If you watch this video starting at 23:00 and listen to Elizabeth Warren’s 2007 interview:

This video will make more sense:

What this lady apparently doesn’t understand is that the credit card companies simply pile on penalties and judgments until they total to a high enough value that when written off as a loss, they may make as much money as they would have by actually collecting.  This is part of the perverse incentive structure that is driving credit card companies to raise their APRs to the point that they know it will cause the customers to declare bankruptcy.  Another part is that since the 2005 law (discussed by Warren in that video) it has become much more difficult to declare bankruptcy, so the charges can pile up to a higher level before the process is terminated.

The BNP’s lawyers have proposed that the party introduces an ethnic monitoring form, in line with the mad strivings after equality that afflict hundreds of public bodies in the UK.  The idea of Evil Nazis monitoring people’s ethnicity is likely to occasion John Wadham and his anti-English colleagues in the EHRC rather more unease than schadenfreude.  But that’s their outlook.

The draft form can be perused via the link at the bottom of this article (pdf).  It is exhaustive on the subject of native British ethnicity - Archipel Normandian, anyone?  But not so all the rest of the globe’s by no means migrationally economic and vibrant diversity, who hardly receive racially-equal treatment.

But one ethnic group stands out by it’s absence.  Yes, it’s the one which never likes to be monitored - never mind named - yet defines itself obsessively night and day.

Looking at the available options to tick, I suppose Jewish must simply mean English to the BNP.  Except it passes down the matrilinear line as some sort of jus judaicus.  Or maybe Jewish is just a religion, and we needn’t take any account of it at all.  The one thing that is certain is that leaving Jews off the form is intended as a sop, not a snub.

Lee Barnes, as I mentioned recently, has a blog titled 21st Century British Nationalism.  Since the BNP and the EHRC went head to head in the courts last week Lee has been blogging profusely, obviously moved by the need to resolve several difficult questions.

Two or three days ago he put up a post defining British nationalism by explaining that the enemy in the ranks is White Nationalism and the overt racialism on which it is predicated.  It contained this passage:

British Nationalism is a political movement designed to represent and promote the interests of the Indigenous British people, whilst white nationalism represents the interests of all whites worldwide.

This difference is of fundamental importance in relation to issues like immigration.

A white nationalist welcomes mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indgenous British folk.

A white nationalist would never support the slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’ as that would mean that all immigration into the UK from white nations would have to be stopped and whites who are not British would be denied access to British jobs - whilst the fundamental aim of white nationalism is the compulsory repatriation of all non-whites and them replaced by whites from anywhere in the world, the fundamental aim of British nationalism os to put the interests of the British people first.

The fact that the policies of white nationalism if enacted into law would destroy British culture by importing into the country millions of culturally disparate whites from around the world to replace culturally british non-whites and at the same destroy the unique ethnic gene lines of the indigenous British folk groups via the mixing of the different ethnic sub sets of the white race into one homogenous racial enetity is irrelevant to white nationalists - white nationalists do not care that the indigenous British could become extinct in our own country along with British culture as long as Britain was filled with whites.

To what extent this view is shared by senior party members I cannot say.  Perhaps it is only the view of Lee (who blogs as “Defender of Liberty”, btw).  But, anyway, it commended a path that, essentially, trades principle for an allegedly enhanced prospect of power, however distant.  I think such a move is highly agreeable to the Establishment, the more intelligent members of whom probably know that they won’t kill the party outright.  But they might train it to become harmlessly “cultural” and “civic”.

Anyhow, I couldn’t agree with Lee on the WN issue either, so ...

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

Many people outside Britain [think the British Empire was] about oppression, exploitation, violence, arrogance, slavery and racism … no less than an early Holocaust.

This is Linda Colley professor of History at Princeton and a Wolfson Prize winner; and historian, showing her prejudices in her book, Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850.

The book expresses contemporary orthodoxy.  Of today she writes:

There are those who argue, with the utmost sincerity, that were the British to remind themselves of their empire it would only further incite the racism inextinguishably associated with it.

To Colley, racism and sexism are the unforgivable crimes - that is code for attacking white males!  The British Empire was evil and its “victims” would have been perfect if it were not for us.  These themes are still the prevalent ideology now, and are re-interpreted in government policy as moral debts which the beleaguered British people are forced to pay.

Well, I thought we should see how intellectual some Caste academics are.  These people, this intelligentsia, are erudite and articulate when talking on comfortable subjects.  But when it comes to immigration and national identity they go to pieces and can not talk rationally.  They become childish or avoid an objective analysis by retreating into the past.

READ MORE...

Simon Darby posted this link to a news report on a BBC regional programme, Look East.  John Standing found the opening remarks by reporter Nikki Jenkins so staggeringly dishonest he took it upon himself to contact the lady’s employer:

This mail is a complaint about the journalistic standards and political bias displayed by Nikki Jenkins of Look East in the video report currently online here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8232154.stm

At this stage I am not seeking a formal process, and will be satisfied with an honest and sincere reply from Nikki to the following questions, which I put to her in good faith and out of a desire to better understand what motivates this sort of journalistic behaviour.

Dear Nikki,

You opened a video report on an attack of the police in Luton by Muslim youths with the following words:-

“Well, the Home Secretary’s ban on marching worked.  The BNP didn’t turn up.  But there again they didn’t have to.  These young men did their job for them.”

I have the following questions for you, Nikki:

1. Were you mistaken about the British National Party being due to attend the banned English Defence League march, organising it or being in any way associated with it?

2. If you knew the BNP was, in fact, totally unconnected to the banned march but you wished to make an association nonetheless, what reason did you have for doing so?

3. Would making such an association be within the BBC’s rules on journalism?

4. Did you attempt to contact the BNP to find out if it was involved in the banned march?

5. Would misrepresenting the BNP in your report be acceptable journalism?

6. Will you issue a public retraction?

7. If not, why not?

8. Why did you not identify the youths attacking the police as Muslims?

9. Was their behaviour racist?

10. Why did you not apply the moral yardstick to them that you wrongly applied to the BNP?

Now, I am loathe to place my real name and address on the contact details below this panel because of the violence of the forces opposing the BNP and its supporters.  Notwithstanding my anonymity, I wish you, Nikki, to take this mail as a serious matter that requires your earnest attention.  Would you provide me, please, with the answers I am seeking?

Ignoring this mail or attempting to answer my questions in any way other than fully and honestly will result in a formal complaint to the Corporation.

In the event of a reply John Standing will no doubt post it here.

UPDATE 09.09.09

READ MORE...

The best fit of quarterly US foreclosure starts since 2007 3rd quarter extrapolated to the 3rd quarter of 2012 shows that the cumulative prime mortgages, not “sub-prime” and not “underwater”, not “delinquent” but foreclosed is nearly 25 million.  It is a very good fit (R-squared adjusted: 0.998).

There are a total of 128 million housing units in the United States.

See derivation of this graph below.

READ MORE...

The case of Brandon Huntley, a white South African granted asylum by an Immigration Board in Ottawa, has been in the headlines for a couple of days.  The Canadian’s recognition that black violence and South African governmental dereliction can constitute grounds for asylum for fleeing whites has stung both the aforementioned government and the ANC.  The moral poverty of both is evident in their reflexive ascription of racism to the decision.

But some rather more interesting reactions have surfaced elsewhere … here in the Huffington Post, for example, where Western purveyors of the old anti-apartheid rubric are struggling - and failing - to come to terms with the moral superiority of the white South African victim.  Like “sa-Ireland”:

There are brutal murders, hacking up of whites, slaying pets, and terrorizing and raping. The rule of thumb is to whites.
now if a white is not allowed to get a good job, (those in the good jobs were there for a long time , or are expats), if a white is not allowed a FREE education, because the last 3 years of school will not be paid by the government, if a white can not own property without the risk of it being removed forcibly, If a white has to live behind prison bars on our houses, can not own anything valuable as it WILL be forcibly removed, If we live in fear daily, because we own a car, a TV, or another valuable item then what is persecution?
There is a plan when Mandela dies - Whites are threatened daily with it. Our guns were redistributed to the blacks as well. When he dies, they will massacre us. All know about it and there is constant, daily propaganda, on the news, in TV programs, and everywhere, to PROMOTE white hatred. My kids weren’t even allowed to report a black in school for bullying as it was classed as racism.
There was a small group long LONG LONG-ago who did the apartheid. It was over in 1989. Why must we suffer for THEM?

The fact remains, though, that of the 4 million + South African whites well over three-quarters of them have not fled the country, and a substantial number appear to be willing to trade personal security for the benefit of the climate, the beaches, the bars, the upscale metropolitan white lifestyle.  It’s hardly news that in South Africa the racial question still preoccupies everyone, whites included.  But the old divisions among whites are long gone.  Now they are split between optimists who are prepared to keep their head down and take what’s going on one side and, on the other, pessimists like “sa-Ireland”, for whom getting out is only a matter of time, and the realists who will stay but try to create change.

READ MORE...

What Nobel Prize Winning Jewish Economist wrote the following in a 1992 white paper?

When the incentives for productivity become negative due to capital welfare in excess of the economic growth rate, wealth is structurally centralized at the expense of others in the economy. The absolute level of net assets owned by the general population actually decreases so as to increase the net assets of the wealthy.  This not only removes all incentives for production and entrepreneurial investment from the economy, but consumer demand collapses as credit is liquidated to pay for necessities. Depression ensues.  It is under these circumstances that demands for socialist intervention in the economy via “public investment” take on an air of urgent legitimacy.

In such a desperate environment, Marx’s arguments in “Das Kapital” appear as rational and appealing as any made by Schumpeter, Laffer or even Adam Smith.  It is therefore critical to understand to what extent socialist criticisms of capitalism are valid so we can credibly argue against their fallacies—particularly when they are promoted during obvious manifestations of capitalism’s flaws.

READ MORE...