Today, the 14th June 2007, should go down in English history as the day the Establishment began to speak “Integration”.  It is a language based on the ancient liberal root of Coercion.  All the presumptive nouns are Coercive, especially the one used to re-classify those unfortunates who are

were inconveniently English.  You can learn that and many other new Integration words here (PDF).

It’s the final report of the The Commission on Integration and Cohesion, a fine body of superdiversity-loving, glocalists who have been meditating upon Our Shared Future.

For that’s the title of their 168-page opus published today.  It is a tour de farce of inclusion-speak, informed as it is by such One-Guardian-Buying-Man-Bands as multikulti.org, Clever Ted Cantle’s Institute of Community Cohesion, Big Wide Talk, One London, Clever Ted Cantle’s IDeA, and such luminaries as our old friends, Sir Keith Ajegbo and Clever Ted Cantle, and the altogether more formidable and dangerous Steve Vertovec.

Now, it isn’t fair to ask you to wade through 168-pages of the direst, most self-deceiving drivel ever written by a man named Singh.  So I’ve sort of speed-read it for you ... well, bits of it anyway.  And here’s what I have learned.  Whether we are black, white or Singh-coloured we are all British together and we going to stay that way - got it?  And we all need to be helped by skilled mediators (that’s Integrationist for The Clever One) to understand our shared humanity and completely unexpected interest in chapati-baking.  La la la.  Dah doo ron ron.

I also did a bit of searching through the pdf to see how my perpetually house-moving but, of course, integration-mad “group” can be described, should one ever wish to do so for some utterly unimaginable reason:-

Indigenous - 0 results

Native - 0 results

English - 51 results, 50 of them about the learning of the English language.  Generously, the other one says:-

Our interim statement clearly set out the importance of speaking English – with 60% of respondents in our MORI polling identifying language as the main ingredient of “being English” – and we have been heartened that much of the feedback we have received since has strongly agreed with this principle.

So, no acknowledgement that an ancient people actually own these islands.  Our “main ingredient” is that we speak a language everybody else can learn.  And that’s all there is, really.  Except for the “w” word ...

White - 29 results, 16 of them referring to skin-colour.

Yay ... in Integration-speak I am white.  White I am.  White.  And white are we.  As white as a white person who arrived in Southampton yesterday from Poland, or in London from Turkey, or in Slough from charming, gypsyless Slovakia.  White, white, white.  Yes, England was always a country of immigrants.  Some of them as white as The Seven Sisters and old as the Henge.

But so what?  There is obviously nothing to stop us mutually-respecting, Pidgin English-speaking, glocalist, vibrant rainbow-Brits from doing just as the smiling Mr Singh and his cohesive friends desire.  Tolerance here I come.

Well, not quite.  Because at 1 hour 40 minutes into today’s BBC Radio Five Live Matthew Bannister Show a 21-year old, hijab-wearing economic migrant and Respect member named Rania announced that the BNP must be banned from public life.  Something to do with hate, apparently.  Possibly because a remarkably tolerant Nick Griffin had just negotiated an hour-long interview by Bannister beforehand without a snag.

You will enjoy listening to that more than wading through the Cohesion crap.  Look out for Bannister’s friendly telephone interview with the frightful Prof Sally Tomlinson, a fluent speaker of the Integrationist tongue.

READ MORE...

Steven Landsburg is an economist who brags about the quality of the department in which he teaches, and who was savaged a couple of years ago by Pat Buchanan in The American Conservative:-

... wrote the professor from the University of Rochester, “Both major parties (and most of the minor ones) are infested with protectionist fellow travellers who would discriminate on the basis of national origin no less virulently than David Duke or any other overt racist would discriminate on the basis of skin color. But if racism is morally repugnant—and it is—then so is xenophobia…”

Declares Landsburg: “I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. ... Even if Kerry-style (or Nader-style or Buchanan-style) protectionism could improve Americans’ well-being at the expense of foreigners, it would still be wrong.”

... To be more concerned about the well-being of one’s fellow Americans is not “xenophobia,” which means a fear or hatred or foreigners. It is patriotism, which entails a special love for one’s own country and countrymen, not a hatred of any other country or people. Preferring Americans no more means hating other peoples than preferring one’s family means hating all other families. An icy indifference as to whether one’s countrymen are winning—be it in a competition for jobs or Olympic medals—is moral treason and the mark of a dead soul.

The allegedly soulless Landsburg - who, of course, has a Jewish soul - has now written an absurdly comical piece titled One Fifth of an American.  It appeared in Slate Magazine yesterday:-

READ MORE...

I know this is kind of off topic, but sometimes we need just a little comic relief and this parody of FOXY News Concubines got me rolling on the floor with laughter:

With comedic support like that, its no wonder Ron Paul’s website hits are vastly outpacing his rivals:

READ MORE...

Let’s look at this article by Thomas F. Schaller, particularly the first page.

Before I get to the main point, two “diversions”, one lengthy and one brief.

First, I’d like to address Mr. Rosenberg, of whom we read:

“The Republican strategy on immigration has been one of the great failures of modern politics,” says Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, which has organized a systematic outreach campaign to Hispanic voters. “What’s going on in the Republican Party is a debate between the strategists who want to win and a part of their base that is extremely xenophobic.”

I’m not surprised that someone with the surname “Rosenberg” has an agenda to promote Hispanic interests in what used to be the United States of America, but his comments are absurd on their face.  If the GOP cannot “win” without Hispanic voters, then they certainly cannot win without their base, which, by definition, constitutes the foundation of their electoral support.  One supposes that Rosenberg assumes that the base should remain passive and allow itself to be taken for granted – “automatic” votes for the GOP because “they have nowhere else to go.”  Thus, the base should support policies they loathe and believe are destructive, just so “their party” can “win.”  Again, it is not surprising that a “Rosenberg” would like to promote to white gentiles a “football game, rah-rah” version of “politics”, where “winning elections” is an end to itself.  However, to any triple-digit IQ individual, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of “winning an election” is not as an end to itself, not as a way of saying “nyah, nyah…my boys won and your boys lost”, but instead as a tool to promote particular policies.  What price “victory” if the cost of “winning” is to have “your party” adopt the very policies you oppose and which have traditionally characterized “the opposition?”

In essence, Rosenberg and the GOP seem to want the Republican base to “reason “ as follows: “I support the GOP because that party promotes traditional American values, will preserve the traditional America, will oppose illegal immigration and cut down unassimilable legal immigration, and will oppose the pandering to minorities.  It is therefore important that the GOP win elections.  In order to win elections, the GOP needs more votes, and, hey, those Hispanics are good candidates!  Therefore, in order to win, the GOP should support illegal immigrant amnesty, support flooding America with more Third Worlders, pander to all sorts of minorities, and tear down the traditional America!  That’ll teach ‘dem Democrats a thing or two!”

What stupidity.  The problem is that this is exactly how the “base” has been “reasoning” for decades.  In order to “defeat” the “Democrats”, the “base” has essentially allowed “their party” to become a carbon copy of the opposition.  Is that “smart politics?”  And comments about a “20th century vs. 21st century party” are particularly offensive to the GOP base.  In other words, says Rosenberg, the GOP’s white base is “in the past” and “outdated” while all the growing and vibrant Hispanics are “the future” and representative of the “21st century.”

Hmmm….I don’t know.  Perhaps the base would not like to be contemptuously disregarded as “in the past” and, essentially, dead and buried?  Perhaps the base, which are the voters who actually contribute the most to the GOP’s “victories”, do not want to be taken for granted, and then have their interests disregarded as soon as the Republican candidate is elected?  Perhaps, just perhaps, the base has interests just as legitimate – or more so? – than all the hip and modernistic 21st century Hispanics?  Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should give similar advice to Israel: the idea of a “Jewish state” is an outdated 2oth century idea, while those dynamic Palestinians and their high birth rate are the harbingers of Israel’s bright, 21st century Arabic future.  How about that?

READ MORE...

From the The Independent:-

President Nicolas Sarkozy looks certain to win a crushing parliamentary majority after utterly dominating the first round of the French legislative elections.

The new President’s centre-right party and its allies are forecast to win well over 400 of the 577 seats in the National Assembly in the second round of voting next Sunday.

Despite a poor turnout of just over 60 per cent - reflecting the fatigue of the electorate after the April-May presidential election - M. Sarkozy will claim a mandate to pursue his fiscal, economic and social reforms. Computer projection suggested that his centre-right party and its allies could take between 405 and 445 seats.

M. Sarkozy’s aim had been not just to defeat the left and centre, but to “crush all hope” that they could put together a coherent opposition. In the event, the main opposition party, the Socialists, looks capable of achieving a respectable result next week with around 120 seats, compared to 149 at present. The new centrist party of Francois Bayrou, the Mouvement Démocrate, looks likely to take fewer than four seats.

... The decline of the French Communist Party, still a significant force two decades ago, will finally be reflected in parliament. Its seats are likely to fall from 21 to between 6 and 12. The far-right National Front will once again have no seats but its share of the vote collapsed yesterday from 11 per cent to only 4.6 per cent. This could mark the end of the Jean-Marie Le Pen era. The NF leader, 79 this month, is now likely to face internal moves to persuade him to stand aside.

... Openness and pragmatism are one side of M. Sarkozy’s character. The other is an obsessive need to control all that surrounds him. This extends to the media and the opposition.

One of the new President’s first acts was to appoint the former head of his private office to run France’s most-influential television channel, TF1.

He has already created a “new centre” party of ex-Bayrou followers, who will follow the Sarkozy line in the National Assembly. According to Le Monde, he plans to try to create a breakaway, parliamentary group of “Leftists for Sarkozy”.

So now we will see what France, which has tested the integration model to destruction for British post-Multiculturalists, will get from the economic liberalism that is testing English and European-American society to destruction today.  The answer, once the Sarko shine wears off, will surely be the promised but heavily-protested and politically bloody end of the French socialist model.  That will produce sufficient economic growth to keep the middle classes happy.  It will also will lead to the sort of “controlled immigration” that manages to lower labour cost and further cosmopolitanise France.  The pendulum will swing politically, and the left will produce a neoliberal of its own.

And the NF?  It must build a national organisation from the bottom up.  Councillors and mayors must come before a charismatic leader.  Not that they have one to turn to anyway.

Howard Witt, a senior journalist at The Chicago Tribune, was not honest enough to break the mainstream silence when Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were murdered last January.  But he has redeemed himself today with a front page piece that lifts the lid on the murders, the liberal conspiracy of silence and the storm of internet protest that followed (and which, folks, clearly WORKED!).

The paper edition even carried the aesthetically perfect photograph of Alex Linder’s arrest at the VNN Knoxville rally.

... whether the attack was a racial hate crime worthy of national media attention is another question, one that has now ignited a fierce dispute over the definition of hate crimes and how the mainstream media choose to cover America’s most discomfiting interracial attacks.

That’s because the murders of Christian and Newsom didn’t fit the familiar contours of a traditional Old South attack, in which whites target blacks and reporters quickly assume the motivation must have been racial.

Instead, the races were reversed: Christian and Newsom were white; the three men and one woman charged with their murders are black. And the failure of the story to gain much media attention outside of the Knoxville area has galvanized conservative commentators across the country who insist the case offers clear evidence of liberal bias in the major media.

They have launched a broad Internet campaign, waged via blogs, e-mails and YouTube videos, to counter what they regard as suppression of a story about an anti-white hate crime.

“There is a discomfort level [in the national media] with stories that have black assailants and white victims,” said Michelle Malkin, a prominent conservative newspaper columnist and TV commentator who has featured the Knoxville case on her Web site. “If it doesn’t fit some sort of predetermined narrative of how we view taboo subjects like race and crime, there’s a disinclination to cover it.”

Country music star Charlie Daniels, who lives 150 miles from Knoxville, contrasted scant coverage of the Christian-Newsom murders with the national media frenzy that erupted last year when a black woman accused three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team of raping her at a party. The white players were cleared in April after the accuser proved unreliable and no evidence corroborated a crime.

“If this [Knoxville case] had been white on black crime, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and their ilk would have descended on Knoxville like a swarm of angry bees,” Daniels wrote on his Web site. “I guess the lack of TV cameras discouraged them.”

READ MORE...

I have been trying to get some perspective on the two bodies announced over the last few weeks by little Labour big man, Liam Byrne.  He is the Irishman appointed by Irish-at-heart John Reid to succeed Irishman Tom McNulty in keeping English race replacement running smoothly.  This is a job also known as Immigration Minister.  McNulty succeeded Scot Des Browne who succeeded the disgraced but apparently English Beverly Hughes who succeeded Irishman Mike O’Brien who succeeded Jewish floodgate operative Barbara Roche ... hope I didn’t miss anyone.

For six years after New Labour’s dash for Third World genes got underway, Ministers blithely and, as it turned out, wrecklessly expected multiculturalism to deliver a smooth transition to a white minority.  They have had to face a few unpleasant and unavoidable realities since.

Multiculturalism was laid to rest by Trevor Phillips in 2004.  After that, there was only the counter-terrorism route and three political policy tracks for the government to follow:-

Track One: Increase pressure on aliens to integrate (at the same time finessing into existence a civic patriotism to accomodate them).

Track Two:  Do everything possible to induce greater passivity among the natives.

Track Three:  Professionalise government handling of all initiatives to the above ends.

READ MORE...

While things may not yet have developed far enough for the revolt of the plebs according to Machiavelli’s Rule, the fiasco with “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” has driven the President’s political base to distraction from their hypnotic trance under the gaze of the MSM and politics as usual.  The logical argument for impeachment is starting to become manifest to his base. 

To put it in 25 words or less:

When the chief executive refuses to enforce the laws, legislation is not an option.

Can it be any clearer?