Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:21 | #

One may make any point you like, as vigorously as one likes, if one frames it correctly.  So much of WN rhetoric is about the Other, but the diverse white peoples can make whatever point they want to make by referring to us as a block (“the diverse white American peoples” or “the diverse British or English peoples”) and referring directly to the individual who is doing whatever he is doing (killing, stabbing, defaming, whatever) as an individual.

This is unbearably hard for white people to do for some reason.  Most white people insist on speaking as an individual and characterizing the Other as a group or representing a group. This is what gives the accusation of racism its power. An example of this style of speech is, “I don’t like Obama, he is a black African American.” That is not white-centric discourse—it is purely black-centric discourse.

We teach this style, “I don’t like Obama because I am afraid of the consequences for the diverse white American parents and children.” That makes Obama an individual, and makes the speaker someone who speaks for all the diverse white Americans.

By the way, the first quote is unimpeachable:  “...our people are the silent victims of an epidemic of racist violence, sexual exploitation and murder.”  It would have been better as “...our indigenous British peoples suffer from an unreported onslaught of racist violence, sexual exploitation, and murder.”  The word victim is problematic and the British are not silent, the crimes against them are just unreported.

The second quote (“Wherever there are large numbers of young Muslim men, groups team up to lure girls – often as young as 12 or 13 – into a nightmare world of sexual abuse, rape, beatings, drug addiction and prostitution.”) could have been said so much better.

It were better stated, “Young English girls—just 12 or 13—are under enormous pressure by persons like (insert actual name of a convicted immigrant Muslim) who seek to harm them on a daily basis and push them into a nightmare world of sexual abuse, rape, beatings, drug addiction, and prostitution.”  It emphasizes the young English girls, not the “young Muslim men.”

Most of contemporary WN discourse is about entire blocks of other peoples when it should be about the diverse white peoples. This is hard to do until one grasps the dynamic of this rule—when making remarks about the Other, criticize the individual but speak as the voice of all white people. It makes a huge difference and doesn’t lose impact.  Each of the statements quoted above that may trigger prosecution could have been stated from a white-centric point of view.  It’s hard to understand, I know.

PS: Sorry, I forget if you prefer British or English as a label.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:46 | #

If anyone here is on e-mail terms with Mark Collett, perhaps Mr. Collett would appreciate receiving an e-mail containing Bo’s very constructive and helpful criticism just above.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:10 | #

BO, that’s a very good point.  Keep hammering on it, perhaps it will sink in eventually.  You’re right, it’s difficult to change long-standing habits, and difficult to get regular folk to understand how important and powerful language is.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:16 | #

Bo: PS: Sorry, I forget if you prefer British or English as a label.

One of the regular and very tiresome liberal arguments for the English to be negrified without, of course, a word of complaint is that we are diverse - mongrels, in fact, the result of Pheonician, Sub-Saharan African, and Basque migrations as well as those pesky Northern Europeans.  Actually, the English are among the more genetically-defined European groups.  And no admixture that may or may not run in our veins disqualifies what we are, or alters our specificity as a distinct European people, or renders us suitable for change into Homo deracinatus, IQ 94, penis size considerable, average life-span 72 years.

It’s only a linguistic thing as far as you are concerned.  But I wouldn’t recommend telling too many nationalists east of Cape Spear that they are diverse.  Or even white, in some cases.

The potential problem with statements 1 and 2 is, as you said, their generalisation.  Numbers 3 and 4 are factual statements amply supported by evidence ... one hopes.

But I think the Director of Public Prosecutions would be extremely unwise to push for the accused to go to trial on any of them.  It is highly unlikely that a jury would convict, and all too certain that the party would manufacture a Spartacus moment, with hundreds of activists handing out the leaflet outside the court and daring the authorities to arrest them.

A victimised British Nationalist Party claiming victimilogy for a victimised people is not what ministers want to see on the evening news.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:19 | #

Bo often neglects, self-effacingly, to sign his comments with a link to his web-site, so I’ll link to it:  it’s called Resisting Defamation, and is found here:  http://www.ResistingDefamation.org  It’s. a great site, for any newbies who may not be familiar with it, and well worth a good browse right now, as well as many future visits.

Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:27 | #

Bo

I think a better way to hang the racism charge on non-whites and their white immigration enthusiast supporters is to state unequivocably that the attempt to reduce Europeans, Euro-Amreicans and Euro-Canadians to an ever dwindling racial minority within the borders of England,America and Canada is racist. Europeans must define the terms of the debate not post-1965 non-whites and their liberal/left supporters. I don’t think we should be playing rhetorical games at this late stage of the game. It is the relative comparison that matters. Your approach could easily sidetrack a mainstream media debate about the wonders of diversity. I know you don’t beleive this. But your approach in a public debate conceedes to much to the enemy. European people should tell the post-1965 non-whites in no uncertain terms that we think they are racist. It is very important to create a framework/mindset of incompatibility and irreconciliable differences between post-1965 non-whites and European people-because it happens to be a fact.

Make the debate about the racism of post-1965 non-whites and their liberal/left supporters the isssue.

It is a foolish to make any effort to demonstrate to post-1965 non-whites who are hell-bent on replacing European people that WE ar not racist. They don’t care one way or another.

Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:31 | #

Guessedworker’s post touch upon the relative comparison issue that I mentioned in my post.

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:37 | #

I have a problem with saying that the defining characteristic of those young men who rape, beat, introduce young girls to drugs, and to a life of prostitution is that they’re MUSLIM. Those who partake in such behaviour tend not to be the pious, pre-modern, family-oriented religious Muslims who conduct regular halaka, etc. On the contrary, the youths who engage in such criminality are Muslim in name only; in point fact, they’re deracinated, frustrated, compassless, undeducated, jobless, westernized, and only vaguely Muslim. Demonizing Islam is an opportunistic strategy that was adopted by the BNP because it’s an easy and faddish target. The true focal point should be the ethnic background of the perpetrators but that would take real guts. Muslim constitute 2.5 % of U.K.‘s population, so let’s keep things in proper perspective.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:53 | #

“Muslim constitute 2.5 % of U.K.’s population, so let’s keep things in proper perspective.”  (—Carsten)

Here’s the proper perspective:  that’s 2.499999999999999999999999999999999% too much.

Posted by Armor on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:10 | #

What is the non-white percentage in Britain?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:30 | #

Jupiter,

For some time I have been explaining to the Guardian’s CiF commentariat that it is racist to discriminate against the Europeans’ right to live free and sovereign in our own homelands - a right that no self-respecting liberal would deny to a Third World people.

To give you a flavour of it, the following is a comment from a thread I was banned on - again - last week (actually, I picked up three bans last week defending the BNP membership from the usual liberal attacks).

This is a reply to a commenter who, surprise, surprise, labelled me a racist:-

No, you are the racist for denying the English their right to a collective life. Do you comprehend that? It is about the right to life itself and the racist denial of that - real life, not just foreigners pretending to be offended.

Then you ask: How is legislation aimed at hate crime, say, encouraging aggression?

Different government coercions impact in different ways. Hate speech legislation and Holocaust education, say, are anti-native measures of a certain kind. They impact on Europeans negatively by attacking their sense of national feeling. But under the multicultural dispensation minorities are encouraged to discover and celebrate their sense of self. All native peoples have a right to national feeling. The official denial of it to one group is discriminatory and racist.

It may not be perfect yet, but it seems to work.  Nobody bounces back with a denial, convincing or otherwise.  Of course, there are sheaths of people who think only a white skin can signify a racist heart.  But we know it’s a large task to change the world.

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:50 | #

One could make the plausible argument that the so-called “Muslim” youth in the U.K. is NOT Muslim enough!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:06 | #

Carsten, I think you’re saying it’s not their Islam that makes the Maghrebians living in Europe rape Euro women, it’s their Negroid genetics.  You’re right.  White Moslems, ones who aren’t mulattoes, don’t go around raping, whereas non-Moslem mulattos do go around raping — so the key factor is Negroness, not Islam. 

But Moslems, no matter whether white or mulatto, shouldn’t be in the West in large numbers anyway.  That’s the “bottom line.”

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:44 | #

Let us engage in a fun intellectual exercise. There’s an isolated island somewhere in the South Pacific inhabited by sturdy and aggressive English men and women who love to wage war above anything else in the world and who, through a historical accident, happen to be Muslim. Now, the aforesaid sturdy and warrior-like English men and women one day decide to invade and colonize the U.K. Upon landing on its shores, they encounter no resistance from their effete and decadent atheistic, genetically indistinguishable brothers and sisters. They quickly colonize the British islands and impose their faith upon the natives.

Now, let us think how this event impacted the ethnic genetic interests of the colonized natives. I submit that such colonists would have a positive impact on their ethnic genetic interests. Indeed, not only would they gain additional kin but they would acquire a socially cohesive, conservative, evolutionarily adaptive fighting faith that would further solidify their communal bonds.

In sum, from the perspective of ultimate interests, the native English men and women would come out on the winning side!

This example illustrates that Islam as such is not the problem, our problem lies squarely in the genetic distance that separates the English from their unwanted Muslim guests.

Thank you and good night.

Posted by Joe on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:04 | #

Carsten Westermarck, the reason these men do what they do is because in Muslim culture, women who are not locked away by their families are considered fair game for rape.  That’s why this problem is not happening with Hindu and Sikh men, but only Muslims.

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:17 | #

Joe, again, the raping isn’t done by the religious Muslim family man but by the rootless westernized thugs. They don’t rape in Saudi Arabia but in England.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:31 | #

Carsten,

That a sweet argument, and its conclusion is useful.  But one of the particularities of the European psyche is individualism.  Past attempts to impose piousness on the people resulted in witch-burnings.  The natural mein of the people overcame it.  Islam is not dissimilar to Puritanism, and is really only suited to the psyche of a desert people.

However, your conclusion that Islam is not the problem is fine.  Most of us think that race is the problem.  A few think that, ultimately, European Man himself and European philosophy, such as it is, is the problem.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:53 | #

“However, your conclusion that Islam is not the problem is fine.  Most of us think that race is the problem.”  (—GW)

Seconded.

Islam penetrating into our lands and societies is one of the many relatively lesser problems, along with homosexualism (the attempt to “mainstream” homosexuality), women’s lib (I never use the word “feminism”), wars for Israel, and the others we all know.  They’re all real problems, very much so.  But as regards their gravity, not one of them is a patch on race (the current crisis of forced race-replacement).  It’s like the problem of your son having difficulty with his algebra in school compared to the problem of your son dying in a car crash (God forbid!):  while both are problems, one is incomparably graver.  This is the distinction drawn by JWH and others between proximate and ultimate interests.  The problem of Islam’s penetration into our societies touches a proximate interest; that of our replacement by other races an ultimate interest.

Posted by John on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:57 | #

I think a better way to hang the racism charge on non-whites and their white immigration enthusiast supporters is to state unequivocably that the attempt to reduce Europeans, Euro-Amreicans and Euro-Canadians to an ever dwindling racial minority within the borders of England,America and Canada is racist.

IMO, an atheist should never under any circumstances, no matter how oppressed by fundies he may be (and consequently tempting the tactic), call anyone, including fundamentalist ministers, a “sinner”. A hypocrite, absolutely. A bigot, perhaps. A “sinner”, no.

Posted by Aun Doorback on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:25 | #

Armor

According to the notorious work of fiction known as the 2001 census it’s approximately 8%. See below for the picture in terms of birthrates.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050593/Only-babies-born-England-Wales-white-British.html

Posted by jrackell on Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:46 | #

I have a problem with saying that the defining characteristic of those young men who rape, beat, introduce young girls to drugs, and to a life of prostitution is that they’re MUSLIM. Those who partake in such behaviour tend not to be the pious, pre-modern, family-oriented religious Muslims who conduct regular halaka, etc.

Carsten Westermarck

An interesting blog entry from An American reporter male in Saudi Arabia, and his Egyptian female acquaintance, also a reporter, to interview some young Saudi men in a relaxed setting.

“And if I said no?” she asked.

“Then I would rape you.”

That was it. None of the other young men seemed surprised, or sounded an objection. Would he really do it? Probably not. And neither would the other young men there, the ones who quietly nodded. But no one said “just kidding.” What they said was that this was a serious possibility we needed to be aware of. They acknowledged that rape was against their religion, but as a sin, they put it in the same category as a woman working with a man in the desert trying to understand young Saudi men.

Frank Talk, and Warnings, in a Saudi De

Mr. Westermarck, you’re talking out of your hat.

Posted by Bert Rustle on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:19 | #

In my opinion, a campaign by a political party centred on the theme of Diversity Cuts Both Ways might alleviate the concerns expressed above. I feel sure that the Ruling Class in general and the Association of Chief Police Officers in particular would be most supportive of such a campaign.

No doubt Police Sergeant Rajendra Joshi would be ideal to spearhead such a campaign, if only Police Officers were allowed to be politically active. Indeed, writing in SocialistWorkeronline Police officer explains how racism row shakes the Met

... Shocking news ... Tariq Ghaffur ... race discrimination ... astonishingly timed ... Macpherson Report ... Stephen Lawrence ... Muslim Police Association ... National Black Police Association ... institutional racism. ... chilling message ... broad denial ... academic liberalism ... “diversity” ... anti-racism. ... liberal ... anti-racist. ... Nelson Mandela ... racial jibes ... physical abuse ... racist ... Stephen Lawrence ... racism ,,, post-Macpherson ...

In the same publication Anindya Bhattacharyya writes Seize this chance Police Sergeant Rajendra Joshito isolate the Nazis

...  fascist British National Party ... Nazis ... Disarray ...  Simon Darby ... said, “If we find out the name of the person who published this list it will turn out to be one of the most foolish things they have done in their life.”[emphasis added] ... passive racists ... Nazi activist ... Fascists ... Nazis ... racists ... fascists ... campaign to get the Nazis out of public service jobs such as teaching and health. Police officers should be fired on the spot[emphasis added] ... fascism ...

Tonight, BBC Radio 4 20:00 The Moral Maze

... should a person’s political views ever disqualify them from doing a job?

PANEL: Kenan Malik; Clifford Longley; Michael Portillo; Melanie Phillips ...

Posted by Turbo on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:20 | #

Sad thread:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=109909/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html

Posted by Bert Rustle on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:45 | #

Martin Wingfield has a post, reportedly from a serving British Soldier Just in…

...Have just read Part One Orders today - this is where official Army Policy is distributed on a daily basis and there was a WHOLE paragraph about the British National Party!

It says that “any serviceman/woman is entitled to join ANY political party he/she wishes INCLUDING the BNP and to attend political meetings etc. However they must not attend in uniform or indulge in behaviour that will bring the forces into disrespect. They must not attend marches or demonstrations or be involved in an official capacity with any political party.  ...

Posted by Sid on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:31 | #

Why is it that very few people here seem to realize the deadly threat that Islam poses to their countries? As i’m writing this, my city is burning up in the fire created by, no doubt, islamic extremists, and my country is one of the most tolerant on earth.

Indians and Pakistanis are not racially very different, but are worlds apart when it comes to culture, language and everyday life. The very basis of our societies are diametrically opposite, and the reason is Islam. That is why i feel culture is as important a factor as race when it comes to comparing two people or groups of people.

The americans, i feel, have very much lesser to fear from their hispanic immigrants than the british from their muslim (especially pakistani) ones.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:04 | #

Sid, you don’t understand race.  Suppose you have a child.  Which is more important:  whether that child lives or dies, or whether he converts to a particular religion?  Clearly, whether he lives or dies.  Don’t you see race-replacement is analagous?  Don’t you see that when Euro populations have been replaced by non-whites Euros don’t exist any more? Do you think non-whites taking the place of Euros make Euros continue to exist?  They don’t.  Euros then are like your child who dies.

Why don’t we replace your child with another who’ll take his place?  Agreed?  That should be all right, since the replacement child has taken the place of your child, so your child continues to exist in him, the replacement, and when you look at the replacement you don’t see any “replacement,” you continue to see only your child.  The important thing about your child wasn’t the him part, the part that was uniquely him, but only his status as your child.  Once the replacement took your child’s place, he, the replacement, became the same as your child.  Right? 

WRONG.  The replacement can NEVER be the same as your child, and if you’re normal you’ll send the replacement back where he came from and demand your child back.

It’s the same with our race.  No race can replace it.

If you still don’t get it you’re braindead.  I can’t explain it any better.

Posted by M McGregor on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:11 | #

Perhaps the core problem for Britain’s Labour Government and its so-called ‘Conservative’, Liberal Democrat, and Communist allies is that neither of the alternative approaches to the problem of a growing British National Party seems to offer long-term success.

They have tried completely ignoring it, and the BNP has quietly built up its infrastructure and slowly but steadily increased its key membership, including more & more people with the kind of skills it needs.

They have tried combining across-the-board abuse with selected attacks where they hope weaknesses have been identified. None of their politicians or journalists mention the Party without the compulsory epithetic ‘vile’, ‘evil’, disgusting’, ‘fascist’, ‘nazi’ etc. ;  they have inserted paid agents provocateurs into branches, to later produce lurid stories of alleged goings-on by a few carefully selected, mostly young (or intoxicated) members; and there have been the now famous prosecutions of the BNP Chairman for ‘racist’ crimes. Such obviously calculated abuse eventually serves only to irritate the public, and after the collapse of the spectacularly unsuccessful attempt by the government’s CPS to frame Nick Griffin as a result of juries unwilling to be hoodwinked, the nation is beginning to treat such allegations and exposures with the same contempt it holds for most politicians’ claims. So much of what Labour in particular says is now known to be at best ‘spin’, and at worst outright lies, that the BNP inevitably benefits for the recognised dishonesty of its critics. In addition, when enquirers meet Party officials face-to-face, they realise just how (deliberately) false has been the image they were sold, and conversion to outright support is that much easier.

That only leaves urging Establishment activists to recognise the ‘threat’ posed by the BNP, and to argue against its claims. Unfortunately it is hard to do that when nationalists have no need to say anything other than the complete truth, and can produced unanswerable facts & figures to illustrate the dreadful mess that is modern Britain, and the way the government has attempted to hide it. Tidal waves of both legal & illegal immigration, where the numbers are unknown; the increasing arrogance of Muslim colonists, and the utter failure of an apologetic, spineless Christian Church to oppose this or any other wrong; the loss of Britain’s independence to the EU; economic & industrial decline; financial mismanagement & disaster; a programme designed to destroy traditional British values by self-hating ‘liberals’; the betrayal of the White working class by internationalist-minded marxists; an undermined, under-equipped, over-extended armed forces; rampant, unproductive, incredibly inept bureaucracy; a Third World health service; a bog-standard education system; a laughable, completely ineffective system of police, prosecution service, courts and prisons; a youth robbed of the security once provided by marriage, family life, and national service, and now threatened by unemployment, obesity, alcoholism, hard drugs, and a complete lack of any understanding of the need for discipline, self-control, or self-sacrifice.

All this created by a set of political parties grown so similar that even its own media admits that they often appear indistinguishable from one another to the electorate in terms both of their policies, and their reputation for corruption, personal greed, cynicism and incompetence; and are dubbed ‘lab-lib-con’ by the BNP itself.

Yes, perhaps this is the start of another ‘hate’ prosecution, but the suggestion of ‘spoiling tactics’ seems more likely. Attacks on the BNP come in organised groups, as they did before the London Assembly elections, when in an amazing coincidence, attempts were simultaneously made to disrupt not only the Party from within, but the pro-BNP trade union ‘Solidarity’, and the pro-BNP ‘Christian Council of Britain’. Now we have the publication of an old membership list, and arguably unlawful action by the police in Liverpool against BNP members distributing a leaflet that has gone out all over the country unchallenged. No doubt other measures will also be tried.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:47 | #

Nice post, M McGregor.

It is worth reflecting, amid all that, on how little is left ideologically and politically by which the governing class may yet forestall the rise of the party on the one hand, and the irredeemable hell of the MultiCult on the other.

For some weeks the Guardian has been sponsoring a brain-storm on the left under the title Who owns the progressive future.  The debate has been lent some urgency by the financial crisis.  But the social arguments, including the existential one, all have about them the feel of utter tiredness and irrelevance.

Here’s a passage from a pdf issued as a green paper by the Labour Party’s Progress Policy Group on Immigration:-

Modern Britain is inescapably – and wonderfully – diverse. Not just thanks to recent immigration, but because human beings are all different, and because people are freer to express their differences since the liberating 1960s. Increasingly, we all have multiple, overlapping and self-defined identities: a British citizen may also identify as a European, a Scot, a Catholic, of Irish origin, a Glaswegian, a social worker, a Labour party member, a woman, a mother, a wife, a supporter of gay rights, an environmentalist and, above all, an individual.

And a little further on they follow up that completely hopeless, metropolitan liberal pap with their list of questions for “the movement” to answer, so it might re-claim ownership of the multicultural future for “progressivism”:-

1 How do we integrate communities into British life and culture while retaining the positive elements of multiculturalism?
2 Should there be an annual limit placed on the number of migrants to the UK?
3 How should Labour counter the impact of migration on working class communities?
4 How can Labour sell the economic and social benefits of immigration better and is there a clear benefit to the UK?
5 How can development NGOs start to promote the benefits of migration more forcefully?
6 What improvements can be made to statistics relating to migration and should there be a body independent of government to collect data relating to migration?
7 Can citizenship education be extended to new migrants as well as children in school and people seeking full citizenship?

What does question 4 mean, for pete’s sake?  They want to sell us something the benefits of which they don’t actually know to exist?  So what’s question 5 for?  And the NGOs?  Why would we listen to them?

They haven’t a bloody clue about what they are doing it for, or whether it is objectively useful.  They didn’t need to have a clue, because all that mattered in the past was that the process of transferring alien peoples was forced through.  They believed their own spin about celebrating diversity, British values of tolerance, fairness and decency, etc.  But now the bodies are piling up, the BNP can’t be demonised so effectively, and they can’t get away with it anymore.

Posted by billy bob on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:36 | #

You almost sound as if you like the BNP Guessedworker.

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:57 | #

“According to the notorious work of fiction known as the 2001 census it’s approximately 8%.”

Not counting all the Slavs and Balts who have invaded the U.K. in droves in the past couple of years. While they’re not as genetically distant from the indigenous population as the Bantus, etc. their presence isn’t to the advantage of the ethnic genetic interest of the English. As an aside, a recent genetic study indicated the extreme genetic similarity of the British to Germans, a point that can only highlight the pointlessness of W.W. II. and induce a sense of melancholic depression. One can make the argument that the Angles and Saxons who were firebombing German cities were hurting their own genetic interests.

Posted by Carsten Westermarck on Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:15 | #

Establishment parties have an ideological commitment to immigration, it’s not about facts and figures.

‘Economic benefits of mass immigration are close to zero’, Lords.

By Ian Drury
Claims that mass immigration has benefited the economy have been ‘wildly overstated’ by the Government, experts said yesterday. Record levels of migration have brought virtually no economic benefit to Britain, the House of Lords was told.

Ministers have repeatedly insisted that newcomers contribute
£6billion a year to the country’s balance sheet.

But an authoritative report by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee,
debated yesterday, blew apart Labour’s claims that the wave of
immigration from Eastern
Europe had enormous benefits.

Instead, it was worth just 58p each week on the living standards of
the native population – about the price of a Mars bar.
Last night the authors of the report – including former Chancellors
Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont, Bank of England directors and
captains of industry – were embroiled in a race row.
Labour peers said it hinted at ‘racist views’ and did not recognise
the contribution of immigrants to the UK. More than 700,000 have
arrived since 2004, when former Soviet Bloc countries joined the
European Union.
Critics have warned that public services, including schools,
hospitals and transport, have struggled to cope with the influx.
But the Government has insisted the immigrants had filled jobs that
British people were unwilling to do and paid more taxes than native
workers – because they earned more on average. It was also claimed
that the extra workers would defuse the pensions timebomb.
Lord Wakeham, the Tory former Cabinet minister who chaired the
inquiry, said: ‘We found no evidence of these large economic
benefits.
‘What we did find was serious flaws in the Government’s arguments
and we concluded that on average the economic benefits of
immigration were small and close to zero.’
Any benefits had been ‘wildly overstated’ by ministers, he said in a
highly-charged debate. He also reiterated the report’s finding that
those on low pay, some ethnic minorities and young people looking
for employment had lost out. Some had seen incomes fall because
immigrants forced down wage levels.
Lord Wakeham stressed that Britain ‘as a whole’ was not worse off
because of immigration.
But academics have calculated that almost £8.8billion has had to be
found to bolster the asylum system, teach English to new arrivals
and treat illnesses. The report urged ministers to set an ‘explicit
target range’ for immigration – and stick to it.
It called on ministers to cut the number of family members allowed
to settle in Britain with a relative. Peers also warned the much-
trumpeted points-based system carried a ‘clear danger of
inconsistencies and overlap’.
Last month the Tories said the Government’s policy was in ‘chaos’
after Immigration Minister Phil Woolas suggested a population cap of
70million.
He was later forced into a humiliating climbdown.
A Commons cross-party group on balanced migration has also said
immigration rules should be tightened during the economic downturn.
Liberal Democrat Lord Vallance, the former BT chairman, said the
economic ’shoe will begin to pinch’ when large numbers of immigrants
arrived in the same location.
Labour’s Lord Haskel said ‘racist views’ could be detected in the
report.
‘While I’m sure it wasn’t intentional, the impression is that the
politics of the committee is antiimmigration, ‘ he said. ‘And, if
they want [and if I want I can imagine that the world is a giant pancake carried by two turtles], a reader can detect racist views in the paper.’
Home Office minister Lord West said the report had been ‘flawed’.
He said the Government believed the benefits of immigration had made
a positive contribution to economic growth, with no ’significant
evidence of negative employment effects’. [Don’t confuse us with facts!]

http://www.dailymai l.co.uk/news/ article-1085759/ Economic- benefits-
mass-immigration- close-zero- -Lords-told. html

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:37 | #

The BNP announces that all charges against the 13 bailed activists in Liverpool have been dropped - lack of evidence appartently.

http://bnp.org.uk/2008/11/victory-for-bnp-as-liverpool-police-drop-all-charges-against-activists/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:54 | #

Anthony Hilton of the Occidental Observer blog predicts BNP gains in the next round of elections — columnist Johann Hari (himself a homosexual) claims the BNP is riddled with homosexuals: 

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Hilton-BNP.html

If Hari is right, 1) I take my hat off to these homosexuals and warmly welcome them with open arms, but 2) I’d still say homosexuals on the whole are proportionately way more against than for groups like the BNP.  I’d say that’s pretty obvious as a general thing.  But again, if there is a large homo contingent in the BNP, then I say WELCOME, COMRADES, TO THE GOOD FIGHT!