Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:19 | #

First impression: not impressive.  There was no depth, no exploration of principles.  The intellectual level was disappointing, and I don’t think I learned a single new fact through the whole 90 minutes.

Sir Andrew Green did well, as one expects.  But UKIP leader Nigel Farage, in the Five Live studio, was the star turn.  He was lined up against two very weak opponents, and given several golden opportunities to turn the evening into a UKIP party political broadcast.  Which he took.

It was, of course, dishonest of the BBC to feature UKIP - an anti-EU party - on an immigration debate.  It is the BNP, not UKIP, which speaks for the interests of the indigenes.  With Griffin absent, Damian Green, the Tory spokesman in the Newsnight studio, felt able to defame the BNP as “nasty, racist, xenophobic”.  One hopes he diminished himself in the eye of the viewers, if that is possible.

The foreigners who rang in were also quite plain-speaking, several saying that Brits are not welcoming - which is good news. 

By contrast, the geat preponderance of the Brit callers, though highly dissatisfied with the state of affairs, were at pains to explain their tolerance and open-mindedness.  Every single one prefaced his or her remarks with the assurance that there was “no problem” with people coming to this country.  They then explained their problem with people coming to this country.  Not one had a good word to say about the Labour Party, of course.  A couple spoke up for the BNP.

Posted by anon on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:25 | #

wow GW you gotta see this.  Skynews just went beserk about Illegal aliens!

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30100-1292010,.html

“at first glance this might look like your average ....  but they are busy invading Britain”
“they’re bigger and meaner than native UK”
“and now not content with feasting on our .....  they’re moving inside to ransack our houses too”
“there are around 25 here, but if you get a completely big infestation they can completely ruin ...”
“they leave a sticky black substance behind everywhere they go,  ...  they’re also cannibals”
“since the first was sighted in Britain the numbers have rocketed”
“not the only illegal aliens causing havoc, today the government has launched a consultation to study the adverse impact of non-native ... are having on Britains native ...  between them thousands of imported pests have cost the UK economy 2 billion+ pounds a year in damage”

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:43 | #

Not only on Sky News, but in the Daily Mail as well ...

... a poisonous and cannibalistic variety from Asia with the capability to devour our native species.

Hundreds of homeowners have reported plagues inside.

Worse, it produces a noxious, foul-smelling chemical that can stain furniture. Worse still, its bite can trigger an allergic reaction. Since the first one was spotted in Britain in 2004, the insect has bred with astonishing ferocity.

... Some experts believe there are close to a billion in the UK, enough to seriously threaten the 46 native varieties.

It is already the dominant variety in London and most of the South East.

As yet, though, no reports of free council housing, television sets and membership of the Labour Party.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:59 | #

Here is my three pennarth on Newsnight thread.

Before debate

185. At 07:38 AM on 08 Nov 2007, Tim wrote:

Why do people on this thread go into great detail as to why migration is taking place and the benefits it brings, what the heck does it matter? No matter what the reason, the outcome for Britain and it’s people will be the same - extinction!

If mass unfettered immigration continues into this country at the same rate for the next five Years, the inevitable result will be the death of Britain (by the end of this century) - it’s as simple as that.

The question is stark, do the indigenous people of Britain think that all the lyrical waxing of benefits that immigrants bring to this country is worth it?

The unavoidable truth is, Britain and it’s people will be engineered off this planet - is that a sufficiently good trade off for all those economic benefits.

It is a simple enough question to ask.

——————————————————— :————————————————————————————
After debate

368. At 11:29 PM on 08 Nov 2007, Tim wrote:

The three party consensus in favour of immigration was in your face on display here - where was the counter argument? There is absolutely no excuse for this imbalance, emails had been pouring in all day with at least 75% against.

The BBC is a disgrace in allowing such an imbalanced panel to go virtually unchallenged by *Gavin Hestler*. For example why oh why did he (GH)not point out to the Labour politician that they had had 10 ten years to do something about it?

Why weren’t the horrid, nasty xenophobic BNP on the panel - The BBC just don’t get it, this programme was worth hundreds of thousands of votes to the BNP.

* me- sp. senior moment (meant to check - forgot)

———————————————————— : ——————————————————————————-

After debate
390. At 07:06 AM on 09 Nov 2007, Tim wrote:

Re Newsnight 08.11.2007

It is clear that the subject of immigration in GB is all consuming, and will only increase as millions more pour into this beleaguered nation of ours.

It is also clear, (palpably so) if anything was demonstrated in last nights programme, it was that one single 45 minute Newsnight programme is totally inadequate to do justice to this subject.  It, (programme) barely scratched the surface.

The BBC has got to bite the bullet, it cannot hold debates (about anything) without presenting a balancing counter view, last night was travesty.

Immigration, as demonstrated in last night’s programme is a many headed hydra, there is a whole raft of concerns associated with immigration, there was no (or very little) reference to the following.

Political Correctness.(within which censored framework) the immigration debate has been corralled.

The feeling of loss of freedom in a once free land, especially freedom of speech.

Marginalisation of British people, so much so they feel they have become second class citizens.

The perceived injustices against the indigenous British people, perpetrated by the immigration factor.

Anti race legislation which can land one in jail for saying the ‘wrong thing’

‘Thought police state’

The perception (as only too clear last night,) all three political parties are pro immigration and have absolutely no consideration for the people who voted them into office.

The perception by the British people of being under cultural attack, especially history, anti white, anti British, not only by government but by the BBC and whole media industry.

These are just few points the British people feel incandescent about, which the BBC do not (or appear)to even recognise let alone address.

I suspect the BBC feel the above is unpalatable, but it’s no good shooting the messenger.

Until the British establishment take these complaints seriously on board I hate to think what the future holds for my children and grandchildren and the country.

——————————————————————-  : ————————————————————————
Me.

Summing up, pretty standard fare for me - Christ! what a long way to go yet!

But yet the most insignificant incident could spark a conflagration.

May post again when collectected my thoughts.

Posted by Fox Bark on Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:46 | #

Yes, Sir Andrew Green always comes across as dignified, unflappable, intelligent and knowledgable - his adversaries try their best to bait him or trip him up but always fail.
Perhaps Sir Andrew represents a dying breed, the old-school Diplomatic or Foreign Service man who is liteally ‘born to rule’  and is ‘superior’ in the best sense of that word.
Maybe Sir Andrew and his Migrationwatch organisation which are amongst the first to unveil the scale of the disaster to the general public are the best advocates that we have for the immigration restrictionist movement in Britain.

Posted by democracyisabluff on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:02 | #

Let’s put aside for a moment the issue of who is governing us and making laws.
It’s evident that it is also the people themselves that are willingly allowing and favouring, consciously or not, the invasion of aliens.
In fact, the legislators may encourage immigration as much as they want, but that would be virtually ineffective without being there property and jobs ready for the immigrants.
Ordinary people may complain about being too many aliens, or about rising crime rates and unemployment, yet are still happy to sell their businesses and property to coloured people, and to hire them for a number of jobs, regardless of the consequences in the long term.
We’ve just touched a central point. The masses, of course, are never concerned with what will happen to their nation and beyond the period of time they are personally interested in. They simply are after their immediate convenience, with a very very small perspective, both temporal and spacial. This attitude is not going to change, we can bet anything on it. The children simply pay for their parent’s mistakes.These people, most people, simply want the nice pieces of printed paper generally called “money”, and are happy to give away their land and assets to aliens in exchange of a few grams of paper.
On the other hand, the relatively few white people who can foresee more clearly where the world is going, are either in positions of no influence, or in positions which allow them to make a lot of profit from the way the world is going. The latter ones think that it is convenient for them to accumulate nice pieces of paper and lots of assets, because they will anyway be able, in virtue of their privileged positions, to shield themselves and their children from the consequences of what they are doing now.
What hope then, if both the rich and the average white person give preference to pieces of paper and the assets one can buy with them (especially with lots of them)?
Who can make a difference if the average person doesn’t even think about long-term consequences, and the rich person often ignores them?
It seems to me that within this system based solely upon money, there is not a chance to preserve our race.
It’s a system where virtually every player has only, or is forced by circumstance to have only, one purpose: to earn money, be that for survival or massive financial operations.
There is no nationality, no ethnicity, no beauty, no tradition, no environmental concern, but that one: money. They call it “liberalism”, “free market”, or other nice-sounding names.
Now, I don’t think in *any* moment of history until recent years, such a blind and absurd view of seeing human relationships only in terms of money can be found as dominant rule.
This is undoubtedly one of the core problems one cannot fail to solve, in order to preserve our race.
That the disgrace known as multiculturalism and misgenation is happening is not at all surprising, because we have:

- a suicidal Christian-derived belief in equality, brotherhood, and self-imposed duty to sacrifice ourselves
- an economical system with no purpose other than individual accumulation of money.

Once got at this, one may wonder: ideologies can hopefully be changed, but how do we change the system of economics? Would it be enough, as some claim, to give back money-printing powers to the governments, rather than it to be in private hands?
Honestly, even acknowledging the latter would be a great improvement, I think white civilization needs much more than that: it’s all the liberalistic chit-chat and myths that one must reject. The myth that happiness resides in having available the highest number of products; the myth that the purpose of a society is to produce and consume; the myth that the worth of the person and the hierarchy of society can only depend on how much one is able to sell.
That’s right, and how do we achieve all the above? How do we reset rules and priorities in the economics?
Aside from any negligible individual efforts, only politics can change the rules of economics.
And how then do we get to political power, so to influence politics?
Every sensible person knows that whichever candidate one my decide to vote at any elections, he is very likely to simply push for one’s or some other’s interest, leaving the rules of the game untouched.
This is also because no single politician or political formation can possibly exert so much influence as to change the current system of world trade and economics.
In fact it looks to me as if at this stage the current system solely directed at the earning of money cannot be changed by any single one, like a stuck mechanism which perhaps only a major shock will bring to an end.
If this is the case, most of both ordinary people and the rich will keep allowing and favouring immigration, consciously or not, with the political class either pushing the process or powerless to stop it.