Join the dots

Posted by Daniel J on February 28, 2007, 09:20 PM | #

I have the perfect supplement to this article. It came from Lew Rockwell the other day. It is about the welfare state in general.

The Forgotten Man

Here is the excerpt I feel to be of particular relevance:
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D.

Everyone check out my website!
It is completely lacking in style but I am going to compile a large amount of classic literature and texts. If anyone has any ideas let me know and I will get them up there.

Posted by Mr Bloke on March 01, 2007, 07:16 AM | #

Did you miss this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=439094&in_page_id=1770

“Equality chief says firms ‘should have race quotas for workers’”

“The head of the new equality commission yesterday called for race quota laws that will allow employers to favour minorities.”

“He said a sweeping new equality law should allow public sector organisations and private firms to choose workers on race grounds to end ‘immovable, persistent, disadvantage’.”

So, you could legally discriminate against the majority and have a firm made up entirely of minority workers provided the minority workers included the right number of wimmin, single mothers and disabled.  But, a majority employer could not have a firm made up entirely of majority workers.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 01, 2007, 09:06 AM | #

How do the regular contributors here square the much vaunted ‘fact’ of low African IQ (as per the works of Lynn, Rushton and others), and the apparent preponderence (that is the right word surely for 40% in the ‘professional’ bracket) in ‘high IQ occupations’ ?
Surely one side is right and the other wrong.
Just what the Hell is going on here?, are black Africans more talented than native Brits or is there massive, hidden racial discrimination against Whites, in terms of employment in soft, well-paid public sector work going on?
Why cannot this blatant racial discrimination (if it exists) be openly denounced and challenged?

Posted by Guessedworker on March 01, 2007, 09:37 AM | #

Richard Lynn and Phillipe Rushton are, of course, right.  It is the distortion of the social engineer and the selective statistician that account for the appearances - deceiving as appearances designed by government are always apt to be.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 02, 2007, 07:18 AM | #

From an EGI point of view, this is very bad news.
Contrary to government claims, jobs are in scarce in Britain, and particularly the cushy, benefit-laden ‘public service’ windbag-type jobs (which basically do not create wealth but vitiate it), in national and local government are much fought over.Now, it is open and explicit that blacks are favored in these posts.
Combine this with the ridiculous cost of housing in today’s Britain, and we can see that the disappointed White applicants to these jobs must suffer, in the greater scheme of things, in the reproductive stakes, whilst the black ‘annoited’ have the wherewithal to breed.
To repeat, the destructiveness of this policy to Anglo-Saxon genetic interests cannot be overstated.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2007, 08:00 AM | #

Kenelm, I think it is fait to say that you joined the dots and extended the line.

The Corby story made the leader column in the Telegraph today:-

Ordered to discriminate

Corby in Northamptonshire has become the first town in the country to be deemed too white for its own good.

The Prison Service has decided to transfer one of its offices (and 80 jobs) from the town to nearby Leicester. One of the reasons for the move, according to a leaked letter from the Prison Service’s finance director, Ann Beasley, is that this will make it easier for the service to hit its target for employing ethnic-minority workers - or, in New Labour Orwell-speak, to “attract a more diverse workforce”. With refreshing candour, Mrs Beasley points out that “93.7 per cent of the population of Corby are white British, compared to 59.6 per cent in Leicester”. How very remiss of Corby to be so insular.

Mrs Beasley deserves some sympathy. This is not some clumsy aberration by an over-zealous official. She is simply obeying orders. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 - enacted in response to the Macpherson inquiry, which branded the Metropolitan Police “institutionally racist” - imposes a statutory obligation not only on the police but on all public bodies to take active steps to promote racial equality. While it outlaws discrimination against people on grounds of race, it also encourages the public sector to take “positive action” to help meet ethnic targets. Mrs Beasley was just ticking this box.

The obvious question raised by the Corby case is just how commonplace such crass attempts at social engineering are. How many Mrs Beasleys are out there relocating jobs around the country to hit “diversity” quotas? The overall tone of her letter suggests that it is absolutely routine to regard the availability of ethnic workers as a “key influencing factor” when making such decisions. If she had not spelled out the statistical justification for the decision literally in black-and-white terms, it might never have been noticed.

The article goes on to mention, in regulation-form, the “odious BNP” that is “expertly exploiting” the resentment caused by official anti-native British policies.  The subsequent comment thread contains plenty of resentment at that, too.  And these are the comments that the Telegraph guard dogs have let passed (I can’t get anything published there at the moment).

Here’s a sample:-

Yes, the neglected indigenous population is certainly supporting the British National Party in increasing numbers.  In three council elections in Nuneaton, Burnley and Halifax over the past three weeks, BNP candidates have polled 31%, 27% and 35% of the vote beating the Conservative candidate on each occasion.

That is a significant level of support and quite an achievement
considering the number of times the media uses the word ‘odious’, or something similar, to describe Nick Griffin’s party.

Posted by Martin Wingfield on March 2, 2007 6:31 AM

Oh yes the BNP can only be mentioned in conjunction with some derogatory adjective. If that organisation is odious then how should the actions of all main parties but particularly the current set of traitors be described over the last 60 years? Pointing to the emperor’s lack of clothes remains taboo. Look at the BNP website and tell me that this article would not sit comfortably there.

Posted by Jack Wallhurst on March 2, 2007 6:00 AM

always have to use a negative adjective when you refer to the BNP. is this an example of the DT following new labour diversity dictates itself?

Posted by alan lee on March 2, 2007 3:39 AM

What next every company in the country being told who they can and can’t employ. I can just imagine, to fulfill your quota of ethnic diversity you must employ at 1 muslim, 1 African, 1 asian, 1 european, etc,etc for every white british employee resulting in a population of a couple of hundred thousand.I wonder when HM Cabinet will be picked on the same basis. Roll on the next election its the BNP for me.

Posted by jeff cox on March 2, 2007 2:48 AM

I fail to see what is so odious about the BNP when
it stands up in favour of the indigenous population against the odious PC brigade (or do I mean massed divisions?) More power to the BNP say I!

Posted by Dave on March 2, 2007 2:36 AM

Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 02, 2007, 09:08 AM | #

Fred,
      The ‘hideously White’ man was none other than Greg Dyke (who I don’t think is Jewish), who was director general of the BBC, no less, before being disposed in bad-odor from one sort of scandal or another (there are so many scandals in British public life that I cannot recall the nature of this one).
  Dyke can be chiefly remembered for a fatal dumbing-down of the BBC from its Reithian idealism, ie more and more soap oera on the main BBC channel and what’s worse the dumbing down of the foremerly excellent BBC six O’Clock news bulletin to the point at which it is the lowest type of woolly, fuffy, sentimental, feminized tabloid trash with very, very little actual hard news content, basically unwatchable. - If you can stomach the propaganda, the AL Jazeera program is far more professional and superior, like the BBC was in the pre-Dyke days in fact.
Despite coming out with the ‘hideously White’ comment, Dyke was conspicuous in his absence of doing the decent thing and setting the example by voluntarily giving up his own very well renumerated job to an oppressed ethic minority person.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2007, 09:12 AM | #

Yes Fred, “hideously white” was a phrase employed by Ted Cantle, the Jewish inventor of the hate-ideology, Interculturalism.

But the same hate-term, “hideously white”, was employed by the then Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke.

Both Cantle and Dyke are Jews.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2007, 09:21 AM | #

I will correct that.  From Rense.com

The present Director General of the BBC is Greg Dyke, who is thought to be a Shabbats Goy. He was appointed by the fanatically muliticulti New Labour Government, to which Party he had donated over £50, 000 in the preceding five years. He was previously Chairman of Pearson Broadcasting plc, who then owned Thames Television, and while there he left its day-to-day running to the Managing Director, Tony Cohen. Dyke is well known for his fanatical anti-white crusade. He complained during his interview on BBC Radio Scotland’s The Mix show on January 7, 2001 that, “I think the BBC is hideously white.” And I had thought it was hideously Jewish, like the rest of the world’s media! He has made Linda Mitchell (a black woman) Head of Diversity at the BBC, with the task of ensuring that the BBC fully reflects “the diversity of the United Kingdom” in its programmes and workforce. Dyke explained at a Race in the Media conference, that his crusade to enlarge the ethnic representation of the BBC is the “acid test” of his tenure.

So let’s assume Dyke is simply a traitor to his people in the name of the internationalist religion of our beloved elites.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2007, 09:49 AM | #

Fred,

Dyke resigned from his job in 2004, after he was criticised by Lord Hutton in the latter’s report of the Kelly affair.  He was replaced by Mark Thompson.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2007, 10:31 AM | #

Well, the Hutton Enquiry was a bit of a false flag operation.  Ostensibly, it was convened to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death, apparently by suicide, of biological warfare expert and former United Nations weapons inspector, David Kelly.  In fact, Hutton was hand-picked by Blair crony Lord Falconer because he had a record of favouring government.

For those who have forgotten, the affair began as a Radio 4 news report by BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in which he claimed that a certain weapons expert had told him the government’s dossier justifying an invasion of Iraq was “sexed up”.  Hutton duly found the BBC fully culpable and the government cleared.  The reporter, Gilligan, and various others in the chain of seniority departed.  The last to go was Dyke, much against his will.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 03, 2007, 08:53 AM | #

Whatever one’s opinion of Greg Dyke is, I believe the best way to gauge his caliber is to review the programming decisions he made as the DG of the BBC.
Famously he scrapped the science and technology show ‘Tomorrow’s World’ in order to make space for yet another episode of ‘EastEnders’.
  For those of you unfamiliar with British TV EastEnders is an irredeemably vulgar, trashy, badly acted, badly scripted, politically correct soap opera of the worst sort, designed to keep ‘the oiks’ happy in their pigs’ troughs, while demonstrating the ‘moral superiority’ of the ‘nice middle class folk’ who run the BBC.It is shown no less than 5 nights a week prime-time, and just in case you’ve missed it, a so-called ‘omnibus’ is shown on Sunday afternoons - therefore squeezing out original programming and new talent.
  Tomorrow’s World, incidentally was an excellent, intelligent show that showcased breakthroughs in science and technology to a popular audience, I well remember the concept of ‘cellular telephones’ being heralded there 30 years’ ago.Ah yes, back in the good old days it was hosted by a real ‘Boys’ Own’ team of the avuncular patrician Raymond Baxter supported by Michael Rodd and William Woolard.Michael Rodd played Roger Moore to William Woolard’s Steve McQueen!

Posted by Asian Cognitive Elitism on March 03, 2007, 03:55 PM | #

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/6397993.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1296184.ece

We need to encourage the mass immigration, to our shores, of these intelligent, law-abiding, high-IQ, disciplined technocrats.

Posted by Al Ross on March 04, 2007, 10:42 AM | #

Buchanan is probably correct. No Third World country should even hesitate in signing a bilateral free-trade agreement with the US. The once-great nation runs a trade deficit with everybody.

Posted by ben tillman on March 04, 2007, 03:01 PM | #

The bottom line:  if you are rich, replacing $20/hr labor with $1/hr labor is profit pure and easy….

It’s not that simple.  You still have to be able to sell the product.  If you cut wages by 95%, you have to cut prices by a similar amount or there will be no market for the product.  Reducing wages benefits employers only to the extent that competitors pay a higher wage.

In our present situation, the profit comes not from the reduction in wages but from the confiscation and consumption of the former workers’ capital.

Senator Ted Kennedy is now spearheading an immigration “reform” that gives an illegal immigrant “MS-13” drug gang member the same rights to citizenship as a Nobel-prizewinning Indian physicist.  This cannot be justified by either morality or national interest.

Morality and the national interest are the same thing.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 04, 2007, 03:55 PM | #

Morality is in the genes.

Posted by Retew on March 04, 2007, 07:07 PM | #

No it isn’t GW, it’s in the choices we make in life from which we build our character. Sometimes growing up in a dysfunctional family can give you a perfect illustration of what you don’t want to be like.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 04, 2007, 07:42 PM | #

Retew, I understand that opinion, and I don’t dispute it in entirety.  But I have had the opportunity during my life to appreciate how very much weaker we - if we can be said to exist at all in any permanent sense - really are.  As a characteristic of the human personality, choice - or free will - is a deception.  Only in self-consciousness is choice in any real sense possible to carry through with any kind of gathering of our psychological resources.

However, our limited capacities, such as they are, do count for something.  They are a companion piece to the inherited realities of our moral lives.  Evolved behaviours do exist, you know.  Even faith is an evolved behaviour, and not a choice.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on March 05, 2007, 07:56 AM | #

Of course, nothing gladdes the hearts of these people more than the sight of White man sweeping the streets and emptying the dust-bins, while talon-nailed, loud-mothed, inefficient black women sit on their ample backsides in centrally heated offices doing nothing but exercising their mouths in local government jobs.This sight is depressingly familiar in London. (I remember the notorious ‘Anna Climbie’ case in which it was revealled that the social work Dept. of Harringay Council spent their work-time holding voodoo ceremonies in the office.