Not so fast, Gordon

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 01 October 2007 23:12.

As Labour luxuriates in its eleven point poll lead, quietly hires electoral staff, mobilises the unions, and hits one more time on its main donors, does anyone really think that Gordon Brown - that man of “Stalinist ruthlessness” - won’t name the day next week? And does anyone really think that Young Master Bland can defeat him?

Probably not many, if one is honest. But there’s no doubt that, from a nativist POV, a change would be better than more Brown. Yes, I know that Establishment politics is for the benefit of the Establishment. None of the traditional parties will willingly challenge the historical dynamics of globalism, economism, social liberalism, population change et al. But we’ve seen enough of Labour to know that we do not want another decade like the last.

Meanwhile, the gauche, Nu-Tory idiocies that so alienated grassroots support in the shires seem to have been sidelined. Nothing concentrates the political mind like nearness to power.

So today we have two tempting tax carrots dangled before us: on Stamp Duty and on Inheritance Tax. It’s a beginning. Inheritance Tax is a particularly pernicious attack on family wealth and, at 40% on estates over £300,000, highly disruptive to the white middle-class. There is the view, of course, that disruption is exactly what’s needed to wake people up. But it doesn’t work like that. Capitalism has been remarkable effective in raising living standards. The white middle-class doesn’t lose its comforts through the loss of the parental home. It is simply pressed that bit further into the mold of the wage-slave.

By contrast, George Osborne’s proposed tax on non-domicile earnings - NDs proliferate in the utterly deracinated and globalised financial sector - is a genuine nationalist proposal. Not that he knows it, of course.

I am waiting, therefore, to see what other election goodies Bland Dave has in store this week. Besides tax, the policy areas the party faithful will demand to be addressed are immigration, pensions, law & order, Europe, the family, and house-building. If they really want to be populist, the Midlothian Question can be added to the list.

So here’s what would make me vote Cameron, notwithstanding my previous utterances about the fellow.

1. An immigration moratorium; a genuine border force; a determined beginning to the repatriation of illegals.

2. As the baby-boomers eye retirement, a holistic vision for pensions and social care provision for the elderly.

3. The depoliticisation of the police (and the de-Marxisation of the civil service); a new programme of prison-building in acknowledgment of the sociobiological facts of life viz-a-vis our vibrant new countrymen.

4. A referendum on the dratted Reform Treaty.

5. Recognition in the tax system of the contribution made by marriage towards a stable family life.

6. Protection of the Green Belt and cancellation, of course, of Brown’s latest housebuilding outrage.

Finally, English votes for English laws would be a long stride towards the needed break-up of the British state. I’d really go for that. And to top it off, some stuff on civil liberties - starting with the repeal of the ban on hunting with dogs.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:33 | #

That political platform reminds me of Vlaams Belang’s platform, except for the case that Vlaams Belang more explicitly demands huge child benefits, even to the extend that the mother can stay at home.

And of course, the “liberals” in Belgium explain this as backwards and unfriendly to the woman…

Posted by Bill on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:55 | #

GW - “So here’s what would make me vote Cameron, notwithstanding my previous utterances about the fellow.”.............In your dreams!

Our future is Europe, (nearly there) the nation’s political party system will be retained until such times it no longer required. Looking back over my life, party politics was nothing other than a scam to feed the proles.

I see it quite clearly, we are the passengers aboard the great ship SS Great Britain, once in a while we get to elect the crew, who in turn are pre-selected for us. If we do not like the way the ship is run we can always change the crew - as to the destination of the ship we have no say at all. The destination is, and always has been, the decision of the owners of the ship. (2 or 3 %)

Cameron is an agent for the Transnational Multiculti One Worlders - end of story.

If the BBC is the vanguard of the MSM, then the establishment seem very worried about the present state of British politics, they (est) can see they are losing the battle of illusion, hence the pumping of hysteria and hype into the Brown (bounce) and Cameron (fightback) nonsense. This election, if it comes, will be a wholly concocted media circus. I even heard an anchorman (female actually) say (para) the last thing we want is a walkover - so there you have it.

It’s all an attempt to stall the inevitable implosion of the whole set-up, if they can maintain the illusion until we’re bound and gagged into the EU (police state) then none of it will be no longer required.

As a fly on the wall, I wonder how long the establishment can continue to hold the lid on this demographic time-bomb. Always remember, mankind has not been here before.

The Liberal dream, as we all know is but a dream, the inherent fault-lines within the Liberal psyche will split asunder, trouble is, how much carnage will be wreaked in the process.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Here’s something that was meant for an item further down the thread, The thread got hijacked so I didn’t bother posting, however, it will not seem out of place here.

Funny thing about the Mail, Telegraph and Times, they all are writing critically slanted essays on immigration (inviting comment) but none of them come straight out and say immigration should be stopped - same goes for writers like Steyn, Hitchens, Dalrymple, Fjordman, Auster, Coulter, Noonan, Phillips, McKinstrie. (any more in this category?) They all seem ok with immigration per se but take exception to a certain type of immigrant. I suppose I’m asking here, are all these commentators sound and sympathetic or are they fifth column scams?

Press writers and blog posters are pushing the boundaries of frank comment further and further, and (press) seem happy to do so, perhaps they are cool with this as posters are perceived (by press) as just punching the ether. (no harm done really) No doubt the powers that be read these posts and gauge the temperature accordingly, having said that, I also think government are reacting to the blogosphere.

Also most noticeable is the hysterical rash of election rhetoric, the elites are scared stiff that more and more people are seeing the outright scam of the system. Basically our politicians are narcissists and demand to be loved, none legitimacy is a real pain in their a*se for them and could be their Achilles heal.

The main reason why people are so passive (gobsmacked) is that their traditional leaders have deserted them, they (people) have been decapitated from their traditional leadership and institutions - hence they are completely rudderless. Without the MSM (BBC especially) this programme of immigration could not be sustained.

Things have got to get much, much worse before Aunt Gertrude feels the hemp irritating - she will then soon become focused.

Also our middle classes will soon decide that the trade off isn’t worth a candle, (trendy restaurants and cheap housemaids an’ all)

Occasionally, I’d love to see comment on the influence of post-modern philosophy on all of these things, personally I don’t see how these subjects can be discussed without mentioning PM. Neo-Liberalism is PM writ large. Clinton and Blair both, were the first post-modern president and prime minister.

It’s amazing what an Alice and Wonderland world we live in, especially as the architects of all of this don’t believe one jot of it – but it’s fiendishly clever.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:45 | #

Im amazed by the clever/stupidity of it. The cunning involved in bringing about the EU, the stupidity of not realizing that its all going to end in disaster.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:13 | #

An immigration moratorium; a genuine border force; a determined beginning to the repatriation of illegals.

David Davis:-

Unchecked immigration is not inevitable. It’s not the irresistible result of globalisation. It’s what happens when you have a failed policy.

... We believe that some immigration benefits the UK but not all of it. We want the right people and the right number of people. So we would have an annual limit on the number of economic migrants coming here.

The Government last week admitted that net immigration is running at two-hundred thousand every year. Let me make it clear under a Conservative Government that figure will be substantially lower. We can control it. We must control it. And under a Conservative Government we will control it.

And we will introduce tough new border controls.

... Under a Conservative Government, we’ll have one body, with real power to stop, search, detain and prosecute, to gather intelligence and seize illegal goods.

Clueless on population change, of course. But better generally than Labour, which is hardly difficult.

A referendum on the dratted Reform Treaty.

William Hague:-

a Conservative Government elected this autumn will hold a referendum on any EU treaty which emerges from the current negotiations. And I can tell you today that we will go further: the next Conservative Government will amend the 1972 European Communities Act, so that if any future government agrees any treaty that transfers further competences from Britain to the EU a national referendum before it could be ratified would be required by law.

More than I expected.

English votes for English laws

Nick Herbert, Shadow Justice Minister:-

So we will re-balance our constitution to strengthen the Union by ensuring that English Members of Parliament have the decisive say over English laws.

Ken Clarke’s Democracy Taskforce is looking at how this work in detail, and we look forward to his report.

Slightly slippery wording there. We’ll have to wait and see what it eventually means.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:31 | #

Here’s the new Democracy Plan : minimum voting age 21. Minimum qualification : property owner who is ‘British - by - Descent’.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:06 | #

Re-affirmation of freedom of speech (no “hate-speech” statutes) and freedom of association (no anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action rules).

Al’s proposals are excellent.

No citizenship except through descent from British parents and British means what it would have in the year 1950. Not for now (because it’s too shocking all at once), but later perhaps, some sort of restriction on women’s right to vote (halving their votes’ value, or putting limitations on what can be put to a vote at all, such as permitting immigration of the racially unlike, and so on): women will always vote for the party favoring forced race-replacement and that for a host of reasons. Where women have the right of unlimited franchise the nation-state is impossible: it cannot exist because women voters will kill it. We talk about the Jews. Women in the voting booth are who bring the Jewish Trojan Horse time and time again into the citadel. No women voters? Men will stand on the ramparts laughing together, pointing to the Jewish Trojan Horse stuck outside the city’s gates. But the minute women get the vote the Jewish Trojan Horse, filled with race-replacers, gets hauled right into the city: it’ll happen every time.

Another thought: when government types like David Davis in GW’s comment above talk about reducing immigration “because it’s not needed” they should throw in that the fundamental reason it’s not needed isn’t economic but because British couples aren’t sterile: they are fully biologically able to make all the babies the nation needs or could ever need. This would be an important official acknowledgement of the most fundamental aspect of the race-replacement question: no immigration whatsoever is needed. NONE. (Unless you want to deliberately replace the country’s race, that is. That’s the only exception.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:26 | #

Where a nation’s couples aren’t making enough babies it’s always, always, always a result of government policy. Always. Change the offending policies and you’ll get all the babies (BRITISH babies!) you could need or want. Tons of ‘em!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:40 | #

Gordon is having to reconsider.