory donor and former party treasurer Lord Kalms.

However, Conservative Friends of Israel chair Richard Harrington stressed that the leader had given LFI “every possible access” and had met CFI officials several times.

The Key Players

Andrew Feldman - Destined to be charged with raising money for the new-look Conservative Party, Andrew Feldman (circled, at the left of the picture), 40, met Mr Cameron (circled, right of picture) at Brasenose College, Oxford. He is a close friend and tennis partner of the leader.

Said to be a member of the Tories’ so-called Notting Hill set, he lives in West London with his wife and two children. Mr Feldman attended Haberdashers’ Aske’s school, and, after qualifying as a lawyer, entered the family’s ladieswear firm, Jayroma. Having acted as fundraiser for Mr Cameron’s leadership campaign, he is now deputy treasurer of the party and is in Mr Cameron’s economic-policy group.

Michael Green - Michael Green, former chairman of Carlton Television, gave financial support to David Cameron’s leadership campaign but would not discuss details.

“I am a big supporter of David Cameron but I want to make it clear that I have not supported the Tory Party. I have supported David Cameron’s quest to become leader,” he said.

Lord Steinberg - Lord Steinberg — formerly Leonard Steinberg — became a life peer in 2004 and is a major donor to the Conservatives. Raised in Belfast and educated at Royal Belfast Academical Institution, the 70-year-old Baron Steinberg of Belfast was a founder of Stanley Leisure plc, the gaming company, serving as executive chairman from 1957 to 2002 and non-executive chairman since then. He is a former deputy treasurer of the Tory party and is a founder and chairman of his family charitable trust. His political interests are listed in Dod’s, the parliamentary guide, as Northern Ireland, tax and gambling, and Israel.

Simon Wolfson

A donor to David Cameron’s leadership campaign and to the Conservative Party, Simon Wolfson, 38, will be continuing a family tradition when he becomes an adviser to Mr Cameron on improving economic competition and wealth creation.

The son of Lord Wolfson, who was chief of staff to Margaret Thatcher, Mr Wolfson, chief executive of the Next clothing chain, is one of the youngest advisors to be appointed by Mr Cameron.

Along with MP John Redwood, Mr Wolfson will jointly chair the advisory group that will seek to reduce red tape and improve education and skills in the workplace. It will also examine the country’s transport infrastructure.

Grant Shapps MP

As vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and seconder to David Cameron’s campaign, backbencher Grant Shapps will find the next few months extremely busy as he tours the constituencies to persuade Tories of the virtues of the new leadership.

Speaking to the JC, he acknowledged that there would be doubts in some quarters but he has no doubt that the party has chosen the right man.

“I persuaded my colleagues at the parliamentary level and I shall now have to do the same thing all over the country,” said the MP for Welwyn Hatfield. “The thing that people will like about David is that he is very optimistic.”

Posted by haramzada on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:10 | #

So wait, it’s wrong to get “hot under the collar about Jewry”? Scoob risks alienating those precious “good Jews”, or have I missed something?

Posted by Nux Gnomica on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20 | #

Prominent members of the Jewish community are playing a major role in financing David Cameron’s bid for power, a JC investigation can reveal.

The major, more like. That article would be called a conspiracy theory if it came from the wrong side.

This isn’t very kosher from Simon Heffer:

It was hard enough to find the political will to throw out those inciting terrorism and racial hatred against the indigenous Christian community, never mind removing those who were comparatively harmless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/02/do0201.xml

He’ll have to be careful: “indigenous Christian” could oh-so-easily be read as a code for “white”.

Contrasting comments at the Guardian—against Legrain and with Legrain:

Philippe Legrain’s article has all the marks of a standard, pro-forma tract pre-position ready to be wheeled out to rebut immigration restrictionists as and when they hove into view. Apart from a couple of gratituitous swipes at ‘Tory has-beens’ and ‘old duffers’, the article makes making no attempt at refuting the content of the Committee’s report itself. In fact, there appears to be little indication that Philippe has even read it. If he had, he world have noted that the several entries from the I-spy Big Book of Immigration Benefits that he dutifully trots out have all been comprehensively demolished within the Report.

Philippe challenges us to answer: ‘How else would the massive increase in doctors and nurses over the past decade have been achieved?’ Probably in much the same way as the massive increase necessary at the time of the founding of the NHS - by a properly planned and executed expansion of medical training facilities in the UK. ‘How else will preparations for the 2012 Olympics be finished on time?’ Hmmm, a tough one. Let’s ask the Chinese how they figured this one out without the benefit of being able to call upon the services of foreign migrants. Could it be that that they have enlisted the help of their own indigenous un- and under-employed? Naaah. That’s too far-fetched.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philippe_legrain/2008/04/bordering_on_clueless.html#comment-1240407

Excellent article! Sadly the vigilantes boarded on the anti-immigration band wagon flooded already this site with their unsavoury comments (Hey chaps! This is not yet Daily Mail for God’s sake!)
Immigration is a reality and to try to somehow pretend that one can change the reality on the ground (I live in London) would mean to be embarrassingly naive!
London is not anymore an English city, let’s face it, I see and hear it on its streets, cafes, buses, tube, shops, parks, public places etc.
And there’s nothing you can really do about it!
It would prove impossible to attempt to deport the citizens of the globe who made this city their home.
And it’s beyond “repair”. Not that I one would like to repair, rectify or correct anything because I (and I presume Mr. Legrain too) hugely enjoy this implosion of the whole world in one city, this beguiling Babel which would be inhabited by bores and old farts (the likes of Mr. Bean) should it ever be deprived by the dynamism and vibrancy brought here by us immigrants.
So well done Mr. Legrain for enlightening us: being in denial or trying to turn against the tide of history (tide which brings us joyously all together and regardless of our ethnical origin) is not an option. So dream on Daily Mail-ists…Can’t do anything about it anyway. We are here and here to stay!

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philippe_legrain/2008/04/bordering_on_clueless.html#comment-1240456

Posted by Englander on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:41 | #

this beguiling Babel which would be inhabited by bores and old farts (the likes of Mr. Bean) should it ever be deprived by the dynamism and vibrancy brought here by us immigrants.
I was thinking this was written by an incorrigible White lefty until I got to that part, and realised that self-interest was the driving force.
Look how the immigrant has no problem insulting the indigenous people of the country.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:50 | #

Haramzada,

It’s unwise to make the other side a gift of one’s indiscipline, particularly with facts.  But there are facts to back him up in the American and British contexts.  France, like Belgium, has a low cap on individual donations to political parties, and most of the financing is drawn from state coffers.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:57 | #

GW, I have noticed you’ve corrected me a couple times recently in regard to my citing the Jews as culprits.  I’ll do it here less. 

What I’ve been doing is moving away from the medieval miasma theories of disease — among which I class Burnham’s managerialism, po-mo liberalism, and so on, all vague, hard to understand, highly complex miasma theories that don’t pass the Occam’s Razor test so well or point to effective treatments — and toward the extremely simple, easy to understand, far more successful and also Occam-friendly Louis Pasteur theory of disease which implicates specific germs and points the way to specific remedies. 

Another reason I keep mentioning Jews is they keep, in effect, daring me to, keep in effect defying me to, by always denying their seemingly obvious overwhelming level of involvement, which I for one find frustrating since I don’t go around keeping references for the trillions and trillions and trillions of articles one sees constantly that prove their prominent involvement, references to throw right back in their faces (I’m Catholic and where the Catholics are at fault I admit it and I denounce it; one’s expectations of corresponding objectivity and honesty on the part of Jews are wholly, jaw-droppingly in vain:  with them it’s always deny deny deny and circle the wagons, always without exception — they’ll deny the most obvious fact with a straight face).  Some time ago, after reading their denial-of-the-obvious for the Nth time and saying to myself I should’ve kept the references to all those articles I’d seen over the space of the previous two or three years reporting on this or that rabbi speaking for this or that European Jewish organization taking a strong stand against any questioning of race-replacement immigration and not only taking a stand against it but warning of the dire civilizational consequences of permitting it, and so on, ad infinitum, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah, all the usual and sickening solipsistic Jewish anti-Euro boilerplate while the Ancient Nations of Europe are going down the tubes, I said to myself from now on I’m simply going to point it out when I see it.  Some rabbi or head of some Jewish organization speaks up for what amounts to the destruction of Euros, I’m going to notice it in real time and/or post it.  No I’m not keeping statistics, I don’t have time and I don’t need to when one sees Jewish involvement a billion times a microsecond in every direction one looks literally incessantly.  So no, I’m not going to waste my time with keeping statistics.  Let those with eyes see. 

The final point is 1) one can understand lots by means of simple thought experiments (for example, imagine a small racially/ethnoculturally homogeneous, completely normal, and happy Euro-race nation-state having a sane immigration policy, sane domestic policies in general, and so on, and then imagine what if any changes will result from a significant influx of Jewish immigration into that country:  we all know what will happen, it’ll be only a matter of time before its social peace, harmony, and normalness are turned on their head by open and behind-the-scenes Jewish agitation, only a matter of time before there are demands for less whiteness, more Negroes, and open borders, only a matter of time before its borders are pried open by the Jews, and so on:  we all know exactly that’s what’ll happen, until the Jews will have destroyed that little country, setting it on the path toward becoming a place no Euro-race individual would want to live in);  2) in general, what seems on its face highly unlikely counts in narrowing down the causes of things:  for instance, the 1965 immigration bill:  it seems on its face highly unlikely that U.S. whites in 1965 wanted to go out of existence as a race, ethnoculture, and nation, so we have to look for dishonesty involved in the passage of that bill even before we have any of Prof. MacDonald’s documenation pointing in a certain direction as a significant portion of that dishonesty’s source.

Posted by haramzada on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:06 | #

It’s unwise to make the other side a gift of one’s indiscipline,

No less than of one’s caution. I suppose the idea here is that if Scoob points to a Jew where one mayn’t be, we lose credibility — which is irrational in that we have very little credibility to begin with, and the types who grant us none, Jews and goyish detractors, aren’t types “we need” anyhow. That isn’t to say you’re wrong about this one instance, and thank you for giving me the context, but Scoob’s a rhetorician, and that is in the last analysis far more important than cautious distinctions where Jews rule the roost, whoever’s doing the clucking. France was enjudaized, as I recall, shortly after the famous etchings of Lascaux were executed, and since then has seen four Jewish Prime Ministers, one of which is presently making a total sideshow of that office: so temperaments aside — i.e. you are more docile, older probably, than Scoob, and this sort of dynamic governs the divide more than ethics, I believe — I think it still boils down to a question of shekels, to the figurative mind. This tendency can be intractable and mercilessly subjective, no doubt, such as at VNN where everything modern is now the work of “Trotsky” because Linder read a couple books on Marxism recently, and I’ve beaten my head against such petty orthodoxy to no end; at the same time, this isn’t as bad as that, Scoob isn’t clinging desperately to a phantom, only speaking over the barest facts a bit to highlight the incontrovertible general fact that Jews are, where not individual malefactors in this or that case, in some other way the cause of the trouble, either by instigation, pressure, or imitation, that is to say white potentates mimicking or towing the line set down by Jews and their organizations. If this is the Jewish Century, then a Jew needn’t be personally to blame for a problem which bears the stamp of every ill we have come to expect in this century, most of which were cooked-up, is it not agreed, by Jews of one stamp or another. That isn’t to say all, that industrialization is not to blame as well, etc.; but the problems which concern you all here are mostly of Jewish derivation. Moreover, it is excessively stiff to insist on “proof” in every case, when one may very safely, even if ultimately incorrectly now & then, assume that Jews are involved. Don’t get me wrong — I think modern Europeans are largely autonomous in their oppressive big-brotherly leftism, sufficiently pussy and warped unto themselves to not require a Jewish finger at their backs in finding ways to make life miserable for the common man; even so, it would fly in the face of all we know about Jews to adhere too rigorously to some notion of scientific method by not assuming they are heavily involved in everyday politics in Europe as much as here in the Gos Strakh, in Buenos Aires, Georgetown, Moscow, Johannesburg, etc. Linder once said, Jewish influence in Europe is harder to prove — but the only problem is on the insistence of proof in a matter that has been studied, by all of us, so extensively and all to the same conclusions. Point being, as I know you are an anti-Semite, I just thought it was bizarre seeing you strike a slightly moralistic pose against Scoob there.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:54 | #

‘Fist of Fun’, its funny LeGraine has a bad effect on me too! Its the self-satisfied smugness I cant abide. From time to time I leave comments on his site which he treats with what I suppose is disgust. Still, at least he allows comments there and many are quite unfriendly. You should go and join in.

Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:49 | #

Politically Correct Racism (BBC Approved)

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/

Saturday, 5 April 2008

Well! it seems that our politically correct friends at the BBC, and numerous other news and media organisations, have given us permission to hate the Poles, and to a slightly lesser extent, other immigrants from the various, previously Eastern block, European countries who gained access to the UK, and some other EU employment markets, in 2004 and 2007.

How else do you explain the fact that, in the last couple of years, whenever, there is a negative story about Immigration, such as the recent Lords report on the minimal benefit immigrants have brought to Britain, contrary to Government claims, we are immediately presented with images of white, Slavic, faces queuing up for work, Polish shops in the East End of London, or little white Lithuanian Children arriving at over stretched schools in Crewe or Exeter.

Strangely absent are the gangs of Asian, or black, men, not queuing for work, but just hanging around street corners, Asian shops and curry houses or any film from the growing number of schools where the faces of one or two white children peer out from amongst a sea of hijabs.

Of course, there is no mystery to this omission, the BBC is still the politically correct monolith it always was, and it, therefore, remains forbidden to focus on any of the negative effects of immigration from the non-European world. Immigrants from Africa, Arabia the Caribbean and Asia continue to be a protected and untouchable group, who, it must be regularly demonstrated have enriched and benefited our society.

Poles on the other hand are fair game.

It is the 2004 and 2007 EU accession countries’ bad luck that they joined the EU at just about the same time as the monstrous multicultural experiment which various European governments, especially our own, have been conducted for the last 40 years, began to expose itself as the terrible and destructive mistake it has been. Whereas public concerns over earlier influxes of immigrants could once have been dismissed as racism, even when Spain, Greece and Portugal joined the EU in the 1980’s, by the early 2000’s such an argument was becoming harder to sustain, and the supporters of mass migration realised they needed some new camouflage.

It was, therefore, also the immigrants from the Eastern European accession countries bad luck that they happened to be white.

To the politically correct opinion formers in our press, amongst our leaders, and on our TV, anti-white racism is far more acceptable than the fabled anti-black form, in fact one could go so far as to say amongst some of them it is mandatory. For them, immigrants from Eastern European arrived in the nick of time, and provided the opportunity to divert attention from the fact that their dream of diversity was turning into a nightmare.

“Yes” they cried as one “there is a problem with immigration ... but only with white immigrants”.

The powers who like to control what the public think realised that the unprecedented levels of immigration had begun to alarm the public. However, they were certainly not about to let anyone suggest that arrivals from places such as Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica, Algeria or Pakistan brought anything other than a welcome enrichment to our shores. Therefore, like the Ancient Roman emperors threw Christian to the lions in their arena, to keep the citizens entertained (and divert attention from their own excesses), the guardians of the multi coloured flame have thrown us a few white Polish plumbers and pale skinned Lithuanian builders to distract us from the realities of their multi racial project.

Of course, many of the cowed and easily controlled amongst us, having been taught from the cradle that to question the rightness of third world immigration, or to suggest that anyone who’s skin is darker than our own is anything other than a welcome and valued addition to our community was a crime akin to murder, paedophilia or rape, have fallen for the Guardian’s trick and turned on the Baltic scapegoats. For the more easily led Britons, the new immigrants from Eastern Europe are a group upon whom they could blame their anxieties, without the sense of guilt which years of indoctrination would have made them feel, had Poles come in darker shades.

Just as positive images of non-European immigrants abound in our newspapers and on our TV screens, hardly a week goes by without a negative story appearing about European immigrants.

“Poles sending £1.8 billion home” scream the headlines, well, maybe they are, however, even if true, that is just a smokescreen, being used to hide a far larger problem. Does anyone really believe that the Poles are the only ones sending part of their earnings home to their families. Type the words “sending money home” into a Google search engine and you get over 42 million options and not many of them are in Polish.

Of course every other immigrant group is doing the same thing and sending money to their home countries. However, it is only when the Poles do it that it hits the headlines, why should that be?.

I will tell you why, they dare not admit that what the Eastern Europeans send home is a pittance compared to the sums actually leaving the country. If the Polish community can send home $1.8 billion, from their wages as plumbers, builders and cleaners, how much more do you think the Asian doctors, shopkeepers, businessmen, and multiple property owning landlords are sending back? And there are at least five times as many of them as there are Poles.

I know that many of those who read the Home of the Green Arrow and Sarah Maid of Albion blogs are sceptical about Europe, and don’t get me wrong, I accept that there are problems with the EU and with the levels of Eastern European immigration we have experienced.

However, unlike other groups of immigrants, who import their own unique problems to our country, the main problem with eastern Europeans is not what they bring, it is the manner in which cynical politicians and businessmen are exploiting them in order to exploit and control the home grown working classes. Because of cheap Eastern European immigration, there are many communities in this country forced to survive on a derisory minimum wage, unable to do anything about it because they know that, if they complain they will be swept away by a further tide of immigrants, happy to work for even less than they are earning.

 

However, the wrong doers in that respect are not the Eastern Europeans, it is with the politicians and cheapskate businessmen who, when they are not outsourcing to India, are using cheap European labour to keep wages down and profits up.

Be in no doubt that, in ten of fifteen years, when the current group of Eastern Europeans have decided that they deserve a living wage and a home they can afford without having to share with four other couples, the same people now telling us how lazy the English are and how desperately we need Eastern European immigrants, will be arguing in favour of increased immigration from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, to do the jobs (at the wages) which the (lazy) Bulgarians will no longer do.

Using immigration in a cynical attempt to keep wages unnaturally low is certainly wrong, but the Eastern Europeans are the victims of that wrong, in the same way as they are the victims of the media’s current efforts to make white Europeans take the blame for the problems caused by mass third world immigration.

There needs to be curbs on the number of immigrants entering this country, including those from Eastern Europe, and I am certainly not arguing in favour of uncontrolled immigration from Europe or anywhere else.

However, whatever ones views on the European Union, let us be fair about our European cousins, and let us not allow them to be used to disguise the real threats to our communities and our way of life.

It is not Eastern Europeans who are grooming, raping and exploiting under-aged white girls in cities across Britain.

Eastern Europeans are none of the main players behind the drugs trade blighting the lives of so many of out young people, nor are they amongst the gangs terrorising, mugging and steaming in our inner cities.

The ever rising numbers of gang rapes are not being committed Eastern Europeans (or any Europeans apparently)

Scotland yard has not yet had to set up a special task force to address gun crime in the Polish, Czech or Hungarian communities, and those communities are not behind the growing numbers of murders on out streets.

Eastern Europeans have not brought mass death and terror to our beloved land, neither are they currently living amongst us whilst plotting further mass casualty outrages

Long eradicated diseases are not being reintroduced into our country by Eastern Europeans, nor are eastern Europeans importing bushmeat, superstition and barbaric traditions into our land.

Eastern Europeans are not demanding that we change our culture and laws to suit them, they are not insisting in the right to torture animals to death or wear masks when teaching or children.

Indeed, apart from accepting low paid work and talking loudly into mobile phones, the Eastern Europeans are certainly amongst the least objectionable of the new arrivals on our shores, and we have far more in common with them. We share a common ethnicity and a common heritage with our European cousins, and, as the third world and Islam march towards us, we share a common threat.

I hope that this article will not alienate many of my readers, I wrote it knowing I might unfortunately offend some. Although I am personally not a so called “Euro-sceptic” I respect the right of those who are to have that view. However, I felt it was important to highlight the racism and cynicism of many, in organisations such as the BBC, who are prepared to victimise, and even provoke hatred towards white Europeans whilst claiming the mantle of multiculturalism for themselves.

Many may not like the numbers of Eastern Europeans coming to Britain seeking work, but, even the staunchest of Euro sceptics must surely acknowledge they are a minor problem, when compared to the alien invasion currently overwhelming our native land. The next time the BBC start a news item about immigration with pictures of Polish shops and Bulgarian fruit pickers, do not be fooled, they are merely putting up a white smokescreen to hide the dark forces which really threaten us.

Posted by Sarah Maid of Albion

Posted by Bill on Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:58 | #

Trying to make sense of it all - Reply to GW

Thanks GW for the potted history and political insight; sorry my reply is a bit overdue – been a bit busy lately.  I could pick up the story from MacMillan (1957-1963)  (Winds of Change - Never Had It So Good) readily enough, a ringside seat as you might say.

For most of my life, political stability of a sort has reigned, the MAD stand off between East and West paradoxically produced a way of life not seen since.  My life was the same as tens of million of others of that era, I was brought up to adulthood by a well tried and tested route, school, youth, work (national service) marriage, kids, mortgage etc. you might even say with a smile, pretty much like today then?  But you would be wrong in saying that.

Life was not the same then, it was different, life was a contract of understanding with those around you, family, school, work, authority, respect (that much maligned word) and yes, even deference to those in authority.  There was certainty, the certainty of what had been since I could first remember, since events began to register in the psyche of who I am.  For me, life consisted of well-defined boundaries, limits, taste, morals, accepted norms and code of behaviour, especially what was wrong and unacceptable and what was right and expected of you.  Underneath all of this was something else, something almost indefinable, unseen but always aware, that something was called discipline.  Discipline was societies lode-star around which all else gravitated, orbiting in unison - when the orb of discipline imploded; society disintegrated and flew apart.

In 1956 as a single man, I marched off to do my National Service, (two years) a decade later by 1966, I was married, mortgaged and had a new daughter, in that decade, my world and that of the world itself had changed beyond recognition, it was seen and it was palpable.  If asked at the time what had happened during that decade, my reply would have been emphatic – personal discipline had gone out of the window.

I can well remember back in the early sixties, watching television (black and white) in the living room of our brand new home, there was a new BBC programme called That Was The Week That Was, soon to become known as TW3, it was described as innovative (BBC speak for trendy) and ground breaking, later labelled satire.  The caste was fresh out of university, real young Turks full of b******t and ‘old buck’ as we used to say.  The gist of the show was to take the p***s out of the establishment, which they did relentlessly and mercilessly, Britain had never seen anything like this before, it was unheard off to speak in such terms about our betters, such liberties were heresy, we found it ground breaking alright, it was dynamite compared with what went before.  Anyway, I found myself joining in the merciless baiting of the established hierarchy, the creme de le crem of aristocratic Britain I would curl up on the sofa in contortions of mirth at their antics.  Today, it is easy to see that such stuff was the beginning of the end for deference and social decency, television has a lot to answer for, in fact I would opine that television is and has been the biggest contributor to social decay than any other source.

Anyway, the sequel story to this TV show is, every last one of the programmes participants is now in positions of the establishment, in fact the anchorman* of the show is the most respected doyen of interviewers on the circuit today, he even interviewed Richard Nixon round about he time of Watergate, this interview itself is now revered in TV history as the benchmark to which all young interviewers should aspire.  *David Frost now Sir David Frost.   

It was only quite recently that looking back, no matter what colour government had been elected to power, decade after decade the trajectory of the nation, the quality of life of it’s people and fortunes of the nation in general, had been a steady decline, almost as if a parallel government had been at work ignoring the will of the people, and of course, that is exactly what had been happening, the votes of the people were handed over to the unelected and the unaccountable, the rich and the powerful, although since the war, these shadowy people had changed, they were no longer the same people, the old order of noblesse oblige (common sense and duty?) had been swept aside and replaced by the new brash (like in TW3) -  dramatic decline was the result.

I suppose what I have described so far is the demise of Conservatism, which in a way is like answering my own question, it’s this label thing that confuses me, names have changed and don’t mean the same anymore, ‘it doesn’t do what it says on the tin,’ I blame postmodernism for all of this, these people’s (Pm’s) thinking must be the result of a lifetime of using mind blowing hallucinatory substances – Peace Man! 

Judging by your reply, politics, ideas, philosophies and such - run their course, birth, life and death like a living creature, time expires, exhausted is the word you use.  Politics die and have to be reborn, reinvented, a different direction is needed, I suspect our whole way of life, (our civilisation if you will) has reached this point, our civilisation is exhausted, man has taken civilisation has far he can (or civilisation has taken man as far as man can go,) IOW, there is nothing new left to try, everything has been tried ten time over, there is no new place to go – it is finished, our time has come, this king is dead, long live the king.

This is a familiar refrain of mine and my mind keeps returning to it, I could be wrong, I hope I am, for the sake of my children and my grandchildren let us hope this is so.

I thought hard and long before including the final paragraph, as it is not what your blog is all about, (or wants to hear) what finally convinced me that I should go ahead is, the natural world is sitting up and taking notice of the human condition, and there’s very little we can do about that.  I am surprised that MR has so little to say along these lines, as I do not think a discussion can be held about the future (or otherwise) of Western civilisation without reference to external events which Man has so little influence or control.